text
stringlengths 4
2.78M
| meta
dict |
|---|---|
---
abstract: |
Let $f:V \rightarrow \{1,\ldots,k\}$ be a labeling of the vertices of a graph $G = (V,E)$ and denote with $f(N(v))$ the sum of the labels of all vertices adjacent to $v$. The least value $k$ for which a graph $G$ admits a labeling satisfying $f(N(u)) \neq f(N(v))$ for all $(u,v) \in E$ is called *additive chromatic number* of $G$ and denoted $\eta(G)$. It was first presented by Czerwiński, Grytczuk and Zelazny who also proposed a conjecture that for every graph $G$, $\eta(G) \leq \chi(G)$, where $\chi(G)$ is the chromatic number of $G$. Bounds of $\eta(G)$ are known for very few families of graphs. In this work, we show that the conjecture holds for split graphs by giving an upper bound of the additive chromatic number and we present exact formulas for computing $\eta(G)$ when $G$ is a fan, windmill, circuit, wheel, complete split, headless spider, cycle/wheel/complete sun, regular bipartite or complete multipartite observing that the conjecture is satisfied in all cases. In addition, we propose an integer programming formulation which is used for checking the conjecture over all connected graphs up to 10 vertices.
additive chromatic number $\cdot$ additive coloring conjecture $\cdot$ lucky labeling
author:
- 'D. Severín'
title: On the additive chromatic number of several families of graphs
---
Introduction
============
Several combinatorial optimization problems concern finding means to distinguish the vertices of a graph. Such identification can be *global*, when each vertex is uniquely identified from the solution of the optimization problem, or *local*, when for every edge $(u,v)$, $u$ and $v$ can be distinguished each other from the solution of the optimization problem. Usually the solution restricted to the closed neighborhood of a vertex is used for that identification, although open neighborhood can be used as well. Most of these problems are coloring problems. On the side of global identification problems we can mention *Identification Code Problem* [@KARPOVSKY] and *Recognizable Coloring of Graphs* [@RECOGNIZABLE]. On the side of local ones, *Locally Identifying Coloring of Graphs* [@ESPERET] and several problems where open neighborhood is used for identification: *Vertex Coloring by Sums*, *Products* and *Multisets* among others [@SEAMONE].
In this paper we address one of these problems, specifically the Vertex Coloring by Sums, which is also called *Additive Coloring Problem* or *Lucky Labeling Problem*. It was first presented by Czerwiński, Grytczuk and Zelazny [@LUCKYORIGINAL] who proposed a conjecture that for every graph $G$, $\eta(G) \leq \chi(G)$, where $\chi(G)$ is the chromatic number of $G$ and $\eta(G)$ is the additive coloring number of $G$, defined below. The problem as well as the conjecture has recently gained interest from the scientific community [@LUCKYCOTAINF; @ORLOW; @LUCIANO; @LUCKYCOMPLEXITY; @LUCKYCOTASUP; @ADDITIVEPLANAR; @LUCKYCHOICE; @DLUCKY]. However, the additive chromatic number is known for very few families of graphs.
Below, we make some basic definitions to formalize these concepts. For a given integer $k$, denote the set $\{1,2,\ldots,k\}$ with $[k]$. Let $G = (V, E)$ be a finite, undirected and simple graph. Usually, $V = [n]$ where $n$ is the number of vertices of $G$. For each $v \in V$, let $N_G(v)$ be the set of neighbors of $v$ and $d_G(v)$ its degree, $d_G(v) = |N_G(v)|$. Also, $N_G[v] = N_G(v) \cup \{v\}$. Let $D = (V, A)$ be a finite directed graph. For each $v \in V$, define $N_D^-(v) = \{(u,v) \in A : u \in V\}$, $N_D^+(v) = \{(v,w) \in A : w \in V\}$ and $N_D(v) = N_D^-(v) \cup N_D^+(v)$. When the graph or digraph is inferred from the context, we omit the subindex, $d(v), N(v), N[v], N^-(v), N^+(v)$.
Let $f : V \rightarrow [k]$ be a labeling of the vertices of $G$ and $f(S)$ be the sum of labels over a set $S \subset V$, $f(S) = \sum_{u \in S} f(u)$. A labeling $f$ is a *$k$-coloring* if $f(u) \neq f(v)$ for all edges $(u,v) \in E$. Also, a labeling is an *additive $k$-coloring* if $f(N(u)) \neq f(N(v))$ for all edges $(u,v) \in E$. The *chromatic number* (resp. *additive chromatic number*) of $G$ is defined as the least number $k$ for which $G$ has a $k$-coloring (resp. additive $k$-coloring) $f$, and is denoted by $\chi(G)$ (resp. $\eta(G)$). The Graph Coloring Problem (GCP) and Additive Coloring Problem (ACP) consist of finding such numbers and both are -hard problems (see [@LUCKYCOMPLEXITY] for the last one).
GCP and ACP share some immediate properties. In both problems one can be restricted to work with connected graphs since the (additive) chromatic number of a graph with several connected components is the maximum of the (additive) chromatic numbers of those components. Also, if a graph has a (additive) $k$-coloring it also has (additive) $(k+1)$-coloring. In addition, (additive) 1-colorings are easily characterizable:
\[ADDITIVE1\] For a given graph $G = (V, E)$, $\eta(G) = 1$ if and only if $d(u) \neq d(v)$ for all $(u,v) \in E$.
On the other hand, if $G'$ is a subgraph of $G$, we have $\chi(G') \leq \chi(G)$ but the same property does not hold for ACP. For instance, $\eta(P_2) = 2$ but $\eta(P_3) = 1$. And, for graphs $G$ with maximum degree $\Delta$, the best known upper bound of $\eta(G)$ is $\Delta^2 - \Delta + 1$ [@LUCKYCOTASUP], as opposed to Brooks’ result for GCP ($\chi(G) \leq \Delta+1$) which is significantly better.
Constant upper bounds of the additive chromatic number are known for some families of graphs: if $G$ is a tree, $\eta(G) \leq 2$; if $G$ is planar bipartite, $\eta(G) \leq 3$ [@LUCKYORIGINAL]; if $G$ is planar, $\eta(G) \leq 468$ [@ADDITIVEPLANAR] and if $G$ is planar of girth at least 26, $\eta(G) \leq 3$ [@LUCKYCHOICE]. Other upper bounds can be consulted in [@LUCKYORIGINAL; @ADDITIVEPLANAR; @LUCKYCHOICE].
Regarding lower bounds of $\eta(G)$, one of them can be computed as follows. If $G$ has *true twins* vertices $u$ and $v$ ($N[u] = N[v]$), then an additive coloring $f$ of $G$ must satisfy $f(u) \neq f(v)$. Therefore:
\[LOWERBOUNDTWINS\] Let $T \subset V$ such that any $u,v \in T$ are true twins of $G$. Then, $\eta(G) \geq |T|$.
The given formula can be applied to prove that $\eta(K_n) = n$ [@LUCKYORIGINAL].\
When a graph has an additive coloring, an acyclic orientation of this graph arises. In fact, one can obtain the additive chromatic number of a graph by exploring their acyclic orientations and solving, for each one, a problem called *Topological Additive Numbering* (TAN) [@IPL2013]. We introduce more definitions in order to explain this approach. Let $D = (V, A)$ be a directed acyclic graph and $G(D)$ be the undirected underlying graph of $D$. We say that $D$ *represents an acyclic orientation* of $G$ if $G(D)$ is isomorphic to $G$. Let $f: V \rightarrow [k]$ be a labeling of vertices of $D$. If $f(N(u)) < f(N(v))$ for every $(u, v) \in A$, then $f$ is called *topological additive $k$-numbering* of $D$. The *topological additive number* of $D$, denoted by $\eta_t(D)$, is defined as the least number $k$ for which $D$ has a topological additive $k$-numbering, or $+\infty$ in case that such $k$ does not exist (knowing this parameter is -hard [@IPL2013]). Now, the following relationship becomes apparent: $$\eta(G) = \min \{ \eta_t(D) ~:~ D~\textrm{represents an acyclic orientation of}~G \}$$ We can take advantage of properties known for TAN. For instance, the following result provides a lower bound of $\eta_t(D)$ and, therefore, $\eta(G)$:
[@IPL2013] Let $D = (V,A)$ be a directed acyclic graph such that its vertices are ordered so that $(u, v) \in A$ implies $u < v$. If $Q$ is a clique of $G(D)$ and $q_F$, $q_L$ are the smallest and largest vertices of $Q$ respectively, then $$\eta_t(D) \geq \biggl\lceil \dfrac{d(q_F)+1}{d(q_L)-|Q|+2} \biggr\rceil.$$
\[COTAINF\] Let $G$ be a graph and $Q$ be a clique of $G$. If $d_1$, $d_2$ are the degrees of the vertices of $Q$ with smallest and largest degree respectively, then $$\eta(G) \geq \biggl\lceil \dfrac{d_1+1}{d_2-|Q|+2} \biggr\rceil.$$
The latter bound can be relaxed by considering $d_1 \geq |Q|-1$ and $d_2 \leq n-1$. Hence, $\eta(G) \geq \lceil \frac{|Q|}{n-|Q|+1} \rceil$, which is a lower bound previously proposed in [@LUCKYCOTAINF].\
As we mentioned before, one of the reasons to study ACP is that this problem and GCP seem to be related as follows:
**Additive Coloring Conjecture.** [@LUCKYORIGINAL] For every graph $G$, $\eta(G) \leq \chi(G)$.
It is known that the conjecture holds for trees [@LUCKYORIGINAL; @ORLOW] and, recently, for non-bipartite planar graphs of girth at least 26 [@LUCKYCHOICE]. Our contribution in this work is to give the exact value of the additive chromatic number of several families of graphs and expand the number of cases in which the conjecture is satisfied. In addition, we propose an integer programming formulation for ACP which is used for checking the conjecture over all connected graphs up to 10 vertices.
Regular bipartite and complete multipartite graphs
==================================================
As far as we know, the conjecture has not been proved for bipartite graphs yet. We show that the conjecture holds for a subclass of bipartite graphs including regular ones, when its vertices have the same degree.
Let $G = (U \cup V, E)$ be a bipartite graph ($U$ and $V$ are its stable sets) such that, for all $v \in V$ and $u \in N(v)$, $d(u) < 2 d(v)$. If $d(u) \neq d(v)$ for all $(u,v) \in E$ then $\eta(G) = 1$, otherwise $\eta(G) = 2$.
In virtue of Observation \[ADDITIVE1\], we only have to prove $\eta(G) \leq 2$. Consider the assignment $f:V \rightarrow \{1,2\}$ such that $f(u) = 2$ for all $u \in U$ and $f(v) = 1$ for all $v \in V$. Then, $f(N(u)) = d(u) < 2 d(v) = f(N(v))$ for all $(u,v) \in E$.
\[REGULARBIP\] If $G$ is a regular bipartite graph, then $\eta(G) = 2$.
Now, we consider complete multipartite graphs. We say that a digraph $D$ is *complete $r$-partite* when $G(D)$ is complete $r$-partite. We say that $D$ is *monotone* when $V(D)$ can be partitioned into subsets $V_1, V_2, \ldots, V_r$ such that every arc in $V_i \times V_j$ satisfies $i < j$. We cite a result given in [@IPL2013] as a lemma:
[@IPL2013] \[LEMITA\] Let $D$ be a complete $r$-partite digraph. Then, $\eta_t(D) < +\infty$ if and only $D$ is monotone. In that case, $$\eta_t(D) = \max \biggl\{ \biggl\lceil \dfrac{s_i}{|V_i|} \biggr\rceil : i \in [r] \biggr\},$$ where $V_1, \ldots, V_r$ is the partition of $V(D)$, $s_r = |V_r|$ and $s_i = \max\{1 + s_{i+1}, |V_i|\}$ for all $i \in [r-1]$.
Let $G=(V_1 \cup \cdots \cup V_r,E)$ be the complete $r$-partite graph ($V_1$,$\ldots$, $V_r$ are its stable sets) and $|V_i| \geq |V_{i+1}|$ for all $i \in [r-1]$. Then, $\eta(G) = \max \{ \lceil \frac{s_i}{|V_i|} \rceil : i \in [r] \}$ where $s_r = |V_r|$ and $s_i = \max\{1 + s_{i+1}, |V_i|\}$ for all $i \in [r-1]$. Moreover, $\eta(G) \leq r$.
Let $D$ be the monotone digraph such that $G(D) = G$ and the partition of $V(D)$ is $V_1, V_2, \ldots, V_r$. We must prove that $D$ represents the acyclic orientation of $G$ that provides the lowest value of $\eta_t(D)$. Let $D'$ be another digraph representing an acyclic orientation of $G$ with $\eta_t(D') < \infty$. Therefore, $D'$ is a monotone complete $r$-partite digraph where $G(D')$ is isomorphic to $G$ and the partition of $V(D')$ is $V'_i = V_{\mathfrak{p}(i)}$ for all $i \in [r]$ where $\mathfrak{p}:[r] \rightarrow [r]$ is some permutation function. Define $s_i$ and $s'_i$ for $D$ and $D'$ respectively as in Lemma \[LEMITA\]. It is easy to verify that sequences $\{s_i\}_{i \in [r]}$ and $\{s'_i\}_{i \in [r]}$ are decreasing, and $s'_i \geq s_i$ for all $i \in [r]$. Let $i$ be an integer such that $s_i/|V_i|$ is maximum and $I = \{ t \in [r] : |V_t| = |V_i|\}$. Note that $i$ is the minimum index of $I$. Let $J = \{ t \in [r] : |V'_t| = |V_i|\}$ and $j$ be the minimum index of $J$. Due to the ordering in the cardinality of sets of $V(D)$, $i \geq j$. Hence, $s'_j \geq s'_i \geq s_i$. Since $j \in J$, $|V'_j| = |V_i|$ and we obtain $s'_j/|V'_j| \geq s_i/|V_i|$. Therefore, $\eta_t(D') \geq \lceil s'_j/|V'_j| \rceil \geq \lceil s_i/|V_i| \rceil = \eta_t(D)$.
Now, we show that $\eta(G) \leq r$. We first prove by induction on $i$ that $s_i \leq |V_i|(r - i + 1)$ for $i = r, r-1, \ldots, 1$. In first place, if $i = r$, clearly $s_r = |V_r| = |V_r|(r - r + 1)$. If $i < r$, just two cases are possible. If $s_i = |V_i|$, clearly $s_i \leq |V_i|(r - i + 1)$. Otherwise, $s_i = 1 + s_{i+1}$. By the inductive hypothesis $s_{i+1} \leq |V_{i+1}|(r - i)$ and the fact that $|V_i| \geq |V_{i+1}|$, we obtain: $$s_i = 1 + s_{i+1} \leq 1 + |V_{i+1}|(r - i) \leq |V_{i+1}|(r - i + 1) \leq |V_i|(r - i + 1).$$ Hence, $\bigl\lceil \frac{s_i}{|V_i|} \bigr\rceil \leq r - i + 1 \leq r$ for all $i$ and therefore $\eta(G) \leq r$.
Since $\chi(G) \geq r$ for any complete $r$-partite graph $G$, we conclude that the conjecture holds for these graphs.
Join with complete graphs
=========================
Let $G_1, G_2$ be disjoint graphs. The *join* of $G_1$ with $G_2$, denoted $G_1 \lor G_2$, is defined as the resulting graph $G'$ satisfying $V(G') = V(G_1) \cup V(G_2)$ and $E(G') = E(G_1) \cup E(G_2) \cup \{ (u,v) : u \in V(G_1),~ v \in V(G_2)\}$. Given a graph $G$, the following result allows to solve the ACP of a join of $G$ with a complete graph by just solving the ACP of $G$:
\[UNIVERTICES\] Let $G$ be a graph of $n$ vertices and $\Delta$ be the largest degree in $G$. Then, $\eta(G \lor K_q) = \max \{ \eta(G), q \}$ for all $q \leq n-\Delta-1$.
Let $V$ and $E$ be the set of vertices and edges of $G$ respectively, $U = \{ u_1, u_2, \ldots, u_q \}$ be the set of vertices of $K_q$, $G' = G \lor K_q$ and $f$ be an optimal additive coloring of $G$. Consider a labeling $f'$ of $G'$ satisfying $f'(v) = f(v)$ for all $v \in V$, and $f'(u_i) = i$ for all $i \in [q]$. Now, for any $(v,v') \in E$, $f'(N_{G'}(v)) = f(N_G(v)) + f'(U) \neq f(N_G(v')) + f'(U) = f'(N_{G'}(v'))$. For any $i,j \in [q]$ such that $i < j$, $f'(N_{G'}(u_i)) = f(U \cup V) - i > f(U \cup V) - j = f'(N_{G'}(u_j))$. Finally, note that $f'(V \backslash N_G(v)) \geq n - d_G(v) \geq n - \Delta$ for all $v \in V$. Then, for any $u \in U$ and $v \in V$, $f'(N_{G'}(u)) = f'(U \cup V) - f'(u) \geq f'(U \cup V) - q > f(U \cup V) - n + \Delta \geq f'(U \cup V) - f'(V \backslash N_G(v)) =
f'(N_{G'}(v))$. Therefore, $f'$ is an additive coloring of $G'$.
In order to prove optimality, note first that any two vertices in $U$ are true twins of $G'$. By Observation \[LOWERBOUNDTWINS\], $\eta(G') \geq q$. In addition, suppose that $\eta(G') < \eta(G)$. Hence, there exists an additive $k$-coloring $f'$ of $G'$ with $k = \eta(G)-1$. Let $f$ be the labeling of $G$ satisfying $f(v) = f'(v)$ for all $v \in V$. We have $f(N_G(v)) = f'(N_{G'}(v)) - f'(U) \neq f'(N_{G'}(v')) - f'(U) = f(N_G(v'))$ for any $(v,v') \in E$. Therefore, $f$ is an additive $k$-coloring of $G$ which leads to a contradiction.
When Theorem \[UNIVERTICES\] is applied one must keep in mind that the size of a complete graph that can be joined to a graph is limited by $n-\Delta-1$. In fact, if one chooses $q = n-\Delta$, $\eta(G \lor K_q) = \max \{ \eta(G), q \}$ does no longer hold. For instance, let $G$ be the graph of Figure \[CONTRAEJEMPLO\] and $q = 2$. It can be proven that $\eta(G)=2$ and $\eta(G \lor K_2)=3$. On the other hand, there are graphs $G$ such that $\eta(G \lor K_q) = \max \{ \eta(G), q \}$ for any $q$. An example is the family of stable graphs. In that case, $G \lor K_q$ is called complete split. In the next section, we prove that the additive chromatic number of complete splits is $q$.
\[CONTRAEJEMPLO\]
The theorem also shows that if the conjecture holds for a graph $G$ then it still holds for $G \lor K_q$ (with $q \leq n-\Delta-1$) since $\chi(G \lor K_q) = \chi(G) + q$.\
A vertex $v$ is *universal* in a graph $G$ when $N(v) = V(G) \backslash \{v\}$. We will use a simplified version of Theorem \[UNIVERTICES\] for solving ACP on known families of graphs having a single universal vertex:
If $G$ is a graph without universal vertices, $\eta(G \lor K_1) = \eta(G)$.
Let $n$ be an integer such that $n \geq 3$. A $n$-*fan* is defined as $F_n = P_{n+1} \lor K_1$ where $P_{n+1}$ is a path of length $n$. Since $\eta(P_{n+1}) = 2$ (see [@ORLOW]), $\eta(F_n) = 2$.
Let $n, m$ be integers such that $n \geq 3$, $m \geq 2$. The *windmill* graph $W_n^m$ is defined as $m$ copies of $K_n$ which share a single vertex, $W_n^m = m K_{n-1} \lor K_1$. Then, $\eta(W_n^m) = n-1$.
Let $n$ be an integer such that $n \geq 4$. A *wheel* is defined as $W_n = C_n \lor K_1$, where $C_n$ is a circuit of $n$ vertices. In order to know $\eta(W_n)$ we first need to know $\eta(C_n)$. Although there already exists a manuscript written by Akbari, Assadi, Emamjomeh-Zadeh and Khani giving the additive chromatic number of circuits, here we propose a different and short proof of it for the sake of completeness.
Let $n \geq 4$. If $n$ is even, then $\eta(C_n) = 2$. Otherwise, $\eta(C_n) = 3$.
If $n$ is even, $C_n$ is a regular bipartite graph and we can use Corollary \[REGULARBIP\]. So, we prove that $\eta(C_n) = 3$ for $n$ odd. Let $V = \{v_1, \ldots, v_n\}$ and suppose that $f:V \rightarrow \{1,2\}$ is an additive 2-coloring of $C_n$. Then, $f$ is also a topological additive 2-numbering of a certain digraph $D$ such that $G(D) = C_n$. Observe that $f(N(v)) \in \{2,3,4\}$ for all $v \in V$. Since $C_n$ is not bipartite, there must be an oriented path of 3 consecutive vertices in $D$. W.l.o.g. assume that $f(N(v_2)) < f(N(v_3)) < f(N(v_4))$. Then, $f(v_1) + f(v_3) = f(N(v_2)) = 2$ and we obtain $f(v_3) = 1$. But, $f(v_3) + f(v_5) = f(N(v_4)) = 4$ giving $f(v_5) = 3$ which is an absurd. Therefore, $\eta(C_n) \geq 3$.
Consider the assignment $f:V \rightarrow [3]$ such that $f(v_2) = f(v_4) = f(v_5) = 1$, $f(v_1) = 2$, $f(v_3) = 3$ and, if $n \geq 7$, then for $i \geq 6$, $f(v_i) = 1$ if $i$ is even and $f(v_i) = 3$ if $i$ is odd. We obtain $f(N(v_1)) = 2$ if $n=5$ and $f(N(v_1)) = 4$ otherwise, $f(N(v_2)) = 5$, $f(N(v_3)) = 2$, $f(N(v_4)) = 4$ and $f(N(v_n)) = 3$. If $n \geq 7$, $f(N(v_5)) = 2$ and $f(N(v_6)) = 4$. If $n \geq 9$, then for $i \in \{7,\ldots,n-1\}$, $f(N(v_i)) = 2$ if $i$ is odd and $f(N(v_i)) = 6$ if $i$ is even. Thus, $f$ is an additive 3-coloring of $C_n$.
Now, $\eta(W_n) = 2$ if $n$ is even and $\eta(W_n) = 3$ otherwise.
Split graphs
============
A graph $G=(V,E)$ is a *split graph* if $V$ can be partitioned in subsets $Q,S$ such that $Q$ is a clique of $G$ and $S$ is a stable set of $G$. We denote vertices of $Q$ with $u_1,\ldots,u_q$ and vertices of $S$ with $v_1,\ldots,v_s$. W.l.o.g. we assume that $Q$ is maximal (unless stated otherwise). The following result states an upper bound of the additive chromatic number of split graphs.
\[COTASUPSPLIT\] Let $G = (Q \cup S, E)$ be a split graph where $Q$ is maximal and $T \subset Q$ be a non-empty set such that the degrees of each vertex of $T$ differ each other. Then, $\eta(G) \leq |Q|-|T|+1$.
W.l.o.g. let $T = \{u_{q-t+1},u_{q-t+2},\ldots,u_{q-1}, u_q\}$ where $t = |T|$. We exhibit an additive $(q-t+1)$-coloring of $G$. Consider the assignment $f:V \rightarrow [q-t+1]$ such that $f(u_i) = i$ for all $i \in [q-t]$, $f(w) = q-t+1$ for all $w \in T \cup S$. We first check for edges between the clique and the stable set. Let $(u_i, v) \in E$. Since $Q$ is maximal, for each $v \in S$, there exists $u(v) \in Q$ such that $v$ is not adjacent to $u(v)$. Then, $f(N(v)) \leq f(Q) - f(u(v)) \leq f(Q) - 1$. On the other hand, let $r_i = |N(u_i) \cap S|$ for all $i \in [q]$. Since $v \in N(u_i)$, $r_i \geq 1$ and $f(N(u_i)) = f(Q) - f(u_i) + (q-t+1).r_i \geq f(Q)$. Therefore, $f(N(u_i)) > f(N(v))$.
Now, we check for edges into the clique. First consider an edge $(u_j, u_k)$ such that $u_j, u_k \in T$. Then, $r_j \neq r_k$ and $f(N(u_j)) = f(Q) - (q-t+1) + (q-t+1).r_j \neq f(Q) - (q-t+1) + (q-t+1).r_k = f(N(u_k))$. Finally consider an edge $(u_j, u_k)$ such that $j \in [q-t]$ and $j < k$. Let $\alpha = f(u_k) - f(u_j)$. Note that $1 \leq \alpha \leq q-t$. Then, $f(N(u_j)) - f(N(u_k)) = \alpha + (q-t+1).(r_j - r_k)$. Suppose that $(q-t+1).(r_j - r_k) = \alpha$. Hence, $1 \leq (q-t+1).(r_j - r_k) \leq q-t$. This contradicts $r_j - r_k \in \bbbz$. Therefore, $f(N(u_j)) \neq f(N(u_k))$.
Observe that $\eta(G) \leq |Q| \leq \chi(G)$, so the conjecture holds for split graphs.\
The bound given in Theorem \[COTASUPSPLIT\] is tight on several families of graphs. We give three of them.
- *Splits graphs with additive 1-coloring*: Let $G$ be a split graph with maximal clique $Q$ and maximal set $T \subset Q$ having vertices with different degree. Then, $T=Q$ characterizes those graphs with additive 1-coloring: $T=Q$ implies $\eta(G) = 1$ by Theorem \[COTASUPSPLIT\] while the converse is obtained by Observation \[ADDITIVE1\].
- *Splits graphs with maximal clique of size 2*: Let $G = (Q \cup S, E)$ with $Q = \{u, u'\}$, $S = \{v_1,\ldots,v_r,v'_1,\ldots,v'_t\}$ and $E = \{(u, u')\} \cup \{(u,v_i) : i \in [r]\} \cup \{(u',v'_i) : i \in [t]\}$. If $r \neq t$, we are in the previous case. If $r = t$, $\eta(G) = 2$ which is the value given by Theorem \[COTASUPSPLIT\].
- *Complete splits*: Let $G = (Q' \cup S', E)$ with $|Q'| \geq 1$, $|S'| \geq 2$, $Q'$ is a clique of $G$ and there are edges $(u, v)$ for all $u \in Q'$ and $v \in S'$. $G$ is known as *complete split*. Since $G$ has $|Q'|$ true twins, $\eta(G) \geq |Q'|$. On the other hand, let $v \in S'$ and $Q = Q' \cup \{v\}$. Here, $Q$ is a maximal clique of $G$. Consider $T = \{u, v\}$ where $u \in Q'$. In virtue of Theorem \[COTASUPSPLIT\], $\eta(G) = |Q|-1 = |Q'|$.
Now, we will see families of split graphs where the bound given by Theorem \[COTASUPSPLIT\] is not tight. We study two of them here and another one in the next section (called complete suns).
A *thin headless spider* of orden $q \geq 2$ is a split graph where $|Q|=|S|=q$ and the set of edges between $Q$ and $S$ is $\{(u_i, v_i) ~:~ i \in [q] \}$. A *thick headless spider* of orden $q \geq 2$ is a split graph where $|Q|=|S|=q$ and the set of edges between $Q$ and $S$ is $\{(u_i, v_j) ~:~ i,j \in [q],~ i \neq j \}$. Equivalently, a thick headless spider is the complement of a thin headless spider of the same order and vice-versa.
Let $G$ be a thin/thick headless spider of order $q$. Then, $$\eta(G) = \biggl\lceil \dfrac{q+1}{2} \biggr\rceil.$$
For the sake of simplicity, we call $r = \lceil \frac{q+1}{2} \rceil$. We start by proving $\eta(G) = r$ when $G$ is thin. Note that $d(u_i) = q$ for all $i$. In virtue of Corollary \[COTAINF\], we have $\eta(G) \geq r$. Then, we only need to propose an additive $r$-coloring of $G$. If $q = 2$, consider the additive 2-coloring $f$ such that $f(u_1) = f(u_2) = f(v_1) = 1$ and $f(v_2) = 2$. If $q \geq 3$, consider the assignment $f:V \rightarrow [r]$ such that $f(u_i) = r - i + 1$ and $f(v_i) = 1$ for all $i \in [r]$, and $f(u_i) = q - i + 1$ and $f(v_i) = \lfloor \frac{q+1}{2} \rfloor$ for all $i \in \{r+1,\ldots,q\}$. We obtain $f(N(u_i)) = f(Q) - f(u_i) + f(v_i) = f(Q) - r + i$ for all $i \in [q]$. Then, for $j < k$, we have $f(N(u_j)) < f(N(u_k))$. Regarding the edge $(u_i, v_i)$, we first analyze when $i = 1$. Note that $f(u_1) = r$, $f(u_2) = r - 1$ and $f(u_q) = 1$, then $f(N(u_1)) = f(Q) - r + 1 \geq f(u_1) + f(u_2) + f(u_q) - r + 1 = r + 1 > r = f(N(v_1))$. If $i \geq 2$, $f(N(u_i)) > f(N(u_1)) > f(N(v_1)) = r \geq f(u_i) = f(N(v_i))$.
Now, we consider that $G$ is thick. If $q = 2$ then $G$ is isomorphic to a thin headless spider of order 2. Hence, assume that $q \geq 3$. Consider the assignment $f:V \rightarrow [r]$ such that $f(u_i) = i$ and $f(v_i) = 1$ for all $i \in [r]$, and $f(u_i) = r$ and $f(v_i) = i-r+1$ for all $i \in \{r+1,\ldots,q\}$. We obtain $f(N(u_i)) = f(V) - f(u_i) - f(v_i) = f(V) - i - 1$ for all $i \in [q]$. Then, for $j < k$, we have $f(N(u_j)) > f(N(u_k))$. Regarding the edge $(u_i, v_i)$, note first that $Q \subsetneqq V \backslash \{v_i\}$. Hence, $f(N(v_i)) = f(Q) - f(u_i) < f(V \backslash \{v_i\}) - f(u_i) = f(N(u_i))$.\
We finish by proving that $\eta(G) \geq r$. Suppose that there exists an additive $(r-1)$-coloring $f$ of $G$. Recall that $f(N(u_i)) = f(V) - f(u_i) - f(v_i)$ for all $i \in [q]$. Thus, $f(V) - (2r-2) \leq f(N(u_i)) \leq f(V) - 2$. Since there are $2r-3$ integers in the range of feasible values for $f(N(u_i))$ and $2r-3 < q$, there are two indexes $j$ and $k$ such that $f(N(u_j))=f(N(u_k))$ by the pigeonhole principle, leading to a contradiction.
Suns
====
Let $G$ be a graph and $U = \{u_1, \ldots, u_m\} \subset V(G)$. A *sun* is a graph $G'$ with $V(G') = V(G) \cup V$ where $V = \{v_1, \ldots, v_m\}$ and $$E(G') = E(G) \cup \{(u_i, v_{i-1}), (u_i, v_i) ~:~ i \in [m] \}.$$ For the sake of simplicity, $u_0$ and $v_0$ are another names for vertices $u_m$ and $v_m$.
In this section, we study *cycle suns* $CS_m$, when $G$ is a circuit ($V(G) = U$ and $E(G) = \{ (u_i, u_{i-1}) ~:~ i \in [m] \}$), *wheel suns* $WS_m$, when $G$ is a wheel ($V(G) = U \cup \{w\}$ and $E(G) = \{ (u_i, u_{i-1}), (u_i, w) ~:~ i \in [m] \}$), and *complete suns* $KS_m$, when $G$ is a complete graph of size $m$.
Let $m \geq 4$. Then, $\eta(CS_m) = \eta(WS_m) = 2$.
By Observation \[ADDITIVE1\], $\eta(CS_m) \geq 2$ and $\eta(WS_m) \geq 2$ so we only have to propose an additive 2-coloring of $CS_m$ and $WS_m$. We start with $CS_m$.
Consider an assignment $f:V \rightarrow \{1,2\}$ such that $f(u_i) = 2$ if $i$ is odd, $f(u_i) = 1$ if $i$ is even and $f(v) = 1$ for all $v \in V \backslash \{v_1\}$. If $m$ is even, also assign $f(v_1) = 1$. Thus, $f(N(u_i)) = 4$ if $i$ is odd, $f(N(u_i)) = 6$ if $i$ is even and $f(N(v)) = 3$ for all $v \in V$. If $m$ is odd, assign $f(v_1) = 2$. In this case, $f(N(u_1)) = 6$, $f(N(u_2)) = 7$, $f(N(u_m)) = 5$ and for $i = 3,\ldots,m-1$, $f(N(u_i)) = 4$ if $i$ is odd and $f(N(u_i)) = 6$ if $i$ is even. In addition, $f(N(v_m)) = 4$ and $f(N(v)) = 3$ for all $v \in V \backslash \{v_m\}$. Therefore, $f$ is an additive 2-coloring of $CS_m$.
For $WS_m$, assume that $m \neq 5$ and consider the same assignment as before plus $f(w) = 1$. Then, values of $f(N(v))$ remains the same as in $CS_m$, values of $f(N(u))$ are the same as in $CS_m$ plus one, $f(N_{WS_m}(u)) = f(N_{CS_m}(u))+1$, and $f(N(w)) = \lceil 3m/2 \rceil$. If $m = 4$, clearly $f$ is an additive 2-coloring of $WS_4$. If $m \geq 6$, $f(N(w)) > 8 \geq f(N(u))$ and $f$ is an additive 2-coloring of $WS_m$.
For $m = 5$, we propose a different additive 2-coloring of $WS_5$: $f(u_1) = f(u_2) = f(u_4) = f(v_4) = f(v_5) = 1$, $f(u_3) = f(u_5) = f(v_1) = f(v_2) = f(v_3) = f(w) = 2$. Then, $f(N(v_1)) = 2$, $f(N(v_2)) = 3$, $f(N(u_5)) = 6$, $f(N(w)) = 7$, $f(N(u_1)) = f(N(u_3)) = 8$, $f(N(u_2)) = f(N(u_4)) = 9$.
Let $m \geq 3$. Then, $\eta(KS_m) = \bigl\lceil \frac{m+2}{3} \bigr\rceil.$
For the sake of simplicity, we call $r = \lceil \frac{m+2}{3} \rceil$. Note that $d(u_i) = m+1$ for all $i$. In virtue of Corollary \[COTAINF\], we have $\eta(G) \geq r$.
We only have to propose an additive $r$-coloring of $KS_m$. First, define a permutation function $\mathfrak{p}:[m] \rightarrow [m]$ as follows: $\mathfrak{p}(1) = 1$, $\mathfrak{p}(j) = \frac{j}{2} + 1$ for $j = 2,\ldots,m$ and $j$ even, $\mathfrak{p}(j) = m - \frac{j-3}{2}$ for $j = 3,\ldots,m$ and $j$ odd. Clearly, its inverse is: $\mathfrak{q}(1) = 1$, $\mathfrak{q}(i) = 2(i-1)$ for $i = 2,\ldots,\lfloor \frac{m}{2} \rfloor + 1$, $\mathfrak{q}(i) = 3 + 2(m-i)$ for $i = \lfloor \frac{m}{2} \rfloor + 2,\ldots,m$. Let $f$ be the following assignment: $$f(u_i) = \begin{cases}
r, & m \equiv 2~ (\textrm{mod}~3) ~\land~ i = \mathfrak{p}(m), \\
\biggl\lfloor \dfrac{\mathfrak{q}(i)}{3} \biggr\rfloor + 1, & \textrm{otherwise}.
\end{cases}$$ $$f(v_i) = \begin{cases}
r + 1 - \biggl\lceil \dfrac{\mathfrak{q}(i)}{3} \biggr\rceil, & i = 1 ~\lor~ i \geq \biggl\lfloor \dfrac{m}{2} \biggr\rfloor + 2, \\
2, & m \equiv 2~ (\textrm{mod}~6) ~\land~ i = \mathfrak{p}(m), \\
r + 1 - \biggl\lceil \dfrac{\mathfrak{q}(i)+2}{3} \biggr\rceil, & \textrm{otherwise}.
\end{cases}$$ It is easy to check that $f(w) \in [r]$ for all $w \in U \cup V$. Also, observe that first and second case in the definition of $f(v_i)$ do not overlap: if $m \equiv 2~ (\textrm{mod}~6)$, $m$ is even and, therefore, $2 \leq \mathfrak{p}(m) = m/2 + 1 < \lfloor \frac{m}{2} \rfloor + 2$.
We claim that $f(v_i)$ satisfies the following recursive relationship: $$f(v_i) = 2r - \mathfrak{q}(i) + f(u_i) - f(v_{i-1}),~~~ \forall~ i \in [m].$$ Then, $f(N(u_i)) = f(U) - f(u_i) + f(v_i) + f(v_{i-1}) = f(U) + 2r - \mathfrak{q}(i)$ for all $i$. Since $\mathfrak{q}$ is injective, $f(N(u_i)) \neq f(N(u_k))$ for all $i \neq k$. Regarding edges between $U$ and $V$, note that $f(U) > m$ and for any $v \in V$, $v$ has degree 2, then $f(N(v)) \leq 2r < f(U) + 2r - m \leq f(U) + 2r - \mathfrak{q}(i) = f(N(u_i))$ for all $i$. Therefore, $f$ is an additive $r$-coloring of $KS_m$.
Now, we check our claim. If $i \neq \mathfrak{p}(m) = \lceil \frac{m}{2} \rceil + 1$ or $m \not\equiv 2~ (\textrm{mod}~3)$, then $f(u_i) - \mathfrak{q}(i) = 1 - \lceil \frac{2\mathfrak{q}(i)}{3} \rceil$. That is, we have to check $f(v_i) = 2r + 1 - \lceil \frac{2\mathfrak{q}(i)}{3} \rceil - f(v_{i-1})$. In the case that $m \equiv 2~ (\textrm{mod}~3)$ and $i = \mathfrak{p}(m) = \lceil \frac{m}{2} \rceil + 1$, $f(u_i) - \mathfrak{q}(i) = r - m$ and we have to check $f(v_i) = 3r - m - f(v_{i-1})$.
1. Case $i = 1$: Since $f(v_0) = f(v_m) = r$, $f(v_1) = r + 1 - \lceil \frac{1}{3} \rceil = 2r + 1 - \lceil \frac{2}{3} \rceil - r$.
2. Case $i = 2$: Since $f(v_1) = r$, $f(v_2) = r + 1 - \lceil \frac{4}{3} \rceil = 2r + 1 - \lceil \frac{4}{3} \rceil - r$.
3. Case $i = 3,\ldots,\lfloor \frac{m}{2} \rfloor$ or “$i = \lfloor \frac{m}{2} \rfloor + 1$ when $m \not\equiv 2~ (\textrm{mod}~6)$”: First, we prove $1 - \lceil \frac{2(i-1)+2}{3} \rceil = \lceil \frac{2(i-1)}{3} \rceil - \lceil \frac{4(i-1)}{3} \rceil$. If $i \equiv 1~ (\textrm{mod}~ 3)$, let $h = \frac{i-1}{3}$. Then, $1 - \lceil \frac{2(i-1)+2}{3} \rceil = 1 - 2h - \lceil \frac{2}{3} \rceil
= 2h - 4h = \lceil \frac{2(i-1)}{3} \rceil - \lceil \frac{4(i-1)}{3} \rceil$. Cases when $i \equiv 0$ or $2~ (\textrm{mod}~ 3)$ are analogous. Since $f(v_{i-1}) = r + 1 - \lceil \frac{2(i-1)}{3} \rceil$, $f(v_i) = r + 1 - \lceil \frac{2(i-1)+2}{3} \rceil = 2r + 1 - \lceil \frac{4(i-1)}{3} \rceil - r - 1 + \lceil \frac{2(i-1)}{3} \rceil$.
4. Case $i = \lfloor \frac{m}{2} \rfloor + 1$ when $m \equiv 2~ (\textrm{mod}~6)$: Then, $r = \lceil \frac{m+2}{3} \rceil = \frac{m}{3} + 1$, $\mathfrak{q}(i) = m$, $\mathfrak{q}(i-1) = m-2$, $f(v_{i-1}) = r + 1 - \lceil\frac{m-2+2}{3}\rceil = 1$ and $f(v_i) = 2 = 3r - m - 1$.
5. Case $i = \lfloor \frac{m}{2} \rfloor + 2$: If $m$ is even, $\mathfrak{q}(i) = m - 1$ and $\mathfrak{q}(i-1) = m$. If $m \not\equiv 2~ (\textrm{mod}~3)$, $f(v_{i-1}) = r + 1 - \lceil \frac{m+2}{3} \rceil = 1$. Note that $2r - \lceil \frac{2(m-1)}{3} \rceil = 2$. If $m \equiv 2~ (\textrm{mod}~3)$, then $m \equiv 2~ (\textrm{mod}~6)$ and, therefore, $f(v_{i-1}) = 2$ and $2r - \lceil \frac{2(m-1)}{3} \rceil = 3$. Then, $f(v_i) = r + 1 - \lceil \frac{m - 1}{3} \rceil = 2 = 2r + 1 - \lceil \frac{2(m - 1)}{3} \rceil - f(v_{i-1})$; If $m$ is odd, $\mathfrak{q}(i) = m$ and $\mathfrak{q}(i-1) = m-1$, If $m \not\equiv 2~ (\textrm{mod}~3)$, note that $1 - \lceil \frac{m}{3} \rceil = \lceil \frac{m+1}{3} \rceil - \lceil \frac{2m}{3} \rceil$. Then, $f(v_i) = r + 1 - \lceil \frac{m}{3} \rceil = 2r + 1 - \lceil \frac{2m}{3} \rceil - r - 1 + \lceil \frac{m-1+2}{3} \rceil$. If $m \equiv 2~ (\textrm{mod}~3)$, $r - 1 = \lceil \frac{m+2}{3} \rceil - 1 = \lceil \frac{m+1}{3} \rceil = \lceil \frac{m}{3} \rceil$ and $f(v_{i-1}) = r + 1 - \lceil \frac{m-1+2}{3} \rceil = 2$. Then, $f(v_i) = r + 1 - \lceil \frac{m}{3} \rceil = 2 = 3r - m - f(v_{i-1})$.
6. Case $i = \lfloor \frac{m}{2} \rfloor + 3, \ldots, m-1$: We have $f(v_i) = r + 1 - \lceil \frac{3 + 2(m-i)}{3} \rceil$ and $2r + 1 - \lceil \frac{2\mathfrak{q}(i)}{3} \rceil - f(v_{i-1}) =
r - \lceil \frac{6 + 4(m-i)}{3} \rceil + \lceil \frac{3 + 2(m-i+1)}{3} \rceil$. To prove that both expressions are equal, we proceed as in the third case.
**An integer programming formulation for ACP.** As far as we know, there is no tools available for solving ACP. However, we can solve instances of this problem by modeling it as an integer linear programming formulation and using an available solver (in our case, CPLEX 12.6 have been used).
Let $G = (V,E)$ be a graph, $E_2 = \{(u,v), (v,u) : (u,v) \in E\}$ (edges occur in both directions), integer variables $k$ and $f(v)$ for all $v \in V$, and binary variables $z(u,v)$ for all $(u,v) \in E_2$, where $z(u,v) = 1$ if and only if $f(N(u)) < f(N(v))$. The following formulation computes $\eta(G)$:
$$\begin{aligned}
\min k & & \notag \\
\textrm{subject to} & & \\
& f(N(u)) - f(N(v)) + M_{uv} z(u,v) \leq M_{uv} - 1, & \forall~~(u,v) \in E_2 \\
& z(u,v) + z(v,u) = 1, & \forall~~(u,v) \in E \\
& 1 \leq f(v) \leq UB, & \forall~~v \in V \\
& f(v) \leq k, & \forall~~v \in V \\
& z(u,v) \in \{0, 1\}, & \forall~~(u,v) \in E_2 \\
& k, f(v) \in \bbbz_+, & \forall~~v \in V\end{aligned}$$
where $M_{uv} = 1+|N(u)\backslash N(v)|UB - |N(v)\backslash N(u)|$ for all $(u,v) \in E_2$ and $UB$ is an upper bound of $\eta(G)$.
We also propose additional inequalities. They are considered whenever possible in order to improve the performance of the optimization. On the one hand, the initial relaxation can be reinforced by adding these valid inequalities: $$z(v,w) + z(w,u) \leq 1,~~~ \textrm{for all}~ u,v,w~ \textrm{such that}~ (u,v) \notin E_2,~ w \in N(u) \subset N(v).$$ In fact, if $z(v,w) = z(w,u) = 1$, then $f(N(v)) < f(N(w)) < f(N(u))$ which leads to a contradiction.
On the other hand, symmetrical solutions arising from the presence of twin vertices can be partially removed as follows. Let $\mathscr{C}$ be a partition of $V$, where each element of $\mathscr{C}$ can be: 1) a single vertex, 2) two or more false twins each other, and 3) two or more true twins each other. Then, for every set of false twins $\{v_1, \ldots, v_t\} \in \mathscr{C}$ add inequalities $f(v_i) \leq f(v_{i+1}),~~\forall~i \in [t-1]$ and remove variables $z(u,v_i)$, $z(v_i,u)$ and constraints where they occur for all $i \in 2,\ldots,t$ and $u \in N(v_1)$. Analogously, for every set of true twins $\{v_1, \ldots, v_t\} \in \mathscr{C}$ add inequalities $f(v_i) \leq f(v_{i+1}) - 1,~~\forall~i \in [t-1]$ and remove variables $z(v_i, v_j)$ and constraints where they occur for all $i,j = 2,\ldots,t$ such that $i \neq j$.
The following procedure generates a suitable partition $\mathscr{C}$. First, compute a partition $\mathscr{C}$ of $V$ into maximal sets of true twins. Let $\mathscr{C}_1 \subset \mathscr{C}$ composed only of singleton sets and $V' = \bigcup_{W \in \mathscr{C}_1} W$ ($V' = \{ v \in V : \{v\} \in \mathscr{C} \}$). Then, compute a partition $\mathscr{C'}$ of $V'$ into maximal sets of false twins. Finally, do $\mathscr{C} \leftarrow (\mathscr{C} \backslash \mathscr{C}_1) \cup \mathscr{C'}$. We implemented a tool for solving ACP based on this formulation. It can be downloaded from `http://www.fceia.unr.edu.ar/\simdaniel/stuff/acp.zip`.\
Besides this tool have been very useful for checking our theoretical results, we have tested the conjecture with it over all connected graphs up to 10 vertices (about 12 million graphs). Instances are provided by Brendan McKay (`http://users.cecs.anu.edu.au/\simbdm/data/graphs.html`) and a DSATUR code by Rhyd Lewis (`http://rhydlewis.eu/resources/gCol.zip`) have been used for obtaining $\chi(G)$.\
**Acknowledgements.** I wish to thank Dr. Graciela Nasini for their helpful comments. This work is partially supported by grants PID-UNR 416, PICT-2013-0586 and PIP-CONICET 11220120100277.
[10]{}\[bibliography\]
Karpovsky M.G., Chakrabarty K., Levitin L.B.: On a new class of codes for identifying vertices in graphs. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory **44**, 599–611 (1998)
Chartrand G., Lesniak L., VanderJagt D. W., Zhang P.: Recognizable Colorings of Graphs. Discussiones Mathematicae Graph Theory **28**, 35–57 (2008)
Esperet L., Gravier S., Montassier M., O. Pascal, Parreau A.: Locally identifying coloring of graphs. Electron. J. Combin. **19**(2), \#P40 (2012)
Seamone B.: *The 1-2-3 Conjecture and related problems: a survey*, Manuscript.\
`http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.5122`
Czerwiński S., Grytczuk J., Zelazny W.: Lucky labelings of graphs. Inform. Process. Lett. **109**, 1078–1081 (2009)
A. Ahadi, A. Dehghan and E. Mollaahmadi, *On the Lucky Labeling of Graphs*, Manuscript. `http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.2480`
Orlow N.: Advances in Lucky Labelling graphs, Fibsum graphs, and 3-regular graph decompositions. Research Experiences for Graduate Students, August 2009.
Grappe R., Grippo L. N., Valencia-Pabon M.: Lucky number of bounded-treewidth graphs. Tech. Rep. LIPN 2012, submitted to the WG 2012 conference.
Ahadi A., Dehghan A., Kazemi M., Mollaahmadi E.: Computation of lucky number of planar graphs is NP-hard. Inform. Process. Lett. **112**, 109–112 (2012)
Akbari S., Ghanbari M., Manaviyat R., Zare S.: On the Lucky Choice Number of Graphs. Graphs and Combinatorics **29**, 157–163 (2013)
Grytczuk J., Bartnicki T., Czerwiński S., Bosek B., Matecki G., Zelazny W.: Additive colorings of planar graphs. Graphs and Combinatorics **30**, 1087–1098 (2014)
Brandt A., Diemunsch J., Jahanbekam S.: Lucky Choice Number of Planar Graphs with Given Girth. Manuscript.\
`http://math.ucdenver.edu/\simsjahanbekam/Lucky.pdf`
Miller M., Rajasingh I., Emilet D. A., Jemilet D. A.: d-Lucky Labeling of Graphs. Procedia Computer Science (ICRTC-2015) **57**, 766–771 (2015)
J. Marenco, M. Mydlarz and D. Severín, *Topological Additive Numbering of Directed Acyclic Graphs*, Inform. Process. Lett. **115**, 199–202 (2015)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
A new class of accelerating cosmological models driven by a one-parameter version of the general Chaplygin-type equation of state is proposed. The simplified version is naturally obtained from causality considerations with basis on the adiabatic sound speed $v_S$ plus the observed accelerating stage of the universe. We show that very stringent constraints on the unique free parameter $\alpha$ describing the simplified Chaplygin model can be obtained from a joint analysis involving the latest SNe type Ia data and the recent Sloan Digital Sky Survey measurement of baryon acoustic oscillations (BAO). In our analysis we have considered separately the SNe type Ia gold sample measured by Riess et al. (2004) and the Supernova Legacy Survey (SNLS) from Astier et al. (2006). At 95.4% (c.l.), we find for BAO + *gold* sample, $0.91 \leq \alpha \leq 1.0$ and $\Omega_{\rm{M}}=
0.28^{+0.043}_{-0.048}$ while BAO + SNLS analysis provides $0.94
\leq \alpha \leq 1.0$ and $\Omega_{\rm M}=0.27^{+0.048}_{-0.045}$.
author:
- 'J. A. S. Lima'
- 'J. V. Cunha'
- 'J. S. Alcaniz'
title: 'A simplified approach for Chaplygin-type cosmologies'
---
Introduction
============
The impressive convergence of recent observational facts along with some apparently successful theoretical predictions seem to indicate that the simple approach provided by the standard cold dark matter (CDM) model is insufficient to describe the present stage of our universe. From these results, the most plausible picture for our world seems to be a nearly flat scenario dominated basically by CDM and an exotic component endowed with large negative pressure, usually named dark energy. Despite the good observational indications for the existence of these two components, their physical properties constitute a completely open question at present, which gives rise to the so-called dark matter and dark energy problems (see [@rev123] for a recent review on this topic).
Among the many candidates for the dark energy component, a very interesting one was suggested by Kamenshchik [*et al.*]{} [@kamen] and developed by Bilić [*et al.*]{} [@bilic] and Bento [*et al.*]{} [@bento]. Such an exotic fluid, named generalized Chaplygin gas (C-gas), can be macroscopically characterized by the equation of state (EoS) $$\label{eq1}
p_C = -A/\rho_C^{\alpha},$$ where $\alpha$ = 1 and $A$ is a positive constant related to the present-day Chaplygin adiabatic sound speed, $v^2_s = \alpha
A/\rho_{C_{o}}^{1 + \alpha}$ ($\rho_{C_{o}}$ stands for the current C-gas density). In actual fact, the above equation for $\alpha \neq 1$ constitutes a generalization of the original C-gas EoS proposed by Bento [*et al.*]{} in Ref. [@bento].
In the last few years, the possibility of describing the unknown dark energy component using the C-gas-type EoS above has provoked a considerable debate in the literature. Theoretical connections between the C-gas and string theory, supersymmetric generalizations [@hope; @jackiw], self-interacting [@zhu], and even a tachyonic fluid representation [@Bena02] has also been investigated. Another interesting feature of the above EoS comes from the fact that the C-gas becomes pressureless at high redshifts, which suggests a possible unification scheme for the cosmological “dark sector", an interesting idea which has been considered in different contexts [@quartessence].
Observational aspects of the above C-gas scenarios have also been largely investigated in the literature. Cosmological tests involving type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia) data [@fabris; @alcaniz], the shape of the matter power spectrum [@avelino], statistical properties of gravitational lenses [@dev], the age of the Universe [@jailson], cosmic microwave background (CMB) measurements [@bento1; @bert1; @fin; @finelli], galaxy clusters X-ray [@CAL04], and gamma-ray bursts data [@bertgr] have been discussed. In general, to perform such analyses, besides the present value of the C-gas density parameter ($\Omega_C$), the above barotropic EoS implies that one needs to constrain two additional free parameters, namely, $A$ and $\alpha$. Therefore, in the context of the Friedman-Robertson-Walker (FRW) cosmologies with CDM plus a C-gas, there are at least 4 parameters to be constrained by the data. Actually, this number can be reduced to 3 if one assumes a flat geometry, i.e., $\Omega_{\rm{M}} = 1 - \Omega_C$ or if a unified dark matter/energy picture involving only the C-gas and baryons is assumed from the very beginning (in this case, the baryonic density ($\Omega_b$) may be fixed a priori by using, for instance, nucleosynthesis [@Steigmann] or the recent Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) observations [@wmap]). However, even in this latter cases, there are so many parameters to be constrained by the data, that a high degree of degeneracy on the parametric space becomes inevitable.
Many generalizations of the original C-gas [@ZhWuZh06; @ChLa05; @MaHa05; @Wang05; @GuZh05], or even of its extended version [@SeSc05] have appeared in literature. In these cases, the number of free parameters is usually increased, and, as consequence, the models become mathematically richer although much less predictive from a physical viewpoint. In this work by following the opposite direction, we propose a simplified version for the generalized C-gas-type EoS which diminishes one of its free parameters. By an additional physical condition, the allowed range of the remaining parameter is also restricted a priori, which makes not only the relevant parametric space bi-dimensional but also (and more important) the model more easily discarded or confirmed by the present set of observations since the range of its free parameter is physically limited from causality considerations. We test the viability of this simplified C-gas approach by discussing the constraints imposed from current SNe Ia observations and Large Scale Structure (LSS) data.
A simplified C-gas scenario
===========================
Let us consider a homogeneous and isotropic Universe whose energy components are cold dark matter plus the generalized C-gas fluid. Since both components are separately conserved, by inserting Eq. (1) into the energy conservation law $\dot{\rho}_{C} = -3H
(\rho_{C} + p_C$), one obtains the following expression for the density of the C-gas [@bento; @quartessence; @CAL04] $$\label{eq3}
\rho_{C} = \rho_{C_{o}}\left[A_s + (1 - A_s)a^{3(1 +
\alpha)}\right]^{\frac{1}{1 + \alpha}},$$ where $a(t)$ is the cosmological scale factor and $A_s =
A/\rho_{C_{o}}^{1 + \alpha}$ is a convenient dimensionless constant (as usual, the subscript “0" denotes present-day quantities). As one may check, the above C-gas evolving in the FRW metric can be modeled as a *quintessence*, that is, a scalar field model described by an ordinary Lagrangian density, ${\cal
L}_{\phi}= {\frac{1}{2}}{\dot\phi}^{2} - V(\phi)$, with the following potential $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq3a}
V(\phi) &=&\frac{1}{2}\rho_{C_o} {A_s^{\frac{1}{\alpha +
1}}}\{[\cosh \sqrt{6\pi}m_{pl}(\alpha + 1)\phi)]^{\frac{2}{\alpha
+ 1}} \nonumber
\\&& + \,\, [\cosh\sqrt{6\pi}m_{pl}(\alpha +
1)\phi]^{-\frac{2\alpha}{\alpha + 1}}\},\end{aligned}$$ where $m_{pl}$ is the Planck mass.
In a flat geometry, the Friedmann equation for a conserved C-gas plus cold dark matter is given by [@CAL04] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq4}
{\cal{H}} & = & {\Omega_{\rm{M}}{a}^{-3} + %\\ \nonumber & &
\Omega_{C}[A_s + (1 - A_s) a^{-3(\alpha + 1)}]^{\frac{1}{\alpha +
1}}},\end{aligned}$$ where ${\cal{H}} = H(a)^2/H_0^2$. Note that besides the Hubble parameter $H_0$ we still have 3 additional parameters in this case ($\alpha, A_s, \Omega_{\rm{M}}$), even using the flat condition $\Omega_C = 1 - \Omega_{\rm{M}}$. Therefore, an interesting question to be answered at this point is how to reduce the C-gas parameters based on reasonable physical constraints?
0.1in
In order to answer the above question, we first notice that the dimensionless constant $A_s$ appearing in the above expressions encodes the basic information coming from the original parameter $A$ \[see Eq. (1)\]. On the other hand, the Chaplygin adiabatic sound speed reads $$\label{eq5}
v_s^{2} = \frac{dp}{d\rho}= \alpha A/\rho_{C}^{1 + \alpha},$$ which must positive definite for a well-behaved gas (zero in the limit case of dust). Note also that the present day Chaplygin adiabatic sound speed is $v_{so}^{2} = \alpha A/\rho_{C_{o}^{1 +
\alpha}}$ or, equivalently, $$\label{eq6}
v_{so}^{2} = \alpha A/\rho_{C_o}^{1 + \alpha} = \alpha A_s.$$ Therefore, if the $A_s$ parameter is a function of $\alpha$, the number of free parameters is naturally reduced, and, as an extra bonus, the positiviness of $v_s^{2}$ at any time, as well as its thermodynamic stability, is naturally guaranteed. Among many possible relations (e.g., $A_s = \alpha^n$), clearly the simplest choice is $A_s = \alpha$ ($n = 1$). In this case, $v_{so}^{2} =
\alpha^{2}$, or more generally, $v_s^{2} =
{\alpha}^{2}(\rho_{Co}/\rho)^{\alpha}$. Note also that, since the light speed is a natural cutoff for the sound propagation, it follows that $v_{so}=|\alpha|\leq 1$, thereby restricting $\alpha$ to the interval \[-1,1\]. An additional constraint can still be imposed to this parameter. In fact, with $A_s=\alpha$, the simplified C-gas EoS (1) becomes $$\label{eq7}
p_C = -\alpha
\rho_{Co}\left(\frac{\rho_{Co}}{\rho_{C}}\right)^{\alpha},$$ so that a negative pressure is obtained only for positive values of $\alpha$. In other words, this accounts to saying that the combined requirements from causality along with the observed accelerating stage of the Universe limit naturally the parameter $\alpha$ to the interval $0 < \alpha \leq 1$.
Note that the the simplified Chaplygin gas above (from now on SC-gas) preserves the unifying character of the original C-gas, i.e., it behaves as a pressureless fluid (nonrelativistic matter) at high-$z$ while, at late times, it approaches the quintessence behavior, which now is fully characterized by the $\alpha$ parameter (for a unified dark matter/dark energy description of the above scenario, see [@newCG]). However, note also that, even in this limiting case, the sound speed is positive. In other words, the Universe evolution resembles the one driven by a quintessence component but the thermodynamic behavior does not present the pathologies of such scenarios.
In this simplified approach, Eq.(\[eq4\]) is rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq8}
{\cal{H}} & = & {\Omega_{\rm{M}}{a}^{-3} + %\\ \nonumber & &
\Omega_{C}[\alpha + (1 - \alpha) a^{-3(\alpha +
1)}]^{\frac{1}{\alpha + 1}}},\end{aligned}$$ so that the parameter $\alpha$ is actually the unique unknown constant related to this SC-gas model. In what follows, we confront this simplified approach with the most recent SNe Ia and Large Scale Structure (LSS) data.
Observational Constraints
=========================
SNe Ia
------
Let us first investigate the bounds arising from SNe Ia observations on the SC-gas scnario described above. To this end we use the most recent SNe Ia observations, namely, the High-Z SN Search (HZS) Team [@Riess04] and the Supernova Legacy Survey (SNLS) Collaboration data [@snls].
The so-called *gold* sample from the HZS team is a selection of 157 SNe Ia events distributed over the redshift interval $0.01
\lesssim z \lesssim 1.7$, and constitutes the compilation of the best observations made so far by them and by the Supernova Cosmology Project plus 16 new events observed by Hubble Space Telescope (HST). The current data from SNLS collaboration correspond to the first year results of its planned five year survey. The total sample includes 71 high-$z$ SNe Ia in the redshift range $0.2 \lesssim z \lesssim 1$ plus 44 low-$z$ SNe Ia. This data set is arguably (due to multi-band, rolling search technique and careful calibration) the best high-$z$ SNe Ia compilation to date, as indicated by the very tight scatter around the best fit in the Hubble diagram and a careful estimate of systematic uncertainties. Another important aspect to be emphasized on the SNLS data is that they seem to be in a better agreement with WMAP results than the *gold* sample (see, e.g., [@paddy] for a discussion). The two SNe Ia samples are illustrated on a residual Hubble Diagram with respect to the empty universe model ($\Omega_{\rm{T}} = 0$) in Fig. 1a.
The predicted distance modulus for a supernova at redshift $z$, given a set of parameters $\mathbf{p}$, is $$\label{dm}
\mu_p(z|\mathbf{p}) = m - M = 5\mbox{log} d_L + 25,$$ where $m$ and $M$ are, respectively, the apparent and absolute magnitudes, the complete set of parameters is $\mathbf{p} \equiv
(H_o, \Omega_{\rm{M}}, \alpha)$ and $d_L$ stands for the luminosity distance (in units of megaparsecs), $$d_L = c(1 + z)\int_{x'}^{1} {dx \over
x^{2}{\cal{H}}(x;\mathbf{p})},$$ with $x' = (1 + z)^{-1}$ being a convenient integration variable and ${\cal{H}}(x; \mathbf{p})$ the expression given by Eq. (\[eq8\]).
0.1in
We estimated the best fit to the set of parameters $\mathbf{p}$ by using a $\chi^{2}$ statistics $$\chi^{2} = \sum_{i=1}^{N}{\frac{\left[\mu_p^{i}(z|\mathbf{p}) -
\mu_o^{i}(z|\mathbf{p})\right]^{2}}{\sigma_i^{2}}},$$ with the parameters $\Omega_{\rm{M}}$ and $\alpha$ spanning the interval \[0,1\] in steps of 0.01. In the above expression, $N =
157$ and $115$ for *gold* and SNLS samples, respectively, $\mu_p^{i}(z|\mathbf{p})$ is given by Eq. (\[dm\]), $\mu_o^{i}(z|\mathbf{p})$ is the extinction corrected distance modulus for a given SNe Ia at $z_i$, and $\sigma_i$ is the uncertainty in the individual distance moduli. In our analysis, $H_0$ is considered a *nuisance* parameter so that we marginalize over it.
In Figures (1b) and (1c) we show the results of our statistical analysis. Contours of constant likelihood (99.73$\%$, 95.4$\%$ and 68.3$\%$) are shown in the parametric space $\alpha-\Omega_{\rm{M}}$. Panel (1b) displays the results for the HZS *gold* sample. Compared to Fig. 4 of Ref. [@alcaniz], the parameter $\alpha$ is now considerably more restricted than in the standard C-gas approach. In particular, note that for any value of the matter density parameter, models with $\alpha
\lesssim 0.63$ are ruled out at 99.73% level. The best-fit model for this analysis occurs for $\Omega_{\rm{m}} = 0.0$ and $\alpha =
0.79$ with $\chi^{2}_{\rm{min}}/\nu = 1.13$ ($\nu \equiv$ degrees of freedom). At 95.4% c.l. we also find $\Omega_{\rm M}
\leq 0.36$ and $0.71 \leq \alpha \leq 1.0$. Panel (1c) shows a similar analysis for the SNLS data. The best-fit parameters in this case are $\Omega_{\rm{M}} \simeq 0.2$ and $\alpha = 0.96$ with $\chi^{2}_{\rm{min}}/\nu = 1.0$. Note that, when compared with recent dynamical estimates of $\Omega_{\rm M}$, this latter value for the matter density parameter seems to be more realistic than the one provided by the *gold* sample analysis. The SNLS sample also imply $\Omega_{\rm M} \leq 0.34$ and $0.75
\leq \alpha \leq 1.0$ at 95.4% (c.l.).
SNe Ia + LSS analysis
---------------------
The recent detection of a peak in the large scale correlation function at 100$h^{-1}$ Mpc separation [@bao] provide not only a remarkable confirmation of the big bang cosmology but also a kind of “ruler" with which cosmological scenarios can be tested. The peak detected (from a sample of 46748 luminous red galaxies selected from the SDSS Main Sample) is predicted to arise precisely at the measured scale and is basically due to baryon acoustic oscillations (BAO) in the primordial baryon-photon plasma prior to recombination. Here, this measurement is characterized by $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal{A}} \equiv {\Omega_{\rm{M}}^{1/2} \over
{{\cal{H}}(z_{\rm{*}})}^{1/3}}\left[\frac{1}{z_{\rm{*}}}
\Gamma(z_*)\right]^{2/3} = 0.469 \pm 0.017, %\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $z_{\rm{*}} = 0.35$ is the redshift at which the acoustic scale has been measured, and $\Gamma(z_*)$ is the dimensionless comoving distance to $z_*$.
The dotted lines in Figs. (1b) and (1c) represent the constraints from SDSS BAO measurements on the parameter space $\Omega_{\rm{M}}
- \alpha$. Note that they are approximately orthogonal to those arising from SNe Ia data, which indicates that possible degeneracies in the $\Omega_{\rm{M}} - \alpha$ plane may be broken from a joint analysis involving these observational data sets. This is exactly what we show in Panels (2a) and (2b) for the BAO+*gold* and BAO+SNLS samples, respectively. Note that the available parametric plane in both cases is considerably reduced relative to the former analyses (Figs. 1b and 1c). Note also that, although compatible with the data, the region $\alpha
> 1$ (forbidden from thermodynamic stability and causality considerations) should be disregarded from the analysis since these arguments lead to the physical bound $0 \leq \alpha \leq 1$. For the BAO+*gold* sample we find $\Omega_{\rm{M}}=
0.28^{+0.043}_{-0.048}$ and $\alpha \geq 0.916$ (with the best fit $\alpha=0.98$) at 95.4% (c.l.) while for the BAO+SNLS sample the best-fit model happens at $\Omega_{\rm{M}} = 0.27$ and $\alpha =
1.0$. This latter best-fit scenario corresponds to an accelerating universe with $q_0 \simeq -0.5$, a total age of the Universe of $t_o \simeq 10.2h^{-1}$ Gyr, and a D/A redshift transition (from deceleration to acceleration) $z_{\rm{D/A}} \simeq 0.75$. At 95.4% c.l., the BAO+SNLS analysis also provides $0.94 \leq \alpha
\leq 1.0$ and $\Omega_{\rm M}=0.27^{+0.048}_{-0.045}$.
Discussion and Conclusions
==========================
As widely known, there are many theoretical approaches for describing the exotic dark energy component accelerating the Universe. However, until the present, the available battery of cosmological tests was not capable to decide which is the best theoretical representation. We have argued here that one of such candidates, the so-called Chaplygin type gas (whose equation of state depends on two parameters $A_s$ and $\alpha$), may have a very simplified description. We postulate that $A_s$ is a function of $\alpha$ and for simplicity we have taken $A_s = \alpha$. Thus, similarly to the concordance model ($\Lambda$CDM), the resulting flat cosmology is completely described only by a pair of parameters ($\alpha$, $\Omega_{\rm M}$). This SC-gas cosmology mimics the dynamics of the X-matter models with an extra bonus, namely: the fluid stability and other thermodynamic features are guaranteed from the very beginning.
By considering this particular parameterization we have investigated constraints on the $\alpha$ parameter from the most recent SNe Ia (*gold* and SNLS samples) and LSS data. We have found that the limits arising from this particular combination of the data are much more restrictive on this simplified approach than on the generalized C-gas version. In particular, for the the BAO+SNLS combination we found $0.94 \leq \alpha
\leq 1.0$ and $\Omega_{\rm M}=0.27^{+0.048}_{-0.045}$ (at 95% c.l.), which is in agreement with recent estimates of the clustered matter. Naturally, it should be interesting to investigate whether current CMB data and other independent observations can or cannot discard the simplified scenario proposed here.
This work is partially supported by the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq - Brazil). JASL and JVC thanks FAPESP (Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo - Brazil). JSA is also supported by Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (FAPERJ) No. E-26/171.251/2004.
[30]{}
T. Padmanabhan, Phys. Rep. [**380**]{}, 235 (2003); V. Sahni and A. A. Starobinsky, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D9, 373 (2000); P. J. E. Peebles and B. Ratra, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**75**]{}, 559 (2003); J. A. S. Lima, [Braz. J. Phys.]{} [**34**]{}, 194 (2004); E. J. Copeland et al, hep-th/0603057.
A. Kamenshchik, U. Moschella and V. Pasquier, Phys. Lett. B [**[511]{}**]{}, 265 (2001). N. Bilić, G. B. Tupper and R. D. Viollier, Phys. Lett. B [**[535]{}**]{}, 17 (2002). M. C. Bento, O Bertolami and A. A. Sen, Phys. Rev. [**[D66]{}**]{}, 043507 (2002). M. Bordemann and J. Hoppe, Phys. Lett. B[**317**]{}, 315 (1993); See also, J. Hoppe, [hep-th/9311059]{}. R. Jackiw, [physics/0010042]{}. H. Zhang and Z.-H. Zhu, Phys. Rev. [**[D73]{}**]{}, 043518 (2006). See for instance, H. B. Benaoum, [hep-th/0205140]{}, and articles quoted there. T. Matos and L. A. Ureña-Lopez, Class. Quantum Grav. [**[17]{}**]{}, L75 (2000); Phys. Rev. D [**[63]{}**]{}, 063506 (2001); A. Davidson, D. Karasik and Y. Lederer, gr-qc/0111107; C. Watterich, Phys. Rev. D [**[65]{}**]{}, 123512 (2002); S. Kasuya, Phys. Lett. B [**[515]{}**]{}, 121 (2001); T. Padmanabhan and T. R. Choudhury, Phys. Rev. D [**66**]{}, 081301 (2002); M. Novello, M. Makler , L.S. Werneck and C.A. Romero, Phys. Rev. [**[D71]{}**]{}, 043515 (2005). M. Makler, S. Q. de Oliveira and I. Waga, Phys. Lett. B [**68**]{}, 123521 (2003); R. Colistete Jr., J. C. Fabris, S. V. B. Gonçalves, P. E. de Souza, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D[**13**]{}, 669 (2004); O. Bertolami, A. A. Sen, S. Sen and P. T. Silva, Mon. Not. Roy. Astro. Soc. [**[353]{}**]{}, 329 (2004). J. S. alcaniz and J. A. S. Lima, Astrophys. J. [**[618]{}**]{}, 16 (2005). astro-ph/0308465 P. P. Avelino, L. M. G. Beça, J. P. M. de Carvalho, C. J. A. P. Martins and P. Pinto, Phys. Rev. D [**[67]{}**]{}, 023511 (2003); L. M. G. Beça, P. P. Avelino, J. P. M. de Carvalho and C. J. A. P. Martins, Phys. Rev. D [**[67]{}**]{}, 101301(R) (2003); R. R. R. Reis, M. Makler and I. Waga, Phys. Rev. [**[D69]{}**]{},101301 (2004). A. Dev, J. S. Alcaniz and D. Jain, Phys. Rev D [**[67]{}**]{}, 023515 (2003). astro-ph/0209379; P. T. Silva and O. Bertolami, Astrophys. J. [**[599]{}**]{}, 829 (2003); A. Dev , D. Jain and J. S. Alcaniz, Astron. Astrophys. [**[417]{}**]{}, 847 (2004). e-Print Archive: astro-ph/0311056 J. S. Alcaniz, D. Jain and A. Dev, Phys. Rev. D [**[67]{}**]{}, 043514 (2003). astro-ph/0210476 M. C. Bento, O. Bertolami and A. A. Sen, Phys. Rev D [**[67]{}**]{}, 063003 (2003) M. C. Bento, O. Bertolami and A. A. Sen, Phys. Lett. B [**575**]{}, 172 (2003); Gen. Rel. Grav. [**35**]{}, 2063 (2003). D. Carturan and F. Finelli, Phys. Rev. D [**68**]{}, 103501 (2003). L. Amendola, F. Finelli, C. Burigana and D. Carturan, JCAP [**0307**]{}, 005 (2003). J. V. Cunha, J. S. Alcaniz and J. A. S. Lima, Phys. Rev. [**D69**]{}, 083501 (2004). astro-ph/0306319; Z.-H. Zhu, Astron. Astrophys. [**[423]{}**]{}, 421 (2004). O. Bertolami and P.T. Silva, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. [**[365]{}**]{}, 1149 (2006). J. V. Cunha, J. S. Alcaniz and J. A. S. Lima, Submitted for Publication. (2006). G. Steigman, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E [**[15]{}**]{}, 1 (2006); J. P. Kneller and G. Steigman, Phys. Rev. [**[D67]{}**]{}, 063501 (2003). D. N. Spergel et al., Suppl. [**[148]{}**]{}, 175 (2003); D. N. Spergel et al., 2006. `astro-ph/0603449`. X. Zhang, F.-Q. Wu and J. Zhang, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. [**[0601]{}**]{}, 003 (2006). L. P. Chimento and R. Lazkoz, Phys. Lett. B, [**[615]{}**]{}, 146 (2005). M. K. Mak and T. Harko, Phys. Rev. [**[D71]{}**]{}, 104022 (2005). Z.-K. Guo and Y.-Z. Zhang, astro-ph/0506091 W. Wang [*[et al.]{}*]{}, Mod. Phys. Lett. [**[A20]{}**]{}, 1443 (2005). A. A. Sen and R. J. Scherrer, Phys. Rev. [**[D72]{}**]{}, 063511 (2005). A. G. Riess [*et al.*]{}, Astrophys. J. [**[607]{}**]{}, 665 (2004); P. Astier [*et al.*]{}, Astron. Astrophys. [**447**]{}, 31 (2006) H. K. Jassal, J. S. Bagla, and T. Padmanabhan, astro-ph/0601389. D. J. Eisenstein et al., Astrophys. J. [**[633]{}**]{}, 560 (2005).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This article aims at establishing new benchmark scenarios for Galactic cosmic-ray propagation in the GV-TV rigidity range, based on fits to the AMS-02 B/C data with the propagation code. We employ a new fitting procedure, cautiously taking into account data systematic error correlations in different rigidity bins and considering Solar modulation potential and leading nuclear cross section as nuisance parameters. We delineate specific low, intermediate, and high-rigidity ranges that can be related to both features in the data and peculiar microphysics mechanisms resulting in spectral breaks. We single out a scenario which yields excellent fits to the data and includes all the presumably relevant complexity, the model. This model has two limiting regimes: (i) the model, a minimal diffusion-only setup, and (ii) the model, a convection-reacceleration model where transport is tuned by non-relativistic effects. All models lead to robust predictions in the high-energy regime ($\gtrsim10$ GV), i.e. independent of the propagation scenario: at $1\sigma$, the diffusion slope $\delta$ is $[0.43-0.53]$, whereas $K_{10}$, the diffusion coefficient at 10 GV, is $[0.26-0.36]$ kpc$^2$ Myr$^{-1}$; we confirm the robustness of the high-energy break, with a typical value $\Delta_h\sim 0.2$. We also find a hint for a similar (reversed) feature at low rigidity around the B/C peak ($\sim 4$ GV) which might be related to some effective damping scale in the magnetic turbulence.'
author:
- 'Y. Génolini'
- 'M. Boudaud'
- 'P.-I. Batista'
- 'S. Caroff'
- 'L. Derome'
- 'J. Lavalle'
- 'A. Marcowith'
- 'D. Maurin'
- 'V. Poireau'
- 'V. Poulin'
- 'S. Rosier'
- 'P. Salati'
- 'P. D. Serpico'
- 'M. Vecchi'
bibliography:
- 'BCprd.bib'
title: 'Cosmic-ray transport from AMS-02 B/C data: benchmark models and interpretation'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
The last decade in direct cosmic-ray (CR) detection experiments has been characterized by a major improvement in the precision of the data available, and by an extension of the covered dynamical range [@AhnEtAl2009; @PanovEtAl2009; @AdrianiEtAl2014a; @Ting2013; @AdrianiEtAl2017; @AmbrosiEtAl2017]. In particular, with the AMS-02 data the community has to deal for the first time with percent level precision and a welcomed redundancy in the measurements.
But, as well known, [*great responsibility inseparably follows from great power*]{} [^1]: since theoretical predictions are very far from attaining that level of precision, both due to ignorance of the detailed underlying microphysics (CR acceleration and transport) and because of irreducible limitations (e.g. due to the intrinsic stochasticity of the sources [@Mertsch2011; @GenoliniEtAl2017a]), a preliminary question that should be addressed is that of the best strategy to take advantage of such a wealth of data. In this paper, we primarily focus on the AMS-02 B/C data [@AguilarEtAl2016a] and investigate how much they can constrain CR transport, aiming at defining new benchmark models.
An ambitious approach would be to proceed with global fits of all available data, attempting an overall and simultaneous understanding of CR sources (all species) and propagation. However, this approach is prone to mixing uncertainties of different nature, with the risk of devaluing the actual strength of the data by introducing poorly controlled parameters (for an illustration, see [@CosteEtAl2012]). Since our current understanding of CR measurements has more firm elements in the propagation part than in the source one, factorizing out propagation effects from source effects, while inspecting their physical plausibility a posteriori, seems justified. In this article, we proceed through partial tests of key aspects of the current propagation paradigm, with the goal of validating it or highlighting its breakdown. An important and relatively new issue in this area is that systematic errors are often dominant over statistical ones. This requires a change of perspective in well-established practices of analyzing the data, as well as new standards of rigor. It calls for establishing a satisfactory protocol for analyzing the data on a relatively simple and homogeneous data sample.
This article represents an important pillar in our CR data analysis based on the overall philosophy sketched above. As long established [@Owens1976a; @GinzburgEtAl1980; @ProtheroeEtAl1981; @StrongEtAl1998; @MaurinEtAl2001], a flux ratio of elements present but in traces in the solar system material and interstellar medium (ISM), such as Lithium, Beryllium, Boron (“secondaries”), to abundant species like Carbon or Oxygen (“primaries”) is extremely sensitive to propagation parameters. It was shown to be also almost insensitive to the energy spectrum of the injected primary species, notably if those are described by a common power-law in rigidity [@MaurinEtAl2002a; @PutzeEtAl2011; @GenoliniEtAl2015], a rather generic prediction of studies of CR acceleration at sources [@MalkovEtAl2001; @CaprioliEtAl2014; @Amato2014a; @MarcowithEtAl2016]. In particular, at high rigidities we expect the B/C ratio (currently the most precisely measured) to be dominantly affected by diffusive propagation and nuclear cross sections.
In [@GenoliniEtAl2017], we performed an analysis of the high-rigidity range of the AMS-02 B/C ratio [@AguilarEtAl2016a], finding evidence for a diffusive origin of the observed spectral break, at the same rigidity scale inferred from a similar feature in the proton and helium CR fluxes [@AguilarEtAl2015], i.e. $\sim 300$ GV. Actually, recent years have been characterized by the observational establishment of “spectral anomalies” (for reviews, see [@Serpico2015; @Serpico2018]), in particular of spectral breaks in primary species [@PanovEtAl2009; @AhnEtAl2010; @AdrianiEtAl2011a; @AguilarEtAl2015; @AguilarEtAl2015a; @AguilarEtAl2017]. In turn, there has been growing evidence in favor of their interpretation in terms of a high-rigidity break in the diffusion coefficient [@GenoliniEtAl2017; @ReinertEtAl2018; @XueEtAl2019], notably after the first AMS-02 publications of nuclear CR fluxes [@AguilarEtAl2017; @AguilarEtAl2018]. In this article, we move several steps beyond our previous analysis [@GenoliniEtAl2017], presenting a [*complete*]{} analysis aiming at constraining CR propagation and at proposing new benchmark setups: First, we rely on an improved analysis of the B/C data by the AMS-02 collaboration [@AguilarEtAl2018]. We further benefit from additional data on the primary species to constrain the break independently from the B/C ratio—using the C and O fluxes [@AguilarEtAl2017] which are most contributing species to B production [@GenoliniEtAl2018], but were not available to Ref. [@GenoliniEtAl2017]. Second, we follow the new methodology proposed in [@DeromeEtAl2019] to analyze the AMS-02 data, carefully accounting for a number of subtle (but highly important) effects which are usually ignored, notably the (partial) correlations in systematic errors. This approach enables a straightforward and sound statistical interpretation of the models (best-fit models have $\chi^2/{\rm dof}\sim 1$), also allowing for their inter-comparison. Third, we propose a new generic propagation model (dubbed in the following), with a number of parameters that should be sufficient to describe all key features currently present in the data. In addition to a high-rigidity break, a modification of the diffusion coefficient at low rigidity is enabled ($\lesssim 5$ GV), with two limiting cases (dubbed and ): this allows us to assess the relative discriminating strength of the data in this energy range and to shed new light on propagation in the low-rigidity regime, where a second diffusion break might be present.
The paper is organized as follows: In , the one-dimensional (1D) propagation model and the essential physical effects involved in CR propagation are presented, before introducing our three benchmark scenarios (, , and ). In , we describe the specific iterative procedure used for the B/C analysis, and this procedure is validated and checked in two appendices: assesses the robustness of the derivation of the high-energy break, by taking advantage or not of the C and O fluxes; further discusses the dependence of the fit parameters upon the lower rigidity cut, to better illustrate and give meaning to the terms “low-rigidity” and “high-rigidity”parameters. Best-fit results for our three scenarios are presented in , where these scenarios are also tentatively interpreted in terms of the underlying microphysics. In , we report our conclusions and mention natural follow-up works. Note that all results are obtained for a 1D model of our Galaxy, with the size of the diffusive halo fixed. In order to allow for a broader usage of our results, as they may have some consequence in predicting the fluxes of other secondary species, provides a scaling of the high-rigidity parameters with $L$, whereas reminds the reader of the effectiveness of this description, and provides a “dictionary” to interpret the results in terms of a two-dimensional (2D) model with different halo sizes.
Transport models {#sec:def_bench}
================
In this section, we introduce the generic propagation equation that we further solve semi-analytically in the framework of the code [@Maurin2018] – for fully numerical frameworks complementary to ours, we refer the reader to Refs. [@StrongEtAl1998; @EvoliEtAl2008; @EvoliEtAl2017; @Kissmann2014; @KissmannEtAl2015]. We also set a generic CR transport configuration motivated by theoretical arguments on the microphysics of CRs, with a focus on possibly important low-energy processes. This generic setup will itself be used as a benchmark configuration, of which we shall explore two limiting regimes. These three cases characterize new benchmark models (dubbed , , and —see ) that are aimed at capturing different theoretical assumptions, while still being data driven. These configurations will be shown to provide excellent fits to the current B/C data assuming simple power-law primary CR spectra. Not only may this stimulate further microphysical interpretations, but it also offers a basis for a description of other CR data, like for instance the positron [@DelahayeEtAl2009; @DelahayeEtAl2010; @BoudaudEtAl2017a] and antiproton fluxes [@DonatoEtAl2001; @GiesenEtAl2015; @ReinertEtAl2018; @BoudaudEtAl2019]. Eventually, these benchmarks will be instrumental in characterizing and hopefully reducing theoretical uncertainties entering searches for exotic phenomena ( [@DelahayeEtAl2008; @BoudaudEtAl2015a; @BoudaudEtAl2015; @BoudaudEtAl2017; @BoudaudEtAl2018; @BoudaudEtAl2018b; @ReinertEtAl2018]).
The [*min*]{}, [*med*]{}, and [*max*]{} benchmark values proposed in Ref. [@DonatoEtAl2004], all based on the same model, were defined to roughly bracket the theoretical uncertainties on dark matter-induced antiproton flux predictions assuming the best-fitting propagation parameters of Ref. [@MaurinEtAl2001]. However, these values have been challenged by a series of complementary constraints [@LavalleEtAl2014; @BoudaudEtAl2017a; @ReinertEtAl2018], and are anyway no longer consistent with the B/C data [@GenoliniEtAl2017]. The revised reference models we propose here rely on different assumptions on the microphysics of CR transport instead of different values of parameters within the same configuration. This change in philosophy stems from the fact that with increasing precision in the (multiwavelength and multimessenger) observational data and improvements on the theory side, we expect to arrive soon to a much better understanding and description of the CR microphysics itself than it was possible two decades ago [@MarcowithEtAl2016; @AmatoEtAl2018].
Transport description {#ssec:transport}
---------------------
### Transport equation {#sssec:prop_eq}
The general formalism that provides a powerful description of the transport of CRs in the Milky Way derives from the seminal textbook by Ginzburg and Syrovatskii [@GinzburgEtAl1964] (see also [@BerezinskiiEtAl1990; @Schlickeiser2002]), and relies on the following diffusion-advection equation for a CR species of index $\alpha$, here in the steady-state approximation and in energy space (rather than rigidity or momentum space):
\[eq:prop\] & - \_[**x**]{} { K(E)\_[**x**]{}\_- \_[c]{} \_} + { b\_[tot]{}(E)\_- \^2 K\_[pp]{} } + \_v\_ n\_[ism]{} \_+ \_\_\
& = q\_+\_ { \_v\_n\_[ism]{}+\_ }\_.
This equation describes the spatial and energy evolution of the differential interstellar CR density per unit energy $\psi_\alpha\equiv dn_\alpha/dE$, assuming a net primary injection rate of $q_\alpha$, and a secondary injection rate arising from inelastic processes converting heavier species of index $\beta$ into $\alpha$ species (with a production rate $
\sigma_{\beta\to \alpha}v_\beta n_{\rm ism}$ on the ISM density $n_{\rm ism}$, or a decay rate $\Gamma_{\beta\to\alpha}$). This source term is balanced by several other terms, among which the decay rate $\Gamma_{\alpha}$ (if relevant). The central piece of the propagation equation is the spatial diffusion coefficient $K$, that we discuss in more detail in . The other processes are mostly relevant at low rigidity, but may still affect the determination of higher-energy parameters: convection is featured by a velocity $\vec{V}_{\rm c}$, diffusive reacceleration is parameterized by the energy-dependent coefficient $K_{pp}$, and the inelastic destruction rate is given by $\sigma_{\alpha}v_\alpha n_{\rm ism}\, \psi_\alpha$, with the $\sigma$’s being energy-dependent nuclear cross sections; energy losses are characterized by the rate $b_{\rm tot}\equiv dE/dt$, which includes ionization and Coulomb processes as prescribed in [@MannheimEtAl1994; @StrongEtAl1998], as well as adiabatic losses induced by convection and reacceleration, see [@MaurinEtAl2002a; @PutzeEtAl2010].
Finally, we can switch from the interstellar (IS) CR flux predictions to the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) ones by means of the force-field approximation [@GleesonEtAl1968a; @Fisk1971], for which we only indicate the Fisk potential $\phi_{\rm F}$. The latter is constrained from Ref. [@GhelfiEtAl2016] for the AMS-02 data taking period.
### Geometry and cross sections {#sssec:geom}
We assume a 1D propagation model, as introduced in [@BulanovEtAl1974; @Ptuskin1974; @Jones1979; @PtuskinEtAl1990; @JonesEtAl2001; @MaurinEtAl2001], where the magnetic halo confining the CRs is an infinite slab in the radial direction and of half-height $L$. Indeed, the radial boundary has only a minor quantitative impact on other transport parameters when the diffusion coefficient is taken as a scalar function (see [@MaurinEtAl2002a; @PutzeEtAl2010]), and neglecting the radial dependence allows us to more efficiently probe the entire available parameter space without significant loss of generality. Therefore, we consider the vertical coordinate $z$ to be the only relevant spatial coordinate. See however for some considerations on the correspondence between 1D and 2D models.
The sources of CRs and the ISM gas which they scatter off are taken homogeneous in an infinitely thin disk at $z=0$, with an effective half-height $h=100$ pc. Energy losses are also considered to be localized in the disk, $b_{\rm tot}\propto 2\,h\,\delta(z)$. The ISM density is set to $n_{\rm ism}=2\,h\delta(z)\,n_0$, where $n_0=1$ cm$^{-3}$, corresponding to a surface density of $\Sigma_{\rm ism}= 2\,h\,n_0\simeq 6\times 10^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$ consistent with observations [@Ferriere2001]. We assign 0.9 and 0.1 of this budget to hydrogen and helium (in number), respectively. We do not indulge here in a more detailed discussion of the determination of these parameters and of their error from independent observations, since they are largely degenerate with the normalization of the diffusion coefficient (see, [*e.g.*]{}, [@MaurinEtAl2010]).
For the nuclear production and spallation cross sections, we use as reference the sets of tables from the [](https://galprop.stanford.edu/) package, while allowing for normalization, energy shift and low-energy slope changes according to the NSS method described in [@DeromeEtAl2019].
### Diffusion in real space and momentum space, and convection {#sssec:kdiff}
An important physical ingredient to all propagation models is the diffusion coefficient, which describes the scattering of CRs off magnetic turbulence. We assume that it can be taken as a scalar function, homogeneous and isotropic all over the magnetic slab. This is likely a good approximation in the context of B/C analyses because the CR flux is locally isotropic and the magnetic field configuration of the Milky Way exhibits relative fluctuations $\delta B/B\sim 1$ over all relevant spatial scales $\lambda$ (or wavenumbers $k=2\pi/\lambda$) [@CasseEtAl2002; @SunEtAl2008a; @JanssonEtAl2012a]. Since at the energies of interest, the CR flux is expected to be contributed to by many sources mostly located many “magnetic domains” away, an isotropic diffusion should provide at least a reasonable effective description of the data [@BerezinskiiEtAl1990]. For discussions on anisotropic models, see Refs. [@DeMarcoEtAl2007; @EvoliEtAl2012a].
On the theory side, it is expected that the magnetic turbulence responsible for CR diffusion has different scaling behaviors in $k$-space, as a consequence of various possible phenomena. For instance, the turbulence power spectrum can be dominated by different sources depending on the dynamical range, with the resulting “two-zone” models known to provide good fits to the data [@Tomassetti2012; @GuoEtAl2018] (see also [@SeoEtAl1994; @JonesEtAl2001]). A very appealing scenario is proposed in Refs. [@BlasiEtAl2012a; @AloisioEtAl2013; @AloisioEtAl2015; @EvoliEtAl2018], relying on streaming instability [@Wentzel1969; @Holmes1975; @Skilling1975], where at rigidities beyond a few hundreds of GV, CRs diffuse on the turbulence injected on large scales by supernova bubbles. This turbulence cascades down until crossing the rigidity scale where the turbulence induced by CRs themselves takes over. This naturally generates a break like the one observed in the CR spectra and discussed just above. On the other hand, it is known that the CR spectra observed at low rigidity by the Voyager I spacecraft [@CummingsEtAl2016; @WebberEtAl2017] have a spectral slope rather different from the slope at intermediate rigidities. Due to the CR-wave coupling, any phenomenon with a low-rigidity characteristic scale, affecting either propagation or injection, may thus be at the origin of correlated changes in the CR spectra and the diffusion coefficient. For propagation, such a scale might arise due to the decrease of the CR pressure as CRs get closer and closer to the nonrelativisitic regime, and/or be related to some dissipation of the turbulence power spectrum [@YanEtAl2004; @PtuskinEtAl2005; @PtuskinEtAl2006a; @ShalchiEtAl2010; @EvoliEtAl2014; @XuEtAl2016]. In the following, while remaining agnostic on these specifics, and in contrast to previous B/C studies performed in the context of semi-analytical models ( [@MaurinEtAl2001; @MaurinEtAl2002a; @PutzeEtAl2010; @PutzeEtAl2011]), we want to capture the possibility that the diffusion coefficient departs from a single power law. This is justified by both theoretical arguments and observational evidence, as recalled above.
Starting from general considerations arising in the quasi-linear theory ( [@Jokipii1966; @BerezinskiiEtAl1990; @Schlickeiser2002; @Shalchi2009]), the diffusion coefficient is expected to be linked to the magnetic turbulence spectrum $|\delta B/B|$ through \[eq:k\_linear\_th\] K(E) = , where $v$ is the CR speed, $l_{\rm mfp}$ is the mean free path length, $r_{\rm L}\propto R/B$ is the Larmor radius defined from the rigidity $R=p/Z$, and $k_{\rm L}\propto 1/r_{\rm L}$ is the turbulence mode in resonance with the CR Larmor radius. Consequently, we propose a general form for the diffusion coefficient that can account for breaks in both the high-rigidity range and the low-rigidity range (hidden in the factor $r_{\rm L}/|\delta B/B|_{k_{\rm L}}^2$ above), which reads
\[eq:def\_K\] K(R) = \_ K\_[10]{} \_ \_ \_.
In the above equation, $\beta=v/c$ is the dimensionless CR speed, and $R_{\rm l/h}$ is the location of the low/high-rigidity break, while $R_{\rm 10}$ is an intermediate rigidity (here taken at 10 GV on purpose) such that $R_{\rm l}<R_{10}<R_{\rm h}$ ($R_{\rm l}\ll R_{\rm h}$). We then get the scaling $K(R)\propto \beta^\eta R^{\delta_{\rm l}}$ in the limit $R\ll R_{\rm l}$, and the scaling $K(R)\propto R^{\delta_{\rm h}}$ in the limit $R\gg R_{\rm h}$. Therefore, $\delta_{\rm l}$, $\delta$, and $\delta_{\rm h}$ simply describe the diffusion spectral indices in the low-, intermediate-, and high-rigidity regime, respectively. The parameter $s_{\rm l}$ ($s_{\rm h}$) characterizes how fast the spectral change proceeds around $R_{\rm l}$ ($R_{\rm h}$), and is inspired by the need to describe the very smooth hardening of the B/C data showing up at high rigidity. Indeed, we recall that the previous high-rigidity analysis performed in Ref. [@GenoliniEtAl2017] provided support to a softening of the diffusion coefficient to explain this feature, such that we can already anticipate that $\delta_{\rm h}<\delta$. The normalization of the diffusion coefficient $K_{10}$ (which carries the physical units) is another free parameter. Mind the difference with the convention used in most past analyses, where the normalization was instead $K_0$ and was defined at a rigidity $R_0=1\,{\rm GV}$. Note also that $K_{10}\simeq K(10\,{\rm GV})$, not a strict equality, because of the influence of the other terms.
We further introduce the spectral-change parameters \[eq:Delta\] \_[l]{} &=& - \_[l]{} ,\
\_[h]{} &=& - \_[h]{}, As already mentioned above, $\Delta_{\rm h}$ is expected to be positive. A positive $\Delta_{\rm l}$ is also expected from damping arguments and from the flattening of the primary CR spectra observed by Voyager I, as CRs may diffuse mostly on self-generated turbulence—see the discussion above. Notice that in the low-rigidity regime, additional non-relativistic processes might further be considered in an effective way by raising the velocity $\beta$ to the power $\eta$, an effective index which—it has been argued—might take negative values in some regimes [@PtuskinEtAl2005; @PtuskinEtAl2006a].
A comment on $\eta$ is in order: since the rigidity range of CR data analyzed in this article is always relativistic, sizable departures from $\eta=1$ (the natural value from quasi-linear theory, see ) and/or large values of $V_{\rm A}$ (which allows for energy redistribution) may be needed to affect appreciably CRs whose $v\simeq c$. In a certain sense, $\eta$ is thus not a very valuable [*effective*]{} parameter for the problem at hand. Nonetheless, we keep the $\eta$ parameter in the discussion for historical reasons, since in combination with strong reacceleration it used to be an important ingredient in past studies of B/C data, notably at low energies [@SeoEtAl1994; @StrongEtAl1998; @JonesEtAl2001; @MaurinEtAl2001; @DonatoEtAl2004]. Sufficiently large negative values of $\eta<-\delta_{\rm l}$ (or, similarly, of $\delta_{\rm l}<-1$ if $\eta=1$) can also imply superluminal diffusion [@DunkelEtAl2007; @AloisioEtAl2009] in the non-relativistic regime. In this sense, we caution the reader never to extrapolate a-critically the functional forms obtained here too far from the rigidity range over which the fits have been obtained.
Let us now be more specific about reacceleration. It turns out that spatial diffusion can rather generically be linked to diffusion in momentum space (aka reacceleration) in most (but not all) cases [@BerezinskiiEtAl1990]. We include diffusion in momentum space through an additional diffusion coefficient $K_{pp}$—see . We follow the reacceleration model proposed in Refs. [@OsborneEtAl1988; @SeoEtAl1994; @JonesEtAl2001], which is implemented in such that $K_{pp}(R,\vec{x})=2\,h\,\delta(z)\,K_{pp}(R)$, and \[eq:Kpp\] K(R)K\_[pp]{}(R) = V\_[A]{}\^2 , where $V_{\rm A}$ is an effective Alfvénic speed characterizing the magnetic turbulence—$\delta$ is the diffusion spectral index in the intermediate inertial regime. Since it appears explicitly only as a normalization factor, we stick to this formula even when spatial diffusion exhibits several spectral regimes. The fact that reacceleration is [*effectively*]{} localized in the disk allows us to partly solve analytically, which significantly speeds up the numerical exploration of the parameter space [@Maurin2018]. While this “pinching” is a fair approximation for ionization and Coulomb processes, it is only a convenient approximation for adiabatic losses induced by convection and reacceleration. Hence, care should be taken when comparing inferred values of the parameters $V_{\rm c} \equiv | \vec{V}_{\rm c}|$ and $V_{\rm A}$ with theoretical expectations. Loosely speaking, one can expect to recover the phenomenology of a more extended reacceleration zone by a rescaling of $V_{\rm A}^2$ by a factor $h/z_{\rm A}$ [@MaurinEtAl2002], where $z_{\rm A}$ is the half-height over which reacceleration would spread in the magnetic slab [@JonesEtAl2001]. So, for $h/z_{\rm A}\simeq {\cal O}(h/L)$, our fitted value of $V_{\rm A}$ should be scaled by a factor $\sqrt{L/h}$ before any comparison against theoretical or observational constraints [@ThornburyEtAl2014; @DruryEtAl2017].
Finally, convection also arises quite naturally in the framework discussed above. We include convection in the standard way by means of the convection velocity \[eq:vc\] \_[c]{}(z) = V\_[c]{}\_z, where $z$ is the vertical coordinate and $\vec{e}_z$ the unit vector along the vertical axis crossing the magnetic slab of extension $[-L,L]$ along that axis.
Benchmark models {#ssec:benchmarks}
----------------
In the most general case, the free parameters featuring the propagation modeling that we have introduced above are the following: $L$ for the magnetic halo size; $K_{10}$, $\delta$, $\eta$, $R_{\rm l}$, $\delta_{\rm l}$ (equivalently $\Delta_{\rm l}$), $s_{\rm l}$, $R_{\rm h}$, $\Delta_{\rm h}$ (equivalently $\delta_{\rm h}$), and $s_{\rm h}$ for the diffusion coefficient; $V_{\rm A}$ for reacceleration; $V_{\rm c}$ for convection. This is a 12-parameter space, hence a huge configuration volume to explore.
Based on previous studies, we can further fix $L$ which is highly correlated with $K_{10}$, see discussion in . Unless specified otherwise, we will set $L$ to 10 kpc in the following. Moreover, as anticipated in , the determination of (an interval for) the three parameters describing the high-rigidity break benefits from fits including primary species, see . Finally, without loss of generality, we fix the smoothing low-rigidity break parameter $s_{\rm l}=0.05$, which amounts to consider a fast transition. This is however not critical to the fit. Hence, we are left with 7 free parameters.
From these 7 parameters, we design three different benchmark propagation models which may be related to quite different limiting regimes of the underlying microphysics. The first, most generic, model includes the whole setup introduced above: let us name it the model. The second one is much simpler as it is free of convection and reacceleration, hence with much less free parameters, while providing fits to the data comparable to the previous one (see ); let us call it the model. The third and last one includes both reacceleration and convection, but relates the possible change in the propagation at low rigidities to a change originating specifically in the non-relativistic regime ($\eta$), instead of a more generic low-rigidity break in the diffusion coefficient. This scenario provides a slightly worse fit to the data compared to the previous ones, at the expense of a large reacceleration $V_{\rm A}$. However, it allows us to connect the current analysis to the strong reacceleration models that were popular in the past; let us dub it the model. Both the and models are actually particular cases of the model, but put the emphasis on different physical processes at low rigidity. In the following, we provide the details of these three configurations.
### : the paradigmatic model {#sssec:big}
The model includes a double-break diffusion coefficient, as well as convection and reacceleration. Its minimal version fixes the non-relativistic parameter $\eta=1$, while a non-minimal configuration may allow $\eta$ to vary. The latter case will actually help justify the former one independently from theoretical arguments. Therefore, the model stands for the most general configuration describing the propagation equation, , and which allows us to probe the low-rigidity processes with the largest flexibility and complexity. This model has a total of 6 (7) parameters in the minimal (non-minimal) configuration, which are recalled in .
### : the minimal (double-break diffusion) model {#sssec:slim}
The model is a subpart of , which discards convection and reacceleration as major players at low rigidity ($V_{\rm A}=V_{\rm c}=0$ km/s), but instead insists on relating low-rigidity features to changes in the magnetic turbulence properties. It also assumes a standard scaling in the non-relativistic regime, with $\eta=1$. This model, though very minimal, will be shown to provide an excellent fit to the data. It has 4 free parameters which are summarized in . Note that an important advantage of this model is that it comes with a fully analytical solution to the transport equation. This is particularly attractive in the context of dark matter predictions [@MaurinEtAl2002; @LavalleEtAl2012].
### : the ‘old-fashion’ strong reacceleration model {#sssec:quaint}
Our last benchmark model is the model, which is also a subpart of the model, and which aims at describing the low-rigidity features mostly in terms of reacceleration and convection. This model is actually the direct descendant of the [*min*]{}-[*med*]{}-[*max*]{} models [@MaurinEtAl2001; @DonatoEtAl2004] as it relies on almost the same configuration space, except for the high-rigidity break in the diffusion coefficient (which was not observed at the time of its ancestors and will anyway be treated as a nuisance parameter in the statistical analysis). Large $V_{\rm A}$, in combination with a non-trivial value of $\eta\lesssim 0$ is needed to provide decent fits to the data. A large $V_{\rm A}$ in turn couples low-rigidity and high-rigidity features, maximizing parameter correlations. The model has 5 free parameters, made explicit in . In practice, the diffusion coefficient associated with the model is that of without the low-rigidity term.
Free parameters / Models [**BIG**]{} [**SLIM**]{} [**QUAINT**]{}
-------------------------- ------------- -------------- ----------------
$K_{10}$
$\delta$
$\eta$ 1 or 1
$\delta_{\rm l}$ N/A
$s_{\rm l}$ 0.05 0.05 N/A
$R_{\rm l}$ N/A
$V_{\rm A}$ N/A
$V_{\rm c}$ N/A
: Free parameters of the three benchmark models , , and . The first block of parameters is associated with the diffusion coefficient in the intermediate regime, and is common to all models. The second block is related to a potential low-rigidity break in the diffusion coefficient, or to purely non-relativistic effects. The last block is related to reacceleration and convection.[]{data-label="tab:free_params"}
Fitting strategy {#sec:fit_bc}
================
In this section, we explain the fitting strategy used to extract the benchmark propagation parameters for the models presented above (, , and ). Fits are performed with the package [@JamesEtAl1975] interfaced with the code [@Maurin2018], and in particular, asymmetric error bars on the parameters rely on the algorithm. For more technical details and subtleties on the setup and the analysis, we refer the reader to Ref. [@DeromeEtAl2019].
### Modeling uncertainties
For each run, the fluxes of the elements from Beryllium (Be) to Silicon (Si) are computed assuming that $^{10}$B, $^{11}$B (and $^{10}$Be, decaying into $^{10}$B) are pure secondary species and that all the heavier elements contain a secondary and a primary component. We assume the primary injection to follow a universal power law in rigidity with index $\alpha$. The secondary component is computed by a full spallation network using the cross-section parameterization (see appendices of [@GenoliniEtAl2018]). It has been shown in [@DeromeEtAl2019] that this parameterization provides the best agreement with the data, and that uncertainties on spallation cross sections are satisfactorily taken into account using only the $^{12}{\rm C}+{\rm H}\rightarrow {}^{11}{\rm B}$ production cross section as nuisance parameter with the “normalization, slope and shape” (NSS) strategy. For each run, the [*initial*]{} default procedure is to fix the normalization of the primary components of all elements to the 10.6 GeV/nuc data point of HEAO-3 [@Maurin2018], except for the CNO elements which affect more directly the B/C ratio: The latter ones are normalized to the C, N, O data of AMS-02 at a rigidity of 50 GV. The power-law index $\alpha$ is first set to 2.3, and fixed later via the iterative procedure explained below. The solar modulation of CRs is described in the force-field approximation, for which the Fisk potential $\phi_{\rm F}$ is averaged over the AMS-02 B/C data taking period. Based on [@GhelfiEtAl2016], we set $\phi_{\rm F}$ as a nuisance parameter of mean value 730 GV and dispersion $\sigma_{\phi_{\rm F}}=$100 MV.
### Data errors
The AMS-02 collaboration does not provide users with the covariance error matrix of the data. In this case, it is common practice to estimate the *total* errors by summing systematics and statistics in quadrature. This procedure is however inappropriate when systematics dominate, i.e. below $\sim$ 100 GV for the AMS-02 data, and for which correlations in energy are expected to be important. A major novelty of the present analysis is to perform fits taking into account these correlations with a parametric form of the covariance matrix. The matrix was built thanks to the information provided in the Supplemental Material of the AMS-02 B/C analysis [@AguilarEtAl2018]. In particular, the different systematics, which are associated with different physics processes in the detector, have different correlation lengths, and the covariance matrix built reflects this complexity. For more precision we refer the reader to [@DeromeEtAl2019].
### C and O primaries
It has been noted already that recent data show an indication for a high-rigidity break in the diffusion coefficient. However, these data are at present still far for providing us with the precise characteristics of this feature. In fact, in order to start gaining statistical confidence in the very existence of this break, the typical strategy until now has been to combine the B/C data with independent indications for the break. For instance, in [@GenoliniEtAl2017] we used the AMS-02 $p$ and He data to that purpose. As anticipated in , we do not any longer focus our B/C analysis on the high-rigidity regime. Instead, we want to provide reference values for the parameters controlling the low- and intermediate-rigidity regimes. Consequently, it is a natural choice to use the high-rigidity break parameters as [*nuisance*]{} parameters. However, in order to establish the plausible range over which to vary them, it is recommended to resort to complementary and “independent” input. To minimize possible biases due for instance to possibly different origins of the different species, we choose to limit ourselves to the C and O fluxes because:
They are by far the main progenitors of the B and C fluxes entering the B/C ratio.
Fitting them allows us to determine a plausible value of the common spectral index of nuclei $\alpha$ as well as to check their [*consistency*]{} with the parameters obtained with the B/C analysis. Indeed, although we focus here on the B/C observable to determine the propagation parameters, we still want to make sure that our results are consistent with the observed primary fluxes. In , we make the important sanity check of neglecting this external input, relying solely on the B/C data to determine both the high-rigidity spectral break (and the other propagation parameters). We show that the obtained results are perfectly consistent with the “factorizing” procedure sketched above, at the obvious price of a worse determination of the propagation parameters. This is indeed not surprising, since the B flux, which dominates the B/C statistical error at high rigidity, is more than one order of magnitude scarcer than the C and O ones.
### The fitting procedure
The technical implementation of the fits proceeds by iteration. After fixing the (low- and intermediate-rigidity) propagation parameters with a first fit of the B/C ratio (as described above, i.e. with $\phi_{\rm F}$ and the $^{12}{\rm C}+{\rm H}\rightarrow {}^{11}\rm B$ production cross section taken as nuisance parameters), we perform a combined fit of the AMS-02 C and O fluxes keeping the following parameters as free parameters: source-term normalizations, power-law dependence in rigidity $\alpha$, and break parameters ($R_{\rm h}$, $s_{\rm h}$, and $\Delta_{\rm h}$). We then use the best-fit values of the break parameters and associated covariance matrix as nuisance parameters in a new B/C fit, keeping also $\alpha$ fixed to its best-fit value. In practice, only a couple of iterations are needed to get the parameters compatible between two consecutive iterations. The results discussed below are the outcome of this procedure.
![Combined best fits of C (top) and O (bottom) fluxes in the three benchmark models , , and defined by B/C fits (see ). A panel below each plot reports the $Z$-score, corresponding to the residuals normalized by the [*total*]{} errors $\sigma_{\rm tot}$.[]{data-label="fig:best_prim_modelB"}](local_fluxes_AND_score_C_R_nuis_Galp_final.pdf "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"} ![Combined best fits of C (top) and O (bottom) fluxes in the three benchmark models , , and defined by B/C fits (see ). A panel below each plot reports the $Z$-score, corresponding to the residuals normalized by the [*total*]{} errors $\sigma_{\rm tot}$.[]{data-label="fig:best_prim_modelB"}](local_fluxes_AND_score_O_R_nuis_Galp_final.pdf "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"}
For the fits of the C and O fluxes, a simpler yet sufficient approximation is to assume uncorrelated *total* errors $\sigma_{\rm tot}$, i.e. statistical and systematic errors summed in quadrature: on the one hand, only statistical uncertainties dominate around the high-energy break position, so that this is a reasonable approximation. On the other hand, this fit only enters the B/C analysis via the treatment of the high-rigidity parameters as nuisance.
In we report the fits of the source and high-rigidity break parameters to the C (top panel) and O (bottom panel) fluxes for our three benchmarks, the , , and models. It is clear even by visual inspection that the fits with a simple, common power-law index $\alpha$ are excellent: The fits fall within one $\sigma_{\rm tot}$ and never beyond two $\sigma_{\rm tot}$’s from all intermediate and high-rigidity points, showing that our consistency check is successful. Some minor discrepancy at low rigidity is noticeable, but not worrisome for our purposes. In fact, should one aim at describing C and O primary fluxes in detail down to low rigidities, a more accurate fitting procedure treating cross-section parameters as nuisance and accounting for bin-to-bin correlations of the systematic errors (as done for B/C) would certainly reduce these minor disagreements. This is beyond our goals here, but will be of interest for future more global analyses.
Results {#sec:results}
=======
In this section, we illustrate our results for the (low- and intermediate-rigidity) propagation parameters and discuss their implications. Initialization files used for the analysis, along with the resulting best-fit values and covariance matrix of best-fit parameters will be provided with the forthcoming new release .
Best-fit values and $1\sigma$ uncertainties
-------------------------------------------
The best-fit values and errors on the three model parameters (, , and ) are reported in . In the first block, we report the diffusion parameters $\delta$ and $K_{10}$ common to all models, which control the *intermediate-rigidity* regime. We then report the *low-rigidity* parameters, which are different (both in nature and number) between , on one side, and, and , on the other. The high-rigidity break parameters, fixed following the nuisance procedure, are reported at the bottom of the Table. The range over which we scan for them will be discussed in , since their determination is affected by the inclusion of external data (in our case, C and O absolute fluxes).
In all these fits, nuisance parameters vary within reasonable pre-assigned intervals. The solar modulation parameter $\phi_{\rm F}$ attains a value of 731, 734 and 725 MV in the best-fit model , , and , respectively. Concerning the nuisance of the spallation cross section $\rm ^{12}C+H \rightarrow {}^{11}B $, its best *normalization* is found to be 12%, 13% and 11% above the reference GP17 value in the best-fit model , , and , respectively. [The preferred *slope* encoding the low energy shape is of 0.12, 0 and 0.16, for the same models. The induced spectral distorsions in and correspond to a slight decrease of the cross section at low energy.]{}
[l c c c]{} Parameters & & &\
$\chi^2/{\rm dof}$ & $61.7/61\!=\!1.01$ & $61.8/63\!=\!0.98$ & $62.1/62\!=\!1.00$\
\
[$K_{10}$]{}\[kpc$^2$Myr$^{-1}$\] & $0.30_{-0.04}^{+0.03}$ & $0.28_{-0.02}^{+0.02}$ & $0.33^{+0.03}_{-0.06} $\
$\delta$ & $0.48_{-0.03}^{+0.04}$ & $0.51_{-0.02}^{+0.02}$ & $0.45_{-0.02}^{+0.05} $\
\
$V_{\rm c}$ \[kms$^{-1}$\] & $0^{+7.4}$ & N/A & $0.0^{+8}$\
$V_{\rm A}$ \[kms$^{-1}$\] & $67^{+24}_{-67}$ & N/A & $101_{-15}^{+14}$\
$\eta$ & 1 (fixed) & 1 (fixed) & $-0.09_{-0.57}^{+0.35}$\
$\delta_{\rm l}$ & $-0.69^{+0.61}_{-1.26}$ & $-0.87^{+0.33}_{-0.31}$ & N/A\
$R_{\rm l} $ \[GV\] & $3.4_{-0.9}^{+1.1}$ & $4.4_{-0.2}^{+0.2}$ & N/A\
\
\
$\Delta_{\rm h}$ & $0.18$ & $0.19$ & $0.17$\
$R_{\rm h} $ \[GV\] & $247$ & $237$ & $270 $\
$s_{\rm h}$ & $0.04$ & $0.04$ & $ 0.04$\
![Best fit B/C curve for models , , and . Results for the best fit parameter values are given in . The bottom panel shows the $Z$-score.[]{data-label="fig:best_fit_model"}](local_fluxes_AND_score_BC_R_mod_all_nuis_Galp_final.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Our best-fit curves are reported in for the three models. Note that all models lead to analogous curves and fit quality, only differing in the fine features of the spectral shape at low rigidity. The inset displays the $Z$-score, i.e. the residuals normalized to the *total* errors $\sigma_{\rm tot}$. Note that this has only a qualitative purpose, since technically the $\chi^2$ is computed accounting for correlations in the systematics of B/C data, a major novelty of this analysis. The similar fit quality of the and models indicates that the additional free parameters present in the former are actually unnecessary to describe the data: If the fit allows for a low-rigidity break, there is but a minor and currently unnecessary role played by $V_{\rm c}$ and $V_{\rm A}$. We note a tiny and statistically insignificant preference for model (and a fortiori ) with respect to , which is only worth noticing since has one free parameter more than in . In fact, we stress that if we had fixed $\eta=1$ in the model, its fit quality would have degraded, and it would have been rejected at $>2\,\sigma$ with respect to the and models. [Finally, we note that, compare to , the benchmark and have respectively a weaker and no break at low rigidity, althought the latter is partly mimicked by the spectral distorsions of the cross section in nuisance. This tends to provide additional support to the possible presence of a low-rigidity break in the diffusion coefficient.]{}
![[]{data-label="fig:diffusion"}](K_diffusion.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Also, it is important to notice that the parameters common to the three models are found with values compatible within $\sim 1\sigma$. This suggests that the diffusive properties at intermediate rigidities are constrained rather robustly by the data [(see for an illustration of this)]{}, independently of the specific scenario within which the low-rigidity behavior is interpreted and fitted. This conclusion is rather encouraging when one considers interpretations of the high-rigidity spectral break.
The model comes out with a few apparently surprising features: at face value, the best fit for $V_{\rm A}$ is rather large, perhaps even more so in the light of the value found for $V_{\rm c}$ which is compatible with zero. A too large value for $V_{\rm A}$ would lead to the surprising conclusion that the power in diffusive reacceleration is comparable to the total CR luminosity. This would for instance imply that the bulk of CRs energy rather originates from ISM turbulence than from shocks in SNRs, as customarily assumed (see e.g.[@DruryEtAl2017]). This apparent conundrum is alleviated once accounting for the effective nature of our parameterization of the reacceleration term, which for technical reasons is artificially pinched to the thin disk, rather than being present in the whole propagation halo. The actual power in the turbulence in the whole Galaxy is thus reduced by the ratio $h/z_{\rm A}\simeq {\cal O}(h/L)$ (see ), hence resulting roughly consistent with expectations, and also more in line with the allowed range for $V_{\rm c}$. Another perhaps surprising outcome is the value of $\eta$, whose best fit is [*negative*]{}, and anyway rather away from typically considered values $\simeq 1$. This conclusion is also qualitatively valid in models and : there is a slight preference for the diffusion coefficient below about 4.5 GV to [*increase with lower rigidity*]{}. Note that, within the allowed range for $\delta_l$, extrapolation in the non-relativistic regime could lead to nonphysical results, as soon as $\delta_l+1=\delta-\Delta_{\rm l}+1<0$. Be that as it may, neither this caveat nor the previous one for $\eta$ in the model should be overstated, since they arise at best at the $1\sigma$ level. All model fits are consistent with a perhaps more physically acceptable flat behavior, or a rigidity-independent diffusion coefficient at low-$R$. Furthermore, it is worth noting how the model is closer to the relatively unproblematic regime $\delta_{\rm l}>-1$ than the one. The introduction of some reacceleration and convection (both physically expected) tends to yield more reasonable values for the low-rigidity slope.
Possible interpretation and microphysics
----------------------------------------
In any case, the most obvious interpretation of these results is that there are less and less waves onto which CRs can scatter at low rigidity. One possible reason is that turbulence dissipation effects lead to a parallel diffusion coefficient which decreases with increasing rigidity, with turning point at $\sim 3\;$GV for plausible choices for the parameters [@ShalchiEtAl2010]. Another possibility arises in models where the CRs scatter onto self-generated turbulence below some rigidity (see e.g. [@BlasiEtAl2012a]). The energy density (and the pressure) carried by CRs peaks at the few GV scale; above this rigidity, the induced diffusion coefficient increases with rigidity as customarily assumed, because of the relatively steep CR power-law spectrum. Below this rigidity, however, the lower the rigidity (or Larmor radius), the smaller the turbulence with respect to extrapolations, simply because there are less and less CRs that can generate it by streaming instability due to their spectral inflection. The order of magnitude of the break in the low-energy CR spectrum seems to be in the right ballpark, but these qualitative arguments deserve a more detailed investigation, which we postpone to future work.
Robustness of low-, intermediate-, and high-rigidity parameters
---------------------------------------------------------------
A very encouraging finding is that, within uncertainties, the diffusive properties at intermediate rigidities do not depend on the specific scenario considered at low-rigidity. The value found for $\delta$ appears closer to a Kraichnan turbulence spectrum ($\delta\simeq 0.5$) than to a Kolmogorov one ($\delta\simeq 1/3$), although this conclusion should not be overstated since the model involves an [*effective*]{} isotropic diffusion coefficient. An indirect implication of this robustness is to increase the credibility in any deviation found at high rigidity, of course.
Concerning the low-rigidity regime, however, there are several important caveats, which suggest some prudence to avoid over-interpreting the values found. First of all, while there is a clear indication for a different regime of propagation at low rigidity, the “hardest” parameters to interpret ($\eta$ and $\delta_{\rm l}$) are actually heavily influenced by the one or two lowest-rigidity points. This is illustrated in more detail in , where one can compare the behavior of $R_{\rm l}$ vs. $R_{\rm min}$ with respect to $\delta_{\rm l}$ vs. $R_{\rm min}$, $R_{\rm min}$ being the rigidity above which the fit is performed. There is simply not enough of a baseline at low rigidity in the AMS-02 data to unambiguously measure the slope in this range. Another point to keep in mind is that the low-rigidity range is quite influenced by the uncertainties in the nuclear cross sections and the treatment of solar modulation. Indeed, including the nuisance parameters for the production cross section increases the $1\sigma$ uncertainties on $\eta$ () by 50%, and on $R_l$ and $\delta_l$ () by 90%. In our fits, including solar modulation is a second order effect, since it increases the low-energy parameters uncertainties by order 5%.
The only model-independent conclusion that we can safely make on the low-rigidity range is that multiple models can account for the observations, with rather different physical interpretations possible. So, statements such as “the reacceleration/convection velocity determined from the B/C data is …” should be taken with a grain of salt, since they appear [*very*]{} model dependent, if compared, for instance, with the determination of $\delta$. The fitted values should [*only*]{} be used as references in the same model used to fit them, and extrapolations at lower rigidities (below the range covered by the data) are not guaranteed to be physical.
Summary, conclusions, and perspectives {#sec:conclusion}
======================================
This article has set the stage for the propagation scenarios that we want to test, challenge and refine with further AMS-02 data, defining benchmark models and ranges of parameters. We have validated the first step of this program with a statistically more sound analysis of the AMS-02 B/C data, going beyond state-of-the-art in the modern literature, and checking different theoretical frameworks differing in the treatment of transport at low rigidities with a major (model ) or a negligible (model ) role played by reacceleration. Both models are limiting cases of a more general model (). We have made sure that issues like numerical stability, the effects of cross sections uncertainties, the bin-to-bin correlation of systematic errors are handled sufficiently well not to bias significantly the conclusions.
For the time being, either model can describe with comparable performances the low-rigidity regime, with a statistically insignificant preference for model . The parameters describing intermediate rigidities are consistently determined in either case. At low rigidity, degeneracies with nuisance parameters impact both the best fit and uncertainties, in particular the ones controlling the energy shape of cross sections and solar modulation. This means that qualitatively different models offer almost equally good description of the data, so that inferring the physics of the propagation at low rigidity is challenging, and we must content ourselves with one or another “effective” description. This lesson on the shaky discrimination power among models with mild differences at low rigidities is likely to apply more generally, even to alternative models not tested here, because it partially relies on the effect of the nuisance parameters. Obviously, any discrimination between the two sets of models must be based on complementary data or arguments, such as the (astro)physical plausibility of the parameters found, an issue which we also briefly discussed. However, finding a break in the diffusion coefficient at low rigidity should not come so much as a surprise, since this feature, possibly related to some damping in the turbulence spectrum and the subsequent increase of the CR mean free path, is expected from theoretical grounds [@YanEtAl2004; @PtuskinEtAl2006a; @ShalchiEtAl2010; @EvoliEtAl2014]. In this respect, a careful study of low energy data complimentary to AMS-02 ones (e.g. from ACE-CRIS [@LaveEtAl2013] and Voyager I [@CummingsEtAl2016; @WebberEtAl2017]), together with a more realistic account of the systematic error correlations (based on further information provided by the experimental collaborations), could certainly help in drawing more robust conclusions on the properties and the nature of this break.
Besides extracting reference propagation parameters and uncertainty ranges from B/C data, which are intended for references for further studies, we have also performed a first test of the consistency of the obtained results with simple CR source spectra (power laws). We also confirmed and strengthened our conclusions in [@GenoliniEtAl2017], that the high-rigidity data can be consistently interpreted as a consequence of a break in the diffusive coefficient, in agreement with AMS-02 high-energy primaries spectra. Indeed, we show that this preference does persist in a generalized analysis extending to the whole rigidity range, and for alternative propagation setups, notably with/without reacceleration.
Following this study, the most pressing issue is of course to test the reference models provided here against other secondary data (e.g., Li, Be, pbar, positrons). In particular, our forthcoming publication will focus on the antiproton channel [@BoudaudEtAl2019]. There has been a recent interest in the possibility that these data hide a signal of dark matter annihilation, see e.g. [@CuocoEtAl2019; @CholisEtAl2019], and it is interesting and important to re-examine those claims within our analysis framework. Finally, it is also known that putative dark matter signals are sensitive to the diffusive halo size, hence an important and motivated follow-up project analysis will involve other secondaries, including isotopes such as the radioactive species (e.g. ${}^{10}$Be). To that purpose, we provide the reader in (1D models) and in (2D models) with the scaling relations that allow to extrapolate our benchmark models (derived assuming $L=10$ kpc) to a range of $L$ between 4 and 18 kpc.
[*Note added:*]{} As we were completing this study, we became aware of [@VittinoEtAl2019], where the authors find support for the presence of multiple breaks in the diffusion coefficient, based on CR electron and positron data. This result is complementary to (and consistent with) ours, while interestingly based on independent datasets concerning other CR species.
This work has been supported by the “Investissements d’avenir, Labex ENIGMASS", by the French ANR, Project DMAstro-LHC, ANR-12-BS05-0006, and by Univ. de Savoie, AAP “DISE”. It has also benefited from the support of the ANR project GaDaMa (ANR-18-CE31-0006), the OCEVU Labex (ANR-11-LABX-0060), the CNRS IN2P3-Theory/INSU-PNHE-PNCG project “Galactic Dark Matter”, and European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreements N$^\circ$ 690575 and No 674896. The work of Y.G. is supported by the IISN, the FNRS-FRS and a ULB ARC. The work of M.B. is supported by the European Research Council ([ERC]{}) under the EU Seventh Framework Program (FP7/2007-2013) / [ERC]{} Starting Grant (Agreement No 278234 – [“NewDark”]{} project).
On the high-rigidity break from C, O and the fitting procedure {#app:consistency}
==============================================================
The fitting procedure described in makes use of the C and O fluxes:
1. As a sanity check for the actual diffusion parameters inferred (see ).
2. To determine $\alpha$, the common spectral index for all nuclei, although its value is irrelevant for the B/C calculation (and for the transport parameter determination).
3. Above all, for cornering a plausible window for the nuisance of the the high-energy break parameters.
Below, we provide some consistency checks as well as some comments on these ancillary results.\
Consistency check
-----------------
In , we report the results of the reference fits of C, O fluxes corresponding to the B/C model fits discussed in .
Parameters [BIG]{} [SLIM]{} [QUAINT]{}
--------------------- ---------------------------- --------------------------------- ------------------------------------
$\chi^2/{\rm dof}$ $75.7/129= 0.59$ $73.2/129=0.57$ $80.3/129= 0.62$
$\alpha$ 2.35 2.33 2.36
$\Delta_{\rm h}$ $0.18_{-0.05}^{+0.13}$ $0.18^{+0.11}_{-0.04}$ $0.18_{-0.01}^{+0.18}$
$R_{\rm h} $ \[GV\] $244_{-52}^{+198}$ $236_{-51}^{+152}$ $282_{-89}^{\textit{+349}} $
$s_{\rm h}$ $0.04_{\it -0.04}^{+0.11}$ $0.03_{\textit{-0.03}}^{+0.09}$ ${ 0.04}^{+0.15}_{\textit{-0.04}}$
: The $\chi^2/{\rm dof}$, the best-fit value for $\alpha$ as well as error range (used as nuisance parameters and ranges in the B/C analysis) for the *high-rigidity* parameters, coming from the combined fit to absolute C, O fluxes in the iterative procedure described in . Values in italics means that the fit reached the border of the interval. []{data-label="keyresH"}
All propagation models inferred from B/C appear to provide excellent fits to the C, O fluxes as well. The $\chi^2$ cannot be used at face value as a quantitative estimator of the quality of the fit, since [*total*]{} errors have been used in the C, O fits: Hence, we likely underestimate the contribution to the $\chi^2$, notably those of the intermediate- and low-rigidity data mostly influenced by systematic errors and their correlations (see also the companion paper [@DeromeEtAl2019]). Nonetheless, a relative preference seems to emerge for the [BIG]{} and [SLIM]{} models, compared to the [QUAINT]{} model, which is interesting as the same trend is also present from the more rigorous B/C analysis.
Concerning $\alpha$, the values found are intriguingly similar to the ones found in the fit of the He flux, which is performed in [@BoudaudEtAl2019], another reassuring consistency test of our procedure. We are thus consistent with the current universality of the spectra of nuclei (while the proton flux seems to be somewhat steeper). This is an interesting observable to keep an eye on in the future, of course. Note that the fit yields a nominal error on the parameter $\alpha$ at the sub-percent level, since $\delta$ is kept fixed in the iteration. Realistic uncertainties on $\alpha$ are however comparable to the ones of $\delta$ reported in .
In all cases, the indication for a high-rigidity break $\Delta_{\rm h}$ is rather significant ($\gtrsim 4\,\sigma$), again consistently with AMS-02 results, but here referring to the underlying diffusive coefficient (i.e. a break in the model space, not in the flux spectral index). Also, the values found are consistent within the errors with those found from $p$, He analyses (e.g. [@GenoliniEtAl2017]), although a bit higher, i.e. indicating a slightly more pronounced break. It will be interesting to follow-up on this in the light of further analyses of both light and intermediate/heavy nuclei, to see if the situation will relax towards a more common value or point to some discrepant hardening.\
Let us briefly develop further on the significance of the high-rigidity break in the light of B/C data only.
Parameters [BIG]{} [SLIM]{} [QUAINT]{}
-------------------------- ------------------------------------ ------------------------------ ---------------------------------
$\delta$ $0.55_{-0.04}^{+0.20}$ $0.55 ^{+0.09}_{-0.03}$ ${\it 0.9}_{-0.23}$
$K_{10}$ \[kpc$^2$/Myr\] $0.26_{-0.2}^{+0.05}$ $0.26 _{-0.01}^{+0.07}$ $0.10^{+0.07}_{-0.01}$
$V_{\rm A}$ \[km/s\] $0^{+64}$ NA $71_{-7}^{+20}$
$V_{\rm c}$ \[km/s\] $0^{+16}$ NA $19_{-5}^{+3}$
$\eta_t$ 1 (fixed) 1 (fixed) $-0.30_{-0.75}^{+0.54}$
$\delta_{\rm l}$ $-0.84^{+0.32}_{-0.36}$ $-0.87^{+0.35}_{-0.33}$ NA
$R_{\rm l} $ \[GV\] $4.4_{-2.1}^{+0.46}$ $4.4^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$ NA
$\Delta_{\rm h}$ $0.27_{-0.12}^{+0.22}$ $0.27_{{\it -0.12}}^{+0.21}$ $0.56_{-0.24}^{+0.09}$
$R_{\rm h} $ \[GV\] $158_{{\it -58}}^{+235}$ $159^{+240}_{{\it -59}}$ $ {\it 100}^{+96}$
$s_{\rm h}$ $0.10_{{\it -0.10}}^{{\it +0.20}}$ $0.11_{-0.1}^{{\it +0.19}}$ $0.26_{{\it-0.26}}^{\it +0.04}$
$\chi^2/{\rm dof}$ $58.6/58=1.01$ $58.7/60=0.98$ $59.7/59=1.01$
: [****]{}Best fit parameters for models [BIG]{}, [SLIM]{}, and [QUAINT]{}, if fitting the high-energy break of the diffusion coefficient as well on the B/C data only. Values in italics means that the fit reached the border of the interval.
\[tab:results\_break\_free\]
If we were to use solely B/C data to fit [*also*]{} the high-rigidity parameters (i.e. [*without*]{} relying on the C, O flux data), we would obtain the results listed in Table IV. The low and intermediate rigidity propagation parameters are consistent with our reference one (see ), with larger error bars, as expected since we now are determining more parameters from a more restricted set of data. Similar considerations apply to high-rigidity parameters, compare with . The largest departures are seen in the [QUAINT]{} model, where one suffers from a partial degeneracy of the (large) $V_{\rm A}$ parameter with the others, including $\delta$. Also, in this case parameters tend to drift towards the borders of the “plausible” interval fixed beforehand, which puts into question how physically meaningful this model results really are. Still, in all cases there is an evidence for a high-rigidity break (at $\gtrsim 2\,\sigma$ level, naively speaking) from the B/C alone, which [*a posteriori*]{} is a justification for our choice of the parameterization of the diffusion coefficient, .
Break vs no-break
-----------------
In Tab. V we report the best fit propagation parameters without high-rigidity break in the diffusion coefficient. Note how the values of $\delta$ would be biased (at the $1\div 2\,\sigma$ level), resulting in a harder diffusion coefficient. In the same spirit as [@GenoliniEtAl2017], we compute the $\Delta\chi^2$ with respect to our results in (break parameters fit to C and O fluxes). In the [QUAINT]{} model, as intuitively expected, the presence of a large $V_{\rm A}$ can partially mimic the break, but not completely, and the “no break” case is still disfavored (at $\sim 2\,\sigma$ level). For the [BIG]{} and [SLIM]{} models, which are refinements of the purely diffusive intermediate/high-rigidity model considered in [@GenoliniEtAl2017], we find $\Delta\chi^2>10$, confirming (and thus reinforcing the robustness of) the results presented in [@GenoliniEtAl2017].
Parameters [BIG]{} [SLIM]{} [QUAINT]{}
-------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------
$\delta$ $0.48^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ $0.48^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ $0.42^{+0.03}_{-0.02}$
$K_{10}$ \[kpc$^2$/Myr\] $0.29^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ $0.29^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ $0.36^{+0.02}_{-0.04}$
$V_{\rm A}$ \[km/s\] $0^{+115}$ NA $113^{+7}_{-15} $
$V_{\rm c}$ \[km/s\] $0^{+12}$ NA $0 ^{+4.1}$
$\eta_t$ 1 (fixed) 1 (fixed) $0.6^{+0.3}_{-0.5} $
$\delta_{\rm l}$ $-0.88_{-0.30}^{+0.31}$ $-0.88_{-0.30}^{+0.32}$ NA
$R_{\rm l} $ \[GV\] $4.4^{+0.23}_{-2.4}$ $4.4^{+0.24}_{-0.21}$ NA
$\chi^2/{\rm dof}$ $72.8/61=1.19$ $72.8/63=1.16$ $67.1/62=1.08$
$\Delta\chi^2$ 11.1 11.0 5.0
: Best fit parameters for models [BIG]{}, [SLIM]{}, and [QUAINT]{}, with no high-rigidity break in the diffusion coefficient.
\[tab:results\_without\_break\]
Fit parameters dependence upon low-rigidity cutoff {#app:low_rig}
==================================================
In , we present the evolution of the best-fit parameters as a function of a low-rigidity cut $R_{\rm min}$ above which the fit is performed, for the three models considered. We note that the value of the parameters $\delta$ and $K_{10}$ remains essentially unchanged whatever $R_{\rm min}$. In contrast, $\delta_{\rm l}$, $R_{\rm l}$ (for and ), $V_a$, and $\eta$ (for ) depend crucially on the first data points, notably those below $\sim$4 GV. This explains their denomination of *low-rigidity* parameters. For the model, note how the error on $\delta_{\rm l}$ crucially depends on the first couple of AMS-02 points, and the evidence for a change of slope (a determination of $R_{\rm l}$) is stronger than the actual value of the slope at low rigidity. Finally, it is worth commenting on $V_{\rm A}$: this parameter is (anti)correlating with low-energy ones (in particular $\eta$ for ) and, to a minor extent, also with $\delta$. This is not very surprising since large values of $V_{\rm A}$ imply “cross-talk” among energy bins. \[app:primaries\]
{width="0.64\columnwidth"} {width="0.64\columnwidth"} {width="0.64\columnwidth"}
Scaling of propagation parameters with $L$ in 1D model {#app:Ldiff}
======================================================
The benchmark parameters for , , and where derived assuming the Galactic magnetic halo shapes as a 1D-slab of half-thickness $L=10$ kpc. By fitting the B/C ratio in these models, it is well known that the normalization of the diffusion coefficient $K_{10}$ and the halo thickness $L$ are degenerated so that the ratio $K_{10}/L$ is constant. We have checked that this was still the case given the higher sensitivity of AMS-02 data, and found the following scaling relations for values of $L$ within \[4,18\] kpc:
\[eq:sc\_relation\] $$\begin{aligned}
&&\text{\BIG: }\quad\frac{K_{10}}{L}=0.030^{+0.003}_{-0.004}\;\rm kpc/Myr\;.\\
&&\text{\SLIM: }\quad\frac{K_{10}}{L}=0.028^{+0.002}_{-0.002}\;\rm kpc/Myr\;,\\
&&\text{\QUAINT: }\quad\frac{K_{10}}{L}=0.033^{+0.003}_{-0.006}\;\rm kpc/Myr\;.\end{aligned}$$
Dictionary to use 1D propagation parameters in 2D models. {#app:dict}
=========================================================
A 1D-slab geometry for the magnetic halo does not allow one to account for CRs escaping radially from the Galaxy (see, e.g. refs [@Taillet:2002ub; @Maurin:2002uc]). This choice could be thought as an over-simplification. A more realistic 2D geometry commonly used is to consider the Galactic halo as a cylindrical box of radius 20 kpc and half-thickness $L=10$ kpc, where CR sources lie uniformly in the disk and the Earth is set at 8.5 kpc from its center (for an illustration see e.g. Fig.10 of [@GenoliniEtAl2015]). However, using this geometry we have found that variations of the best fit values () for all parameters, except $K_{10}$, are within their respective uncertainties. In fact, in this 2D (uniform disk) case, a degeneracy between $K_{10}$ and $L$ is still present, but is no longer described by the relation ; the escape from the radial boundaries increases with increasing $L$. Starting from , for each benchmark, we summarize below our empirical prescription to go from 1D to 2D, only for the parameters which drift with $L$. Note that the preferred value for $V_{\rm A}$ in the model is now zero, although the uncertainty on this parameter is quite large.
$$\begin{aligned}
&& \text{\BIG: }\,\frac{K^{\rm 2D}_{10}}{\tanh{(L^{1.1}/10.1)}}=0.25^{+0.04}_{-0.02}\,{\rm kpc^2/Myr}, \quad
\delta^{2D}\times \tanh{(L^{0.4}/0.77)}=0.50^{+0.02}_{-0.04}\quad\text{and} \quad \begin{cases} V_{\rm A}=0^{+80} \,{\rm km.s^{-1}} \\ R_{\rm l}=4.4_{-0.2}^{+0.2} \,{\rm GV} \\ \delta_{\rm l}=-0.83_{-0.3}^{+0.3} \end{cases}\,,\\
&& \text{\SLIM: }\,\frac{K^{\rm 2D}_{10}}{\tanh{(L^{1.1}/10.1)}}=0.25^{+0.02}_{-0.02}\,{\rm kpc^2/Myr}\quad\text{and} \quad \delta^{2D}\times \tanh{(L^{0.4}/0.77)}=0.50^{+0.02}_{-0.02}\,,\\
&& \text{\QUAINT: }\,\frac{K^{\rm 2D}_{10}}{\tanh{(L^{1.1}/10.1)}}=0.30^{+0.02}_{-0.07}\,{\rm kpc^2/Myr}\quad\text{and}\quad\delta^{2D}\times \tanh{(L^{0.4}/0.77)}=0.44^{+0.06}_{-0.02}\,.\end{aligned}$$
[^1]: Or, in the original 1793 French version: “[*Une grande responsabilité est la suite inséparable d’un grand pouvoir*]{}”. French Revolution Parliamentary Archives, “Tome 64 : Du 2 au 16 mai 1793, Séance du mardi 7 mai 1793, page 287, available e.g. at https://frda.stanford.edu/fr/catalog/wx067jz0783\_00\_0293.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The dc Josephson effect is investigated in a single-walled metallic carbon nanotube connected to two superconducting leads. In particular, by using the Luttinger liquid theory, we analyze the effects of the electron-electron interaction on the supercurrent. We find that in the long junction limit the strong electronic correlations of the nanotube, together with its peculiar band structure, induce oscillations in the critical current as a function of the junction length and/or the nanotube electron filling. These oscillations represent a signature of the Luttinger liquid physics of the nanotube, for they are absent if the interaction is vanishing. We show that this effect can be exploited to reverse the sign of the supercurrent, realizing a tunable $\pi$-junction.'
author:
- |
Stefano Pugnetti$^1$, Fabrizio Dolcini$^1$, and Rosario Fazio$^{1,2}$\
${}^1$ [*Scuola Normale Superiore and NEST CNR-INFM, I-56126 Pisa, Italy* ]{}\
${}^2$ [*International School for Advanced Studies (SISSA), I-34014 Trieste, Italy*]{}
bibliography:
- 'db1.bib'
title: 'dc Josephson Effect in Metallic Single-Walled Carbon Nanotubes'
---
Introduction
============
Since the discovery by Iijima in 1991[@iijima91], carbon nanotubes have attracted much interest in the community of Mesoscopic Physics. Due to their peculiar electronic and mechanical properties, they are regarded as optimal candidates for nanotechnological implementations, and have been successfully applied to the realization of quantum transistors[@tansetal98; @Jarillo-Herrero_Nature_439_953_2006], electron waveguides[@liangetal01], interferometric devices[@liangetal01; @Bachtold_nature_397_673_1999] as well as nanoelectromechanical systems[@Sapmaz_PRB_67_235414_2003]. Recent experiments have spurred the interest in superconducting properties of these materials: it has been observed indeed that proximity-induced superconductivity can arise in nanotube bundles contacted to superconductors (S); in ropes, intrinsic superconductivity has also been measured[@Kasumov_PRB_68_214521_2003; @morpurgoetal99] and explained in terms of combination of electron coupling to the breathing phonon modes and intertube Cooper-pair tunneling[@Egger_PRB_70_014508_2004]. Individual multiwall nanotubes have recently been utilized in the fabrication of superconductor-nanotube-superconductor hybrid structures, allowing to reveal the dynamics of multiple Andreev reflections[@Buitelaar_PRL_91_57005_2003] and to realize a controllable supercurrent transistor[@Jarillo-Herrero_Nature_439_953_2006]. By contrast, the investigation of superconducting properties of [*single-walled*]{} nanotubes in hybrid structures has been only partly explored so far.\
![\[fig:1\]Schematic set-up of the S-I-SWNT-I-S junction under investigation. ](figure1.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
Metallic Single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWNT) are known to behave as one-dimensional (1D) conductors with four conduction channels exhibiting ballistic transport up to several $\mu {\rm m}$ [@tansetal97; @white_nature_393_240_1998]. Differently from other 1D metals, SWNT preserve their conduction properties even at very low temperature, since the cylindrical lattice geometry prevents the arising of Peierls distorsion. They thus offer promising features for interconnecting components of nanodevices. Due to their 1D character, electronic correlations have dramatic effects on the behavior of SWNT: experimental evidences of a power-law behavior for the conductance as a function of temperature[@bockrathetal99] indicate that SWNT exhibit a Luttinger liquid (LL) behavior, and that their elementary excitations are not fermionic quasi-particles like in normal 3D metals[@voit95; @kanefisher92]. It is thus expected that, when a SWNT is contacted to S leads at equilibrium, electronic correlations might significantly modify the behavior of the supercurrent with respect to junctions realized with a normal metal. This issue has been addressed in the literature [@afflecketal00; @maslovetal96; @cauxetal02; @takane96; @fazioetal96; @fazioetal95] and it has been shown that the effect of interaction is particularly enhanced when the coupling between the LL and the S leads is realized through tunnel junctions. However, most of these investigations focused on the case of a two-channel (i.e. one spinful mode) LL, and cannot be straightforwardly applied to the case of a four-channel SWNT. In this paper we discuss this problem investigating the dc Josephson effect in a S-I-SWNT-I-S junction, and show that new features arise due to the peculiar band structure of SWNT. The paper is organized as follows: in Sec. II we briefly review the model used to describe SWNT, accounting for electron-electron interaction within the Luttinger Liquid theory. In Sec. III we present our results about the Josephson current. We find that the interaction yields a twofold effect on the critical current $j_c$: on the one hand it modifies the scaling law of $j_c$ as a function of the junction length $d$; on the other hand, it introduces oscillations of $j_c$ as a function of either the electron filling or the junction length $d$. The latter oscillations are absent for a non-interacting system, and therefore represent a signature of Luttinger liquid behavior on the supercurrent. Finally, in Sec. IV we discuss the results and propose possible implementations to observe this effect.\
Modeling the system
===================
The set-up of the system is depicted in Fig. \[fig:1\]: a metallic SWNT is coupled through tunnel contacts to two superconducting leads to realize a S-I-SWNT-I-S junction. For simplicity, we limit here our treatment to the case of armchair nanotubes; we also assume that the S leads have the same gap $|\Delta|$; the two superconducting order parameters thus read $\Delta_{1,2}=|\Delta| e^{i\chi_{1,2}}$, where $\chi_{i}$ is the superconducting phase of the $i$-th lead. We are interested in the dependence of the critical current on the junction length $d$; we thus analyze the regime $$\lambda_c \, , \xi \, \ll d \, \ll L \label{regime}$$ where $\lambda_c$ represents the width of the contacts, $\xi$ the coherence length of the S electrodes, $d$ the electrode distance, and $L$ the length of the nanotube. The regime (\[regime\]) is quite realistic in view of customary fabrication of $\mu {\rm m}$ long ballistic nanotubes[@white_nature_393_240_1998], and the recent realization of superconducting tips for Scanning Tunneling Microscope (STM) [@panetal98; @rodrigoetal04; @kohenaetal05] or of 10-20 nm short superconducting finger leads. In order to simplify the mathematical treatment without altering the essential physical features of the regime (\[regime\]), we shall henceforth assume that the tunnel contacts are point-like, the coherence length $\xi$ is vanishing, and the length of the nanotube is infinite, $L \rightarrow \infty$.\
![\[fig:2\] The electron band dispersion relation of a SWNT originates from the two-sublattices honeycomb carbon structure, and is characterized by four Fermi points. The latter can be identified through two Fermi momenta: $k_F$ denotes the band crossing points, whereas $q_F$ accounts for the deviation from $k_F$, i.e. the electron filling of the SWNT.](figure2){width="\columnwidth"}
In a metallic nanotube the lowest band consists of four electron branches located around two Fermi points $\alpha k_F$, with $\alpha = \pm 1$; the energy separation to the second band is of the order of ${\rm eV }$, so that the latter can be in practice neglected up to a broad range of thermal excitations. Within this energy scale, the energy dispersion of the lower band is linear under quite good approximation, as shown in Fig. \[fig:2\]. SWNT can thus be regarded as four-channel 1D metals. As discussed in the introduction, their 1D character implies that a careful treatment of the electron-electron interaction is needed. It is indeed well known that transport properties of SWNT cannot be explained in terms of the customary Fermi liquid theory, since their elementary excitations are bosonic plasmon modes, rather than fermionic quasi-particles. A model for SWNT based on the Luttinger liquid theory has been formulated a decade ago[@kaneetal97; @eggergogolin97], and applied in a number of problems[@kimetal06; @lebedevetal05; @gaoetal04; @pecaetal03; @crepieuxetal03; @komnikgogolin02; @komnikegger01]. Here we briefly remind the main aspects that are relevant to our discussion: A SWNT can be ideally obtained by wrapping into a cylinder shape a graphene sheet, whose honeycomb carbon lattice consists of two sublattices $p = \pm$. A nearest-neighbor tight-binding calculation of the $\pi$-electrons in the graphite, together with appropriate wrapping boundary conditions, leads to express the electron field in the nanotube as $$\label{eq:fullpsi}
\Psi_\sigma(x)= \hspace{-0.3cm} \sum_{\alpha=\pm , r=R/L} \, \, \sum_{p=\pm} {U}_{p r} e^{i(\alpha k_F+rq_F)x} {\psi}_{\alpha r \sigma}(x)$$ where $\sigma=\uparrow, \downarrow$ denotes the spin component and $x$ the longitudinal coordinate in the nanotube. In Eq. (\[eq:fullpsi\]), $U_{p r}$ are the entries of the matrix $$U=- \frac{e^{-i \pi/4}}{\sqrt{2}} \left(
\begin{array}{lcr}
1 & 1 \\
i & -i
\end{array} \right)$$ describing the unitary transformation from the sublattice electron fields into the right(left) moving fields description. The exponential terms in Eq. (\[eq:fullpsi\]) represent the fast oscillating contribution to the electron wave function, where the wave vector $q_F$ is related to the electron filling exceeding the Fermi points $\pm k_F$, as illustrated in Fig. \[fig:2\]. Finally the field ${\psi}_{\alpha r \sigma}(x)$ varies slowly over the scale of Fermi wavelength.
In order to account for the electron-electron interaction, it is useful to represent the electron fields $\psi_{\alpha r \sigma}$ through the bosonization identity $$\psi_{\alpha r \sigma}(x)=
\frac{\eta_{\alpha r \sigma}}{\sqrt{2\pi a}}
\exp\{i\varphi_{\alpha r \sigma}(x)\} \label{bosonization}$$ where $\varphi_{\alpha r \sigma}(x)$ is the plasmonic field describing the long wavelength fluctuations. The operators $\eta_{\alpha r \sigma}$ are Klein factors obeying a Clifford algebra and ensuring the correct anticommutation between different fermionic species. Finally $a$ is a cut-off length regularizing the theory, and is of the order of the lattice spacing. The effective hamiltonian for the SWNT reads $$\label{H-SWNT}
{\mathcal H}_{\rm SWNT}=
\sum_{j \delta}\frac{v_F} 2
\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} dx
\left[
(\partial_x\phi_{j\delta})^2+
\frac{(\partial_x\theta_{j\delta})^2}{K^2_{j\delta}}
\right]$$ with $v_F\simeq8\cdot10^5$ ms$^{-1}$. Here $\theta_{j \delta}(x)$ are four independent bosonic fields, with $j$ labeling charge(c) and spin(s) degrees of freedom, and $\delta=\pm$ denoting two independent linear combinations of the $\alpha= \pm$ branches. The fields $\phi_{j \delta}(x)$ are related to $\theta_{j \delta}(x)$ by the duality relation $[ \theta_{j \delta}(x), \partial_y \phi_{j \delta}(y) ] = i \delta(x-y)$, and $K_{j \delta}$ are interaction parameters, with $K_{j \delta} < 1$ ($K_{j \delta} > 1$) for repulsive (attractive) interaction and $K_{j \delta} = 1$ for vanishing interaction. It can be shown [@eggergogolin98] that the mode $(j=c, \delta=+)$ is strongly interacting ($K \doteq K_{c +} \simeq 0.3$), while the three other modes are neutral $K_{j \delta \neq c +} = 1$. The fields $\varphi_{\alpha r \sigma}$ appearing in the bosonization identity (\[bosonization\]) are linear combinations of the decoupled modes $$\begin{split}
\varphi_{\alpha r \sigma}
=&
\frac{\sqrt{\pi}}2
\left\{
\phi_{c+}+r\theta_{c+}+\alpha\phi_{c-}+r\alpha\theta_{c-}
\right.\\
&\left.
+\sigma\phi_{s+}+r\sigma\theta_{s+}+\alpha\sigma\phi_{s-}+r\alpha\sigma\theta_{s-}
\right\}
\end{split}$$
The Hamiltonian modeling the S-I-SWNT-I-S junction thus reads $${\mathcal{H}}={\mathcal{H}}_{\rm SWNT} \, + \, {\mathcal{H}}_{\rm SC_1} \, + \, {\mathcal{H}}_{\rm SC_2} \, + \, {\mathcal{H}}_{\rm T}$$ where ${\mathcal{H}}_{\rm SWNT}$ is given by (\[H-SWNT\]), ${\mathcal{H}}_{\rm SC_{1,2}}$ are the usual BCS hamiltonians for the electrodes, and ${\mathcal{H}}_{\rm T}$ describes the nanotube-electrodes electron tunneling. Denoting by $x_i$ the nanotube coordinate of the injection point to the $i$-th electrode, one can write $${\mathcal{H}}_{\rm T} = \sum_{i=1,2} \sum_{\sigma=\uparrow, \downarrow} T_i \left( \Xi^\dagger_i (x_i) \Psi^{}_\sigma(x_i) + \Psi^{\dagger}_\sigma(x_i) \Xi^{}_i (x_i) \right)$$ where $\Xi^\dagger_i $ is the electron field operator in the $i$-th lead, and $T_{1,2}$ are tunneling amplitudes. The Josephson current is computed perturbatively in the tunneling amplitudes.
dc Josephson Current
====================
Denoting by $F$ the free energy of the S-I-SWNT-I-S junction, and by $\chi=\chi_2-\chi_1$ the phase difference between the two superconductors, the dc Josephson current is obtained as $$I_J=\frac{2e}\hbar\frac{\partial F}{\partial\chi} \, \, .$$ Evaluating $I_J$ to the fourth order in the tunneling amplitudes $T_i$, one obtains (up to $\chi$-independent terms) $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{F =- 2 \frac{(T_1 T_2)^2}{\beta} \Re \left[ \prod_{i=1}^{4} \int_0^\beta\!\!\!d \tau_i \right.} \hspace{1cm} \label{free-en}
& \\
& \times \, \left. \mathcal{F}_1(\tau_1-\tau_2)
\mathcal{G}(\tau_1 ,\tau_2, \tau_3,\tau_4;d) \mathcal{F}^*_2(\tau_3-\tau_4) \right] \, \, . \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ In Eq. (\[free-en\]) $\beta$ denotes the inverse temperature and $$\label{eq:anomalouspropagator}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{F}_{i}(\tau - \tau')&=
\langle
{\rm T} \left\{
\Xi_{i,\uparrow}{^\dagger}(x,\tau)\Xi_{i,\downarrow}{^\dagger}(x,\tau')
\right\}
\rangle=\\
&=
\frac{\pi N(0)}{\beta}e^{-i\chi_i}\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}e^{-i\omega_n(\tau-\tau')}\frac{|\Delta|}{ \sqrt{\omega_n^2+|\Delta|^2}}
\end{split}$$ the anomalous BCS T-ordered correlator in the $i$-th S lead, with a density of states of the normal state $N(0)$ at the Fermi energy, and Matsubara frequencies $\omega_n=(2n+1)\pi/\beta$. Finally $$\label{Gdef}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{G}(\tau_1&,\tau_2, \tau_3,\tau_4;d)=\\
=&\langle
{\rm T} \left\{
\Psi_{\uparrow}{^{\phantom{\dagger}}}(0,\tau_1)\Psi_{\downarrow}{^{\phantom{\dagger}}}(0,\tau_2)
\Psi_{\downarrow}{^\dagger}(d,\tau_3) \Psi_{\uparrow}{^\dagger}(d,\tau_4)
\right\}
\rangle
\end{split}$$ is the two-electron T-ordered correlator in the SWNT. Under the condition (\[regime\]), one has $\Delta\gg \hbar v_F/ d$, implying that the lead-nanotube tunneling time is much shorter than the traversal time $v_F/d$ along the junction. Eq. (\[eq:anomalouspropagator\]) is then well approximated by a $\delta(\tau-\tau')$, and tunneling effectively involves electron pairs. In this regime the Josephson current can be written as $$I_J=I_0 (\chi) \, j_c(d;T) \label{I_J}$$\
Here the first term $ I_0 = ({2e}/{\hbar}) (\hbar v_F/d) \mathcal{T} \sin \chi$ accounts for the dependence on the superconducting phase difference $\chi$, and corresponds to the Josephson current of a long ballistic junction with bare transmission coefficient $
\mathcal{T}=
(4/2\pi) |T_1T_2|^2\pi^2(N(0)/\hbar v_F)^2
$ at zero temperature. The second term represents the (dimensionless) critical current and encodes the details of the junction: it depends on the length, on the temperature, and on the interaction effects, as we shall see below. Explicitly, it reads $$\begin{aligned}
j_c(d;T)=
\frac1{2\pi}
\left(
\frac{d}{a} \right)^2
\int_{-1/\Theta}^{1/\Theta}\!\!d\xi
\left(
1-\Theta|\xi|
\right)\times\hspace{2cm}
\label{jd}\\
\sum_{r=\pm,\alpha\alpha'}
\!\!\!
\frac{e^{-i(\alpha+\alpha')k_F d}}2
[ C^A_{r \alpha \alpha'}
\left(
k_F d, \xi
\right)+
e^{2ir q_F d} C^P_{r \alpha \alpha'}
\left(
k_Fd,\xi
\right)
]
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ with $\Theta= k_B T d/\hbar v_F$. Two types of processes, denoted by $P$ and $A$, contribute to $j_c$: the former (latter) describes tunneling of Cooper pairs formed by electrons with parallel (antiparallel) momenta. The related pair operators $$\begin{split}
O^{A}_{r,\alpha\alpha'}(x,\tau)=&
\psi_{\alpha r\uparrow}{^{\phantom{\dagger}}}(x,\tau)\psi{^{\phantom{\dagger}}}_{\alpha'-r\downarrow}(x,\tau)\\
O^{P}_{r,\alpha\alpha'}(x,\tau)=&
\psi{^{\phantom{\dagger}}}_{\alpha r\uparrow}(x,\tau)\psi{^{\phantom{\dagger}}}_{\alpha'r\downarrow}(x,\tau)
\end{split}$$ yield the two correlators $$\begin{split}
C_{r \alpha \alpha'}^{P/A}&( k_F d,\xi_3-\xi_1) =\\
=&
(2\pi a)^2
\langle
T\left\{
O_{r,\alpha\alpha'}^{P/A}(0,\frac {d}{\hbar v_F}\xi_1) O_{r,\alpha\alpha'}^{\dagger \, P/A}(d,\frac {d}{\hbar v_F}\xi_3)
\right\}
\rangle
\end{split}$$ appearing in Eq. (\[jd\]). Importantly, these two terms correspond to different dependences on the momenta defining the four Fermi points of the SWNT: while $A$ processes only involve $k_F$, $P$ processes are also characterized by the electron filling momentum $q_F$, as can be seen from the phase factors multiplying $C_{r \alpha \alpha'}^{P/A}$. Since typically $q_F \ll k_F$, two periods are expected to arise in the dependence of the Josephson current on the junction length $d$. However, this is not necessarily the case. In the first instance, indeed, the dependence on $k_F$ amounts to a prefactor $1+\cos(2 k_F d)$, and is extremely difficult to be observed in a realistic system where the approximation of point-like contacts is not valid, for the period of these oscillations is usually smaller than the typical contact width $\lambda_c$. Even in the regime (\[regime\]), the observed current is in fact an average $\langle \ldots \rangle_{\lambda_c}$ over lengths $d+x$, where $x$ ranges over $\lambda_c$. This averaging effectively yields $$\langle 1+\cos{(2 k_F d)} \rangle_{\lambda_c} = 1$$ so that the dependence on $k_F$ disappears. The results for the current presented henceforth are thus meant upon performing this averaging procedure.\
Secondly, the electron-electron interaction strongly affects the behavior of the correlators $C_{r \alpha \alpha'}^{P/A}$. Although the full expression for the latter is quite lengthy (see the appendix for details), important insights can be gained from the analysis of the scaling dimensions of the two operators; one obtains that for $ k_F d \gg 1$ $$\begin{split}
|C_{r \alpha \alpha'}^{P/A}(k_F d,\xi)|
\sim &
\left|
\frac{a}{d}
\right|^{2\cdot \delta_{P/A}}
\end{split}$$ with $\delta_P=(K+1/K+2)/4$ and $\delta_A=(1/K+3)/4$. While for vanishing interaction ($K=1$) the scaling dimensions of the two processes coincide, the electron interaction modifies the power laws of these two processes in a different way: the contribution of $A$ processes decays faster than the one of $P$ processes ($\delta_P < \delta_A$). Remarkably, this does [*not*]{} imply that for a sufficiently long junction the Josephson current is mainly due to $P$ processes. Indeed, an electron pair traveling along the junction also acquires a phase, which results into oscillating factors in the correlators. Since the Josephson current (\[jd\]) depends on the integral over the imaginary time variable $\xi$, not only the decay rate but also the phase of $C_{r \alpha \alpha'}^{P/A}$ matters. Since the dynamics of the electrons is coupled by the interaction, these phase factor are also affected by the value of $K$.\
In the case that electron interaction is neglected ($K=1$), the effect of alternating phases is so strong that the total contribution of $P$ processes vanishes. Indeed, when integrating over all possible pair momenta, the phase acquired by the electron pair traveling along the junction oscillates, yielding a cancellation of the different contributions, except for those processes in which the total pair momentum is vanishing. While this condition can be fulfilled by $A$ processes, simple phase-space considerations show that the total contribution of $P$ processes is suppressed. As a consequence, the Josephson current through a SWNT is predicted to be independent of the filling momentum $q_F$, and one obtains $$j_c=\frac{2 \pi \Theta}{\sinh(2\pi \Theta)}$$ At zero temperature, $j_c = 1$, and the Josephson current scales as $1/d$ due to the $I_0$ term (see Eq. (\[I\_J\])), whereas at finite temperature it is exponentially suppressed.\
: The oscillations of the dimensionless Josephson current as a function of junction length $d$ for a S-I-SWNT-I-S junction, at zero temperature. The SWNT filling factor is $q_F/k_F=10^{-3} \pi/8$ and its interaction parameter is $K=0.3$. The oscillations have a period $2 q_F d$ and decay with a power-law with an interaction-dependent exponent $\delta_P$. (dashed curve): The contribution of $A$ processes to the critical current is monotonous and positive, indicating that the oscillations originate from $P$ processes (see text).](figure3.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
In contrast, when electron-electron interaction is taken into account ($K \simeq 0.3$), the dynamics of the two electrons forming any pair is coupled, and the mechanism leading to the cancellation occurring in the non-interacting case is not valid. Electronic correlations both affect the contribution of $A$ processes and make an oscillating contribution in $2 q_F d$ arise from $P$ processes. These oscillations are characterized by a much longer period than the one discussed above, and may become observable if $q_F \lambda_c \ll 1$, a condition which is definitely realistic: The value of the filling factor $q_F/k_F$ can indeed be adjusted by an external gate bias, and the recent developments in contact technology allow to realize extremely thin contacts, such as finger-shaped electrodes of about $10 {\rm nm}$, or superconducting STM tips. Here we show that in this case the Josephson current exhibits interesting novel features.\
Fig. \[fig:3\] displays the dimensionless Josephson critical current $j_c$, Eq. (\[jd\]), as a function of the junction length $d$ for a SWNT with interaction strength $K=0.3$ at zero temperature. We recall that the approximation of non-interacting electrons would predict a constant value for $j_c$. In contrast, in a SWNT the strong electron interaction leads $j_c$ to decay with an oscillatory behavior as a function of $d$. While the power law decay has been predicted also for usual two-channel LL, the oscillatory behavior is purely due to the four channel band structure of nanotube. Importantly, this implies that the [*sign*]{} of the Josephson current depends on the length of the junction, and that SWNT can be used to realize a $\pi$-state. We emphasize that this effect originates from $P$ processes; the contribution to $j_c$ due to the A processes, described by the dashed curve in Fig. \[fig:3\], is indeed monotonous and always positive.\
Fig. \[fig:4\] shows $j_c$ for a S-I-SWNT-I-S junction with length $d= 6\cdot10^3 k_F^{-1} \sim 360\,\textrm{nm}$: the Josephson current oscillates with a period $\pi/k_F d$ as a function of the filling factor $q_F/k_F$, around a value (dashed line) which represents the contribution of $A$ processes, independent of $q_F$. By tuning $q_F$ with a gate voltage, the switching from a $0$ to a $\pi$-junction behavior can be induced.\
Finally, Fig. \[fig:5\] shows the behavior of $j_c$ as a function of the dimensionless temperature $\Theta=k_B T \, d/\hbar v_F$. As expected from Eq. (\[jd\]), thermal fluctuations suppress the Josephson effect at a temperature of the order of $k_B T \sim \hbar v_F/d$ (for a 100 nm long junction this corresponds to $T=60 {}^o {\rm K}$); the figure elucidates the crucial role played by the interaction in determining the relative magnitude of $P$ processes with respect to $A$ processes: while for a non-interacting wire ($K=1$) the $P$ processes contribution vanishes, for a SWNT ($K \simeq 0.3$) the latter dominate for a sufficiently long junction.
![\[fig:4\] (solid): The dimensionless critical current $j_c$ as a function of the filling factor $q_F/k_F$ at zero temperature for a S-I-SWNT-I-S junction with length $d=6 \cdot 10^3 k_F^{-1}$. The interaction parameter is $K=0.3$. By tuning the electron filling, e.g. with a gate voltage, the sign of the critical current can be reversed, tuning the junction from a $0$ into a $\pi$-state. (dashed): The contribution of $A$-processes to the critical current, independent of the filling factor.](figure4.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
\[fig5\] ![\[fig:5\] (solid): The dimensionless critical current $j_c$ as a function of the reduced temperature $\Theta$ for a junction with length $d=6 \cdot 10^3 k_F^{-1}$, realized with a SWNT with filling factor $q_F/k_F =10^{-3}\pi/12$ and interaction parameter $K=0.3$. (dashed): The contribution of $A$-processes to the critical current. Differently from the case of a non-interacting wire, in a SWNT the contribution due to tunnel of pairs with antiparallel momenta ($A$ processes) is dominated by the one originating from pairs with parallel momenta ($P$ processes).](figure5.eps "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"}
Conclusions
===========
In this paper we have investigated the dc Josephson effect in a S-I-SWNT-I-S junction. The effects of the electron-electron interaction on the critical current $j_c$ have been particularly analyzed by using the Luttinger Liquid theory. We have found that $j_c$ oscillates with a factor $2 q_F d$, where $d$ is the junction length and $q_F$ the Fermi momentum characterizing the electron filling with respect to the band crossing point $k_F$. These oscillations are a signature of the peculiar band structure and of the strong electronic correlations present in SWNT. We emphasize that they would indeed not appear in non-interacting systems. Remarkably, this effect implies that ballistic SWNT can be used to realize tunable $\pi$-junctions, for the sign of the critical current can be controlled by varying either the filling factor or the junction length (see Figs. \[fig:3\] and \[fig:4\]). The former can be tuned through an external gate voltage. The latter can be changed for instance by moving the superconducting tip of an STM[@panetal98; @rodrigoetal04; @kohenaetal05] along the nanotube. The typical value of $k_F$ is of the order of $20$ nm$^{-1}$, so that the predicted oscillations should be observable in junctions with length $d \gtrsim 100 {\rm nm}$ operating at temperature of the order of some ${}^o {\rm K}$ or below; the SWNT should have an electron filling momentum $q_F$ ranging from 0 up to a small fraction of $\lambda_c^{-1}$.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
Fruitful discussions with F. Giazotto as well as financial support from HYSWITCH EU Project are greatly acknowledged.
$O^i_r$ correlation functions
=============================
In this appendix we provide the expressions for the T-ordered correlation functions appearing in the computation of the Josephson current Eq. (\[jd\]). The correlation functions can be written as the product of their ground state value and a thermal fluctuations contribution, which equals 1 at zero temperature. Explicitly: $$\label{eq:Ocorrelationfunctions}
\begin{split}
C_r^{A}(k_F d, \xi)
=&
\big[
\mathfrak{g}_r^{A\,(GS)}(k_F d, \xi) \, \mathfrak{g}_r^{A\,(TF)}(k_F d, \xi)
\big]^2\\
&\\
C_r^{P}(k_F d, \xi)
=&
\big|
\mathfrak{g}_r^{P\,(GS)}(k_F d, \xi) \, \mathfrak{g}_r^{P\,(TF)}(k_F d, \xi)
\big|^2
\end{split}$$ where:
$$\begin{split}
\mathfrak{g}_r^{A\,(GS)}(k_F d, \xi)
=&
\left|
\frac {\tilde a }{ \tilde a + z^r_K}
\right|^{\delta_A-1/2} \left(
\frac{\tilde a}{ \tilde a+ z_1^*}
\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}
\\
&\cdot \left(
\frac { \tilde a+ z^r_K} { \tilde a+ {z^r_1}^*}
\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}
\end{split}$$
$$\begin{split}
\mathfrak{g}_r^{P\,(GS)}(k_Fd, \xi)
=&
\left|
\frac {\tilde a }{ \tilde a + z^r_K}
\right|^{\delta_P}
\left(
\frac{ \tilde a+ z^r_K}{ \tilde a+ {z^r_1}^*}
\right)^{\frac{1}{2}} \, ,
\end{split}$$
with $ z^r_K=k_F d(i \, r \mathrm{sign}(\xi)+|\xi|/K)$ and $\tilde a=k_Fa$. The contribution due to thermal fluctuations reads $$\begin{split}
\mathfrak{g}_r^{A\,(TF)}(k_F d, \xi)
=&
\left|
\frac{K\pi\Theta z^r_K}{\sin(K\pi\Theta z^r_K)}
\right|^{\delta_A -1/2}
\left(
\frac{K\pi\Theta z^r_K}{\sin(K\pi\Theta z^r_K)}
\right)^{-\frac{1}{4}}\\
&\cdot
\left(
\frac{\pi\Theta {z^r_1}^*}{\sin(\pi\Theta {z^r_1}^*)}
\right)^{\frac{3}{4}}
\end{split}$$ $$\begin{split}
\mathfrak{g}_r^{P\,(TF)}(k_F d, \xi)
=&
\left|
\frac{K\pi\Theta z^r_K}{\sin(K\pi\Theta z^r_K)}
\right|^{\delta_P}
\left(
\frac{K\pi\Theta z^r_K}{\sin(K\pi\Theta z^r_K)}
\right)^{-\frac{1}{2}}\\
&\cdot
\left(
\frac{\pi\Theta {z^r_1}^*}{\sin(\pi\Theta {z^r_1}^*)}
\right)^{\frac{1}{2}} \, \, .
\end{split}$$ The cut-off $\tilde{a}$ renormalizes the bare tunneling amplitude $\mathcal{T}$ in different ways for $P$ and $A$ processes. In particular, one has $\mathcal{T} \rightarrow \mathcal{T}_i =\mathcal{T} (k_F a)^{2(\delta_i -1)}$, with $i=A,P$. Typically $\tilde{a} \lesssim 1$ (here we have chosen $\tilde{a} =0.5$).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'M. Hanzer and I. Matić have proved in [@HMa2] that the genuine unitary principal series representations of the metaplectic groups are irreducible. A simple consequence of that paper is a criterion for the irreducibility of the non-unitary principal series representations of the metaplectic groups that we give in this paper.'
author:
- Marko Tadić
title: Two simple observations on representations of metaplectic groups
---
*In memory of Sibe Mardešić*
Introduction
============
Let $F$ be a local non-archimedean field of characteristic different from 2. Denote by $| \ |_F$ the normalized absolute value on $F$ and denote by $\nu$ the character $x\mapsto |x|_F$ of $F^\t=GL(1,F)$.
Maximal Levi subgroups of $GL(n,F)$ are naturally isomorphic to $GL(n_1,F) \t GL(n_2,F)$, $n_1+n_2=n$. Using this isomorphism, J. Bernstein and A. V. Zelevinsky have introduced the notation $\pi_1\t\pi_2$ for the representations of $GL(n,F)$ parabolically induced by $\pi_1\o\pi_2$, where $\pi_i$ is a representation of $GL(n_i,F)$ for $i=1,2$ (see [@BZ2] or [@Z]). In the case of the symplectic groups, the maximal Levi subgroups of $Sp(2n,F)$ are naturally isomorphic to $GL(n_1,F) \t Sp(2n_2,F)$, $n_1+n_2=n$. Using this isomorphism, one introduces the notation $\pi\r\s$ for the representation of $Sp(2n,F)$ parabolically induced by $\pi\o\s$, where $\pi$ is a representation of $GL(n_1,F)$ and $\s $ is a representation of $Sp(2n_2,F)$ (see [@T-Str] or [@T-Comp]). We shall consider central extensions $$1\longrightarrow \mu_2\hookrightarrow \widetilde G\overset{p}\tha G\longrightarrow 1$$ of $G=GL(n,F)$ or $Sp(2n,F)$, where $\mu_2=\{\pm1\}$. For the description of the construction of $\widetilde G$ see the second section and the references there. Let us only note that we realize $\widetilde G$ on the set $G\t\{\pm1\}$. A representation of $\widetilde G$ will be called genuine (resp. non-genuine) if $\mu_2$ acts in the representation space by a non-trivial (resp. trivial) character. Each representation $\pi$ of $G$ in a natural way is a non-genuine representation of $\widetilde G$, and we shall identify them in the sequel.
Parabolic subgroups and Levi subgroups in $\widetilde G$ are defined to be preimages of such subgroups in $G$ (see [@HMu1]). Maximal Levi subgroups in $\widetilde {GL(n,F)}$ are no more direct products of $\widetilde{GL(n_1,F)}$ and $ \widetilde{GL(n_2,F)}$, but one can still define in a natural way $\pi_1\t\pi_2$ for genuine representations $\pi_i$ of $\widetilde{GL(n_i,F)}$, $i=1,2$ (see [@HMu1]). Analogously, one can define $\pi\r\s$ for genuine representations $\pi$ and $\s$ of $\widetilde{GL(n_1,F)}$ and $\widetilde{Sp(2n_2,F)}$ respectively.
The genuine irreducible representation of $\widetilde {Sp(0,F)}$ is denoted by $\omega_0$.
Fix a non-trivial character of $F$ of even conductor. Define as in [@Ku], page 231, the following character $$\chi_\psi((g,\e))=\e\g(\psi_{\frac12})\g(\psi_{\frac{\det(g)}2})^{-1}$$ of $\widetilde {GL(k,F)}$, where $\gamma(\eta)$ denotes the Weil index and $\psi_a(x)=\psi(ax)$. We have $\chi_\psi^4\equiv 1$. Then $
\chi_{\psi}|\mu_2\not\equiv 1,
$ and the multiplication with $\chi_\psi$ defines a bijection between genuine and non-genuine representations of $\widetilde{GL(n,F)}$.
M. Hanzer and I. Matić have proved in [@HMa2] that the genuine unitary principal series representations of the metaplectic groups are irreducible. Now the following theorem gives a criterion for the irreducibility of the genuine non-unitary principal series representations of the metaplectic group $\widetilde{Sp(2n,F)}$:
Let $\xi_1, \ldots, \xi_n$ be (not necessarily unitary) characters of $F^\t$. Consider the following two conditions:
1. For any $1 \leq i \leq n$, $$\xi_i \neq \nu^{\pm 1/2}\xi$$ for any character $\xi$ of $F^\t$ satisfying $\xi=\xi^{-1}$ (i.e. of order 1 or 2).
2. For any $1 \leq i < j \leq n$, $$\xi_i \neq \nu^{\pm 1} \xi^{\pm
1}_j$$ (all possible combinations of two signs are allowed).
Then the non-unitary principal series representation $$(\chi_{\psi}\xi_1) \times \ldots \times
(\chi_{\psi}\xi_n) \rtimes \omega_0$$ of $\widetilde{Sp(2n,F)}$ is irreducible if and only if conditions (1) and (2) hold.
We expect that the above theorem must be well-known to the specialists in the field. Nevertheless, since we could not find a written reference, we present a proof of this simple fact here.
In this paper we also give a formula related to computation of the Jacquet modules in the case of symplectic and metaplectic groups.
Discussions and questions of E. Lapid motivated us to think about the above irreducibility criterion. The irreducibility in the above theorem behaves in the same way as the irreducibility in the case of the split odd-orthogonal groups (see Remark \[rem\]). A criterion for the irreducibility in the non-genuine case, i.e. for $Sp(2n,F)$, can be found in [@T-Comp]. The proof there does not apply to the case that we consider in this paper. Namely, we do not have here the theory of $R$-groups. Instead of that, we apply the main result of [@HMa2] which we have already mentioned. We are very thankful to M. Hanzer for discussions and explanations regarding representation theory of metaplectic groups, and for reading the paper and corrections.
The content of the paper is as follows. In the second section we introduce the notation used in the paper. The third section brings the proof of the above theorem while the last section proves a formula relating computation of Jacquet modules in the case of symplectic and metaplectic groups.
Notation and preliminary results
================================
In this paper we shall consider central extensions $$\label{G}
1\longrightarrow \mu_2\hookrightarrow \widetilde G\overset{p}\tha G\longrightarrow 1$$ of a $p$-adic general linear linear or a $p$-adic symplectic group $G$, where $\mu_2=\{\pm1\}$. The group $\widetilde G$ has a natural topology of a locally compact totally disconnected group (see [@HMu1]). By a representation in this paper we shall always mean a smooth representation. A representation of $\widetilde G$ will be called genuine (resp. non-genuine) if $\mu_2$ acts in the representation space by a non-trivial (resp. trivial) character.
The Grothendieck group of the category of all the smooth representations of $G$ will be denoted by $\mathfrak R(G)$. Further, the Grothendieck group of the category of all the genuine smooth representations of $\widetilde G$ (resp. non-genuine smooth representations of $\widetilde G$) will be denoted by $\mathfrak R(\widetilde G)^{gen}$ (resp. $\mathfrak R(\widetilde G)^{non-gen}$). Since each non-genuine representation of $\widetilde G$ factors uniquely to a representation of $G$, and conversely, each representation of $G$ in a natural way extends to a non-genuine representation of $\widetilde G$, we identify the non-genuine representations of $\widetilde G$ with the representations of $G$. We identify in a natural way $\mathfrak R(\widetilde G)^{non-gen}$ with $\mathfrak R( G)$.
Fix a $p$-adic field $F$ of characteristics different from 2. The normalized absolute value of $F$ will be denoted by $|\ |_F$. We denote by $\nu$ the character of $F^\t=GL(1,F)$ given by $x\mapsto |x|_F$.
For $GL(n):=GL(n,F)$, we realize $\widetilde {GL(n)}$ on the set $GL(n)\t\mu_2$ with the multiplication defined by $(g_1,\e_1)(g_2,\e_2)=(g_1g_2,\e_1\e_2 (\det(g_1),\det(g_2))_F)$, where $(\ \ ,\ \ )_F$ denotes the Hilbert symbol. In analogous way as in [@BZ2], in [@HMu1] is introduced the multiplication $\t$ among genuine representations of $\widetilde{GL(n_1)}$ and $\widetilde{GL(n_2)}$. The sum of all $\mathfrak R(\widetilde {GL(n)})^{gen}$, $n\geq 0$, will be denoted by $R^{gen}$. One can factor the multiplication through $R^{gen}\o R^{gen}$, and the obtained mapping is denoted by $m_\sim:R^{gen}\o R^{gen} \ra R^{gen}$. In analogous way as in [@BZ1], in [@HMu1] is defined the comultiplication, denoted $m^*_\sim: R^{gen}\ra R^{gen}\o R^{gen}$. The transposition map on $R^{gen}\o R^{gen}$ (which switches the tensor factors) is denoted by $\kappa$.
In the case of symplectic group $Sp(2n):=Sp(2n,F)$ of rank $n$, $\widetilde{Sp(2n,F)}$ equals as a set to $Sp(2n,F)\t\mu_2$, while the multiplication is given by Rao’s cocycle $c_{Rao}$ ([@R]) with the formula $(g_1,\e_1)(g_2,\e_2)=(g_1g_2,\e_1\e_2 c_{Rao}(g_1,g_2))$. For $0\leq k\leq n$, there is a parabolic subgroup[^1] $P_{(k)}=M_{(k)}\ltimes N_{(k)}$ standard with respect to the upper triangular matrices in $Sp(2n)$, whose Levi factor $M_{(k)}$ is naturally isomorphic to $GL(k)\t Sp(2(n-k))$ (see [@HMu1]). Now parabolic subgroup $\widetilde P_{(k)}$ is defined to be the preimage $p^{-1}(P_{(k)})$. With $\widetilde M_{(k)} =p^{-1}(M_{(k)})$ we have $\widetilde P_{(k)}=\widetilde M_{(k)}\ltimes N_{(k)}'$, where $N_{(k)}'=N_{(k)}\t\{1\}$.
Now there is a natural epimorphism $$\label{epi}
\widetilde {GL(k)} \t \widetilde {Sp(2(n-k))}\tha \widetilde M_{(k)}$$ (see [@HMu1]). If $\pi$ and $\sigma$ are both genuine (or both non-genuine) representations of $\widetilde {GL(k)}$ and $ \widetilde {Sp(2(n-k))}$ respectively, then $\pi\o\sigma$ factors to a representation of $\widetilde M_{(k)}$, and the representation of $\widetilde{Sp(2n,F)}$ parabolically induced by $\pi\o\sigma$ from $\widetilde P_{(k)}$ is denoted by $$\pi\r\s.$$ Define $$\a((g,\e)):=(\det(g),-1)_F.$$ Then this is a character of $\widetilde {GL(k)}$ and in the Grothendieck group holds $$\label{tilde}
\pi\r\s=(\a\cdot \tilde\pi)\r\s.$$
Further, the sum of all $\mathfrak R(\widetilde {Sp(n)})^{gen}$, $n\geq 0$, is denoted by $R_S^{gen}$. Then $\rtimes$ factors in a natural way to $\rtimes: R^{gen}\o R_S^{gen} \rightarrow R_S^{gen} $. For an irreducible genuine representation $\pi$ of $\widetilde {Sp(n)}$, the Jacquet module with respect to $\widetilde P_{(k)}=\widetilde M_{(k)}\ltimes N_{(k)}'$ can be pulled back to a representation of $\widetilde {GL(k)} \t \widetilde {Sp(2(n-k))}$ using epimorphism . Its semisimplification can be considered as an element of $R^{gen}\o R_S^{gen}$. Now the sum of all these semisimplifications for $0\leq k\leq n$ is denoted by $$\mu^*(\pi)\in R^{gen}\o R_S^{gen}.$$ We extend additively $\mu^*$ to a mapping $\mu^*: R_S^{gen} \rightarrow R^{gen}\o R_S^{gen} $ (see details in [@HMu1]).
Now we shall recall of an important formula of [@HMu1] $$\label{mu-met}
\mu^*(\pi\r\s)= M^*_\sim(\pi)\r\mu^*(\s),$$ where $$M^*_\sim=(m_\sim\o id) \circ (\a\cdot \tilde{\ }\o m^*_\sim)\o\kappa\o m^*_\sim$$ (here $\tilde{\ }$ denotes the contragredient mapping).
Fix a non-trivial character $\psi$ of $F$ of even conductor. Define as in [@Ku], page 231, the following character $$\chi_\psi((g,\e))=\e\g(\psi_{\frac12})\g(\psi_{\frac{\det(g)}2})^{-1}$$ of $\widetilde {GL(k)}$, where $\gamma(\eta)$ denotes the Weil index and $\psi_a(x)=\psi(ax)$. We have $\chi_\psi^4\equiv 1$.
The following three facts are essential for us $$\a=\chi_{\psi}^2,$$ $$\chi_{\psi}|\mu_2\not\equiv 1,$$ and for representations $\pi_i$ of $\widetilde{GL(n_i)}$ holds $$\label{chi-psi}
\chi_{\psi}(\pi_1\t\pi_2)\cong (\chi_{\psi}\pi_1)\t (\chi_{\psi}\pi_2)$$ when both $\pi_i$ have the same restriction to $\mu_2$ ([@HMu1]).
Observe that the multiplication with $\chi_\psi$ defines an isomorphism of $R\ra R^{gen}$, which is also denoted by $\chi_\psi$.
For representations $\pi_i$ of $\widetilde{GL(n_i)}$, $1\leq i\leq 3$ and a representation $\s$ of $\widetilde{Sp(2n)}$ holds $$\label{asso-GL}
\pi_1\t(\pi_2\t\pi_3)\cong (\pi_1\t\pi_2)\t\pi_3,$$ and $$\label{asso-Sp}
\pi_1\r(\pi_2\r\s)\cong (\pi_1\t\pi_2)\r\s.$$ The above two isomorphisms follow from the general facts proved about representations of $l$-groups in [@BZ2].
Non-unitary principal series representations of metaplectic groups
==================================================================
Each character $\phi$ of $F^\t$ can be written in a unique way as $$\phi=\nu^{e(\phi)}\phi_u,$$ where $e(\phi)\in\R $ and $\phi_u$ is unitary.
\[theorem\] Let $\xi_1, \ldots, \xi_n $ be (not necessarily unitary) characters of $F^\t$. Consider the following two conditions:
1. For any $1 \leq i \leq n$, $$\xi_i \neq \nu^{\pm 1/2}\xi$$ for any character $\xi$ satisfying $\xi=\xi^{-1}$ (i.e. of order 1 or 2).
2. For any $1 \leq i < j \leq n$, $$\xi_i \neq \nu^{\pm 1} \xi^{\pm
1}_j$$ (all possible combinations of two signs are allowed).
Then the non-unitary principal series representation $$(\chi_{\psi}\xi_1) \times \ldots \times
(\chi_{\psi}\xi_n) \rtimes \omega_0$$ of $\widetilde{Sp(2n,F)}$ is irreducible if and only if conditions (1) and (2) hold.
For the proof, first observe that in the Grothendieck group we have $$(\chi_{\psi}\xi_i) \rtimes \omega_0=\a (\chi_{\psi}^{-1}\xi_i^{-1}) \rtimes \omega_0=(\chi_{\psi}\xi_i^{-1}) \rtimes \omega_0,$$ i.e. $$\label{-}
(\chi_{\psi}\xi_i) \rtimes \omega_0=(\chi_{\psi}\xi_i^{-1}) \rtimes \omega_0.$$
From this and the property $\chi_{\psi}(\pi_1\t\pi_2)\cong (\chi_{\psi}\pi_1)\t (\chi_{\psi}\pi_2)$ that we have mentioned earlier, follow easily that all the following elements $$\label{all}
(\chi_{\psi}\xi_{p(1)}^{\epsilon_1}) \times \ldots \times
(\chi_{\psi}\xi_{p(n)}^{\epsilon_n}) \rtimes \omega_0$$ define the same element of the Grothendieck group, for any permutation $p$ of $\{1,\dots,n\}$ and any choice of $\epsilon_i\in\{\pm\}$.
Recall that $$(\chi_{\psi}\xi_i) \rtimes \omega_0$$ reduces if and only if $\xi_i = \nu^{\pm 1/2}\xi
$ for some character $\xi$ satisfying $\xi=\xi^{-1}$ (this follows for example from [@HMu2]; it is explicitly written in [@HMa1]). Now this and the reducibility in the $\widetilde {GL(2)}$ case, directly imply that if (1) or (2) does not hold, we have reducibility.
We are going now to prove the irreducibility. Suppose that (1) and (2) hold. We shall do it by induction. For $n=1$ the claim obviously holds. Consider $n>1$ and suppose that the irreducibility holds for smaller indexes.
Now , and imply that all the representations are not only equal in the Grothendieck group, but they are all isomorphic.
Observe that since for all the choices of $\e_i$ in we get the same element in the Grothendieck group, it is enough to prove the irreducibility for one of them. In this way we get that it is enough to prove irreducibility in the case $$e(\xi_1)\geq \dots \geq e(\xi_n)\geq 0.$$ We shall assume this below.
If $e(\xi_1)=0$, [@HMa2] implies the irreducibility. Therefore we need to consider the case $e(\xi_1)>0$. Take the biggest $i$ such that $e(\xi_i)$ is still $>0$. Clearly, $i\geq 1$.
The formula and the fact that $M^*_\sim(\chi_\psi)= \chi_\psi\xi\o1+\chi_\psi\tilde\xi\o1+1\o \chi_\psi\xi$ imply that $$\label{jmsq}
[(\chi_{\psi}\xi_1) \times \ldots \times (\chi_{\psi}\xi_i)] \o [(\chi_{\psi}\xi_{i+1})\t\dots\t
(\chi_{\psi}\xi_n) \rtimes \omega_0]$$ has multiplicity one in the Jacquet module of $(\chi_{\psi}\xi_1) \times \ldots \times
(\chi_{\psi}\xi_n) \rtimes \omega_0$. Note that is irreducible since we know that the left hand side tensor factor is irreducible from the case of general linear groups (applying ), and right hand factor is irreducible by the inductive assumption. This implies that the last representation has unique irreducible subrepresentation, and that the irreducible subrepresentation has multiplicity one in the whole induced representation.
Let $\pi$ be an irreducible subquotient of $(\chi_{\psi}\xi_1) \times \ldots \times
(\chi_{\psi}\xi_n) \rtimes \omega_0$. Then $\pi$ is not cuspidal (the proof goes analogously as the proof of (d) in Theorem in section 2.4 of [@BZ2]). Using this, and the formula for $\mu^*((\chi_{\psi}\xi_1) \times \ldots \times
(\chi_{\psi}\xi_n) \rtimes \omega_0)$, we get that a Jacquet module of $\pi$ has some $
(\chi_{\psi}\xi_{p(1)}^{\epsilon_1}) \otimes \ldots \otimes
(\chi_{\psi}\xi_{p(n)}^{\epsilon_n}) \otimes \omega_0
$ for a quotient, with $\e_i$ and $p$ as in . Now the Frobenius reciprocity implies that $\pi$ embeds into some of the representations . Since all the irreducible subrepresentations for the family are isomorphic, and since that subrepresentation has multiplicity one, we get irreducibility.
\[rem\] Consider now split odd-orthogonal group $SO(2n+1;F)$. We shall use the notation introduced for these groups in [@T-Str]. Let $\xi_1, \ldots, \xi_n $ be (not necessarily unitary) characters of $F^\t$. Then the non-unitary principal series representation $$\xi_1 \times \ldots \times
\xi_n \rtimes 1_{SO(1)}$$ of the split special orthogonal group $SO(2n+1,F)$ is irreducible if and only if conditions (1) and (2) from Theorem \[theorem\] hold for $\xi_1,\dots,\xi_n$.
Therefore the representation $
\xi_1 \times \ldots \times
\xi_n \rtimes 1_{SO(1)}
$ of $SO(2n+1,F)$ is irreducible if and only if the representation $
(\chi_{\psi}\xi_1) \times \ldots \times
(\chi_{\psi}\xi_n) \rtimes \omega_0
$ of $\widetilde {Sp(2n)}$ is irreducible.
Linear and metaplectic cases
============================
In [@Z] is introduced a Hopf algebra constructed on the sum $R$ of $\mathfrak R(GL(n,F)), n\geq0$. The multiplication and comultiplication are denoted there by $m$ and $m^*$ respectively.
A multiplication $\r$ between representations of general linear and symplectic groups is introduced in [@T-Str]. There is proved that $$\mu^*(\pi\r\s)= M^*(\pi)\r\mu^*(\s),$$ where $$M^*=(m\o id) \circ ( \tilde{\ }\o m^*)\o\kappa\o m^*$$
The formula for $\mu^*(\tau\r\s)=M^*_\sim(\tau)\r\mu^*(\s)$, where $\tau$ and $\s$ are genuine representations of corresponding covering groups, was very useful in the case of metaplectic groups. We can write the genuine representation $\tau$ as $$\tau=\chi_\psi\pi,$$ where $\pi$ is a representation of a general linear group (i.e. a non-genuine representation of the covering group). Now we shall write a very simple formula relating $M^*_\sim(\chi_\psi\pi)$ and $M^*(\pi)$:
We have $$M^*_\sim=( \chi_{\psi}\o \chi_{\psi}) \circ M^* \circ \chi_{\psi}^{-1}.$$ In other words, if $\pi $ is a finite length representation of ${GL(n)}$ and if we write $$M^*(\pi)=\sum_i \b_i\o\g_i,$$ then $$M^*_\sim(\chi_\psi\pi)=\sum_i \chi_\psi\b_i\o\chi_\psi\g_i.$$
First the formula $
\chi_{\psi}(\pi_1\t\pi_2)\cong (\chi_{\psi}\pi_1)\t (\chi_{\psi}\pi_2)
$ for representations $\pi_i$ of $GL(n_i)$ implies $$m_\sim \circ (\chi_{\psi}\o \chi_{\psi})= \chi_{\psi} \circ m.$$
Consider the projection $p:\widetilde{GL(n)}\ra GL(n)$, and the standard Levi subgroup $M=:GL(n_1)\t GL(n_2)$ in $GL(n)$, where $n_1+n_2=n$. Let $\widetilde M$ be the preimage of $M$, and denote by $\phi: \widetilde M\ra M$ the restriction of the projection $p$. Before Proposition 4.1 in [@HMu1] it is observed that the equality $
(\chi_{\psi}|\tilde M)\circ \phi= \chi_{\psi} \o \chi_{\psi}
$ holds.
Now one directly sees that the following dual relation holds $$m^*_\sim\circ \chi_{\psi}=(\chi_{\psi}\o \chi_{\psi})\circ m^*.$$
Let now $\pi$ be a finite length representation of $GL(k)$ (i.e. a non-genuine representation of $\widetilde{GL(k)}$). Consider $$M^*_\sim(\chi_{\psi}\pi) = \big( m_\sim \o id\big)\circ \big(\tilde{\ }\cdot\a\o m^*_\sim\big)\circ \kappa \circ m^*_\sim\circ \chi_{\psi}(\pi)$$ $$= \big( m_\sim \o id\big)\circ \big(\tilde{\ }\cdot \a\o m^*_\sim\big)\circ \kappa \circ \big(\chi_{\psi}\o \chi_{\psi}\big)\circ m^*(\pi)$$ $$= \big( m _\sim\o id\big)\circ \big(\tilde{\ }\cdot \a\o m^*_\sim\big) \circ \big(\chi_{\psi}\o \chi_{\psi}\big)\circ \kappa\circ m^*(\pi)$$ $$= \big( m_\sim \o id\big)\circ \big((\tilde{\ }\cdot\a \circ \chi_{\psi})\o (m^*_\sim \circ \chi_{\psi})\big)\circ \kappa\circ m^*(\pi)$$ $$= \big( m_\sim \o id\big)\circ \big(\a \chi_{\psi}^{-1}\cdot \tilde{\ }\o((\chi_{\psi}\o \chi_{\psi})\circ m^*)\big)\circ \kappa\circ m^*(\pi)$$ $$= \big( m_\sim \o id\big)\circ \big( \chi_{\psi}\cdot\tilde{\ }\o(\chi_{\psi}\o (\chi_{\psi})\circ m^*)\big)\circ \kappa\circ m^*(\pi)$$ $$= \big( m_\sim \o id\big)\circ \big ( \chi_{\psi}\o\chi_{\psi}\o \chi_{\psi}) \circ \big( \tilde{\ }\o id \o id\big)\circ \big(id\o m^*\big)\circ \kappa\circ m^*(\pi)$$ $$= \big( (m_\sim \circ ( \chi_{\psi}\o\chi_{\psi}))\o \chi_{\psi}\big) \circ\big ( \tilde{\ }\o id \o id\big)\circ \big(id\o m^*\big)\circ \kappa\circ m^*(\pi)$$ $$= \big(( \chi_{\psi}\circ m)\o \chi_{\psi}\big) \circ \big( \tilde{\ }\o id \o id\big)\circ \big(id\o m^*\big)\circ \kappa\circ m^*(\pi)$$ $$= \big( \chi_{\psi}\o \chi_{\psi}\big) \circ \big( m\o id) \circ ( \tilde{\ }\o id \o id\big)\circ \big(id\o m^*\big)\circ \kappa\circ m^*(\pi)$$ $$= \big ( \chi_{\psi}\o \chi_{\psi}\big) \circ \big( m\o id\big) \circ \big( \tilde{\ }\o m^*\big)\circ \kappa\circ m^*(\pi)$$ $$= \big ( \chi_{\psi}\o \chi_{\psi}\big) \circ M^*(\pi),$$ i.e. we have proved that $$M^*_\sim(\chi_{\psi}\pi) =\big( \chi_{\psi}\o \chi_{\psi}\big) \circ M^*(\pi).$$
[BJ]{}
Ban, D. and Jantzen, C., [*The Langlands quotient theorem for finite central extensions of $p$-adic groups*]{}, Glas. Mat. Ser. III 48(68) (2013), no. 2, 313-334.
Ban, D. and Jantzen, C., [*The Langlands quotient theorem for finite central extensions of $p$-adic groups II: intertwining operators and duality*]{}, Glas. Mat. Ser. III 51(71) (2016), no. 1, 153-163.
Bernshtein, I. N. and Zelevinskii, A. V., [*Representations of the group $GL(n,F)$, where $F$ is a local non-Archimedean field*]{}, in Russian: Uspehi Mat. Nauk 31 (1976), no. 3 (189), 5-70 (in English: Russian Math. Surveys 31, no. 3. (1976), 5-70).
Bernstein, J. and Zelevinsky, A. V., [*Induced representations of reductive $p$-adic groups I* ]{}, Ann. Sci. École Norm Sup. 10 (1977), 441-472.
Casselman, W., [*Introduction to the theory of admissible representations of $p$-adic reductive groups*]{}, preprint (<http://www.math.ubc.ca/~cass/research/pdf/p-adic-book.pdf>).
Ciganović, I. and Grbac, N., [*The Zelevinsky classification of unramified representations of the metaplectic group*]{}, J. Algebra 454 (2016), 357-399.
Hanzer, M. and Matić, I., [*The unitary dual of $p$-adic $\widetilde{S p(2)}$* ]{}, Pacific J. Math. 248 (2010), no. 1, 107-137.
Hanzer, M. and Matić, I., [*Irreducibility of the unitary principal series of $p$-adic $\widetilde{S p(n)} $*]{}, Manuscripta Math. 132 (2010), no. 3-4, 539-547.
Hanzer, M. and Muić, G., [*Parabolic induction and Jacquet functors for metaplectic groups*]{}, J. Algebra 323 (2010), no. 1, 241-260.
Hanzer, M. and Muić, G., [*Rank one reducibility for metaplectic groups via theta correspondence* ]{}, Canad. J. Math. 63 (2011), no. 3, 591-615.
Kudla, S. S., [*Notes on the local theta correspondence*]{}, lectures at the European School in Group Theory, 1996, preprint (<http://www.math.toronto.edu/~skudla/castle.pdf>).
Matić, I. [*Strongly positive representations of metaplectic groups*]{}, J. Algebra 334 (2011), 255-274.
Rao, R., [*On some explicit formulas in the theory of Weil representation*]{}, Pacific J. Math. 157 (1993), no. 2, 335-371.
Tadić, M., [*Representations of $p$-adic symplectic groups*]{}, Compositio Math. 90 (1994), 123-181.
Tadić, M., [*Structure arising from induction and Jacquet modules of representations of classical $p$-adic groups*]{}, J. of Algebra 177 (1995), 1-33.
Zelevinsky, A. V., [*Induced representations of reductive p-adic groups II. On irreducible representations of GL(n)*]{}, Ann. Sci. École Norm. Sup. 13 (1980), 165-210.
[^1]: It is maximal parabolic subgroup except for $k=0$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Intra-cellular biochemical reactions exhibit a rich dynamical phenomenology which cannot be explained within the framework of mean-field rate equations and additive noise. Here, we show that the presence of metastable states and radically different timescales are general features of a broad class of autocatalytic reaction networks, and that this fact may be exploited to gain analytical results. The latter point is demonstrated by a treatment of the paradigmatic Togashi-Kaneko reaction, which has resisted theoretical analysis for the last decade.'
author:
- Tommaso Biancalani
- Tim Rogers
- 'Alan J. McKane'
title: 'Noise-induced metastability in biochemical networks'
---
With recent advances in experimental techniques, it is becoming increasingly clear that the dynamics of cellular biochemical reactions are subject to a great deal of noise [@Raj2009]. This poses a significant challenge to our understanding of such systems, as it has been known for some time that the effects of noise may lead to substantial differences in the macroscopic behavior [@Rao2002; @Maheshri2007]. The reactions which take place within a cell are highly interdependent, together forming biochemical networks which support the functioning of the cell. It remains a major open problem to make clear the link between the structural features of these networks and the resulting dynamics. A full understanding of the effects of noise is essential to this effort [@Kaern2005; @Shahrezaei2008].
Here, we report analytical progress on this problem made by studying a simple class of autocatalytic reaction networks whose dynamical behavior is radically affected by intrinsic stochasticity in finite volume cells. In particular, we show how networks of this type give rise to a separation of timescales between fast almost-deterministic oscillations and slow stochastic metastability. Our class includes the influential Togashi-Kaneko (TK) reaction scheme, numerical simulations of which have been found to undergo a noise-induced dynamical transition [@Togashi2001; @*Togashi2003]. Despite the importance of their work, a satisfactory analytic treatment of this effect has not been achieved in over a decade. Here we provide such a treatment as an application of our theory.
The general model we work with is composed of $n$ chemical species, denoted by $X_i$ with $i=1,\ldots,n$, residing in a cell of (non-dimensional) volume $V$. The molecules undergo autocatalytic reactions of the form $X_i + X_j \rightarrow 2 X_j$, with rate coefficients $r_{ij}$. We put $r_{ij}=0$ if that particular reaction is not possible. We also stipulate that the total rates of creation and destruction of each reactant $i$ are in balance, that is, $\sum_jr_{ij}=\sum_jr_{ji}$. Two additional reactions, $\emptyset \rightarrow X_i$ and $X_i \rightarrow \emptyset$, represent diffusion into and out of the cell, respectively. The rate of diffusion is slow compared to the internal reactions, having coefficient $D\ll1$. We will also use the symbol $X_i$ to denote the number of molecules of that type, and $\bm{x}$ to indicate the concentration vector with components $x_{i}=X_i/V$.
The dynamics of the system defined by the above reactions are specified once the transition rates, $T(\bm{x} | \bm{x}')$, indicating the probability per unit of time that the system goes from state $\bm{x}'$ to state $\bm{x}$, are given. They are found by invoking mass action: $$\begin{split}
&T\Big(x_i-\frac{1}{V}, x_j+\frac{1}{V}\,\Big|\, x_i, x_j\Big) = Vr_{ij}x_ix_j\,,\\
&T\Big(x_i-\frac{1}{V}\,\Big|\, x_i\Big) =DVx_i\,,\quad T\Big(x_i+\frac{1}{V}\,\Big|\, x_i\Big) =DV \,.
\end{split}\label{trates}$$ The probability of finding the system in the state $\bm{x}$ at time $t$, $P({\bm{x}},t)$, then satisfies the master equation $$\frac{dP({\bm{x}},t)}{dt} = \sum_{{\bm{x}}'\neq{\bm{x}}}\big[ T(\bm{x} | \bm{x}')P({\bm{x}}',t) - T(\bm{x}' | \bm{x})P({\bm{x}},t)\big],
\label{master}$$ with the transition rates given above [@Gardiner1985].
![(Color online) Sample stochastic time series of the simple three-species reaction network described in the text, with volume $V=10^4$ and diffusion coefficient $D=10^{-4}$. The thick (blue), thin (red) and dashed (purple) lines show the concentrations of chemicals $X_1$, $X_2$ and $X_3$, respectively. The smaller figures show detail of rapid oscillations (left) and metastability (right), taken from the main plot. All simulations were performed using Gillespie’s algorithm [@Gillespie1977].[]{data-label="fig:trajectories"}](Fig1.eps "fig:"){width="40.00000%"}\
Stochastic simulations of reaction networks of the class described above display a rich phenomenology including rapid oscillations and random switching between metastable states. For example, the time series displayed in Fig. \[fig:trajectories\] were obtained from simulations of a three-species reaction with (arbitrarily chosen) non-zero reaction rates $r_{1,2}=1$, $r_{2,3}=4$, $r_{3,2}=3$, $r_{3,1}=1$. In what follows we will show how these features can be qualitatively and quantitatively understood by an analysis of the influence of noise and the separation of timescales.
The dynamics are drastically affected by the relationship between the cell volume and the diffusion coefficient. To elucidate this, we introduce a rescaled volume $\lambda=DV$, which we treat as an $O(1)$ control parameter. Scaling $V$ and $D$ simultaneously in this way, we can rewrite the master equation (\[master\]) as a power series in a single small parameter (we choose $D$, but $V^{-1}$ is also a valid expansion parameter), leading to a Kramers-Moyal expansion [@Risken1989]. Truncating it at second order, one obtains a Fokker-Planck equation equivalent to the following stochastic differential equation (SDE), defined in the Itō sense [@Gardiner1985]:
$$\label{sdes}
\dot x_i = x_i\sum_jR_{ij}x_j + D (1 - x_i) + \sqrt{D}\,\eta_i(t)\,,$$
where $i=1,\ldots, n$, $R_{ij}=r_{ji}-r_{ij}$ and the $\eta_i$ are Gaussian noise variables with zero mean and correlator $$\begin{split}
\big\langle {\eta_i}(t)& {\eta_j}(t') \big\rangle = \\
&\quad \delta(t-t')\,\frac{1}{\lambda}\left[ \delta_{i,j} \Big( x_i\sum_kS_{ik}x_k \Big)-S_{ij}x_i x_j \right].
\end{split}
\label{noise}$$ Here the angle brackets signify an average over the noise, and $S_{ij}=r_{ij}+r_{ji}$.
Several important facts about the dynamics can be ascertained from inspection of Eqs. and . First, we discuss the limit of large volume. The factor of $\lambda^{-1}$ in the noise correlator indicates that for finite volumes the system experiences internal fluctuations. These vanish as $\lambda\rightarrow\infty$, leaving behind a deterministic system of differential equations equivalent to those obtained from a mean-field analysis of the reaction network. For general reaction networks these equations describe simple oscillatory relaxation towards the homogeneous fixed point $x_i=1$ for all $i$. This prediction is quite at odds with the rich phenomenology which is observed in stochastic simulations (as seen in Fig. \[fig:trajectories\], for example). A proper treatment of the noise is thus necessary: from now on we keep $\lambda$ fixed and finite.
The presence of the small parameter $D$ in Eq. implies a separation of timescales. On an $O(1)$ timescale (which we refer to as [*fast*]{}), diffusion is negligible and the system feels no noise. Setting $D=0$ in Eq. yields a deterministic dynamical system in which the homogeneous state $x_i\equiv1$ is a center; it has Jacobian matrix $R$, which is antisymmetric and thus has all imaginary eigenvalues. We can therefore expect rapid almost-deterministic oscillations as seen, for example, in the lower left panel of Fig. \[fig:trajectories\]. On a slow $O(1/D)$ timescale, two additional factors play a role. First, the system experiences a deterministic linear drag towards the homogeneous state. Second, the effects of noise become relevant, leading to stochasticity in the trajectories.
For smaller volumes, the overall noise strength is greater, and thus the form of the noise correlator has an important role in shaping the system dynamics. In particular, since the strength of the noise is a function of the state of the system, trajectories are forced away from states giving rise to large values of noise, creating an effective attraction towards those states in which the noise vanishes. This effect is relatively well-known in the study of systems with multiplicative noise (for example, see [@Horsthemke1984] and references therein), and we will illustrate it with an explicit calculation for the TK model. Inspection of the correlator reveals that the states for which the noise vanishes are those in which no autocatalytic reaction can occur. That is, for each pair $i,j$ one of $x_i$, $x_j$ or $r_{ij}$ must be zero. The metastability of these states is further enhanced by the fact that this condition also causes the $O(1)$ term in Eq. to vanish. An example can be seen in the lower right panel of Fig. \[fig:trajectories\], where the state $X_1=3,\,X_2=0\,,X_3=0$ is metastable.
As well as providing a qualitative picture of dynamics observed in this class of biochemical reaction networks, the mathematics we describe may also be employed to obtain precise analytical results [^1]. We now illustrate these methods in the paradigmatic case of the TK reaction [@Togashi2001; @*Togashi2003]. The model is composed of four chemical species whose reactions form a closed cycle, so that the non-zero rates are $r_{1,2}=r_{2,3}=r_{3,4}=r_{4,1}=1$. In stochastic simulations of the model, different dynamics are observed depending on the volume of the cell. For very large volumes, one finds an approximately homogeneous distribution of chemical species, however, at lower volumes the system is typically dominated by a pair of species (either $X_1$ and $X_3$, or $X_2$ and $X_4$), with the other pair absent: these are the metastable states predicted in the earlier discussion.
To visualize this dynamical transition, TK [@Togashi2001; @*Togashi2003] introduced the quantity $z = (x_1+x_3) - (x_2+x_4)$. The pair-dominated state corresponds to $|z|\approx 4$. By measuring the stationary distribution $P(z)$ from long simulation runs, one observes a transition induced by cell volume – see Fig. \[fig:trans\]. There is a critical volume $V_c\approx 1/D$ at which $P(z)$ is flat; above $V_c$ the distribution has a single peak at $z=0$; below $V_c$ it is bimodal with peaks at $z\approx\pm 4$, indicative of the pair-dominated regime.
In large volumes the model also exhibits quasi-cycles, a second (weaker) stochastic effect whereby damped oscillations present in the deterministic dynamics are excited by the noise. Quasi-cycles are amenable to analysis using a linear noise approximation [@Dauxois2009], however, it is clear that the dynamical transition is related to the noise-induced metastability discussed above and will require more powerful methods. This point was elucidated in Ohkubo [*et al*]{} [@Ohkubo2008], with the investigation of a simple one-dimensional model inspired by the TK reaction.
![(Color online) Stationary probability distribution for $z=(x_1+x_3) - (x_2+x_4)$ in the TK reaction. The histograms were obtained from simulation data with diffusion coefficient $D=5\times10^{-3}$ at volumes $V=10^{4}$ (red, unimodal), $V=2\times10^{3}$ (purple, flat) and $V=10^{3}$ (blue, bimodal). In each case the corresponding theoretical prediction of Eq. is shown with a solid line.[]{data-label="fig:trans"}](Fig2.eps "fig:"){width="40.00000%"}\
We begin our analysis of Eq. (\[sdes\]) for the TK reaction by making a change of variables which can be understood mathematically (as a real Fourier transform) or physically (as corresponding to the total concentration, the $z$ variable introduced by TK and two variables related to the $X_{1}-X_{3}$ and $X_{2}-X_{4}$ dynamics). This is $$\begin{aligned}
& & w=x_1 + x_2 + x_3 + x_4, \ z=(x_1+x_3)-(x_2+x_4), \nonumber \\
& & u=x_1-x_3, \ v=x_2-x_4.
\label{CofV}\end{aligned}$$ Applying the transformation, for the total concentration we find the closed equation $\dot{w}=D(4-w)$. For the remainder of the analysis, we fix $w$ to its fixed-point value of $4$. For the variables $z$, $u$, and $v$ we then find $$\begin{split}
\dot z &= -2 u v- D \,z + \sqrt{\frac{D}{\lambda}(16-z^2)}\,\zeta_1(t)\,\,, \\
\dot u &= - \frac{v(z+4)}{2} - D\,u +\sqrt{\frac{D\,(4-z)}{\lambda\,(4+z)}}\,\Big(u\,\zeta_1(t)+\phi\,\zeta_2(t)\Big)\,, \\
\dot v &= - \frac{u(z-4)}{2} - D\,v -\sqrt{\frac{D\,(4+z)}{\lambda\,(4-z)}}\,\Big(v\,\zeta_1(t)+\psi\,\zeta_3(t)\Big) \,,
\end{split}
\label{sdes2}$$ where $\phi = \sqrt{(z + 4)^2/4-u^2}\,$, $\psi=\sqrt{(z - 4)^2/4-v^2}$, and the $\zeta$ variables are independent Gaussian white noise.
The dynamics on the $O(1)$ timescale are solvable. In fact, $\phi$ and $\psi$ defined above are conserved quantities of the system with $D$ set to zero. Solution trajectories are therefore confined to the closed curve given by the intersection of the surfaces defined by the values of $\phi$ and $\psi$, which are determined by initial conditions. Details of the full solution will be provided in a forthcoming paper [@Biancalani2012]; for the present discussion it is sufficient to point out that the trajectories are periodic, with the period for $z$ being $$\label{o1period}
T = \frac{2}{\sqrt{16- \left( \phi^2 - \psi^2 \right)}}\,\, \text{K} \left( \frac{16 - (\phi + \psi)^2}{16 - (\phi - \psi)^2} \right),$$ where $\text{K}(\cdots)$ denotes the elliptic integral of the first kind. The period for $u$ and $v$ is double that of $z$. It is important to note that $K(x)$ grows without bound as $x\to1$, and thus Eq. (\[o1period\]) implies that the period of oscillation $T$ diverges as either $\phi\to0$ or $\psi\to0$. In these limits, the trajectories of the deterministic dynamics deform into a homoclinic network linking the fixed point $(u,v,z)=(0,4,-4)\,\,\textrm{to}\,\,(u,v,z)=(0,-4,-4)$ or $(-4,0,4)\,\,\textrm{to}\,\,(4,0,4)$, respectively. This fact explains the presence of both fast oscillatory dynamics and metastability in the same parameter range.
We turn now to the study of the behavior of $z$ on an $O(1/D)$ timescale. From left to right, the terms in the equation for $\dot{z}$ in system are responsible for the fast oscillation caused by interaction with $u$ and $v$, the linear drag towards zero, and the noise. Since the oscillations occur on a timescale faster than the other two terms, we expect that a time average on a timescale $\tau$, such that $T \ll \tau \ll 1/D$, will not affect the drag and the noise substantially. To do the averaging, we coarse-grain time by intervals with length $\tau$ in Eq. and replace every term with its time average over that interval [@Freidlin1984]. We write $\overline{(\cdots)} = \tau^{-1} \int_t^{t+\tau}dt \,(\cdots)$ for the time average and make use of the following assumptions: $$\overline{\vphantom{i} u v}\,\approx0\,,\quad \overline{\left(16-z^{2}\right)^\frac{1}{2}} \,\approx\,\left(16-\overline{z}^2\right)^\frac{1}{2}\,.
\label{ansatz}$$ These are justified on physical grounds: the first follows from the fact that the conserved quantities of the fast dynamics are approximately constant on intervals of length $\tau\ll 1/D$, since the average of $uv$ is a multiple of the average of $\dot{z}$, and $z$ has periodic trajectories if $\phi$ and $\psi$ are fixed; in the second approximation, we are assuming that the strength of noise is not strongly affected by fast oscillations in $z$.
The resulting so-called averaged equation for $\bar z$ is
$$\dot{\bar{z}} = - D \bar{z} + \sqrt{\frac{D}{\lambda}\,(16-\bar z^2)}\,\zeta(t)\,.
\label{zeq4}$$
This equation describes an interplay between the drag and the noise, and provides a complete picture of the dynamical transition first observed by TK. Physically, we may think of the system as gently relaxing to the origin, while being agitated by a noise term which vanishes at the metastable states $\bar z=\pm4$. Depending on the strength of the noise (controlled by the parameter $\lambda$), the system will either be attracted to zero by the linear drag, or forced to the boundaries by the noise. By varying $\lambda$ we transition between these dynamical regimes, an effect which is most clearly demonstrated by calculation of the stationary distribution $P(\bar z\,;\,\lambda)$. From Eq. , we find
$$P(\bar z\,;\,\lambda) = \big(16-\bar z^2\big)^{\lambda -1} \frac{\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{2}+\lambda \right)}{\sqrt{\pi }\, 4^{2 \lambda-1}\, \Gamma(\lambda)}.
\label{zstaz}$$
Our prediction is tested against the numerics in Fig. \[fig:trans\]. This equation confirms the critical volume $V_c=1/D$ as the point of transition between a unimodal and bimodal stationary distribution. We should point out that Eq. is correct only up to first order in $D$; certain features of the simulation data (such as $|z|$ occasionally exceeding 4 due to variations in total concentration $w$) are not captured at this level of approximation.
It is worth pausing a moment to discuss the relation of the noise-induced metastable states to the fast oscillatory dynamics discussed in the earlier analysis. For example, from the definition of $\psi$, we see that $z=4$ can only be obtained when $v=0$ and $\psi=0$, and thus we are in the regime in which the period of the oscillation is divergent. In this case one can expect fast periodicity to break down and the system to remain in a given metastable state for a random length of time, before being freed and proceeding along a trajectory close to the homoclinic orbit linking it to another. The lower right-hand plot of Fig. 1 shows this behavior.
Beyond determining the stationary distribution of $z$, our methods may also be used to calculate various other quantities associated with the model. For example, in [@Togashi2001] the fraction of time spent in the pair-dominated state (that is, $X_1+X_3=0$ or $X_2+X_4=0$), called the ‘rate of residence’, was measured from simulations and plotted as a function of $\lambda$. The authors noted a puzzling shift in this quantity when adjusting for different cell volumes, which we are now able to explain.
From Eq. we can determine a straightforward prediction for the rate of residence by computing the fraction of time that $z$ spends within $1/V$ of $\pm4$. We integrate the stationary distribution to find: $$\begin{split}
1-\int_{-4+1/V}^{4-1/V}P(z\,&;\,DV)\,dz\\
&=\Big.V^{-DV}+\text{higher order terms.}
\end{split}\label{dvlogv}$$ Therefore, to properly compare different cell volumes and diffusion coefficients, one should hold $DV\ln(V)$ constant, rather than $\lambda$. The fit between Eq. and data from simulations is shown in Fig. \[fig:rateofres\].
![(Color online) Rate of residence of the pair-dominated state as a function of $DV\ln(V)$. The circles show the result measured from simulations carried out with fixed $D=10^{-3}$ and varying $V$; for each data point a single simulation of duration $t_{\max}=10^7$ was conducted and the fraction of time spent in the pair-dominated state measured. The solid line corresponds to the first-order prediction in Eq. .[]{data-label="fig:rateofres"}](Fig3.eps "fig:"){width="40.00000%"}\
In this Rapid Communication we have examined the influence of noise on the link between structure and function in a class of biochemical networks. The consistent formulation of the problem which we provide starts from the master equation and proceeds through a well-defined approximation scheme to an SDE which correctly captures the behavior of the system. Although this equation is not exactly solvable, we are able to proceed by identifying and exploiting a separation of timescales involved in the problem. This analytical process was demonstrated explicitly for the paradigmatic TK reaction, providing an understanding of the phenomenology of the model and yielding expressions for quantities of interest which are compared to the ones obtained numerically by TK.
Since it is the discreteness of molecules which gives rise to the intrinsic noise experienced by reaction systems of this type, one might expect that such effects are only relevant in small systems, and can be neglected in general (indeed, this is a central assumption of any theory based on the study of macroscopic rate equations). In practice the situation is far more subtle; what matters more than the strength of the noise is how it interacts with other aspects of the model, such as the slow relaxation due to a small diffusion coefficient. As we have shown, this interaction gives rise to metastability in the class of autocatalytic reaction networks we investigate; moreover, it can be exploited mathematically to explain the dynamical transition observed in the TK reaction. A closely related noise effect has recently been observed in an ecological model [@Rogers2012], where it induces the spontaneous formation of species, and we expect that more surprising results of this type will come in the near future.
This work was funded (T.R. and A.J.M.) under EPSRC Grant No. EP/H02171X/1. T.B. also acknowledges partial funding from EPSRC.
[18]{}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 [**]{}, ed. (, ) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [**]{}, ed. (, , ) @noop [**]{} (, , ) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [ ()]{} @noop [**]{} (, , ) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1143/JPSJ.77.044002) @noop [****, ()]{}
[^1]: Timescale separation techniques have also been applied successfully to other models with intrinsic noise, for example, in [@Parker2009] to study the properties of stochastic extinction events in the Lotka-Volterra model
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Satoshi <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Morita</span>$^{1}$, Yukiyasu <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Ozeki</span>$^{2}$ and Hidetoshi <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Nishimori</span>$^{1}$'
title: Gauge Theory for Quantum Spin Glasses
---
Introduction
============
The problem of spin glasses has been attracting continued attention.[@BP; @FH] After the pioneering work by Edwards and Anderson (EA)[@EA], Sherrington and Kirkpatrick have exactly solved the mean-field model by assuming the replica symmetry.[@SK] Parisi has proposed the replica symmetry breaking solution and established the theoretical picture that the low-temperature phase is composed of infinitely many stable states with ultrametric structure[@Parisi].
A topic of active investigations in recent years concerns the properties of short-range systems. Numerical studies have provided strong evidence for the existence of the spin glass (SG) transition for both the EA model[@BY; @OM; @SC; @BY2] and the $XY$ gauge glass[@HS; @RTYF; @CBK; @KS] in three dimensions but against it for the two-dimensional EA model[@SC; @BY2]. For the two-dimensional gauge glass, although the long-range SG order has been denied rigorously,[@NK] it is still possible that the system has a quasi long-range order in which the SG correlation decays in a power low. There remains the controversy about the existence of this order: some numerical studies have supported the absent of a finite-temperature transition[@KS; @G; @RY] but some groups argue against such a conclusion.[@L; @CP]
Analytical calculations for spin glasses in finite dimensions are difficult because of randomness and frustration. However, a method using the gauge symmetry of the system is well-known as a powerful technique. [@N_ptp; @N_ox] This method provides various rigorous results, for instance, the exact internal energy and an upper bound for the specific heat in the special region of the phase diagram. Another noteworthy result is a set of inequalities for the correlation function, which restrict the topology of the phase diagram. In this relation, it has been suggested that the phase boundary between the ferromagnetic (FM) and SG phases is vertical by modifying the probability distribution.[@Kita] These results are generalized to a wider class of systems including the usual Ising SG and the $Z_q$ and $XY$ gauge glasses.[@ON]
Although the gauge theory provides us with surprising results, its targets have so far been limited to classical spin systems. In the present paper, we generalize this theory so that it applies to quantum spin systems. A difficulty of this generalization is the fact that we must define the gauge transformation for spins without violating the commutation rule. We circumvent this problem by using a rotational operator on the Hilbert space as the gauge transformation.
This paper consists of six sections. In the next section, we formulate the gauge transformation in two quantum spin glasses, the transverse Ising model and the quantum gauge glass (QGG), and show that these models have gauge symmetry. In §3, we prove an identity for a gauge invariant operator. This identity is valid even when the system parameters depend on time following the time-dependent Schrödinger equation. In §4, we derive a set of inequalities for correlation functions and order parameters. These results restrict the location of the FM phase or the Kosterlitz-Thouless (KT) phase in the phase diagram. In §5, we extend these inequalities to the ground state. The resulting inequalities for the order parameters show that the FM order does not exist at zero-temperature in the two-dimensional QGG. In §6, we consider the quantum $XY$ Mattis model and determine its phase diagram. The last section is devoted to summary.
Gauge Transformation for Random Quantum Spin Systems
====================================================
Transverse Ising model
----------------------
First, let us consider the random-bond Ising model in a transverse field. The Hamiltonian for this model is written as $$H=-\sum_{\langle ij \rangle} J_{ij}\sigma_i^z \sigma_j^z
- h \sum_{i} \sigma_i^x, \label{TIM_H}$$ where $\sigma_i^{\alpha}$ is the Pauli matrix at site $i$. Although we treat spin-$1/2$ systems in this paper, one can straightforwardly generalize all the results to spin-$S$ systems. There is no restriction in the spatial dimensionality or lattice structure. The exchange interaction $J_{ij}$ is a quenched random variable. One of the useful probability distributions for $J_{ij}$ is the binary distribution $$P(J_{ij}) = p\, \delta(J_{ij}-J) +(1-p)\, \delta(J_{ij}+J) .$$ It is convenient for later arguments to rewrite this distribution as $$P(J_{ij}) = \frac{{\rm e}^{K_p \tau_{ij}}}{2\cosh K_p}, \qquad
K_p= \frac{1}{2}\log \frac{p}{1-p} ,
\label{P_pm}$$ where $\tau_{ij} = J_{ij}/J$ is the sign of the exchange interaction $J_{ij}$. Another useful distribution is the Gaussian distribution $$P(J_{ij}) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi J^2}}
\exp\left(-\frac{(J_{ij}-J_0)^2}{2J^2}\right),
\label{P_gauss}$$ where $J_0$ and $J^2$ denote the average and variance, respectively.
For quantum spin systems, the classical gauge transformation, which simultaneously changes the sign of all components, is not valid because the commutation rule $[\sigma_i^x,\sigma_i^y]=2{\rm i}\sigma_i^z$ is changed to $[\sigma_i^x,\sigma_i^y]=-2{\rm i}\sigma_i^z$. Thus we define a gauge transformation for spins using a unitary operator as $$U : \sigma_i^\alpha \rightarrow
G \sigma_i^\alpha G^{-1} , \qquad
G = \prod_i G_i, \qquad
G_i =
\begin{cases}
1_i & (\xi_i = +1) \\
\exp\left(-\displaystyle\frac{{\rm i}\pi}{2} \sigma_i^x \right)
& (\xi_i=-1)
\end{cases} ,
\label{TIM_G}$$ where $\xi_i$ is a classical gauge variable at site $i$ and takes two values $\pm 1$. If $\xi_i=-1$, $\sigma_i^{y,z} \rightarrow
-\sigma_i^{y,z}$ and $\sigma_i^x \rightarrow \sigma_i^x$. Equivalently we can write $$U : (\sigma_i^x, \sigma_i^y, \sigma_i^z) \rightarrow
(\sigma_i^x, \xi_i \sigma_i^y, \xi_i \sigma_i^z) .$$ A difference of gauge transformations between quantum and classical systems is the transformation rule of $\sigma_i^x$.
The gauge transformation for the bond variables $\{J_{ij}\}$ is the same as in classical systems, namely $$V : J_{ij} \rightarrow J_{ij} \xi_i \xi_j. \label{V}$$ The transverse-field term in eq. (\[TIM\_H\]) does not change by the gauge transformation.
The Hamiltonian (\[TIM\_H\]) is clearly invariant under the successive operations of $V$ and $U$: $(UV)H=H$. However, the distribution function of bond configuration is changed, for the $\pm J$ Ising model, as $$P(J_{ij}) \rightarrow
\frac{{\rm e}^{K_p \tau_{ij}\xi_i\xi_j}}{2\cosh K_p}.
\label{P_pm2}$$ It is important for the following argument that this transformed distribution is proportional to the Boltzmann factor of a classical system. Similarly, the Gaussian distribution (\[P\_gauss\]) is changed as $$P(J_{ij}) \rightarrow \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi J^2}}
\exp\left({-\frac{J_{ij}^2+J_0^2}{2J^2}}\right)
\exp\left({\frac{J_0}{J^2}J_{ij}\xi_i\xi_j}\right) .$$ To simplify the arguments, we focus on the binary distribution (\[P\_pm\]) and (\[P\_pm2\]), hereafter. It is straightforward to apply the same methods to the Gaussian distribution.
Quantum gauge glass
-------------------
Next, we consider the quantum gauge glass (QGG). Similarly to the transverse Ising model, the gauge transformation is defined by the rotation operator.
To properly define the quantum version of gauge glass, let us first consider the Hamiltonian of the classical gauge glass (CGG), $$H_{\rm cl} = -J\sum_{\langle ij \rangle}\cos (\phi_i-\phi_j-\omega_{ij}) .$$ This Hamiltonian can be rewritten using the spin vector composed of $x$ and $y$ components $\mib{S}_i
=\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
S_i^x\\
S_i^y
\end{smallmatrix} \right)$ and rotational matrix in the $XY$ plane, $R(\theta)=\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
\cos\theta & -\sin\theta \\
\sin\theta & \cos\theta
\end{smallmatrix}\right)$ as $$H_{\rm cl} = -J \sum_{\langle ij \rangle} {^t\mib{S}_i} R(\omega_{ij})
\mib{S}_j.\label{Hc_gg}$$ Thus this model can be quantized straightforwardly by replacing the elements of the above spin vectors by the Pauli matrices. The Hamiltonian of the QGG is therefore written explicitly as $$H=-J\sum_{\langle ij \rangle}\left\{
\cos\omega_{ij}\left(\sigma_i^x \sigma_j^x
+\sigma_i^y \sigma_j^y \right)
-\sin\omega_{ij}\left(\sigma_i^x \sigma_j^y
-\sigma_i^y \sigma_j^x \right)\right\} .
\label{H_qgg}$$ The phase factor $\omega_{ij}\in [0,2\pi)$ is a quenched random variable whose probability distribution is of cosine type $$P(\omega_{ij})=\frac{{\rm e}^{K_p\cos\omega_{ij}}}{2\pi I_0(K_p)} ,
\label{P_omega}$$ a periodic Gaussian (Villain) type $$P(\omega_{ij})=\sqrt{\frac{K_p}{2\pi}}\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}
\exp\left(-\frac{K_p(\omega_{ij}-2\pi n)^2}{2}\right)$$ or a binary type $$P(\omega_{ij})= p\,\delta(\omega_{ij})+(1-p)\delta(\omega_{ij}-\pi).$$
Equation (\[H\_qgg\]) is a special case of the $XY$ model with Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interactions. This Hamiltonian is written as $$H = -J\sum_{\langle{ij}\rangle}\mib{\sigma}_i \cdot \mib{\sigma}_j
-\sum_{\langle{ij}\rangle} J_{ij}
(\mib{\sigma}_i\times\mib{\sigma}_j)_z,$$ where the second term is the random Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction. If we set new parameters, $$\tilde{J}_{ij} = \sqrt{J^2+J_{ij}^2} , \quad
\omega_{ij} = -\tan^{-1} \left(\frac{J_{ij}}{J}\right) ,$$ the above Hamiltonian is rewritten as $$H=-\sum_{\langle ij \rangle} \tilde{J}_{ij }\left\{
\cos\omega_{ij}\left(\sigma_i^x \sigma_j^x
+\sigma_i^y \sigma_j^y \right)
-\sin\omega_{ij}\left(\sigma_i^x \sigma_j^y
-\sigma_i^y \sigma_j^x \right)\right\}.$$ This is equal to eq. (\[H\_qgg\]) except that the interaction depends on bonds.
In the CGG, the gauge transformation for spins is defined by the shift of spin variables as $\phi_i\rightarrow\phi_i-\psi_i$, where $\psi_i\in
[0,2\pi)$ is the gauge variable. Using the same notation as in eq. (\[Hc\_gg\]), this transformation is expressed as $$U : \mib{S}_i \rightarrow R(-\psi_i)\mib{S}_i .$$ Thus we use this definition of gauge transformation for the QGG. Using a rotational operator on the Hilbert space, we define $$U : \mib{\sigma}_i \rightarrow G \mib{\sigma}_i G^{-1} \quad
G = \prod_i \exp\left(-\frac{{\rm i} \psi_i}{2}\sigma_i^z \right).$$ The transformation rule for the transposed vector $^t \mib{\sigma}_i$ is defined as $$U : {^t\mib{\sigma}_i} \rightarrow {^t \mib{\sigma}_i} R(\psi_i) =
G\, {^t\!\mib{\sigma}_i} G^{-1} .$$ The gauge transformation of random variables is the same as in the classical case, $$V : \omega_{ij} \rightarrow \omega_{ij} -\psi_i +\psi_j.$$ Under the gauge transformation $UV$, the Hamiltonian is invariant because $$(UV) H = -J \sum_{\langle ij \rangle} {^t\mib{\sigma}_i} R(\psi_i)
R(\omega_{ij}-\psi_i+\psi_j) R(-\psi_j) \mib{\sigma}_j = H,
\label{invQGG}$$ where we used the property of rotation matrices, $R(\psi)R(\phi)=R(\psi+\phi)$. The probability distribution (\[P\_omega\]) is changed as $$P(\omega_{ij}) \rightarrow
\frac{{\rm e}^{K_p\cos(\omega_{ij}-\psi_i+\psi_j)}}{2\pi I_0(K_p)}.$$ This transformed distribution is proportional to the Boltzmann factor for the CGG. If we choose the Gaussian or binary type, the Boltzmann factor for the Villain or $\pm J$ model appears, respectively.
Identity for Gauge Invariant Operators
======================================
The gauge symmetry of the Hamiltonian yields a useful identity for gauge invariant operators. First, let us suppose that the system was initially in the perfect FM state $|F_z\rangle$ in the transverse Ising model. This state appears in the FM limit, $T=0$, $p=1$, $h=0$. The gauge transformation operator $G$ defined in eq. (\[TIM\_G\]) changes this state as $$G |F_z\rangle = |\xi\rangle, \qquad
|\xi\rangle = |\xi\rangle_1 |\xi\rangle_2
\cdots |\xi\rangle_N.
\label{Fz}$$ If $\xi_i=+1$, $|\xi\rangle_i$ denotes the state with up spin in the $z$ direction, and if $\xi_i=-1$, the spin at site $i$ is down.
Using the property of $|F_z\rangle$ in (\[Fz\]), we prove the following identity for a gauge-invariant operator $Q$ which satisfies $Q=(UV)Q$ or equivalently $VQ=G^{-1} Q G$, $$\left[\left\langle Q \right\rangle_{F_z}\right]
=\left[\left\langle Q \right\rangle_{\rho_{\rm cl}(K_p)}\right], \label{Q}$$ where $\left\langle \cdot \right\rangle_{\rho_{\rm cl}(K_p)}$ is the expectation value for the classical equilibrium state on the Nishimori line (NL), that is, $$\left\langle Q \right\rangle_{\rho_{\rm cl}(K_p)}
={\rm Tr}\, \rho_{\rm cl}(K_p) Q, \qquad
\rho_{\rm cl}(K_p)
=\frac{{\rm e}^{K_p\sum_{{ij}}\tau_{ij}\sigma_i^z \sigma_j^z}}
{{\rm Tr}\, {\rm e}^{K_p\sum_{{ij}}\tau_{ij}\sigma_i^z \sigma_j^z}}.$$
To prove the identity (\[Q\]), we apply the gauge transformation for the configuration of randomness of eq. (\[V\]) appearing on left-hand side of eq. (\[Q\]). This operation does not change its value because the transformation $V$ of eq. (\[V\]) only changes the order of the summation over $\tau_{ij}$. Thus the left-hand side of eq. (\[Q\]) is rewritten as $$\left[\left\langle Q\right\rangle_{F_z}\right]
= \sum_{\{\tau_{ij}\}}
\frac{{\rm e}^{K_p\sum\tau_{ij}\xi_i \xi_j}}
{(2\cosh K_p)^{N_B}} \langle F_z | VQ | F_z \rangle
= \sum_{\{\tau_{ij}\}}
\frac{{\rm e}^{K_p\sum\tau_{ij}\xi_i \xi_j}}
{(2\cosh K_p)^{N_B}} \langle \xi | Q | \xi \rangle,$$ where we used the assumption that the operator $Q$ is gauge invariant, $VQ = G^{-1}QG$. Since the expectation value on the left-hand side does not depend on $\xi$, the summation over $\xi$ and division by $2^N$ yield $$\left[\left\langle Q \right\rangle_{F_z}\right]
= \sum_{\{\tau_{ij}\}}
\frac{1}{2^N (2\cosh K_p)^{N_B}} \sum_{\{\xi\}}
{\rm e}^{K_p\sum\tau_{ij}\xi_i \xi_j}
\langle \xi | Q |\xi\rangle.$$ The last part of the right-hand side is rewritten in terms of $\rho_{\rm cl}(K_p)$ as $$\sum_{\{\xi\}} {\rm e}^{K_p\sum\tau_{ij}\xi_i \xi_j}
\langle\xi| Q | \xi\rangle
=\left(\sum_{\{\xi\}} {\rm e}^{K_p\sum\tau_{ij}\xi_i \xi_j}\right)
\left({\rm Tr} \rho_{\rm cl}(K_p) Q\right).$$ Therefore, we obtain $$\left[\left\langle Q\right\rangle_{F_z}\right]
= \sum_{\{\tau_{ij}\}}
\frac{\sum_{\xi} {\rm e}^{K_p\sum\tau_{ij}\xi_i \xi_j}}
{2^N (2\cosh K_p)^{N_B}} {\rm Tr} \rho_{\rm cl}(K_p) Q.$$ Since ${\rm Tr}\rho_{\rm cl}(K_p) Q$ is invariant under the transformation $V$, this is identical to the right-hand side of eq. (\[Q\])
The above result can be generalized to the case that the transverse field $h(t)$ depends on time, following the classical example. [@O1] We consider the zero-temperature time evolution following the Schrödinger equation. Using the time ordered product, the time evolution operator is written as $$U_t = T \exp\left(-{\rm i}\int_{0}^{t} H(t') {\rm d}t' \right) .$$ Since the time dependence of the Hamiltonian does not invalidate the gauge symmetry, this operator is also gauge invariant $$(UV)U_t = G(V U_t) G^{-1} = U_t .$$
Examples of the gauge invariant operator include the transverse magnetization $\sigma_i^x(t)= U_t^{\dagger} \sigma_i^x U_t$, the autocorrelation function $\sigma_i^z(0) \sigma_i^z(t)$ and the interaction term $H_0(t)$ of the Hamiltonian (the first term on the right-hand side of eq. (\[TIM\_H\])).
For the QGG, we can prove a similar identity $$\left[\left\langle Q\right\rangle_{F_x}\right]
= \left[\left\langle Q\right\rangle_{\rho_{\rm cl}(K_p)}\right].
\label{Q_qgg}$$ Here one should note that $\rho_{\rm cl}(K_p)$ is different from the normal density operator. If we choose the cosine-type distribution (\[P\_omega\]), $\rho_{\rm cl}(K_p)$ is defined by the Boltzmann factor for the CGG as $$\rho_{\rm cl}(K_p) = \frac{{\rm Tr}_{\psi} {\rm e}^{K_p \sum_{ij}
\cos(\omega_{ij}-\psi_i+\psi_j)}
|{\psi}\rangle \langle{\psi}| }
{{\rm Tr}_{\psi} {\rm e}^{K_p \sum_{ij}
\cos(\omega_{ij}-\psi_i+\psi_j)}} ,$$ where $|\psi\rangle = G |F_x\rangle$ and $\text{Tr}_{\psi}$ stands for integration over $\psi_i$ from $0$ to $2\pi$. Since the state vector $|
\psi\rangle$ does not diagonalize the Hamiltonian for the quantum gauge glass, $\rho_{\rm cl}(K_p)$ is not equal to the density operator $$\rho(K_p) = \frac{{\rm e}^{-\beta H}}{{\rm Tr}\, {\rm e}^{-\beta H}} .$$
The identities (\[Q\]) and (\[Q\_qgg\]) show that the expectation value of gauge invariant operator in the FM limit is equal to the one in the classical equilibrium state on the NL. The equivalence of the two states has already been proved in the dynamical gauge theory for classical systems [@O1; @O2]. The present results are generalization of these dynamical cases to quantum systems. Note that the zero-temperature time evolution for quantum systems is deterministic in contrast to the stochastic dynamics for the classical SG.
Correlation Function and Order Parameter
========================================
Using the identities proved in the previous section, we can derive a class of inequalities for the correlation function. First, we treat the transverse Ising model. Since the correlation function is not invariant under the gauge transformation, let us consider the following gauge-invariant quantity $$Q= \sigma_i^z \sigma_j^z \langle \sigma_i^z \sigma_j^z \rangle_{K,h},$$ where $\langle\cdot\rangle_{K,h}$ denotes thermal average with temperature $\beta^{-1}=J/K$ under a transverse field $h$. Substitution of the above quantity into eq. (\[Q\]) yields $$\left[\left\langle \sigma_i^z \sigma_j^z\right\rangle_{K,h}\right]
=\left[\left\langle \xi_i \xi_j\right\rangle^{\rm cl}_{K_p}
\left\langle \sigma_i^z \sigma_j^z\right\rangle_{K,h}\right].$$ Here $\langle \xi_i \xi_j \rangle_{K_p}^{\rm cl}$ is the correlation function for the classical Ising system with the same configuration $\{\tau_{ij}\}$ and no external field. By taking the absolute value of both sides of this equation, we find $$\left|\left[\left\langle \sigma_i^z \sigma_j^z
\right\rangle_{K,h}\right]\right|
\leq\left[\left|\left\langle \xi_i \xi_j
\right\rangle^{\rm cl}_{K_p}\right|\right],
\label{ineq1}$$ where we used the fact that correlation function $\left\langle{\sigma_i^z
\sigma_j^z}\right\rangle_{K,h}$ does not exceed unity. Similarly, we can prove $$\left|\left[{\rm sgn}\left(\left\langle \sigma_i^z \sigma_j^z
\right\rangle_{K,h} \right)\right]\right|
\leq \left[\left|\langle
\xi_i \xi_j \rangle_{K_p}^{\rm cl} \right| \right]$$ $$\left[\frac{ \langle \xi_i \xi_j \rangle_{K_p}^{\rm cl}}
{\left\langle \sigma_i^z \sigma_j^z \right\rangle_{K,h}}\right]
= \left[\frac{1}
{\left\langle \sigma_i^z \sigma_j^z \right\rangle_{K,h}}\right]
\geq 1.
\label{ineq2}$$
If the probability $p$ of the FM interaction is less than the critical probability $p_{\rm c}$ at the multicritical point for the classical Ising system, the right-hand side of the inequality (\[ineq1\]) vanishes in the limit $\left| i-j \right|\rightarrow\infty$. Thus the correlation function for the transverse Ising model on the left-hand side is also equal to zero. Therefore the region of the FM phase is restricted to the range $p > p_{\rm c}$ (Fig. \[TIM\]). Since the transverse field represents quantum fluctuations, the correlation function for the transverse Ising model should be reduced from classical system with $h=0$, which is the physical origin of the above-mentioned restriction.
![The phase diagram of the transverse Ising model. The paramagnetic (PM), the ferromagnetic (FM) and spin glass (SG) phases meet at the multicritical point (MCP) in the plane $h=0$. The dashed line at $p=p_{\rm c}$ sets a bound for the existence of the FM phase also for $h\neq 0$.[]{data-label="TIM"}](TIM.eps)
Next, let us consider how to define a correlation function of the QGG which has convenient properties for the gauge theory. In the CGG, a useful correlation function is defined in terms of an exponential function as ${\rm e}^{{\rm i}(\phi_i-\phi_j)}$. This is rewritten using the notation of eq. (\[H\_qgg\]) as $${\rm e}^{{\rm i}(\phi_i-\phi_j)} = \mib{S}_i\cdot\mib{S}_j
-{\rm i}\,(\mib{S}_i \times \mib{S}_j)_z
= {^t\mib{S}_i}\mib{S}_j -{\rm i}\, {^t\mib{S}_i} R(-\pi/2) \mib{S}_j .
\label{CF_gg}$$ This motivates us to define a correlation operator $\gamma_{ij}$ for the quantum gauge glass as, $$\gamma_{ij}= (\sigma_i^x \sigma_j^x+\sigma_i^y \sigma_j^y)
-{\rm i} (\sigma_i^x \sigma_j^y-\sigma_i^y \sigma_j^x).\label{CF_qgg}$$ The gauge transformation $U$ changes this operator according to $$U \gamma_{ij} = G \gamma_{ij} G^{-1}
= {\rm e}^{-{\rm i}(\psi_i-\psi_j)} \gamma_{ij} .
\label{UCF}$$ The first factor is the same as the correlation function appearing in the classical gauge glass except for a minus sign.
Usually, the correlation function for $XY$-like systems is defined as the expectation value of $\sigma_i^x \sigma_j^x+\sigma_i^y \sigma_j^y$, which corresponds to $\cos(\phi_i-\phi_j)$ for classical systems. However, this expression is not useful for the gauge theory because it does not separate into gauge variables and spin operators after transformation by $U$ as $$\begin{split}
U(\sigma_i^x \sigma_j^x+\sigma_i^y \sigma_j^y)
= \cos(\psi_i-\psi_j)(\sigma_i^x \sigma_j^x+\sigma_i^y \sigma_j^y)
-\sin(\psi_i-\psi_j)(\sigma_i^x \sigma_j^y-\sigma_i^y \sigma_j^x).
\end{split}$$ In addition, one can easily prove that $$\left[\left\langle \gamma_{ij}\right\rangle_K \right]=
\left[\left\langle \sigma_i^x \sigma_j^x
+\sigma_i^y \sigma_j^y \right\rangle_K \right]$$ since the QGG is invariant under the following transformation: $$(\sigma_i^x, \sigma_i^y, \sigma_i^z) \rightarrow
(\sigma_i^y, -\sigma_i^x, \sigma_i^z), \qquad
\omega_{ij} \rightarrow -\omega_{ij} .$$ Thus we choose to discuss the correlation operator (\[CF\_qgg\]).
To derive an inequality similar to eq. (\[ineq1\]), it is useful to consider $$Q = \gamma_{ij}^\dagger \langle\gamma_{ij}\rangle_K .$$ It is easy to prove that this quantity is gauge invariant because of the property of $\gamma_{ij}$ given in eq. (\[UCF\]). Substituting this quantity into eq. (\[Q\_qgg\]), we obtain $$\left[\left\langle \gamma_{ij}\right\rangle_K \right]
=\left[ \left\langle {\rm e}^{-{\rm i}(\psi_i-\psi_j)}
\right\rangle_{K_p}^{\rm cl}
\left\langle \gamma_{ij}\right\rangle_K \right],
\label{gmgmQGG}$$ where $\langle \cdot \rangle^{\rm cl}_{K_p}$ stands for the expectation value for the CGG on the NL. By taking the absolute value of both sides of this equation, we find $$\left|\left[\left\langle\gamma_{ij}
\right\rangle_K \right]\right|
\leq
\left[\left|\left\langle {\rm e}^{-{\rm i}(\psi_i-\psi_j)}
\right\rangle^{\rm cl}_{K_p}\right|\right].
\label{QGG_ineq}$$ Similarly, we obtain $$\left|\left[\text{sgn}(\left\langle \gamma_{ij}
\right\rangle_K)\right]\right|
\leq \left[\left|\left\langle {\rm e}^{-{\rm i}(\psi_i-\psi_j)}
\right\rangle^{\rm cl}_{K_p}\right|\right],$$ $$\left[\frac{\left\langle {\rm e}^{{\rm i}(\psi_i-\psi_j)}
\right\rangle^{\rm cl}_{K_p}}
{\left\langle \gamma_{ij}\right\rangle_K}\right]
=\left[\frac{1}{\left\langle \gamma_{ij}\right\rangle_K}\right]
\geq 1.$$
Since the lower critical dimension $d_l$ is two for continuous spin systems, for $d>2$, we expect a FM phase to exist at low temperature under small randomness. In this case, a two-spin correlation function tends to the square of magnetization when the two spins are sufficiently separated, $$\left[\left\langle\gamma_{ij}\right\rangle_K \right]
\rightarrow m(K,K_p)^2,
\qquad \left|i-j\right| \rightarrow \infty.$$ The right-hand side of inequality (\[QGG\_ineq\]) is estimated as follows: $$\begin{split}
\left[\left|\left\langle {\rm e}^{-{\rm i}(\psi_i-\psi_j)}
\right\rangle^{\rm cl}_{K_p}\right|\right]^2
&\leq
\left[\left|\left\langle {\rm e}^{-{\rm i}(\psi_i-\psi_j)}
\right\rangle^{\rm cl}_{K_p}\right|^2\right] \\
&\rightarrow
\left[\left|\left\langle {\rm e}^{-{\rm i}\psi_i}
\right\rangle^{\rm cl}_{K_p}\right|^2\right]
\left[\left|\left\langle {\rm e}^{{\rm i}\psi_j}
\right\rangle^{\rm cl}_{K_p}\right|^2\right]
\qquad \left(\left|i-j\right|\rightarrow\infty\right) \\
&= q^{\rm cl}(K_p,K_p)^2 = m^{\rm cl}(K_p,K_p)^2,
\end{split}$$ where we used the identity $m^{\rm cl}=q^{\rm cl}$ resulting from the gauge theory on the NL for the CGG. Therefore we obtain $$m(K,K_p)^2 \leq m^{\rm cl}(K_p,K_p).
\label{mmQGG}$$ If the parameter $K_p$ is smaller than the critical point $K_{p_{\rm c}}^{\rm cl}$ for the classical system, the right-hand side vanishes. Consequently, the FM phase for the quantum gauge glass lies in the region satisfying $K_p > K_{p_{\rm c}}^{\rm cl}$. This result is consistent with the intuitive picture that quantum effects reduce long-range order.
If the spatial dimensionality of the system is equal to the lower critical dimension, $d=2$, there is no long-range order but quasi long-range order. The Kosterlitz-Thouless (KT) phase [@KT] exists when both $K$ and $K_p$ are sufficiently large. The ordering tendency of the KT phase is observed by the correlation length $\xi$ in the paramagnetic (PM) phase as $$\begin{gathered}
\left[\left\langle\gamma_{ij}\right\rangle_K \right]
\sim {\rm e}^{-|i-j|/\xi_m(K,K_p)} ,\\
\left[\left|\left\langle {\rm e}^{-{\rm i}(\psi_i-\psi_j)}
\right\rangle^{\rm cl}_{K_p}\right|^2 \right]
= \left[ \left\langle {\rm e}^{-{\rm i}(\psi_i-\psi_j)}
\right\rangle^{\rm cl}_{K_p} \right]
\sim {\rm e}^{-|i-j|/\xi^{\rm cl}_m(K_p,K_p)} .\end{gathered}$$ From the square of the inequality (\[QGG\_ineq\]), the limit $\left|i-j\right|\rightarrow\infty$ yields $$\xi_m(K,K_p) \leq 2 \xi^{\rm cl}_m(K_p,K_p).
\label{xxQGG}$$ Thus, the KT phase for the QGG is also restricted to the region $K_p>K_{p_{\rm c}}^{\rm cl}$.
Ground State Property of Quantum Gauge Glass
============================================
Next we consider the ground state property of the QGG. It is necessary to consider the transformation rule for eigenstates of the Hamiltonian. Let us denote an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian with the eigenvalue $x$ by $|x;{\mib \omega}\rangle$, $$H |x;{\mib \omega}\rangle = x~|x;{\mib \omega}\rangle.$$ Since the invariance of the Hamiltonian (\[invQGG\]) can be rewritten as $$G(VH)G^{-1} =H,$$ we have an eigen-value equation $$(VH)~G^{-1}|x;{\mib \omega}\rangle = x~G^{-1}|x;{\mib \omega}\rangle.$$ Note that the effect of the operator $V$ is restricted to the inside of the brackets $(\cdots)$. The state $G^{-1}|x;{\mib \omega}\rangle$ is an eigenstate of the gauge-transformed Hamiltonian $(VH)$. Therefore, one can derive the transformation rule of the eigenstate $$V |x;{\mib \omega}\rangle = G^{-1}|x;{\mib \omega}\rangle.$$ This rule is derived straightforwardly, if the state is not degenerate. When the state is degenerate, the rule is not unique. However, it is reasonable and has no problem, if we use this rule as the transformation rule.
Now, we consider the ground sate. Let us denote the ground state of the Hamiltonian by $|{\rm g};{\mib \omega}\rangle$. The above transformation rule leads to the gauge transformation of the average of any operator $Q$ in the ground state; $$V \langle {\rm g};{\mib \omega}|Q|{\rm g};{\mib \omega}\rangle
=\langle {\rm g};{\mib \omega}| G(VQ)G^{-1}|{\rm g};{\mib \omega}\rangle.$$ The thermal average $\langle\cdots\rangle_K$ in equations derived in the previous section can be replaced by the ground state expectation value. For example, $$\left[
\left\langle {\rm g};{\mib \omega}|\gamma_{ij}
|{\rm g};{\mib \omega}\right\rangle
\right]
=\left[ \left\langle {\rm e}^{-{\rm i}(\psi_i-\psi_j)}
\right\rangle_{K_p}^{\rm cl}
\left\langle {\rm g};{\mib \omega}|\gamma_{ij}|{\rm g};{\mib \omega}\right\rangle
\right]$$ is derived instead of eq. (\[gmgmQGG\]), which provides the inequality for the order parameters in the ground state, $$m(\infty,K_p)^2 \le m^{\rm cl}(K_p, K_p)
\label{mmGQGG}$$ instead of eq. (\[mmQGG\]), and $$\xi_m(\infty,K_p) \le 2\xi_m^{\rm cl}(K_p, K_p)
\label{xxGQGG}$$ instead of eq. (\[xxQGG\]).
In two dimensions, it has been shown that the FM long range order exists in the ground state of the pure quantum $XY$ model ($K_p =+\infty$).[@KLS] However, in the disordered regime ($K_p<+\infty$), the FM order must disappear since the FM order in the CGG model, the right-hand side of the inequality (\[mmGQGG\]), does not exist. The only possibility in this regime is the existence of the KT phase, which is consistent with the inequality (\[xxGQGG\]).
Phase Diagram of Quantum Mattis Model
=====================================
In this section, we introduce and discuss the properties of the quantum $XY$ Mattis model which has no frustration. Using the gauge transformation, one can obtain the phase diagram for this model explicitly. One of the phase boundaries is determined by the critical point of the pure quantum system and the other by that of the classical one. This is an important difference from the classical non-frustrated systems.[@O3]
Let us locate a quenched random variable $\omega_i$ at each site and define the phase factor $\omega_{ij}$ as $\omega_{ij}=\omega_j-\omega_i$. The Hamiltonian for the quantum Mattis model is defined in terms of the pure quantum $XY$ model, $H_0$, that is, $$H = G_{\mib \omega}H_0 G_{\mib \omega}^{-1}, \qquad
G_{\mib \omega}=\prod_i
\exp\left(-\frac{{\rm i}\omega_i}{2} \sigma_i^z\right) .
\label{H_m}$$ Thus, the ground-state energy is always the same as that of $H_0$ and the ground state is obtained by operating $G_{\mib \omega}$ on the ground state of the pure system. This system has no frustration in this sense. It is easy to show that the Hamiltonian for this model is invariant under the gauge transformation, $(UV)H=H$, where the gauge transformation for the configuration is defined as $\omega_i\rightarrow\omega_i-\psi_i$.
Using eqs. (\[UCF\]) and (\[H\_m\]), we immediately obtain $$\left\langle \gamma_{ij}\right\rangle_K
= {\rm e}^{{\rm i}(\omega_i-\omega_j)}
\left\langle\gamma_{ij}\right\rangle_{0,K},
\label{M_cf}$$ where the angular brackets on the right-hand side denote the thermal average with respect to $H_0$. Note that the correlation function for the pure system $\left\langle\gamma_{ij}\right\rangle_{0,K}$ does not depend the quenched variable $\omega_i$. Here, we assume that the distribution function for the quenched random variable is proportional to the Boltzmann factor of the pure classical $XY$ model, $$P({\mib \omega})=
\frac{{\rm e}^{K_p \sum_{ij}\cos(\omega_i-\omega_j)}}{Z_0^{\rm cl}(K_p)}.$$ Hereafter, the subscript $0$ and the superscript cl stand for pure and classical systems, respectively. Then the configuration average is equal to the thermal average for the pure classical $XY$ model with coupling $K_p$. Consequently, we find $$\left[ \left\langle \gamma_{ij}\right\rangle_K\right]
=\left\langle {\rm e}^{{\rm i}(\omega_i-\omega_j)}\right\rangle_{0,K_p}^{\rm cl}
\left\langle\gamma_{ij}\right\rangle_{0,K}.
\label{MaCF}$$ Similarly, from eq. (\[M\_cf\]), the spin-glass correlation function satisfies $$\left[\left|\left\langle \gamma_{ij}\right\rangle_K \right|^2\right]
=\left|\left\langle\gamma_{ij}\right\rangle_{0,K}\right|^2.
\label{MaCF2}$$
Taking the limit $\left|i-j\right|\rightarrow\infty$ of eqs. (\[MaCF\]) and (\[MaCF2\]), we obtain $$m(K,K_p)=m_0^{\rm cl}(K_p) m_0(K),$$ $$q(K,K_p)=m_0(K)^2.$$ For $d>2$, there are three phases, PM, FM and Mattis spin-glass (MSG) phases. Figure \[Mpd\](a) shows the phase diagram. The phase boundary between PM and other phases is at $K=K_{0\rm c}$ and the one between FM and MSG is at $K=K_{0\rm c}^{\rm cl}$.
If $d=2$, the correlation length determines the phase structure. From eqs. (\[MaCF\]) and (\[MaCF2\]), we find $$\frac{1}{\xi_m(K,K_p)}=\frac{1}{\xi_0^{\rm cl}(K_p)}+\frac{1}{\xi_0(K)}$$ $$\xi_q(K,K_p)=\frac{\xi_0(K)}{2},$$ where $\xi_q(K,K_p)$ denotes the spin-glass correlation length. Thus, similarly to the $d>2$ case, three phases exist: (i) $\xi_m<\infty$ and $\xi_q<\infty$: paramagnetic phase (PM), (ii) $\xi_m=\infty$ and $\xi_q=\infty$: uniform KT phase (UKT) and (iii) $\xi_m<\infty$ and $\xi_q=\infty$: random KT phase (RKT). The phase diagram is shown in Fig. \[Mpd\](b).
![(a) The phase diagram for the quantum $XY$ Mattis model in $d>2$. There are three kinds of phases, the PM, the FM and the SG. (b) The phase diagram in $d=2$. There exist three kinds of phases, the PM, the uniform KT (UKT) and the random KT (RKT).[]{data-label="Mpd"}](mattis.eps)
We note again that the location of the horizontal phase boundary is determined by the critical point of the quantum pure system, $K_{0\rm c}$, and the vertical one comes from that of the classical pure system, $K_{0\rm c}^{\rm cl}$.
Conclusions
===========
In this paper, we have investigated quantum spin glasses using the gauge theory. First, we considered the transverse Ising model and the QGG. To construct the gauge theory, we defined the gauge transformation by rotational operator on the Hilbert space. It is essential that interaction of these models is written in term of one or two components of spin operators. If a system has Heisenberg-type interactions, we can not define a gauge transformation which satisfies the commutation rule.
Using the gauge theory, we obtained mainly two results. One is the identity for gauge invariant operators. The FM limit state and the classical equilibrium state on the NL provide the same expectation value for gauge invariant operators. We note that this result remains valid when we introduce time evolution following the Schrödinger equation. This result has already been pointed out for classical spin glasses with stochastic dynamics. [@O1; @O2] We have shown that the same applies to quantum spin systems.
The other result is a set of inequalities for the correlation function. These inequalities show that the correlation function for the quantum model never exceeds the classical counterpart on the NL. The corresponding classical system is determined by a transformation rule for probability distribution. As a result, the order parameter is smaller than the square of the classical one. Therefore the FM phase (or the KT phase) should lie within the corresponding classical one. This is natural intuitively since quantum effects reduce ordering tendency, but to prove it rigorously is a different and quite a non-trivial problem. Moreover, these results are valid even if the system is in the ground state. Thus FM long range order vanishes in the two-dimensional QGG although the ground state of the pure quantum $XY$ model has FM order.
Next, we determined the phase diagram for the quantum $XY$ Mattis model. This model is not a real SG because of lack of frustration. It is interesting, nevertheless, that both quantum and classical phase transitions occur in a single system, which may serve as a starting point for investigations of more realistic quantum spin glasses with frustration.
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
This work was supported by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research on Priority Area “Statistical-Mechanical Approach to Probabilistic Information Processing” by the MEXT.
[99]{} K. Binder and A. P. Young: Rev. Mod. Phys. **58** (1986) 801. K. H. Fischer and J. A. Hertz: *Spin Glasses* (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1991).
S. F. Edwards and P. W. Anderson: J. Phys. F **5** (1975) 965. D. Sherrington and S. Kirkpatrick: Phys. Rev. Lett. **35** (1975) 1972. G. Parisi: Phys. Lett. **73A** (1979) 203, J. Phys. A **13** (1980) 1011, 1887 and L115.
R. N. Bhatt and A. P. Young: Phys. Rev. Lett. **54** (1985) 924. A. T. Ogielski and I. Morgenstern: Phys. Rev. Lett. **54** (1985) 928. R. R. P. Singh and S. Chakravarty: Phys. Rev. Lett. **57** (1986) 245. R. N. Bhatt and A. P. Young: Phys. Rev. B **37** (1988) 5606.
D. A. Huse and H. S. Seung: Phys. Rev. B **42** (1990) 1059. J. D. Reger, T. A. Tokuyasu, A. P. Young and M. P. A. Fisher: Phys. Rev. B **44** (1991) 7147. M. Cieplak, J. R. Banavar and A. Khaurana: J. Phys. A **24** (1991) L145. J. M. Kosterlitz and M. V. Simkin: Phys. Rev. B **79** (1997) 1098.
H. Nishimori and H. Kawamura: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. **62** (1993) 3266.
M. J. P. Gingras: Phys. Rev. B **45** (1992) 7547. J. D. Reger and A. P. Young: J. Phys. A **26** (1993) L1067.
Y-H. Lie: Phys. Rev. Lett. **69** (1992) 1819. M. Y. Choi and S. Y. Park: Phys. Rev. B **60** (1999) 4070.
H. Nishimori: Prog. Theor. Phys. **66** (1981) 1169. H. Nishimori: *Statistical Physics on Spin Glasses and Information Processing: An Introduction* (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2001). H. Kitatani: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn **61** (1992) 4049. Y. Ozeki and H. Nishimori: J. Phys. A **26** (1993) 3399. Y. Ozeki: J. Phys. A **28** (1995) 3645, J. Phys. Condens. Matter **9** (1997) 11171. Y. Ozeki: J. Phys. A **36** (2003) 2673. J. M. Kosterlitz and D. J. Thouless: J. Phys. C **6** (1973) 1181. T. Kennedy, E. H. Lieb, and B. S. Shastry: Phys. Rev. Lett. **61** (1988) 2582. Y. Ozeki: J. Phys. A **29** (1996) 5805.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address: 'Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark'
author:
- Cătălin Ristea for the BRAHMS collaboration
title: 'HIGH $P_{T}$ SUPPRESSION AT FORWARD RAPIDITIES IN D+AU AND AU+AU AT $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GEV'
---
Introduction
============
From the nucleon-nucleon interactions it is known that when two partons undergo a scattering with large momentum transfer Q$^2$ in the early stages of collision, the hard-scattered partons fragment into jets of hadrons with high transverse momentum ($p_{T}>2$GeV/c) [@pp]. When the hard scattered partons will traverse the hot and dense nuclear matter created in a high energy nucleus-nucleus collision, they lose energy through gluon bremsstrahlung with the energy lost depending on the density of color charges in the matter through they pass [@gy; @w2]. This effect is called jet quenching and the most directly measurable consequence is the suppression of high transverse momentum hadrons in the final state. Therefore any modification in the high $p_{T}$ spectrum is probing the high density medium created in the collision.
All four experiments at RHIC have been reported that the high $p_{T}$ inclusive hadron yields in central Au+Au collisions are largely suppressed as compared to p+p or peripheral Au+Au collisions, scaled by the number of contributing binary (nucleon-nucleon) collisions. In the midrapidity region such suppression was not seen in d+Au collisions at RHIC, indicating that it is a final state effect associated with the hot and dense matter produced in Au+Au collisions [@phobos; @phenix; @star; @brahms].
The observed suppression cannot be explained by energy loss at the hadronic stage, but rather by the existence of a high color field which leads to the depletion of high momentum particles. The amount of energy loss is not so straightforward to deduce, because there could be processes like modifications of the parton distribution functions and the scatterings of the incoming partons prior to the hard scattering, which are termed as initial state effects. In order to disentangle the initial from final state effects, the BRAHMS experiment study different collision systems p+p, d+Au, Au+Au, Cu+Cu, at different energies.
In this paper we are presenting preliminary results from Au+Au at 200 GeV from the high statistics run in 2004, and also d+Au data, in the context of the above processes.
In order to measure the high $p_{T}$ hadron suppression in nucleus-nucleus collisions, the comparison of the hadron $p_{T}$ spectra relative to reference data from nucleon-nucleon collisions at the same collision energy is needed. The nuclear modification factor is defined as:
$$R_{AA}(p_{T})=\frac{d^{2}N/dp_{T}d\eta}{T_{AA}d^{2}{\sigma^{NN}}/dp_{T}d\eta}$$
where $T_{AA}=<N_{bin}>/{\sigma^{NN}_{inel}}$ accounts for the collision geometry, averaged over the event centrality class. $<N_{bin}>$, the equivalent number of binary NN collisions, is calculated using the Glauber model. $\sigma_{inel}$ and $d^{2}{\sigma^{NN}}/dp_{T}d\eta$ are the cross section and differential cross section for inelastic nucleon-nucleon (NN) collisions, respectively. In the absence of nuclear medium effects such as shadowing, the Cronin effect or gluon saturation, hard processes are expected to scale with $<N_{bin}>$ and $R_{AA}$=1. Any deviation from unity indicate nuclear medium effects.
In order to remove the systematic errors introduced by the comparison of the measurements of nucleus-nucleus and p+p collisions, we construct the ratio of central to peripheral collisions, $R_{CP}$, defined as:
$$R_{CP}=\frac{1/<N_{bin}^{C}>}{1/<N_{bin}^{P}>}\frac{dN^{C}/dp_{T}d{\eta}}{dN^{P}/dp_{T}d{\eta}}$$
where $dN^{C(P)}/dp_{T}d\eta$ are the differential yields in a central (peripheral) collision, respectively. Nuclear medium effects are expected to be much stronger in central relative to peripheral collisions, which makes $R_{CP}$ another measure of these effects. If the yield of the process scales with the number of binary collisions, $R_{CP}$=1.\
Results
=======
The data presented here were collected with BRAHMS detector system [@brahms-nim]. BRAHMS consists of a set of global detectors for event characterization and two magnetic spectrometers, the mid-rapidity spectrometer (MRS) and the forward spectrometer (FS), which identify charged hadrons over a broad range of rapidity and transverse momentum. Collision centrality is determined from the charged particle multiplicity measured by multiplicity detectors. Since BRAHMS is a small solid angle device, the average spectrum is obtained by mapping out the particle phase space by collecting data with many different spectrometer settings. BRAHMS is the only experiment from RHIC to perform detailed measurements away from midrapidity.
16.5cm
In the absence of high density medium, that is of jet-quenching process, d+Au collisions are used to study the modifications due to initial state effects. Figure 1 shows the pseudorapidity dependence of $R_{dA}$ and $R_{CP}$ for d+Au collisions [@rda]. At midrapidity, $R_{dA}$ is showing a Cronin like enhancement with respect to binary scaling limit, for transverse momenta greater than 2 GeV/c. This enhancement is thought to be due to the multiple scattering of the parton traversing the nucleus prior to the high Q$^2$ scattering that produces the observed high $p_T$ hadron. At higher rapidities, the ratio becomes smaller than 1 indicating a suppression in d+Au collisions compared to scaled p+p collisions at the same energy, which becomes stronger when going to forward angles. The bottom row shows the $R_{CP}$ factors as a function of pseudorapidity. At midrapidity the central(0-20$\%$)-to-peripheral(60-80$\%$) ratio is larger than semicentral(30-50$\%$)-to-peripheral ratio suggesting also an increased Cronin type multiple scattering effect in the more central collisions. Conversely, at forward pseudorapidities the more central ratio is more suppressed, indicating a mechanism for suppression dependent on the centrality of the collision.
[0.5]{}
It has been proposed that this suppression at forward rapidity is related to the initial conditions of the colliding $d$ and Au nuclei, in particular to the possible formation of the Color Glass Condensate (CGC) in the initial state at RHIC [@cgc].
For the Au+Au data which will be presented next, the midrapidity spectrometer was positioned at 90 degrees relative to the beam axis, and measured charged hadrons at pseudorapidities in the range $\eta < 0.1$. The forward spectrometer was placed at 8 and 4 degrees, for the ranges in pseudorapidity \[2.4, 2.8\] and \[3.0, 3.5\] respectively. The global detectors were used for the minimum bias trigger and event characterization. This trigger is selecting approximately 95% of the Au+Au interaction cross section. Spectrometer triggers are also used to enhance the track sample. The IP position is determined with a precision $\sigma <0.85 cm$ by the use of beam counters (BB) placed at $z =\pm 2.2 m$.
Figure 2 shows the measured invariant spectra for inclusive charged hadrons $(h^{+}+h^{-})/2$ at $90^{0}$ (left panel) and for negative hadrons ($h^{-}$) at $4^{o}$ (right panel), corresponding to $\eta=0$ and $\eta\sim 3.2$. The displayed spectra are for centralities of 0-10%, 10-20%, 20-40% and 40-60%. The spectra are from measurements at various magnetic fields (high magnetic field chosen in order to increase the statistics at high $p_{T}$) and have been corrected for the acceptance of the spectrometers and for centrality dependent tracking efficiencies. No corrections for feed-down, decay or absorption have been applied for the FS data.
All the charged hadron spectra exhibit the power law shape, where at forward angles 90% of the particles are emitted in the region $p_{T} <2 GeV/c$.
Figure 3 shows the pseudorapidity dependence of the $R_{CP}$ ratio in Au+Au collisions, at $\eta =0$, $\eta\sim 2.6$ and $\eta\sim 3.2$. The observed suppression is similar at forward rapidities as compared to midrapidity. This result may indicate that quenching extends in the longitudinal direction.
Summary {#summary .unnumbered}
=======
BRAHMS has measured the rapidity dependence of nuclear modification factors in d+Au and Au+Au collisions. Away from midrapidity we observe a suppression of charged hadrons in d+Au collisions, suggesting the enhancement of the initial state effects in these regions. In Au+Au collisions the suppression persists over 3 units in pseudorapidity, indicating that the hot and dense partonic matter could further extend to forward regions.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work was supported by the division of Nuclear Physics of the Office of Science of the U.S. DOE, the Danish Natural Science Research Council, the Research Council of Norway, the Polish State Com. for Scientific Research and the Romanian Ministry of Research.
16.5cm
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[99]{} J.F.Owens [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**18**]{} (1978) 1501. M. Gyulassy, M. Plumer, Phys. Lett. B [**243**]{} (1990) 432. X. N. Wang, M. Gyulassy, M. Plumer, Phys. Rev. D [**51**]{} (1995) 3436. R. Baier [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B [**345**]{} (1995) 277. PHOBOS Collaboration, B.B. Back [*et al.*]{}, PRL, [**91**]{} (2003) 072302. PHENIX Collaboration, S.S. Adler [*et al.*]{}, PRL, [**91**]{} (2003) 072301. STAR Collaboration, J. Adams [*et al.*]{}, PRL, [**91**]{} (2003) 072304. BRAHMS Collaboration, I. Arsene [*et al.*]{}, PRL, [**91**]{} (2003) 072303. BRAHMS Collaboration, M. Adamczyk [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Instr. Meth. A [**499**]{} (2003) 437. BRAHMS Collaboration, I. Arsene [*et al.*]{}, PRL, [**93**]{} (2004) 242303. L. McLerran, R. Venugopalan, Phys. Rev. D [**49**]{} (1994) 2233, Phys. Rev. D [**49**]{} (1994) 3352, Phys. Rev. D [**50**]{} (1994) 2225, Phys. Rev. D [**59**]{} (1997) 5445.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
The article mainly presents some results in using MAPLE platform for computer algebra (CA) and GrTensorII package in doing calculations for theoretical and numerical cosmology.
68W30, 83C05, 85A40
[*Keywords and phrases:*]{} computer algebra, general relativity, cosmology
author:
- 'Dumitru N. Vulcanov'
- 'Valentina D.Vulcanov'
title: Maple+GrTensorII libraries for cosmology
---
Introduction
============
Modern cosmology is based on general relativity (GR) and Einstein equations. GR requires lengthy (or cumbersome) calculations which could be solved by computer algebra methods. During the years, a plethora of CA platforms was used for GR purposes, as REDUCE (with EXCALC package), SHEEP or MAXIMA (see for example in [@1], [@2] or [@3a]). Although some advantages as flexibility and speed were obvious, recently, platforms as MAPLE or MATHEMATICA are preferred by those working in the field, due to their more advanced graphical facilities - for a comparison between MAPLE and REDUCE see [@3].
In the last years, an increased interest in theoretical cosmology is visible because of the new facts revealed by the experimental astrophysics, mainly in the sense that the universe is actually in an accelerated expansion period - the so called “cosmic acceleration” (see [@6]) . In order to fit these new facts with the standard model of the Universe some new mechanisms are proposed, based on dark-matter, dark-energy and/or cosmological constant hypothesis. New models are proposed in the literature practically on a daily basis demanding new specific tools and libraries from the computational science, including CA applications specially designed for theoretical cosmology. Thus we concentrate here in symbolic manipulation of Einstein equations with MAPLE and GrTensorII package (see at [**http://grtensor.org**]{}). We packed our procedures in a specific library, containing all the necessary ingredients for theoretical cosmology - Friedmann equations, a scalar field minimally coupled with gravity and other matter fields terms to be used specifically.
The article is organized as follows : next section 2 introduces shortly GrTensorII package and his main facilities. Then section 3 presents how we implemented non-vacuum Einstein equations in a specific form for cosmology (based on Friedmann-Robertson-Walker - FRW metric) with the stress-energy tensor components designed for interacting with gravity matter and one real scalar field separately added. The last section is dedicated to some new results we obtained with our MAPLE libraries in the so called “reverse-technology” [@5] method for treating inflation and cosmic expansion triggered by a real scalar field.
Our library, called Cosmo, can be provided by request to the authors. We mainly used MAPLE 7 and MAPLE9 versions but as far as we know the library can be used with other MAPLE environments starting with MAPLE V.
Some words about GrTensorII package
===================================
GrTensorII is a free package from [**http://grtensor.org**]{} for the calculation and manipulation of components of tensors and related objects, embedded in MAPLE. Rather than focus upon a specific type or method of calculation, the package has been designed to operate efficiently for a wide range of applications and allows the use of a number of different mathematical formalisms. Algorithms are optimized for the individual formalisms and transformations between formalisms has been made simple and intuitive. Additionally, the package allows for customization and expansion with the ability to define new objects, user-defined algorithms, and add-on libraries.
The geometrical environment for which GrTensorII is designed is a Riemannian manifold with connection compatible with the riemannian metric. Thus there are special commands and routines for introducing and calculating geometrical objects as the metric, Christoffel symbols, curvature (Ricci tensor and scalar) and the Einstein tensor - as for a couple of examples. Manipulating with indices and extracting tensor components are easy to do from some special commands and conventions. GrTensorII has a powerful facility for defining new tensors, using their natural definitions. As for an example, for calculating the Bianchi identities $$\label{bianchi}
G^i_{j;i}=0$$ (where $G_{ij}=R_{ij}-\frac{1}{2}g_{ij}R$ is the Einstein tensor defined with the Ricci tensor $R_{ij}$ and the Ricci scalar $R$, $g_{ij}$ is the metric and we denoted with the semicolon $;$ the covariant derivative of the metric compatible connection) we can use a short sequence of GrTensorII commands for calculating the left side of eq. \[bianchi\] :
> grtw();
> qload(rob_sons);
> grdef(`bia{ ^i }:=G{ ^i ^j ;j }`);
> grcalc(bia(up)); grdisplay(bia(up));
Actually above, the first two commands are for starting the GrTensorII package and loading the FRW metric (previously constructed and stored in a special directory - GrTensorII provides also an entire collection of predefined metrics, but the user can also define his owns using a [ **gmake(...)**]{} command). The last line contains two commands, for effectively calculating the new [**bia(up)**]{} tensor and for displaying the results. If the metric in discussion is compatible with the connection the [**bia()**]{} tensor must have all components vanishing.
The central point of any calculation with GrTensorII is [**grcalc()**]{} command. Often large terms result in individual tensor components which need to be simplified. For this [**gralter()**]{} and [**grmap()**]{} commands are provided equiped with several simplifying options, mainly coming from the simplifying commands of MAPLE and some specific to GrTensorII. Actually the user is free to choose his own simplification strategy inside these commands.
Special libraries are also available for doing calculation in different frames or basis and in Newman-Penrose formalism.
The Cosmo library
=================
As we mentioned earlier, in modern cosmology we are using the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker metric (FRW), having the line element in spherical coordinates $$\label{FRW}
ds^2 = -c^2 dt^2 + R(t)^2 \left [ \frac{dr^2}{1-k r^2} + r^2 (d\theta^2 +
\sin^2 \theta~d\phi^2)\right ]$$ as a generic metric for describing the dynamics of the universe. Here $k$ is a constant with arbitrary value, positive (for closed universes), negative (for open universe) and zero for flat universes. Usually, this constant is taken $1$, $-1$ or $0$ respectively. $R(t)$ is called scale factor, and is only function of time, due to the homogeneity and isotropy of space as in standard model of the universe is presumed. The dynamic equations are obtained introducing (\[FRW\]) in the non-vacuum Einstein equations, namely $$\label{EE}
G_{ij}=R_{ij} - \frac{1}{2}g_{ij} R + \lambda g_{ij} = \frac{8 \pi G}
{c^4} T_{ij}$$ where $\lambda$ is the cosmological constant, $T_{ij}$ the stress-energy tensor, G the gravitational constant, $c$ the speed of light and $i,j=0,1,2,3$. The matter content of the universe is given by the stress-energy tensor $T^{ij}$ which we shall use as : $$\label{tij}
T^{ij} = T^{ij}_{\phi} + T^{ij}_{m}$$ where the stress-energy tensor of a scalar field minimally coupled with gravity and the stress-energy tensor of the matter (other than the scalar field) have the form of a perfect fluid, namely : $$\begin{aligned}
\label{tphi}
T_{\phi}^{ij} = (p_{\phi}+\rho_{\phi})u^{i}u^{j} + p_{\phi}g^{ij} \\
T_{m}^{ij} = (p +\rho)u^{i}u^{j} + p g^{ij} \label{tmatter}\end{aligned}$$ Above the scalar field pressure and density are $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pphi}
p_{\phi} = -\frac{1}{2}\partial^{i}\partial_{i} \phi -\frac{1}{2}V(\phi)\\
\label{rhophi}
\rho_{\phi} = -\frac{1}{2}\partial^{i}\partial_{i} \phi +\frac{1}{2}V(\phi)\end{aligned}$$ Here we used the 4-velocities $u_{i}$ obviously having $u^{i} u_{i}= -1$.
Introducing all these in (\[EE\]) and defining the Hubble function (usually called Hubble constant) and the deceleration factor as $$\label{hubble-acc}
H(t)=\frac{\dot{R}(t)}{R_0}\hbox{~~;~~}Q(t)=-\frac{\ddot{R}(t)}
{2 H(t)^2 R(t)}$$ where a dot means time derivative and $R_0$ is the initial (actual) scale factor, we should obtain the dynamical equations describing the behavior of the universe, the so called Friedmann equations. The whole package will contain also the conservation laws equations and the Klein-Gordon equation for the scalar field, separately. We composed a sequence of GrTensorII commands for this purpose. First, defining the 4-velocities, the scalar field functions and the Einstein equations, we have
> restart;grtw();qload(rob_sons);
> grdef(`u{ i } := -c*kdelta{ i $t}`);
> grdef(`Scal := Phi(t)`);
> grdef(`T1{ i j } := Scal{ ,i }*Scal{ ,j } -
g{ i j }*(g{ ^a ^b }*Scal{ ,a }*Scal{ ,b }+
V(t))/2`);
> grdef(`TT1{ i j } :=(epsilonphi(t)+
pphi(t))*u{ i }*u{ j } +
pphi(t)*g{ i j }`);
> pphi(t):=diff(Phi(t),t)^2/2/c^2-V(t)/2;
> epsilonphi(t):=diff(Phi(t),t)^2/2/c^2+V(t)/2;
> grdef(`test{ i j }:=T1{ i j }- TT1{ i j }`);
> grcalc(test(dn,dn)); grdisplay(test(dn,dn));
> grdef(`T2{ i j } := (epsilon(t) + p(t))*u{ i }*u{ j } +
p(t)*g{ i j}`);
> grdef(`T{ i j } :=T1{ i j } + T2{ i j }`);
> grdef(`cons{ i }:= T{ i ^j ;j }`); grcalc(cons(dn));
> EcuKG:=grcomponent(Box[Scal],[]) -DV(t)/2;
> grdef(`Ein{ i j } := G{ i j } - 8*Pi*G*T{ i j }/c^4`);
> grcalc(Ein(dn,dn)); gralter(Ein(dn,dn),expand);
Here we defined twice the stress-energy components for the scalar field, due to the possibility of a direct definition ([**T1()**]{}) and through the corresponding density and pressure ([**TT1()**]{}). Because we are working in a coordinate frame, these must have equal components and we can check it through [**test(dn,dn)**]{} tensor as having vanishing components. Finally the total stress-energy tensor and the Einstein equations are defined, as it is obvious. Separately we defined the conservation law-equation ([**cons()**]{}) as the contracted covariant derivative of the stress-energy tensor and the Klein-Gordon equation for the scalar field - as the unique component of the d’Alembertian and adding a special function of the derivative of the potential in terms of the scalar field [**DV(t)**]{}. We shall treat this as an extra variable to be extracted solving the equations.
Next step is to extract, one by one the components of [**Ein(dn,dn)**]{} as the final form of (\[EE\]) through a sequence of [**grcomponent**]{} commands followed by certain simplifications and rearrangements of terms. As some of the equations are identical we shall restrict only to two of them, coupled with conservation and Klein-Gordon equations. As a result we denoted with [**Ecunr1**]{} and [**Ecunr2**]{} the independent Einstein equations and with [**Ecunr3**]{} the conservation law equation ([**EcuKG**]{} remains as it is). We also provided a separate equation ([**Ecnur22**]{}) for one of the above terms written with the acceleration factor [**Q(t)**]{}. Then comes a series of substitution commands for casting the equations in terms of the Hubble function, deceleration factor and geometrical factor defined as $K(t)=k/R(t)^2$ :
> Ecunr1:=expand(simplify(subs(k=K(t)*RR(t)^2,Ecunr1)));
> Ecunr2:=expand(simplify(subs(k=K(t)*RR(t)^2,Ecunr2)));
> Ecunr1:=subs(diff(RR(t),t)=H(t)*RR(t),Ecunr1);
> Ecunr22:=subs(diff(RR(t),t,t)=-2*H(t)^2*RR(t)*Q(t),
Ecunr2);
> Ecunr22:=subs(diff(RR(t),t)=H(t)*RR(t),Ecunr22);
> Ecunr2:=subs(diff(RR(t),t)=H(t)*RR(t),Ecunr2);
> Ecunr2:=expand(Ecunr2);
> Ecunr2:=subs(diff(RR(t),t)=H(t)*RR(t),Ecunr2);
> Ecunr3:=subs(diff(RR(t),t)=H(t)*RR(t),Ecunr3);
> EcuKG:=subs(diff(RR(t),t)=H(t)*RR(t),EcuKG);
Finally we have the Friedmann equations in the form : $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ecuKG}
\frac{1}{c^2}\left [ \ddot{\phi}(t) + 3H(t)\dot{\phi}(t) \right ]+
\frac{1}{2}DV(t)=0\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ecunr1}
3 H(t)^2 +3 c^2 K(t)-\frac{4\pi G}{c^4}\left [\dot{\phi}(t)^2 +
c^2 V(t) + 2c^2 \epsilon(t)\right ] =0\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
2 \dot{H}(t) +3 H(t)^2 +c^2 K(t)+\frac{4\pi G}{c^4}\left [\dot{\phi}(t)^2
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\right . \nonumber \\
\label{ecunr2}
\left .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -c^2 V(t)+2 c^2 p(t)\right ]=0\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
H(t)^2 (1-4Q(t)) +c^2 K(t) +\frac{4\pi G}{c^4}\left [\dot{\phi}(t)^2
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\right . \nonumber \\
\label{ecunr22}
\left .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -c^2 V(t) + 2 c^2 p(t) \right ]=0\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{c^2}\left [\ddot{\phi}(t)\dot{\phi}(t)+3H(t)\dot{\phi}(t)^2\right ]
+\frac{1}{2}\dot{V}(t) +\dot{\epsilon}(t)+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\nonumber\\
\label{ecunr3}
~~~~~~~~~~~~~3H(t) (p(t)+\epsilon(t))=0\end{aligned}$$ These are the classical Friedmann equations (\[ecunr1\] and \[ecunr2\], \[ecunr22\]) together with Klein-Gordon equation (\[ecuKG\]) and the conservation law (\[ecunr3\]). After all these calculations are done we save a MAPLE type library, called [**cosmo.m**]{} through a [**save**]{} command. We have to point out here that there are some new facts around [**save**]{} command starting with MAPLE 6 version, so for this we need to do as :
> parse(cat("save ",substring(convert([anames(),
"cosmo.m"],string),2..-2)),statement);
Having this library stored, every-time one need the above equations, it can load fast through a [**read**]{} command. It provides all the functions and variables directly without running all the stuff we presented here above. Thus, the [**cosmo.m**]{} library provides all the necessary environment for doing calculation within the standard model of cosmology, with FRW metric and a scalar field and other matter variables included. For these last ones there are some functions left undefined ([**epsilon(t)**]{} and [**p(t)**]{}) where the user can define other matter fields than the scalar field to be included in the model - even a second scalar field and/or the cosmological constant as describing the dark-energy content of the Universe. Thus our library can be used in more applications than those we presented in the next section. In the same purpose, we left in the library some of the original equations unprocessed - having different names - as for example the components of the Einstein tensor ([**Ein(dn,dn)**]{}). Thus the user can finally save his own library, expanding the class of the possible applications of our [**cosmo**]{} library.
As an example, we shall next point out some results we obtained by using this library for the so called “reverse-technology” [@5] treatment of inflation triggered by the scalar field.
Some results
============
In the standard treatment of cosmological models with scalar field, it is prescribed a certain potential function for the scalar field (taking into account some physical reasons specific to the model processed) and then the dynamical Friedmann equations are solved (if it is possible) to obtain the time behavior of the scale factor of the universe. As recently some authors pointed out, a somehow “reverse” method [@5] is also interesting, where the time behavior of the scale factor is “a priori” prescribed (as a function of time which will model the supposed time behavior of the universe in inflation or in cosmic accelerated expansion) then solving the Friedmann equations we can extract the shape of the corresponding potential for the theory. This is the so called “reverse technology” and we shall use it here to illustrate the usage of our [**cosmo.m**]{} library.
We shall concentrate ourselves to the case of no matter variables other than the scalar field. In this case we solve first equations (\[ecunr1\]) and (\[ecunr2\]) for the potential $V(t)$ and $\dot{\phi}(t)^2$, not before denoting the last one with a special intermediate Maple function called [**D2Phi(t)**]{} with [**subs**]{} command :
> Ecunr1:=subs(diff(Phi(t),t)^2=D2Phi(t),Ecunr1);
> Ecunr2:=subs(diff(Phi(t),t)^2=D2Phi(t),Ecunr2);
> solve({Ecunr1,Ecunr2},{V(t),D2Phi(t)});
Thus we have [@4] : $$\label{pot}
V(t)= \frac{1}{4\pi}\left [ \dot{H}(t) + 3H(t)^2 + 2K(t)\right ]$$ $$\label{dotphi2}
\dot{\phi}^2 = \frac{1}{4\pi}\left [-\dot{H}(t) +K(t)\right ]$$ Here and in the following pages we have, as usual geometrical units $G=c=1$. Here we shall process one of the examples pointed out in Ellis and Madsen article [@4], namely that one of de Sitter exponential expansion, where $$R(t) = R_0 e^{\omega t}\hbox{~~~;~~~} H(t) = \omega$$ Thus (\[pot\]) and (\[dotphi2\]) became $$V(t)= \frac{3 \omega^2}{4 \pi}+\frac{k}{2\pi e^{2\omega t}} \hbox{~~~;~~~}
\dot{\phi}(t)^2 = \frac{k}{4\pi e^{2\omega t}}$$ after simple evaluations of the corresponding Maple expressions. It is obvious that $\dot{\phi}(t)$ can be simply obtained by square root of the above expression and can also be integrated to give the potential as: $$\label{phi}
\phi(t) = -\frac{1}{2}\frac{\sqrt{k} e^{-\omega t}}{\sqrt{\pi}\omega}+\phi_0$$ The result is that, after evaluating the Einstein equations we have automatically satisfied [**Ecunr1**]{}, [**Ecunr2**]{} and [**Ecunr3**]{} and the Klein Gordon equation has the form : $${\bf EcuKG} = \frac{\sqrt{k}\omega}{\sqrt{\pi}e^{\omega t}}+\frac{1}{2}
DV(t)=0$$ The last one is used to express the [**DV(t)**]{} by solving it, and it is a point to check the calculation if this expression is equal to that one obtained directly from the potential. But this checking can be done only if we express, after a sequence of simple [**subs**]{} and [**solve**]{} commands, the potential $V(t)$ and his derivative $DV(t)$ in terms of the scalar field, more precisely in terms of $\phi(t) - \phi_0$. The result is $$V(\phi(t)) = \frac{3\omega}{4\pi}+2\omega^2 (\phi(t)-\phi_0)^2$$ $$DV(\phi(t))=4\omega^2 (\phi(t)-\phi_0)$$ These results are in perfect agreement with the well-known results from [@4].
We processed in the same way more examples, some of them completely new. Our purpose was to produce Maple programs for processing the “reverse-technology” [@4]-[@5] method for these type of potentials with matter added to the model, especially dust or radiative matter. Although the steps for computing are the same, there are two points of the calculations where troubles can appear and the solution is not straightforward. The first one is the integration of the [**DPhi(t)**]{} obtained as the square root of [**D2Phi(t)**]{}. Sometime it is not trivial to do this, so in several cases we used approximation techniques, by evaluating the cosmological functions at the initial time. Our main purpose was to produce good initial data for numerical solving the Einstein equations (with the Cactus code, for example) thus these approximations can be a good solution for short time after the initial time. The second trouble point is to evaluate the potential in terms of the scalar field, namely to extract the time variable from it. Sometimes here we have transcendental equations and again some approximation methods can solve the problem. Because these results are not in the topic of this article we plan to report them in a future article.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
Special thanks to one of the referees who revealed many week points of our article. This work was partially supported by the Romanian Space Agency (grant nr. 258/2002-2004) and the Albert Einstein Institute, Potsdam, Germany.
[99]{}
Hehl F.W., Puntigam R.A., Ruder H. (eds.) - , Springer-Verlag, Berlin, (1996)
Grabmeier J, Kaltofen E, Weispfennig U. (eds.) - , Springer-Verlag, Berlin, (2001)
Vulcanov D.N., [*Calculation of the Dirac equation in curved spacetimes with possible torsion using MAPLE and REDUCE*]{}, Computer Physics Communications, vol. [**154**]{}, p. 205, (2003)
Vulcanov D.N., [*On the use of algebraic programming in the general relativity*]{}, [**gr-qc/0010085**]{}, (2001)
Ellis G.F.R., Madsen M.S., [*Exact scalar field cosmologies*]{}, Classical and Quantum Gravity, vol. [**8**]{}, p. 667, (1991)
Ellis G.F.R. et.al., [*The emergent universe : an explicit construction*]{}, Classical and Quantum Gravity, vol. [**21**]{}, p. 233, (2004)
Perlmutter S. et.al., [*The Cosmic Triangle : Revealing the State of the Universe*]{}, Science, vol. [**284**]{}, p. 1481, (1999)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'While many different models for $(\infty,1)$-categories are currently being used, it is known that they are Quillen equivalent to one another. Several higher-order analogues of them are being developed as models for $(\infty, n)$-categories. In this paper, we establish model structures for some naturally arising categories of objects which should be thought of as $(\infty,n)$-categories. Furthermore, we establish Quillen equivalences between them.'
address:
- 'Department of Mathematics, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521'
- 'Department of Mathematics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL'
author:
- 'Julia E. Bergner'
- Charles Rezk
title: 'Comparison of models for $(\infty, n)$-categories, I'
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
There has been much recent interest in homotopical notions of higher categories. Given a positive integer $n$, an $n$-category has a notion of $i$-morphisms for all $1 \leq i \leq n$, and one can consider $\infty$-categories, in which there are $i$-morphisms for arbitrarily large $i$. When such higher categories are considered as having strict associativity and unit laws on compositions at all levels, then their definitions are straightforward. However, most examples of interest are better expressed as weak $n$-categories, where these laws are only required to hold up to isomorphism, and one needs to impose various coherence laws. While there have been many proposed models for weak $n$-categories (often extending to models for weak $\infty$-categories), the problem of comparing these models has thus far been intractable.
However, in the world of homotopy theory, models for so-called $(\infty,1)$-categories, or $\infty$-categories with all $i$-morphisms invertible for $i>1$, have been far more manageable. Several different approaches were taken, some originating from the idea of modeling homotopy theories, others with the intent of developing this kind of special case for higher category theory. While these are by no means the only ones, four models for $(\infty,1)$-categories have been equipped with appropriate model structures: simplicial categories [@simpcat], Segal categories [@hs], [@pell], quasi-categories [@joyal], [@lurie], and complete Segal spaces [@rezk], and they have all been shown to be Quillen equivalent to one another [@survey], [@thesis], [@dugspiv], [@hs], [@joyal1], [@jt].
Simplicial categories, or categories enriched over simplicial sets, are probably the easiest to understand as $(\infty,1)$-categories, especially if we apply geometric realization and consider topological categories, or categories enriched over topological spaces. Given any objects $x$ and $y$ in a topological category $\mathcal C$, the points of the mapping space ${\text{Map}}_\mathcal C(x,y)$ can be regarded as 1-morphisms. Paths between these points are 2-morphisms, but since paths can be reversed, these 2-morphisms are invertible up to homotopy. Homotopies between these paths are 3-morphisms, and we can continue to take homotopies between homotopies to see that we have $n$-morphisms for arbitrarily large $n$, all of which are invertible up to homotopy.
Segal categories and quasi-categories are two different ways of thinking of weakened versions of simplicial categories, in which composition of mapping spaces is only defined up to homotopy. Segal categories are bisimplicial sets with discrete space at level zero which satisfy a Segal condition, guaranteeing an up-to-homotopy composition. Quasi-categories, on the other hand, are just simplicial sets, generally described in terms of a horn-filling condition which essentially gives the same kind of composition up to homotopy.
Like Segal categories, complete Segal spaces are bisimplicial sets satisfying the Segal condition, but instead of being discrete at level zero, they satisfy a “completeness" condition that makes up for it: essentially, the spaces at level zero are weakly equivalent to the subspace of “homotopy equivalences" sitting inside the space of morphisms. The Quillen equivalence between the model structure for Segal categories and the model structure for complete Segal spaces tells us that this completeness condition exactly compensates for the discreteness of the level zero space in a Segal category.
While $(\infty,1)$-categories have been enormously useful in many ways, Lurie’s recent proof of the cobordism hypothesis [@luriecob] has brought attention to the fact that they are not always good enough: for some purposes we need higher versions as well. Thus, we can consider more general $(\infty,n)$-categories, or $\infty$-categories with $i$-morphisms invertible for $i>n$. A few models for such objects have been proposed, namely the Segal $n$-categories of Hirschowitz-Simpson and Pelissier [@hs], [@pell], the $n$-fold complete Segal spaces of Barwick [@luriecob], and the $\Theta_n$-spaces of the second-named author [@rezktheta]. The latter model has the advantage that its model structure is cartesian closed.
In this paper, we seek to use the $\Theta_n$-space model to develop an $(\infty,n+1)$-analogue of simplicial categories. Furthermore, we define a weakened version of it, which can be regarded as an $(\infty,n+1)$-version of Segal categories, but different from the Hirschowitz-Simpson model, and prove that the two are Quillen equivalent. In fact, we have two different model structures for these higher Segal categories,
The model we propose for a higher-dimensional analogue of Segal categories is described in terms of functors ${{\bf \Delta}^{op}}\rightarrow \Theta_nSp$, where $\Theta_nSp$ denotes the model category for $\Theta_n$-spaces, satisfying the Segal condition and a discreteness condition with respect to their being ${{\bf \Delta}^{op}}$-diagrams. We show that there exist two model structures, just as we have for ordinary Segal categories, which are Quillen equivalent to one another, and that they are in turn Quillen equivalent to the model category of categories enriched over $\Theta_nSp$. This result generalizes the one establishing the Quillen equivalence between simplicial categories and Segal categories, i.e., the case where $n=1$ [@thesis]. While only one of these model structures is necessary for this Quillen equivalence, the other one is the easier one to describe. Furthermore, we anticipate, as in the $(\infty,1)$-case, that we will need the second one as we eventually seek to continue the zig-zag to establish the equivalence with $\Theta_{n+1}$-spaces. These Quillen equivalences will be the subject of another paper.
Just as in the $(\infty, 1)$-category case, there are a number of preliminary results that need to be established. We first show that we have appropriate model categories and Quillen equivalences when we restrict to Segal objects and the corresponding enriched categories which have a fixed set of objects. To do so, we need to show that rigidification results of Badzioch on algebras over algebraic theories [@bad] continue to hold when we take these algebras in categories other than that of simplicial sets.
We also make use of our understanding of sets of generating cofibrations in a Reedy category, as well as the fact, established in a separate manuscript [@elegant], that in this case the Reedy and injective model structures coincide. By modifying these generating cofibrations appropriately, we are able to find a set of generating cofibrations for our more restrictive situation where the objects at level zero are discrete. From there, we can find the more general model structures and prove the Quillen equivalence with the enriched categories much as we proved it in the earlier case.
Work still to be done
---------------------
So far we have not extended the chain of Quillen equivalences to $\Theta_{n+1}Sp$, which would be the end goal, but there are a couple of possible approaches to doing so. We expect to show that our model structure for Segal category objects is Quillen equivalent to the model category of complete Segal objects in $\Theta_nSp$, which is in turn Quillen equivalent to $\Theta_{n+1}Sp$. This last step should use an inductive argument using the characterization of $\Theta_n$ as a wreath product of $n$ copies of ${\bf \Delta}$ [@berger] and be the first in a chain of Quillen equivalences between $\Theta_nSp$ and the model structure for Barwick’s $n$-fold complete Segal spaces. These results will be the subject of a future paper.
The results of this paper hold for more general cartesian presheaf categories other than $\Theta_nSp$. However, the proofs require a good deal more subtlety, so these results will be given in a separate paper [@enrich]. This problem has also been addressed by Simpson [@simpson].
Related work
------------
There are other models for $(\infty, n)$-categories as well as comparisons being established. For example, Barwick has defined quasi-$n$-categories and compared them with $\Theta_n$-spaces; this model is also cartesian closed and therefore lends itself to defining a model via enrichment over it [@bar]. In the case where $n=2$, Lurie has a model using Verity’s complicial sets [@lurie2], [@verity]. Generalizing a result of Toën [@toen], Barwick and Schommer-Pries have developed a set of axioms which any model for $(\infty, n)$-categories must satisfy [@bsp]. Ayala and Rozenblyum have also given a more geometric model for $(\infty,n)$-categories and have shown that it is Quillen equivalent to $\Theta_nSp$ [@ar].
Outline of the paper
--------------------
In Section 2 we review some basic material on model categories and simplicial objects, and in Section 3 we establish a model structure for categories enriched in $\Theta_nSp$. In Sections 4 and 5, we generalize comparisons between Segal categories and simplicial categories in the fixed object set case to more general Segal category objects and enriched categories in $\Theta_nSp$. Section 6 is devoted to establishing model structures for Segal category objects and in Section 7 we prove that they are Quillen equivalent to the model category of enriched categories. In Section 8 we establish a technical result about fibrations in ${\Theta_nSp}$.
Background
==========
Let ${\bf \Delta}$ denote the simplicial indexing category whose objects are the finite ordered sets $[n]=\{0<1< \cdots <n\}$ for $n \geq 0$. Recall that a *simplicial set* is a functor ${{\bf \Delta}^{op}}\rightarrow {\mathcal{S}ets}$, where ${\mathcal{S}ets}$ denotes the category of sets. Denote by ${\mathcal{SS}ets}$ the category of simplicial sets.
A *simplicial space* is a functor ${{\bf \Delta}^{op}}\rightarrow {\mathcal{SS}ets}$. A simplicial set $X$ can be regarded as a simplicial space in two ways. It can be considered a constant simplicial space with the simplicial set $X$ at each level, and in this case we will also denote the constant simplicial set by $X$. Alternatively, we can take the simplicial space, which we denote $X^t$, for which $(X^t)_n$ is the discrete simplicial set $X_n$. The superscript $t$ is meant to suggest that this simplicial space is the “transpose" of the constant simplicial space.
We recall some basics on model categories. A *model category* $\mathcal M$ is a category with three distinguished classes of morphisms: weak equivalences, fibrations, and cofibrations, satisfying five axioms [@ds 3.3]. Given a model category structure, one can define the *homotopy category* ${\text{Ho}}(\mathcal M)$, which is a localization of $\mathcal M$ with respect to the class of weak equivalences [@hovey 1.2.1]. An object $x$ in a model category $\mathcal M$ is *fibrant* if the unique map $x \rightarrow \ast$ to the terminal object is a fibration. Dually, an object $x$ in $\mathcal M$ is *cofibrant* if the unique map $\varnothing \rightarrow x$ from the initial object is a cofibration.
Recall that an *adjoint pair* of functors $F \colon \mathcal C \leftrightarrows \mathcal D
\colon G$ satisfies the property that, for any objects $X$ of $\mathcal C$ and $Y$ of $\mathcal D$, there is a natural isomorphism $$\varphi: {\text{Hom}}_\mathcal D(FX, Y) \rightarrow {\text{Hom}}_\mathcal C(X,
GY).$$ The functor $F$ is called the *left adjoint* and $G$ the *right adjoint* [@macl IV.1].
[@hovey 1.3.1] An adjoint pair of functors $F \colon \mathcal M \leftrightarrows
\mathcal N \colon G$ between model categories is a *Quillen pair* if $F$ preserves cofibrations and $G$ preserves fibrations. The left adjoint $F$ is called a *left Quillen functor*, and the right adjoint $G$ is called the *right Quillen functor*.
[@hovey 1.3.12] A Quillen pair of model categories is a *Quillen equivalence* if for all cofibrant $X$ in $\mathcal M$ and fibrant $Y$ in $\mathcal N$, a map $f \colon FX \rightarrow Y$ is a weak equivalence in $\mathcal D$ if and only if the map $\varphi f
\colon X \rightarrow GY$ is a weak equivalence in $\mathcal M$.
We will also need the notion of a simplicial model category $\mathcal M$. For any objects $X$ and $Y$ in a simplicial category $\mathcal M$, the *function complex* is the simplicial set ${\text{Map}}(X,Y)$.
A *simplicial model category* $\mathcal M$ is a model category $\mathcal M$ that is also a simplicial category such that two axioms hold [@hirsch 9.1.6].
[@hirsch 17.3.1] A *homotopy function complex* ${\text{Map}}^h(X,Y)$ in a simplicial model category $\mathcal M$ is the simplicial set ${\text{Map}}(\widetilde
X, \widehat Y)$ where $\widetilde X$ is a cofibrant replacement of $X$ in $\mathcal M$ and $\widehat Y$ is a fibrant replacement for $Y$.
Several of the model category structures that we use are obtained by localizing a given model category structure with respect to a map or a set of maps. Suppose that $P = \{f:A \rightarrow B\}$ is a set of maps with respect to which we would like to localize a model category $\mathcal M$.
\[local\] A $P$-*local* object $W$ is a fibrant object of $\mathcal M$ such that for any $f:A \rightarrow B$ in $P$, the induced map on homotopy function complexes $$f^*:{\text{Map}}^h(B,W) \rightarrow {\text{Map}}^h(A,W)$$ is a weak equivalence of simplicial sets. A map $g:X \rightarrow
Y$ in $\mathcal M$ is a $P$-*local equivalence* if for every $P$-local object $W$, the induced map on homotopy function complexes $$g^*: {\text{Map}}^h(Y,W) \rightarrow {\text{Map}}^h(X,W)$$ is a weak equivalence of simplicial sets.
If $\mathcal M$ is a sufficiently nice model category, then one can obtain a new model structure with the same underlying category as $\mathcal M$ but with weak equivalences the $P$-local equivalences and fibrant objects the $P$-local objects [@hirsch 4.1.1].
Suppose that $\mathcal D$ is a small category and consider the category of functors $\mathcal D \rightarrow {\mathcal{SS}ets}$, or $\mathcal D$-diagrams of spaces. We would like to consider model category structures on the category ${\mathcal{SS}ets^\mathcal D}$ of such diagrams. A natural choice for the weak equivalences in ${\mathcal{SS}ets}^\mathcal D$ is the class of levelwise weak equivalences of simplicial sets. Namely, given two $\mathcal D$-diagrams $X$ and $Y$, we define a map $f:X \rightarrow Y$ to be a weak equivalence if and only if for each object $d$ of $\mathcal D$, the map $X(d) \rightarrow
Y(d)$ is a weak equivalence of simplicial sets.
There is a model category structure ${\mathcal{SS}ets^\mathcal D}_f$ on the category of $\mathcal D$-diagrams with these weak equivalences and in which the fibrations are given by levelwise fibrations of simplicial sets. The cofibrations in ${\mathcal{SS}ets^\mathcal D}_f$ are then the maps of simplicial spaces which have the left lifting property with respect to the maps which are levelwise acyclic fibrations. This model structure is often called the *projective* model category structure on $\mathcal D$-diagrams of spaces [@gj IX, 1.4]. Dually, there is a model category structure ${\mathcal{SS}ets^\mathcal D}_c$ in which the cofibrations are given by levelwise cofibrations of simplicial sets, and this model structure is often called the *injective* model category structure [@gj VIII, 2.4]. In particular, we obtain these model structures for $\mathcal D={{\bf \Delta}^{op}}$, so that the category ${\mathcal{SS}ets}^{{{\bf \Delta}^{op}}}$ is just the category of simplicial spaces.
However, ${{\bf \Delta}^{op}}$ is a Reedy category [@hirsch 15.1.2], and therefore we also have the Reedy model category structure on simplicial spaces [@reedy]. In this structure, the weak equivalences are again the levelwise weak equivalences of simplicial sets. This model structure is cofibrantly generated, where the generating cofibrations are the maps $$\partial \Delta[m] \times \Delta [n]^t \cup \Delta [m] \times
\partial \Delta [n]^t \rightarrow \Delta [m] \times \Delta [n]^t$$ for all $n,m \geq 0$, an the generating acyclic cofibrations are the maps $$V[m,k] \times \Delta [n]^t \cup \Delta [m] \times \partial \Delta
[n]^t \rightarrow \Delta [m] \times \Delta [n]^t$$ for all $n
\geq 0$, $m \geq 1$, and $0 \leq k \leq m$ [@rezk 2.4].
However, for simplicial spaces, the Reedy model structure coincides with the injective model structure, as follows.
[@hirsch 15.8.7, 15.8.8] \[inj\] A map $f:X \rightarrow Y$ of simplicial spaces is a cofibration in the Reedy model category structure if and only if it is a monomorphism. In particular, every simplicial space is Reedy cofibrant.
In light of this result, we denote the Reedy model structure on simplicial spaces by ${\mathcal{SS}ets}^{{{\bf \Delta}^{op}}}_c$. Both ${\mathcal{SS}ets}^{{{\bf \Delta}^{op}}}_c$ and ${\mathcal{SS}ets}^{{{\bf \Delta}^{op}}}_f$ are simplicial model categories. In each case, given two simplicial spaces $X$ and $Y$, we can define ${\text{Map}}(X,Y)$ by $${\text{Map}}(X,Y)_n = {\text{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{SS}ets}^{{{\bf \Delta}^{op}}}} (X \times \Delta [n],Y).$$
The projective model structure ${\mathcal{SS}ets}^{{{\bf \Delta}^{op}}}_f$ is also cofibrantly generated, and a set of generating cofibrations consists of the maps $$\partial \Delta [m] \times \Delta [n]^t \rightarrow \Delta [m]
\times \Delta [n]^t$$ for all $m,n \geq 0$ [@gj IV.3.1].
Categories enriched in $\Theta_n$-spaces
========================================
In this section, we begin with a summary of basic definitions and results for $\Theta_n$-spaces; a thorough treatment can be found at [@rezk] for $n=1$ and [@rezktheta] for the general case. We then establish a model for $(\infty, n+1)$-categories given by categories enriched in $\Theta_n$-spaces. Since $\Theta_n$-spaces model $(\infty, n)$-categories, the model structure on these enriched categories is thus a higher-order version of the model structure on simplicial categories.
[@rezk 4.1] A Reedy fibrant simplicial space $W$ is a *Segal space* if for each $k \geq 2$ the Segal map $$\varphi_k: W_k \rightarrow \underbrace{W_1 \times_{W_0} \cdots \times_{W_0} W_1}_k$$ is a weak equivalence of simplicial sets.
[@rezk 7.1] There is a cartesian closed model structure ${\mathcal Se \mathcal Sp}$ on the category of simplicial spaces in which the fibrant objects are precisely the Segal spaces.
Because Segal spaces satisfy this Segal condition, we can regard them as being weakened versions of simplicial categories and apply appropriate terminology. The *objects* of a Segal space $W$ are the elements of the set $W_{0,0}$. The *mapping space* ${\text{map}}_W(x,y)$ is given by the fiber of the map $$(d_1, d_0): W_1 \rightarrow W_0 \times W_0$$ over $(x,y)$. Since $W$ is Reedy fibrant, the fiber is in fact a homotopy fiber and therefore the mapping space is homotopy invariant. Two maps $f,g \in {\text{map}}_W(x,y)_0$ are *homotopic* if they lie in the same component of the mapping space ${\text{map}}_W(x,y)$. The space of homotopy equivalences $W_{{\text{hoequiv}}} \subseteq W_1$ is defined to be the union of all the components containing homotopy equivalences. There is a (non-unique) way to compose mapping spaces, as given explicitly by the second-named author in [@rezk §4].
The *homotopy category* of $W$, denoted ${\text{Ho}}(W)$, has objects the elements of the set $W_{0,0}$, and $${\text{Hom}}_{{\text{Ho}}(W)}(x,y) = \pi_0 {\text{map}}_W(x,y).$$ The image of a homotopy equivalence of $W$ in ${\text{Ho}}(W)$ is an isomorphism.
We can consider maps between Segal spaces that are similar in structure to Dwyer-Kan equivalences of simplicial categories; we even give them the same name.
[@rezk] A map $f \colon W \rightarrow Z$ of Segal spaces is a *Dwyer-Kan equivalence* if
1. for any objects $x$ and $y$ of $W$, the induced map ${\text{map}}_W(x,y) \rightarrow {\text{map}}_Z(fx,fy)$ is a weak equivalence of simplicial sets, and
2. the induced map ${\text{Ho}}(W) \rightarrow {\text{Ho}}(Z)$ is an equivalence of categories.
For a Segal space $W$, notice that the degeneracy map $s_0 \colon W_0 \rightarrow W_1$ factors through the space of homotopy equivalences $W_{{\text{hoequiv}}}$, since the image of $s_0$ consists of “identity maps."
[@rezk §6] A Segal space $W$ is a *complete Segal space* if the map $W_0 \rightarrow W_{{\text{hoequiv}}}$ given above is a weak equivalence of simplicial sets.
[@rezk 7.2] There is a cartesian closed model structure ${\mathcal{CSS}}$ on the category of simplicial spaces in which the fibrant objects are precisely the complete Segal spaces.
We now turn to $\Theta_n$-spaces as higher-order complete Segal spaces. We begin by recalling the definition of the $\Theta$-construction. Let $\mathcal C$ be a small category, and define $\Theta \mathcal C$ to be the category with objects $[m](c_1, \ldots, c_m)$ where $[m]$ is an object of ${\bf \Delta}$ and each $c_i$ is an object of $\mathcal C$. A morphism $$[m](c_1, \ldots ,c_m) \rightarrow [q](d_1, \ldots, d_q)$$ is given by $(\delta, \{f_{ij}\})$ where $\delta \colon [m] \rightarrow [q]$ in ${\bf \Delta}$ and $f_{ij} \colon c_i \rightarrow d_j$ are morphisms in $\mathcal C$ indexed by $1 \leq i \leq m$ and $1 \leq j \leq q$ where $\delta(i-1) < j \leq \delta (i)$ [@rezktheta 3.2].
Inductively, let $\Theta_0$ be the terminal category with a single object and no non-identity morphisms, and then define $\Theta_n=\Theta \Theta_n$. Note that $\Theta_1={\bf \Delta}$. The categories $\Theta_n$ have also been studied by Joyal and by Berger [@berger2], [@berger].
We can consider functors ${\Theta_n^{op}}\rightarrow {\mathcal{S}ets}$, and the most important example is the following. For any object $[m](c_1, \ldots, c_m)$, let $\Theta[m](c_1, \ldots, c_m)$ be the analogue of $\Delta[m]$ in ${\mathcal{SS}ets}$, i.e., the representable object for maps into $[m](c_1, \ldots, c_m)$.
Here, we consider functors $\Theta_n^{op} \rightarrow {\mathcal{SS}ets}$. Notice that any simplicial set can be regarded as a constant functor of this kind, and any functor ${\Theta_n^{op}}\rightarrow {\mathcal{S}ets}$, in particular the representable one given above, can be regarded as a levelwise discrete functor to ${\mathcal{SS}ets}$. Since, unlike in the case of simplicial spaces, the indexing diagrams in each direction are different, we can simply use the notation from the original category to denote such an object. Since ${\Theta_n^{op}}$ is a Reedy category [@berger], we have the Reedy model structure, as well as the projective and injective model structures, on the category ${\mathcal{SS}ets}^{{\Theta_n^{op}}}$. However, we prove in [@elegant] that the injective and Reedy model structures agree here, just as in the case of simplicial spaces.
Given $m \geq 2$ and $c_1, \ldots, c_m$ objects of $\Theta_n$, define the object $$G[m](c_1, \ldots, c_m)= {\text{colim}}(\Theta[1](c_1) \leftarrow \Theta[0] \rightarrow \cdots \leftarrow \Theta[0] \rightarrow \Theta[1](c_m)).$$ There is an inclusion map $$se^{(c_1, \ldots, c_m)} \colon G[m](c_1, \ldots, c_n) \rightarrow \Theta[n](c_1, \ldots, c_m).$$ We define the set $$Se_{\Theta_n} = \{ se^{(c_1, \ldots, c_m)} \mid m \geq 2, c_1, \ldots c_m \in {\text{ob}}(\Theta_n)\}.$$
However, being local with respect to these maps is not sufficient for our purposes, as it only gives an up-to-homotopy composition at level $n$. Encoding lower levels of composition is achieved inductively, using the Segal object model structure on the category of functors $\Theta_n \rightarrow {\mathcal{SS}ets}$. This procedure is rather technical, and full details can be found in [@rezktheta §8]. The main point is that, if the model structure on the category of functors $\Theta_{n-1} \rightarrow {\mathcal{SS}ets}$ is obtained by localizing with respect to a set $\mathcal S$ of maps, we can make use of an intertwining functor $V \colon \Theta ({\mathcal{SS}ets}^{\Theta_{n-1}^{op}}) \rightarrow {\mathcal{SS}ets}^{{\Theta_n^{op}}}$ to translate the set $\mathcal S$ into a set $V[1](\mathcal S)$ of maps in ${\mathcal{SS}ets}^{{\Theta_n^{op}}}$. We will need to localize with respect to this set, in addition to those imposing the new Segal conditions for level $n$. Let $\mathcal S_1=Se_{\bf \Delta}$, and for $n \geq 2$, inductively define $\mathcal S_n=Se_{\Theta_n} \cup V[1](\mathcal S_{n-1})$.
[@rezktheta 8.5] Localizing the model structure ${\mathcal{SS}ets}^{{\Theta_n^{op}}}_c$ with respect to $\mathcal S_n$ results in a cartesian model category whose fibrant objects are higher-order analogues of Segal spaces.
However, we need to incorporate higher-order completeness conditions as well. To define the maps which respect to which we need to localize, we make use of an Quillen pair $$T_\# \colon {\mathcal{SS}ets}^{{{\bf \Delta}^{op}}}_c \rightarrow {\mathcal{SS}ets}^{{\Theta_n^{op}}}_c \colon T^*$$ to use known results for simplicial spaces [@rezktheta 4.1]. In particular, define $$Cpt_{\bf \Delta}= \{E \rightarrow \Delta[0]\}$$ and, for $n \geq 2$, $$Cpt_{\Theta_n}=\{T_\# E \rightarrow T_\# \Delta[0]\}.$$ Let $\mathcal T_1=Se_{\Theta_1} \cup Cpt_{\Theta_1}$ and, for $n \geq 2$, $$\mathcal T_n=Se_{\Theta_n} \cup Cpt_{\Theta_n} \cup V[1](\mathcal T_{n-1}).$$
[@rezktheta 8.1] Localizing ${\mathcal{SS}ets}^{{\Theta_n^{op}}}_c$ with respect to the set $\mathcal T_n$ gives a cartesian model category, denoted $\Theta_nSp$.
We refer to the fibrant objects of $\Theta_nSp$ simply as $\Theta_n$-*spaces*.
As complete Segal spaces are known to be equivalent to simplicial categories, establishing them as models for $(\infty, 1)$-categories, $\Theta_{n+1}Sp$ should be Quillen equivalent to a model category whose objects are categories enriched in $\Theta_nSp$, further strengthening the view that they are indeed models for $(\infty, n+1)$-categories.
The existence of the appropriate model structure for enriched categories can be regarded as a special case of a result of Lurie [@lurie A.3.2.4].
\[vcat\] There is a cofibrantly generated model structure on the category $\Theta_nSp-Cat$ of small categories enriched in $\Theta_nSp$ in which the weak equivalences $f \colon \mathcal C \rightarrow \mathcal D$ are given by
- (W1) ${\text{Hom}}_{\mathcal C}(x,y) \rightarrow {\text{Hom}}_{\mathcal D}(fx,fy)$ is a weak equivalence in $\Theta_nSp$ for any objects $x,y$, and
- (W2) $\pi_0 \mathcal C \rightarrow \pi_0 \mathcal D$ is an equivalence of categories, where $\pi_0 \mathcal C$ has the same objects as $\mathcal C$ and ${\text{Hom}}_{\pi_0 \mathcal C} (x,y) = {\text{Hom}}_{{\text{Ho}}(\Theta_nSp)}(1, \mathcal C(x,y))$;
and the generating cofibrations are given by
- (I1) $\{ UA \rightarrow UB \}$ where $U \colon \Theta_nSp \rightarrow \Theta_nSp-Cat$ is the functor taking an object $A$ of $\Theta_nSp$ to the category with two objects $x$ and $y$, ${\text{Hom}}_{UA}(x,y)=A$ and no other nonidentity morphisms, and $A \rightarrow B$ is a generating cofibration of $V$, and
- (I2) $\varnothing \rightarrow \{x\}$, where $\{x\}$ denotes the category with one object and only the identity morphism.
Establishing that $\Theta_nSp-Cat$ is Quillen equivalent to $\Theta_{n+1}Sp$ should be achieved via a chain of Quillen equivalences, of which the ones shown in this paper are the beginning.
We will have need of the following generalizations of the definitions of Segal spaces.
A Reedy fibrant functor $W \colon {{\bf \Delta}^{op}}\rightarrow \Theta_nSp$ is a $\Theta_nSp$-*Segal space* if the Segal maps $$W_k \rightarrow \underbrace{W_1 \times_{W_0} \cdots \times_{W_0} W_1}_k$$ are weak equivalences in $\Theta_nSp$ for all $k \geq 2$.
There is a cartesian closed model structure $\mathcal L_S (\Theta_nSp)^{{{\bf \Delta}^{op}}}$ on the category of functors ${{\bf \Delta}^{op}}\rightarrow \Theta_nSp$ in which the fibrant objects are precisely the Segal space objects in $\mathcal {\Theta_nSp}$.
To obtain the model structure, one can localize the Reedy model structure with respect to the analogues of the maps used to obtain the Segal space model structure. To show that this model structure is cartesian, we follow the same line of argument as used by Rezk in [@rezk §10]. First, we establish that any function object $W^X$ in ${\Theta_nSp}^{{{\bf \Delta}^{op}}}$ is local, where $W^X$ is defined by $$(W^X)_{[q](c_1, \ldots, c_q), k} = {\text{Hom}}(X \times \Theta[q](c_1, \ldots, c_q) \times \Delta[k], Y).$$
Regarding $\Delta[1]$ as a levelwise discrete object of ${\Theta_nSp}^{{{\bf \Delta}^{op}}}$, consider the function object $W^{\Delta[1]}$ for any local object $W$. Proving that $W^{\Delta[1]}$ is again local can be proved just as in Rezk’s paper, using the notion of covering. Then, for any $k \geq 2$, $W^{\Delta[k]}$ can be shown to be a retract of $W^{(\Delta[1])^k}$, establishing that $W^{\Delta[k]}$ is also local. If $Y$ is any object of ${\Theta_nSp}$, regarded as a constant diagram in ${\Theta_nSp}^{{{\bf \Delta}^{op}}}$, then $(W^{\Delta[k]})^Y= W^{\Delta[k] \times Y}$ is again local. Since any object $X$ of ${\Theta_nSp}^{{{\bf \Delta}^{op}}}$ can be written as a homotopy colimit of objects of the form $\Delta[k] \times Y$, any object of the form $W^X$ can be written as a homotopy limit of a objects of the form $W^{\Delta[k] \times Y}$, and therefore $W^X$ is local.
To complete the proof that this cartesian structure is compatible with the model structure, we can use the same argument as Rezk, using properties of adjoints.
Fixed-object ${\Theta_nSp}$-Segal categories and their model structures
=======================================================================
In this section, we first recall basic definitions of Segal categories and generalize them to those of ${\Theta_nSp}$-Segal categories. We then go on to establish model structures in the restricted case where all ${\Theta_nSp}$-Segal categories have the same set of objects which is preserved by all functions.
[@hs §2] A *Segal precategory* is a simplicial space $X$ such that the simplicial set $X_0$ in degree zero is discrete, i.e. a constant simplicial set.
Again, we can consider the Segal maps $$\varphi_k: X_k \rightarrow \underbrace{X_1 \times_{X_0} \cdots \times_{X_0} X_1}_k$$ for each $k \geq 2$. Since $X_0$ is discrete, the right-hand side is actually a homotopy limit.
[@hs §2] A *Segal category* $X$ is a Segal precategory such that each Segal map $\varphi_k$ is a weak equivalence of simplicial sets for $k \geq 2$.
There is a fibrant replacement functor $L$ taking a Segal precategory $X$ to a Segal category $LX$. We can think of this functor as a “localization," even though it is not actually obtained from localization of a different model structure [@thesis §5].
Weak equivalences in this setting, again called *Dwyer-Kan equivalences*, are the maps $f \colon X \rightarrow Y$ such that the induced map ${\text{map}}_{LX}(x,y) \rightarrow
{\text{map}}_{LY}(fx,fy)$ is a weak equivalence of simplicial sets for any $x, y \in X_0$ and the map ${\text{Ho}}(LX) \rightarrow {\text{Ho}}(LY)$ is an equivalence of categories.
[@thesis 5.1, 7.1] There is a model structure ${\mathcal Se \mathcal Cat}_c$ on the category of Segal precategories in which the fibrant objects are precisely the Reedy fibrant Segal categories. The weak equivalences are the Dwyer-Kan equivalences. There is also a model structure ${\mathcal Se \mathcal Cat}_f$ with the same weak equivalences in which the fibrant objects are precisely the projective fibrant Segal categories.
[@thesis 7.5, 8.6] There is a chain of Quillen equivalences $$\mathcal {SC} \leftrightarrows {\mathcal Se \mathcal Cat}_f \rightleftarrows {\mathcal Se \mathcal Cat}_c$$ where $\mathcal {SC}$ denotes the model structure on the category of simplicial categories.
We would like to generalize these definitions and their corresponding model structures to ${\Theta_nSp}$-Segal categories; the goal of this paper is to prove the analogue of the previous theorem in this setting.
A $\Theta_nSp$-*Segal precategory* is a functor $X \colon {{\bf \Delta}^{op}}\rightarrow \Theta_nSp$ such that $X_0$ is a discrete object in $\Theta_nSp$, i.e., a constant $\Theta_n$-diagram of sets. It is a $\Theta_nSp$-*Segal category* if, additionally, the Segal maps $$\varphi_k: X_k \rightarrow \underbrace{X_1 \times_{X_0} \cdots \times_{X_0} X_1}_k$$ are weak equivalences in $\Theta_nSp$ for all $k \geq 2$.
We denote by $\Theta_nSp^{{{\bf \Delta}^{op}}}_{disc}$ the category of $\Theta_nSp$-Segal precategories. Notice that if the Segal maps for $X$ are isomorphisms in $\Theta_nSp$, then $X$ is just a $\Theta_nSp$-category.
In the remainder of this section, we seek to define model structures on the category of functors $X \colon {{\bf \Delta}^{op}}\rightarrow \Theta_nSp$ with the additional requirement that $X_0= \mathcal O$, the discrete object of $\Theta_nSp$ given by the a fixed set $\mathcal O$, and such that all maps between such functors are required to be the identity on this set. We denote this category $\Theta_nSp^{{{\bf \Delta}^{op}}}_\mathcal O$.
\[fixedf\] There is a model structure on $\Theta_nSp^{{{\bf \Delta}^{op}}}_\mathcal O$ with levelwise weak equivalences and fibrations in $\Theta_nSp$, denoted by $\Theta_nSp^{{{\bf \Delta}^{op}}}_{\mathcal O,f}$
To prove this theorem, first notice that limits and colimits can be understood in this category just as they are in [@simpmon 3.5,3.6]. We then need sets of generating cofibrations and generating acyclic cofibrations for this proposed model structure. The constructions here are generalizations of those for ordinary Segal categories [@simpmon §3].
Just as we did in the case for simplicial sets, we begin by finding suitable sets of generating cofibrations and generating acyclic cofibrations for the projective model structure on the category $\Theta_nSp^{{{\bf \Delta}^{op}}}$ of all functors $X \colon {{\bf \Delta}^{op}}\rightarrow \Theta_nSp$. By definition, a map $f \colon X \rightarrow Y$ in our proposed model structure is an acyclic fibration if and only if, for each $p \geq 0$, the map $f_p \colon X_p \rightarrow Y_p$ has the right lifting property with respect to every generating cofibration $A \rightarrow B$ in $\Theta_nSp$. This condition is equivalent to the having a lift in the following diagram, for any $A \rightarrow B$ as above and $p \geq 0$: $$\xymatrix{A \times \Delta[p] \ar[r] \ar[d] & X \ar[d]^\simeq \\
B \times \Delta[p] \ar[r] \ar@{-->}[ur] & Y. }$$ Thus, we can regard the set of such maps $$A \times \Delta[p] \rightarrow B \times \Delta[p]$$ as a suitable set of generating cofibrations for $\Theta_nSp$. Similarly, $f$ is a fibration if and only if each $f_p$ has the right lifting property with respect to every generating acyclic cofibration $C \rightarrow D$ in $\Theta_nSp$. It follows by arguments like the ones given above that a set of generating cofibrations consists of the maps $$C \times \Delta[p] \rightarrow D \times \Delta[p].$$
Because the (constant) $\Theta_n$-space at level zero must be preserved, we need a distinct simplex of each dimension corresponding to each tuple of objects of $\mathcal O$. Thus, for any ${{\underline x}}=(x_0, \ldots, x_p) \in \mathcal O^{p+1}$, we define $\Delta[p]_{{{\underline x}}}$ to be the $p$-simplex $\Delta[p]$, regarded as an object of ${\Theta_nSp}^{{{\bf \Delta}^{op}}}_{disc}$, with $(\Delta[p]_{{{\underline x}}})_0={{\underline x}}$. Notice here that we assume that ${{\underline x}}$ is ordered by the usual ordering on iterated face maps. This object $\Delta[p]_{{\underline x}}$ also contains all elements of $\mathcal O$ as 0-simplices. It remains to find an appropriate means of assuring that each object involved in our generating (acyclic) cofibrations is in fact discrete in degree zero.
For any object $A$ in $\Theta_nSp$, $p\geq 0$, and ${{\underline x}}\in \mathcal O^{p+1}$, define the object $A_{[p],{{\underline x}}}$ to be the pushout of the diagram $$\xymatrix{A \times (\Delta[p]_{{{\underline x}}})_0 \ar[r] \ar[d] & A \times \Delta[p]_{{\underline x}}\ar[d] \\
(\Delta[p]_{{\underline x}})_0 \ar[r] & A_{[p],{{\underline x}}}. }$$
Thus, we define sets $$I_{\mathcal O,f}= \{A_{[p], {{\underline x}}} \rightarrow B_{[p],{{\underline x}}} \mid p \geq 0, A \rightarrow B \text{ a generating cofibration in } \Theta_nSp \}$$ and $$J_{\mathcal O,f}= \{C_{[p], {{\underline x}}} \rightarrow D_{[p], {{\underline x}}} \mid p \geq 0, C \rightarrow D \text{ a generating acyclic cofibration in } \Theta_nSp \}.$$
Given these generating sets, Proposition \[fixedf\] can be proved just as in the simplicial case [@simpmon 3.7].
Now, we turn to the other model structure with levelwise weak equivalences, where we instead have levelwise cofibrations. A useful fact is the following.
The Reedy and injective model structures on $\Theta_nSp^{{{\bf \Delta}^{op}}}$ coincide.
The fact that Reedy cofibrations are levelwise cofibrations in ${\Theta_nSp}$ follows from a general result about Reedy categories [@hirsch 15.3.11]. Therefore, it remains to prove that if $f \colon X \rightarrow Y$ in ${\Theta_nSp}^{{{\bf \Delta}^{op}}}$ satisfies the condition that $f_n \colon X_n \rightarrow Y_n$ is a cofibration in ${\Theta_nSp}$, then $f$ is a Reedy cofibration.
We first need to understand what a “codegeneracy" is in $\Theta_n$. For simplicity, we look at $\Theta_2$. Given an object $[k](c_1, \ldots ,c_k)$ in $\Theta_2$, there are two kinds of codegeneracies. The first is given by a codegeneracy of a $c_i$, regarding $c_i$ as an object of ${\bf \Delta}$. Using a “pasting diagram" interpretation of $\Theta_2$, such a codegeneracy amounts to collapsing one of the 2-cells at horizontal position $i$. Thus, when we take a simplicial presheaf on $\Theta_2$, the corresponding degeneracy gives a degenerate 2-cell in a position specified by the degeneracy map of the $c_i$ in ${{\bf \Delta}^{op}}$. We think of such degeneracies as “vertical" degeneracies.
There is also a kind of “horizontal" degeneracy, but we do not want to allow all such. Given an object $[k](c_1, \ldots ,c_k)$, a horizontal degeneracy would be given by a codegeneracy of $[k]$ in $\Delta$. But, if we took the $i$th codegeneracy of $[k]$, where $c_i>0$, then we would, in effect, we collapsing multiple cells. Thus, we only want to consider such codegeneracies when $c_i=0$, i.e., the case where there are no 2-cells in position $i$.
In either case, however, a degeneracy is given by a degeneracy in ${{\bf \Delta}^{op}}$, and therefore our result about degeneracies in ${{\bf \Delta}^{op}}$ continues to hold in $\Theta_2^{op}$. This argument can be rephrased as an inductive one, so that it is in fact true for all ${\Theta_n^{op}}$.
Now, we establish an analogue of [@hirsch 15.8.6] in this situation, namely, that, for every $m \geq 0$, the latching object $L_mX$ is isomorphic to the subobject of $X_m$ consisting of higher-order simplices, i.e., objects of ${\text{Hom}}(\Theta[m](c_1, \ldots, c_m), X)$, which are in the image of a degeneracy operator. However, this fact follows from [@hirsch 15.8.4] and the existence of a map from $(L_mX)_{[k](c_1, \ldots, c_k)}$ to the degenerate elements of $X_{\ast, [k](c_1, \ldots, c_k)}$.
Using this above description of codegeneracies in $\Theta_n$, we have the analogue of [@hirsch 15.8.5], that for any object $W$ of ${\Theta_nSp}$, if $k \geq 0$, $\sigma \in W_{[k](c_1, \ldots, c_k)}$ is nondegenerate if and only if no two degeneracies of $\sigma$ are equal. Therefore, it follows that the intersection of $X_m$ and $L_mY$ in $Y_m$ is precisely the object $L_mX$. Therefore, the latching map $X_m \amalg_{L_mX} L_mY \rightarrow Y_n$ is an monomorphism in ${\Theta_nSp}$, which is precisely the requirement for $f$ to be a Reedy cofibration.
Thus, we can use the Reedy structure to understand precise sets of generating cofibrations and generating acyclic cofibrations, but we also know that cofibrations are precisely the monomorphisms and in particular that all objects are cofibrant.
There is a model structure on $\Theta_nSp^{{{\bf \Delta}^{op}}}_\mathcal O$ with levelwise weak equivalences and cofibrations in $\Theta_nSp$, denoted by $\Theta_nSp^{{{\bf \Delta}^{op}}}_{\mathcal O,c}$
To define sets $I_{c, \mathcal O}$ and $J_{c, \mathcal O}$ which will be our candidates for generating cofibrations and generating acyclic cofibrations, respectively, we first recall the generating cofibrations and acyclic cofibrations in the Reedy model structure. The generating cofibrations are the maps $$A \times \Delta [p] \cup B \times \partial
\Delta [p] \rightarrow B \times \Delta [p]$$ for all $p \geq 0$ and $A \rightarrow B$ generating cofibrations in $\Theta_nSp$, and similarly the generating acyclic cofibrations are the maps $$C \times \Delta [p] \cup C \times \partial \Delta
[p] \rightarrow D \times \Delta [p]$$ for all $p
\geq 0$ and $C \rightarrow D$ generating acyclic cofibrations in $\Theta_nSp$ [@hirsch 15.3].
To modify these maps, we begin by considering the category $\Theta_nSp^{{{\bf \Delta}^{op}}}_{disc}$ of all Segal precategory objects in $\Theta_nSp$ and the inclusion functor $\Theta_nSp^{{{\bf \Delta}^{op}}}_{disc} \rightarrow \Theta_nSp^{{{\bf \Delta}^{op}}}$. This functor has a left adjoint which we call the reduction functor. Given an object $X$ of $\Theta_nSp^{{{\bf \Delta}^{op}}}$, we denote its reduction by $(X)_r$. Reducing $X$ essentially amounts to collapsing the space $X_0$ to its set of components and making the appropriate changes to degeneracies in higher degrees. So, we start by reducing the objects defining the Reedy generating cofibrations and generating acyclic cofibrations to obtain maps of the form $$(A \times \Delta [p] \cup B \times \partial \Delta [p])_r \rightarrow (B \times \Delta [p])_r$$ and $$(C \times \Delta [p] \cup D \times \partial \Delta [p])_r \rightarrow (D \times \Delta [p])_r$$ Then, in order to have our maps fix the object set $\mathcal O$, we define a separate such map for each choice of vertices ${{\underline x}}$ in degree zero and adding in the remaining points of $\mathcal O$ if necessary. As above, we use $\Delta [p]_{{\underline x}}$ to denote the object $\Delta [p]$ with the $(p+1)$-tuple ${{\underline x}}$ of vertices. We then define sets $$I_{\mathcal O, c} = \{(A \times \Delta [p]_{{\underline x}}\cup B \times \partial \Delta [p]_{{\underline x}})_r \rightarrow (B \times
\Delta [p]_{{\underline x}})_r \}$$ for all $p \geq 1$ and $A \rightarrow B$, and $$J_{\mathcal O, c} = \{(C \times \Delta [p]_{{\underline x}}\cup D \times \partial \Delta [p]_{{\underline x}})_r \rightarrow (D \times \Delta
[p]_{{\underline x}})_r\}$$ for all $p \geq 1$ and $C \rightarrow D$, where the notation $(-)_{{\underline x}}$ indicates the specified vertices.
Then, the proof that we do in fact get a model structure can be proved just as in [@simpmon 3.9].
However, these two model structures are not enough. We need to localize them so that their fibrant objects are Segal category objects, following [@rezk]. Fortunately, this process can be done just as in the $n=1$ case. Define a map $\alpha^i:[1] \rightarrow [p]$ in ${\bf
\Delta}$ such that $0 \mapsto i$ and $1 \mapsto i+1$ for each $0
\leq i \leq p-1$. Then for each $p$ defines the object $$G(p)= \bigcup_{i=0}^{p-1} \alpha^i \Delta [1]$$ and the inclusion map $\varphi^p:
G(p) \rightarrow \Delta [p]$. To obtain the Segal model structure from the Reedy model structure on the category of functors ${{\bf \Delta}^{op}}\rightarrow \Theta_nSp$, the localization is with respect to the coproduct of inclusion maps $$\varphi = \coprod_{p \geq 0} (G(p) \rightarrow \Delta [p]).$$
However, in our case, the objects $G(p)$ and $\Delta [p]$ do not preserve the object set. As before, we can replace $\Delta
[p]$ with the objects $\Delta [p]_{{\underline x}}$, where ${{\underline x}}=(x_0,
\ldots ,x_p)$ and define $$G(p)_{{\underline x}}= \bigcup_{i=0}^{p-1} \alpha^i \Delta
[1]_{x_i, x_{i+1}}.$$ Now, we need to take coproducts not only over all values of $p$, but also over all $p$-tuples of vertices. Here, we can regard these objects as giving a diagram of constant $\Theta_n$-spaces.
Thus, we localize with respect to the set of maps $$\{G[p]_{{\underline x}}\rightarrow \Delta[p]_{{\underline x}}\mid p \geq 0, {{\underline x}}\in \mathcal O^{p+1} \}.$$ Applying this localization to the model structure $\Theta_nSp^{{{\bf \Delta}^{op}}}_{\mathcal O, f}$ gives a model structure which we denote $\mathcal L({\Theta_nSp})^{{{\bf \Delta}^{op}}}_{\mathcal O,f}$, and similarly from $\Theta_nSp^{{{\bf \Delta}^{op}}}_{\mathcal O,c}$ we obtain the localized model structure $\mathcal L (\Theta_nSp)^{{{\bf \Delta}^{op}}}_{\mathcal O,c}$.
Rigidification of algebras over algebraic theories
==================================================
In this section we generalize work of Badzioch [@bad] and the first-named author [@multisort] concerning rigidification of simplicial algebras over algebraic theories. These results, which give us a convenient framework for understanding fixed-object simplicial categories, were used to establish the Quillen equivalence between the model structures for simplicial categories and Segal categories. To apply these results to our higher-categorical situation, we need similar results to hold when we take functors into more general categories.
We begin with a review of algebraic theories and simplicial algebras over them.
[@multisort] Given a set $S$, an $S$-*sorted algebraic theory* (or *multi-sorted theory*) $\mathcal T$ is a small category with objects $T_{{{\underline \alpha}}^n}$ where ${{\underline \alpha}}^n = \langle \alpha_1, \ldots
,\alpha_n \rangle$ for $\alpha_i \in S$ and $n \geq 0$ varying, and such that each $T_{{{\underline \alpha}}^n}$ is equipped with an isomorphism $$T_{{{\underline \alpha}}^n} \cong \prod_{i=1}^n T_{\alpha_i}.$$ For a particular ${{\underline \alpha}}^n$, the entries $\alpha_i$ can repeat, but they are not ordered. In other words, ${{\underline \alpha}}^n$ is a an $n$-element subset with multiplicities. There exists a terminal object $T_0$ corresponding to the empty subset of $S$.
\[talg\] Given an $S$-sorted theory $\mathcal T$, a *(strict simplicial)* $\mathcal T$-*algebra in* $\Theta_nSp$ is a product-preserving functor $A:\mathcal T \rightarrow \Theta_nSp$. In other words, the canonical map $$A(T_{{{\underline \alpha}}^n}) \rightarrow \prod_{i=1}^n A(T_{\alpha_i}),$$ induced by the projections $T_{{{\underline \alpha}}^n} \rightarrow T_{\alpha_i}$ for all $1 \leq i \leq n$, is an isomorphism in $\Theta_nSp$.
We denote the category of strict $\mathcal T$-algebras in $\Theta_nSp$ by ${\mathcal Alg^\mathcal T}_{\Theta_n}$.
Given an $S$-sorted theory $\mathcal T$, a *homotopy* $\mathcal T$-*algebra in* $\Theta_nSp$ is a functor $X:\mathcal T \rightarrow \Theta_nSp$ which preserves products up to homotopy, i.e., for all $\alpha \in S^n$, the canonical map $$X(T_{{{\underline \alpha}}^n}) \rightarrow \prod_{i=1}^n X(T_{\alpha_i})$$ induced by the projection maps $T_{{{\underline \alpha}}^n} \rightarrow T_{\alpha_i}$ for each $1 \leq i \leq n$ is a weak equivalence in $\Theta_nSp$.
Given an $S$-sorted theory $\mathcal T$ and $\alpha \in S$, there is an evaluation functor $$U_\alpha \colon {\mathcal Alg^\mathcal T}_{\Theta_n} \rightarrow \Theta_nSp$$ given by $$U_\alpha(A)=A(T_\alpha).$$ Define a weak equivalence in the category ${\mathcal Alg^\mathcal T}_{\Theta_n}$ to be a map $f \colon A \rightarrow B$ such that $U_\alpha(f) \colon U_\alpha(A) \rightarrow U_\alpha(B)$ is a weak equivalence in $\Theta_nSp$ for all $\alpha \in S$. Similarly, define a fibration of $\mathcal T$-algebras to be a map $f$ such that $U_{\alpha}(f)$ is a fibration in $\mathcal M$ for all $\alpha$. Then define a cofibration to be a map with the left lifting property with respect to the maps which are fibrations and weak equivalences.
The following theorem is a generalization of a result by Quillen [@quillen II.4].
There is a model structure on the category ${\mathcal Alg^\mathcal T}_{\Theta_n}$ with weak equivalences and fibrations given by evaluation functors $U_\alpha$ for all $\alpha \in S$.
The proof follows just as it does for algebras in ${\mathcal{SS}ets}$ [@multisort 4.7].
Let $\Theta_nSp^\mathcal T_f$ denote the category of functors $\mathcal T \rightarrow \Theta_nSp$ with model structure given by levelwise weak equivalences and fibrations. Similarly, let $\Theta_nSp^\mathcal T_c$ denote the same category with model structure given by levelwise weak equivalences and cofibrations. Since the objects of $\Theta_nSp$ are simplicial presheaves, in particular presheaves of sets, we can regard the set of maps $$P=\{p_{{{\underline \alpha}}^n} \colon \coprod_{i=1}^n {\text{Hom}}_\mathcal T (T_{\alpha_i},-) \rightarrow {\text{Hom}}_\mathcal T(T_{{{\underline \alpha}}^n},-) \}$$ as defining a set of maps in $\Theta_nSp$ given by constant diagrams. Then, we have model structures $\mathcal L (\Theta_nSp)^\mathcal T_f$ and $\mathcal L({\Theta_nSp})^\mathcal T_c$ given by localizing the model structures $\Theta_nSp^\mathcal T_f$ and $\Theta_nSp^\mathcal T_c$ with respect to this set of maps. The following proposition generalizes [@multisort 4.9].
There is a model category structure $\mathcal L \Theta_nSp^\mathcal T$ on the category $\Theta_nSp^\mathcal T$ with weak equivalences the $P$-local equivalences, cofibrations as in ${\mathcal{SS}ets^\mathcal T}_f$, and fibrations the maps which have the right lifting property with respect to the maps which are cofibrations and weak equivalences.
Here, we use a slight modification of this theorem as follows. We define a model structure analogous to $\mathcal L \Theta_nSp^\mathcal T$ but on the category of functors $\mathcal T \rightarrow \Theta_nSp$ which send $T_0$ to $\Delta [0]$, as in [@simpmon 3.11].
Consider the category of functors $\mathcal T \rightarrow \Theta_nSp$ such that the image of $T_0$ is $\Delta [0]$. There is a model category structure on $\mathcal L({\Theta_nSp})^\mathcal T_*$ in which the in which the fibrant objects are homotopy $\mathcal T$-algebras in $\Theta_nSp$.
The main theorem of this section is the following, and its proof follows just as in the case of ${\mathcal{SS}ets}$.
There is a Quillen equivalence of model categories $$\xymatrix@1{L:\mathcal L (\Theta_nSp)^\mathcal T_{*,f} \ar@<.5ex>[r] & {\mathcal Alg^\mathcal T}_{\Theta_n}:N. \ar@<.5ex>[l]}$$
We now look at the algebraic theory that is of use here, namely the theory ${\mathcal T_{\mathcal {OC}at}}$ of categories with fixed object set $\mathcal O$. Consider the category $\mathcal {OC}at$ whose objects are the small categories with a fixed object set $\mathcal O$ and whose morphisms are the functors which are the identity on the objects. There is a theory $\mathcal T_{\mathcal {OC}at}$ associated to this category. Given an element $(\alpha, \beta) \in \mathcal O \times \mathcal O$, consider the directed graph with vertices the elements of $\mathcal O$ and with a single edge starting at $\alpha$ and ending at $\beta$. The objects of ${\mathcal T_{\mathcal {OC}at}}$ are isomorphism classes of categories which are freely generated by coproducts of such directed graphs In other words, this theory is $(\mathcal O \times \mathcal O)$-sorted.
A product-preserving functor ${\mathcal T_{\mathcal {OC}at}}\rightarrow {\mathcal{S}ets}$ is essentially a category with object set $\mathcal O$. In the comparison between simplicial categories and Segal categories with a fixed object set, we use simplicial algebras ${\mathcal T_{\mathcal {OC}at}}\rightarrow {\mathcal{SS}ets}$, which correspond to simplicial categories, or categories enriched over simplicial sets, with fixed object set $\mathcal O$. Here, we regard strictly product-preserving functors ${\mathcal T_{\mathcal {OC}at}}\rightarrow \Theta_nSp$ as categories enriched over $\Theta_nSp$ with object set $\mathcal O$.
When $\Theta_nSp$ is additionally a cofibrantly generated model category of simplicial presheaves, then we can consider the model structure ${\mathcal Alg^{{\mathcal T_{\mathcal {OC}at}}}}_{\Theta_n}$ and the related model structure for homotopy algebras, $\mathcal L({\Theta_nSp})^{{\mathcal T_{\mathcal {OC}at}}}$. The homotopy algebras can be regarded as a weaker version of categories enriched over $\Theta_nSp$, yet not as weak as the Segal category objects that we considered in the previous section; our goal is to show they are all equivalent nonetheless.
We first note the easiest such equivalence.
The identity functor gives a Quillen equivalence $$\xymatrix@1{\mathcal L (\Theta_nSp)^{{{\bf \Delta}^{op}}}_{\mathcal O,f} \ar@<.5ex>[r] & \mathcal L (\Theta_nSp)^{{{\bf \Delta}^{op}}}_{\mathcal O,c}. \ar@<.5ex>[l]}$$
The proof follows since weak equivalences are the same in both model structures and all the cofibrations in $\mathcal L (\Theta_nSp)^{{{\bf \Delta}^{op}}}_{\mathcal O,f}$ are cofibrations in $\mathcal L (\Theta_nSp)^{{{\bf \Delta}^{op}}}_{\mathcal O,c}$.
The following proof is more difficult to establish, but in fact the argument is identical to case of ${\mathcal{SS}ets}$ [@simpmon §4, §5].
There is a Quillen equivalence of model categories $$\xymatrix@1{\mathcal L({\Theta_nSp})^{{\mathcal T_{\mathcal {OC}at}}}_{\mathcal O,f} \ar@<.5ex>[r] & \mathcal L(\Theta_nSp)^{{{\bf \Delta}^{op}}}_{\mathcal O,f}. \ar@<.5ex>[l]}$$
Two model structures for Segal category objects
===============================================
We begin by defining sets of maps which will be our generating cofibrations in our two model structures. However, here we no longer require object sets to remain fixed.
Thus, we begin with the generating cofibrations for the Reedy model structure on $\Theta_nSp^{{{\bf \Delta}^{op}}}_c$, which are given by $$A \times \Delta[p] \cup B \times \partial \Delta [p] \rightarrow B \times \Delta[p],$$ where $A \rightarrow B$ ranges over all generating cofibrations in $\Theta_nSp$ and $p \geq 0$. Since the localization does not change the cofibrations, we can use the Reedy generating cofibrations as a generating set for $\Theta_nSp$. Recall that a map $X \rightarrow Y$ is an acyclic fibration in ${\mathcal{SS}ets}^{\Theta_n}$ if, for any object $[q](c_1, \ldots, c_q)$, the map $X_{(c_1, \ldots, c_q)} \rightarrow P_{(c_1, \ldots,c_q)}$ is an acyclic fibration of simplicial sets, where $P_{(c_1, \ldots, c_q)}$ is the pullback in the diagram $$\xymatrix{P_{(c_1, \ldots, c_q)} \ar[r] \ar[d] & Y_{(c_1, \ldots, c_q)} \ar[d] \\
M_{(c_1, \ldots, c_q)} X \ar[r] & M_{(c_1, \ldots, c_q)}Y. }$$ Here $M_{(c_1, \ldots, c_q)}X$ denotes the matching object for $X$ at $[q](c_1, \ldots, c_q)$ and analogously for $Y$ [@hirsch 15.2.5].
The map $X_{(c_1, \ldots, c_q)} \rightarrow P_{(c_1, \ldots,c_q)}$ is an acyclic fibration of simplicial sets precisely when it has the left lifting property with respect to the generating cofibrations for the standard model structure on ${\mathcal{SS}ets}$, i.e., with respect to the maps $\partial \Delta[m] \rightarrow \Delta[m]$ for all $m \geq 0$. Now, notice that $$X_{(c_1, \ldots, c_q)} = {\text{Map}}(\Theta[q](c_1, \ldots, c_q), X)$$ and $$M_{(c_1, \ldots, c_q)}X = {\text{Map}}(\partial \Theta[q](c_1, \ldots, c_q), X)$$ where $\Theta[q](c_1, \ldots, c_q)$ is the analogue of $\Delta[q]$ in ${\mathcal{SS}ets}$, i.e., the representable object for maps into $[q](c_1, \ldots, c_q)$, and $\partial \Theta[q](c_1, \ldots, c_q)$ is the analogue of $\partial \Delta[q]$. Thus, we get that $$P_{(c_1, \ldots, c_p)} = {\text{Map}}(\Theta[q](c_1, \ldots, c_q),Y) \times_{{\text{Map}}(\partial \Theta[q](c_1, \ldots, c_q), Y)} {\text{Map}}(\partial \Theta[q](c_1, \ldots, c_q),X).$$ Putting all this information together, we see that $X \rightarrow Y$ is an acyclic fibration in ${\Theta_nSp}$ precisely when it has the right lifting property with respect to all maps $$\partial \Delta[m] \times \Theta[q](c_1, \ldots c_q) \cup \Delta[m] \times \partial \Theta[q](c_1, \ldots, c_q) \rightarrow \Delta[m] \times \Theta[q](c_1, \ldots, c_q).$$
Thus, returning to the setting of ${(\Theta_nSp)^{{{\bf \Delta}^{op}}}}_{disc}$, we have a preliminary set of possible generating cofibrations given by
$$\begin{aligned}
\left( (\partial \Delta[m] \times \Theta[q](c_1, \ldots, c_q) \cup \Delta[m] \times \partial \Theta[q](c_1, \ldots, c_q)) \times \Delta[p] \cup (\Delta[m] \times \Theta[q](c_1, \ldots, c_q)) \times \partial \Delta[p] \right)_r \\
\rightarrow \left((\Delta[m] \times \Theta[q](c_1, \ldots, c_q)) \times \Delta[p] \right)_r.
\end{aligned}$$
As arose in [@thesis §4], some of these maps are not still monomorphisms after applying the reduction functor. It suffices to take all maps as above where $m=q=p=0$, and where $m,q \geq 0$ and $p \geq 1$. All other maps where $p=0$ either result in isomorphisms (which are unnecessary to include) or maps which are not isomorphisms. For example, when $p=q=0$ and $m=1$, we obtain $\Delta[0] \amalg \Delta[0] \rightarrow \Delta[0]$ after reduction, which is not a monomorphism. We denote by $I_c$ the set of remaining maps, which will be a set of generating cofibrations for one of our model structures.
However, this reduction process does not work as well when we seek to find generating cofibrations for a model structure analogous to the projective model structure on ${(\Theta_nSp)^{{{\bf \Delta}^{op}}}}$, in which the generating cofibrations are of the form $$A \times \Delta[p] \rightarrow B \times \Delta[p]$$ where $p\geq 0$ and $A \rightarrow B$ is a generating cofibration in $\Theta_nSp$. For some of the maps $A \rightarrow B$ (in particular when, using the description of such maps above, $m=1$ or $q=1$), reduction does not give the correct map.
Thus, we also need to consider another set, first to prove a technical lemma for our first model structure, and then to be a set of generating cofibrations for the second model structure. For any object $A$ in $\Theta_nSp$ and $p\geq 0$, define the object $A_{[p]}$ to be the pushout of the diagram $$\xymatrix{A \times (\Delta[p])_0 \ar[r] \ar[d] & A \times \Delta[p] \ar[d] \\
(\Delta[p])_0 \ar[r] & A_{[p]}. }$$ Define the set $$I_f= \{A_{[p]} \rightarrow B_{[p]} \mid p \geq 0, A \rightarrow B \text{ a generating cofibration in } \Theta_nSp \}.$$
Let $X$ be a ${\Theta_nSp}$-Segal precategory, and consider the map $X \rightarrow {\text{cosk}}_0X$. Denote by $X_p(v_0, \ldots, v_p)$ the fiber of the map $$X_p \rightarrow ({\text{cosk}}_0X)_p = X_0^{p+1}.$$ Then, for any object $A$ or $B$ as given above (noting that these objects are small in $\Theta_nSp$), we get $$\begin{aligned}
{\text{Hom}}(A_{[p]},X) & ={\text{Hom}}(A \times \Delta[p] \amalg_{A \times \Delta[p]_0} \Delta[p]_0, X) \\
&= {\text{Hom}}(A, X_p) \times_{{\text{Hom}}(A, X_0^{p+1})} X_0^{p+1} \\
& = \coprod_{v_0, \ldots, v_p} {\text{Hom}}(A, X_p(v_0, \ldots, v_p)).
\end{aligned}$$ (Notice that by our assumption that $X$ is a ${\Theta_nSp}$-Segal precategory, $X_0$ is a discrete object of $\Theta_nSp$ and therefore our abuse of terminology that it has “elements" $v_0, \ldots v_p$ makes sense.)
We make use of the following facts about fibrations in ${\Theta_nSp}$. We give the proof in Section \[fibrationproof\].
\[fibrations\] Let $X, X', Y$, and $Y'$ be objects of ${\Theta_nSp}$.
1. If $X$ and $Y$ are both discrete, then any map $X \rightarrow Y$ is a fibration.
2. If $X \rightarrow Y$ and $X \rightarrow Y$ be fibrations, then $X \amalg X' \rightarrow Y \amalg Y'$ is a fibration.
The following lemma is the higher analogue of [@thesis 4.1].
\[mapping\] Suppose that a map $f \colon X \rightarrow Y$ of Segal precategory objects has the right lifting property with respect to the maps in $I_f$. Then the map $X_0 \rightarrow Y_0$ is surjective, and each map $$X_p(v_0, \ldots, v_p) \rightarrow Y_p(fv_0, \ldots fv_p)$$ is an acyclic fibration in $\Theta_nSp$ for each $p \geq 1$ and $(v_0, \ldots, v_p) \in X_0^{p+1}$.
Using our description of the generating cofibrations of ${\Theta_nSp}$, when $m=q=0$, we get the map $\varnothing \rightarrow \Delta[0]$. \[Where did I define these???\] The fact that $X \rightarrow Y$ has the right lifting property with respect to $\varnothing_{[0]} \rightarrow \Delta[0]_{[0]}$ implies that $X_0 \rightarrow Y_0$ is surjective.
To prove the remaining part of the statement, we need to show that a dotted arrow lift exists in all diagrams of the form $$\xymatrix{A \ar[r] \ar[d] & X_p(v_0, \ldots, v_p) \ar[d] \\
B \ar[r] \ar@{-->}[ur] & Y_p(fv_0, \ldots, fv_p) }$$ for all choices of $p \geq 1$ and $A \rightarrow B$. By our hypothesis, we have the existence of dotted arrow lifts $$\xymatrix{A_{[p]} \ar[r] \ar[d] & X \ar[d] \\
B_{[p]} \ar[r] \ar@{-->}[ur] & Y. }$$ The existence of such a lift is equivalent to the surjectivity of the map ${\text{Hom}}(B_{[p]},X) \rightarrow P$, where $P$ is the pullback in the diagram $$\xymatrix{{\text{Hom}}(B_{[p]},X) \ar[r] & P \ar[r] \ar[d] & {\text{Hom}}(A_{[p]},X) \ar[d] \\
& {\text{Hom}}(B_{[p]},Y) \ar[r] & {\text{Hom}}(A_{[p]},Y). }$$
But, as we just showed above, we get $${\text{Hom}}(B_{[p]},X)= \coprod_{v_0, \ldots, v_p} {\text{Hom}}(B, X_p(v_0, \ldots, v_p)),$$ and analogously for the other objects in the diagram. Looking at each component for each $(v_0, \ldots v_p)$ separately, we can check that surjectivity of this map does indeed give us the lift that we require.
\[mappingic\] Suppose that $f \colon X \rightarrow Y$ is a map in $({\Theta_nSp})^{{{\bf \Delta}^{op}}}_{disc}$ with the right lifting property with respect to the maps in $I_c$. Then
1. the map $f_0 \colon X_0 \rightarrow Y_0$ is surjective, and
2. for every $m \geq 1$ and $(v_0, \ldots, v_m) \in X_0^{n+1}$, the map $$X_m(v_0, \ldots, v_m) \rightarrow Y_m(fv_0, \ldots, fv_m)$$ is a weak equivalence in ${\Theta_nSp}$.
Since $f$ has the right lifting property with respect to the maps in the set $I_c$, it has the right lifting property with respect to all cofibrations. In particular, $f$ has the right lifting property with respect to the maps in the set $I_f$. Therefore, the result follows by Lemma \[mapping\].
In order to give a precise definition of our weak equivalences, we need to define a “localization" functor $L$ on the category $\Theta_nSp^{{{\bf \Delta}^{op}}}_{disc}$ such that, for any object $X$, $LX$ is a Segal space object which is also a Segal category object weakly equivalent to $X$ in $\mathcal L_S\Theta_nSp^{{{\bf \Delta}^{op}}}$.
To begin, we consider one choice of generating acyclic cofibrations in $\mathcal L_S\Theta_nSp^{{{\bf \Delta}^{op}}}$, namely, the set $$\{C \times \Delta[p] \cup D \times G(p) \rightarrow D \times \Delta[p] \}$$ where $p \geq 0$ and $C \rightarrow D$ is a generating acyclic cofibration in $\Theta_nSp$. Using these maps, we can use the small object argument to construct a localization functor.
However, the maps with $p=0$ are problematic because taking pushouts along them, as given by the small object argument, results in objects which are no longer Segal category objects. Thus, we consider maps as above, but with the restriction that $p \geq 1$. To show that the “localization" functor that results from this smaller set of maps is sufficient, in that it still gives us a Segal space object, we can use an argument just like the one given in [@thesis §5].
Now, we make the following definitions in $\Theta_nSp^{{{\bf \Delta}^{op}}}_{disc}$.
- Weak equivalences are the maps $f \colon X \rightarrow Y$ such that the induced map $LX \rightarrow LY$ is a Dwyer-Kan equivalence of Segal space objects. (We call such maps *Dwyer-Kan equivalences*.)
- Cofibrations are the monomorphisms.
- Fibrations are the maps with the right lifting property with respect to the maps which are both cofibrations and weak equivalences.
\[rlpic\] Suppose that $f \colon X \rightarrow Y$ is a map in $({\Theta_nSp})^{{{\bf \Delta}^{op}}}_{disc}$ with the right lifting property with respect to the maps in $I_c$. Then $f$ is a Dwyer-Kan equivalence.
Suppose that $f \colon X \rightarrow Y$ has the right lifting property with respect to the maps in $I_c$. By Lemma \[mappingic\], $f_0 \colon X_0 \rightarrow Y_0$ is surjective and each map $$X_m(v_0, \ldots, v_m) \rightarrow Y_m(fv_0, \ldots, fv_m)$$ is a weak equivalence in ${\Theta_nSp}$ for $m \geq 1$ and $(v_0, \ldots, v_m) \in X_0^{m+1}$. To prove that $f$ is a Dwyer-Kan equivalence, it remains to show that, for any $x,y \in X_0$, ${\text{map}}_{LX}(x,y) \rightarrow {\text{map}}_{LY}(fx,fy)$ is a weak equivalence in ${\Theta_nSp}$.
First, we construct a factorization of $f$ as follows. Define $\Phi Y$ to be the pullback in the diagram $$\xymatrix{\Phi Y \ar[r] \ar[d] & Y \ar[d] \\
{\text{cosk}}_0(X_0) \ar[r] & {\text{cosk}}_0(Y_0). }$$ Then $(\Phi Y)_0 = X_0$ and, for every $m \geq 1$ and $(v_0, \ldots, v_m) \in X_0^{m+1}$, there is an isomorphisms of mapping objects $$(\Phi Y)_0(v_0, \ldots, v_m) \cong Y_m(fv_0, \ldots, fv_m).$$ Then $X \rightarrow \Phi Y$ is a Reedy weak equivalence and hence a Dwyer-Kan equivalence. Therefore, it remains to prove that $\Phi Y \rightarrow Y$ is a Dwyer-Kan equivalence, via an inductive argument on the skeleta of $Y$.
For any $p \geq 0$, consider the map $\Phi ({\text{sk}}_p Y) \rightarrow {\text{sk}}_p Y$. If $p=0$, then $\Phi ({\text{sk}}_0 Y)$ and ${\text{sk}}_0 Y$ are actually ${\Theta_nSp}$-Segal objects which can be observed to be Dwyer-Kan equivalent. Therefore, assume that the map $\Phi ({\text{sk}}_{p-1} Y) \rightarrow {\text{sk}}_{p-1} Y$ is a Dwyer-Kan equivalence and consider the map $\Phi ({\text{sk}}_p Y) \rightarrow {\text{sk}}_p Y$.
We know that ${\text{sk}}_p Y$ is obtained from ${\text{sk}}_{p-1} Y$ via iterations of pushouts along maps $A_{[m]} \rightarrow B_{[m]}$ for $A \rightarrow B$ a generating cofibration in ${\Theta_nSp}$. Since we need a more precise formulation, we recall that generating cofibrations in ${\Theta_nSp}$ are of the form $$\partial \Delta[m] \times \Theta[q](c_1, \ldots c_q) \cup \Delta[m] \times \partial \Theta[q](c_1, \ldots, c_q) \rightarrow \Delta[m] \times \Theta[q](c_1, \ldots, c_q)$$ for $m, q \geq 0$ and $c_1, \ldots, c_q$ objects of $\Theta_{n-1}$. So, we have the pushout diagram $$\xymatrix{\Delta[m] \times \Theta[q](c_1, \ldots, c_q) \times \Delta[p]_0 \ar[d] \ar[r] & \Delta[m] \times \Theta[q](c_1, \ldots, c_q) \times \Delta[p] \ar[d] \\
\Delta[p]_0 \ar[r] & (\Delta[m] \times \Theta[q](c_1, \ldots, c_q))_{[p]}.}$$ Similarly, we obtain $(\partial \Delta[m] \times \Theta[q](c_1, \ldots c_q) \cup \Delta[m] \times \partial \Theta[q](c_1, \ldots, c_q))_{[p]}$.
For simplicity, assume that we require only one pushout to obtain ${\text{sk}}_p Y$ from ${\text{sk}}_{p-1} Y$; here we further simplify by considering the case where $m=q=0$, although the argument can be extended more generally. For this case, we have the pushout diagram $$\xymatrix{\varnothing \ar[r] \ar[d] & {\text{sk}}_{p-1} Y \ar[d] \\
\Delta[p] \ar[r] & {\text{sk}}_p Y.}$$ Since we know by our inductive hypothesis that $\Phi({\text{sk}}_{p-1} Y) \rightarrow {\text{sk}}_{p-1} Y$ is a Dwyer-Kan equivalence, it suffices to establish that $\Phi \Delta[p] \rightarrow \Delta[p]$ is a Dwyer-Kan equivalence. In the setting where these are levelwise discrete simplicial spaces, this fact was established in [@thesis §9]. The argument given there continues to hold in the present case, making use of the fact that the model structure for ${\Theta_nSp}$-Segal spaces is cartesian.
\[cversion\] There is a cofibrantly generated model category structure $\mathcal L \Theta_nSp^{{{\bf \Delta}^{op}}}_{disc,c}$ on the category of ${\Theta_nSp}$-Segal precategories with the above weak equivalences, fibrations, and cofibrations.
We use [@beke 4.1] to establish this model structure. It is not too hard to show that condition (1) is satisfied with $W$ the class of weak equivalences as defined. However, to prove the remaining two statements we need the set $$I_c=\{(A \times \Delta[p] \cup B \times \partial \Delta[p])_r \rightarrow (B \times \Delta[p])_r \}$$ where $A \rightarrow B$ are the generating cofibrations in $\Theta_nSp$.
Condition (2) was established in Lemma \[rlpic\].
For condition (3), first notice that elements of ${\text{cof}}(I_c)$ are monomorphisms. Now suppose that $X \rightarrow Y$ is a weak equivalence which is in ${\text{cof}}(I_c)$, and suppose $$\xymatrix{X \ar[r] \ar[d] & Z \ar[d] \\
Y \ar[r] & W}$$ is a pushout diagram. Then notice that in the diagram $$\xymatrix{{\text{map}}_{LX}(x,y) \ar[r] \ar[d] & {\text{map}}_{LZ}(x,y) \ar[d] \\
{\text{map}}_{LY}(x,y) \ar[r] & {\text{map}}_{LW}(x,y)}$$ again has the left-hand vertical map a cofibration and weak equivalence in ${\Theta_nSp}$, and is again a pushout diagram. Furthermore, using the definition of homotopy category in a ${\Theta_nSp}$-Segal category, it can be shown that the analogous diagram of homotopy categories is again a pushout diagram. Therefore, weak equivalences which are in ${\text{cof}}(I_c)$ are preserved by pushouts. A similar argument using mapping objects and homotopy categories establishes that such maps are preserved by transfinite compositions.
We now define another model structure with the same weak equivalences, but for which the cofibrations are given by transfinite compositions of pushouts along the maps of the generating set $I_f$, and the fibrations are then determined.
There is a model structure $\mathcal L (\Theta_nSp)^{{{\bf \Delta}^{op}}}_{disc, f}$ on the category of Segal precategory objects with weak equivalences the Dwyer-Kan equivalences and the cofibrations given by iterated pushouts along the maps of the set $I_f$.
As before, we show that the conditions of [@beke 4.1] are satisfied. Condition (1) continues to hold from the previous model structure. A similar proof can be used to establish condition (2), using Lemma \[mapping\] and a proof analogous to the one for Lemma \[rlpic\]. Condition (3) works as in the other model structure.
Quillen equivalences between Segal category objects and enriched categories
===========================================================================
We now establish Quillen equivalences between the models given in the previous sections.
The identity functor induces a Quillen equivalence $$\xymatrix@1{\mathcal L (\Theta_nSp)^{{{\bf \Delta}^{op}}}_{disc,c} \ar@<.5ex>[r] & \mathcal L (\Theta_nSp)^{{{\bf \Delta}^{op}}}_{disc,f}. \ar@<.5ex>[l]}$$
The identity map from $\mathcal L \Theta_nSp^{{{\bf \Delta}^{op}}}_{f, disc}$ to $\mathcal L \Theta_nSp^{{{\bf \Delta}^{op}}}_{c, disc}$ preserves cofibrations and acyclic cofibrations, so we get a Quillen pair. The fact that it is a Quillen equivalence follows then from the fact that weak equivalences are the same in both categories.
\[qpair\] There is a Quillen pair $$\xymatrix@1{F \colon \mathcal L (\Theta_nSp)^{{{\bf \Delta}^{op}}}_{f, disc} \ar@<.5ex>[r] & \Theta_nSp-Cat \colon R. \ar@<.5ex>[l]}$$
To prove this proposition, we make use of the following definition.
Let $\mathcal D$ be a small category, $\mathcal C$ a simplicial category, and $\mathcal C^\mathcal D$ the category of functors $\mathcal D \rightarrow \mathcal C$. Let $S$ be a set of morphisms in ${\mathcal{SS}ets^\mathcal D}$. An object $Y$ of $\mathcal C^\mathcal D$ is *strictly* $S$-*local* if for every morphism $f \colon A
\rightarrow B$ in $S$, the induced map on function complexes $$f^*: {\text{Map}}(B,Y) \rightarrow {\text{Map}}(A,Y)$$ is an isomorphism of simplicial sets. A map $g:C \rightarrow D$ in $\mathcal C^\mathcal D$ is a *strict* $S$-*local equivalence* if for every strictly $S$-local object $Y$ in $\mathcal C^\mathcal D$, the induced map $$g^*:{\text{Map}}(D,Y) \rightarrow {\text{Map}}(C,Y)$$ is an isomorphism of simplicial sets.
Here, we consider functors ${{\bf \Delta}^{op}}\rightarrow \Theta_nSp$ which are discrete at level zero. Notice that a category enriched in $\Theta_nSp-Cat$ can be regarded as a strictly local object in this category when we localize with respect to the map $\varphi$ described in an earlier section. Recall that a Segal category object is a (nonstrictly) local object when regarded as a Segal space object ${{\bf \Delta}^{op}}\rightarrow \Theta_nSp$. Thus, the enriched nerve functor can be regarded as an inclusion map $$R \colon \Theta_nSp-Cat \rightarrow \Theta_nSp^{{{\bf \Delta}^{op}}}.$$
Although we are working in the subcategory of functors which are discrete at level zero, we can still use the following lemma to obtain a left adjoint functor $F$ to our inclusion map $R$, since the construction will always produce a diagram with discrete set at level zero when applied to such a diagram.
For any small category $\mathcal D$ and any model category $\mathcal M$, consider the category of all diagrams $X: \mathcal
D \rightarrow \mathcal M$ and the category of strictly local diagrams with respect to the set of maps $S= \{f:A \rightarrow B\}$. The forgetful functor from the category of strictly local diagrams to the category of all diagrams has a left adjoint.
This lemma was proved in [@multisort 5.6] in the case where $\mathcal M={\mathcal{SS}ets}$, but the proof continues to hold if we use a more general simplicial category.
We define $F \colon \mathcal L({\Theta_nSp})^{{{\bf \Delta}^{op}}}_{disc, f} \rightarrow \Theta_nSp-Cat$ to be this left adjoint to the inclusion map of strictly local diagrams.
To prove this proposition, we modify the approach given in the proof of the analogous result when $n=1$ [@thesis 8.3]. We first show that $F$ preserves cofibrations. Since $F$ is a left adjoint functor, we know that it preserves colimits, so it suffices to show that $F$ takes the maps in the set $I_f$ to cofibrations in $\Theta_nSp-Cat$.
Let $\ast$ denote the terminal object in $({\Theta_nSp})^{{{\bf \Delta}^{op}}}$. Since cofibrations are inclusions in $\Theta_nSp$, the map $\varnothing \rightarrow \ast$ is a cofibration, and $\varnothing_{[0]} \rightarrow \ast_{[0]}$ is already local; in fact it corresponds to the generating cofibration $\varnothing \rightarrow \{x\}$ in $\Theta_nSp-Cat$.
For any generating cofibration $A \rightarrow B$, localizing the map $A_{[1]} \rightarrow B_{[1]}$ results in the generating cofibration $UA \rightarrow UB$ of $\Theta_nSp-Cat$. Localizing any other map of $I_f$ results in a map in $\Theta_nSp-Cat$ which is a colimit of maps of this form, and therefore $F$ preserves cofibrations.
To show that $F$ preserve acyclic cofibrations, we use the Quillen equivalence in the fixed-object set situation; the argument given in [@thesis 8.3] still holds in this more general setting.
To prove that this Quillen pair is a Quillen equivalence, we use the following theorem, which is the analogue of [@thesis 8.5].
\[cofibrant\] For every cofibrant object $X$ in $\mathcal L (\Theta_nSp)^{{{\bf \Delta}^{op}}}_{disc,f}$, the map $X \rightarrow FX$ is a Dwyer-Kan equivalence.
Consider an object in $\mathcal L \Theta_nSp^{{{\bf \Delta}^{op}}}_{disc, f}$ of the form $\coprod_iB_{[p_i]}$, where $B$ is the target of a generating cofibration of $\Theta_nSp$, and let $Y$ be a fibrant object of $\mathcal L \Theta_nSp^{{{\bf \Delta}^{op}}}_{disc, f}$. Then notice that $(\Delta [p] \times B)_k = \Delta[p]_k \times B$ since $B$ is regarded as a constant simplicial diagram. Then $$\begin{aligned}
{\text{Map}}(\Delta[m], \Delta[p] \times B) & \cong {\text{Map}}(\Delta[m], \Delta[p]) \times {\text{Map}}(\Delta[m], B) \\
& \cong {\text{Map}}(G(m), \Delta[p]) \times {\text{Map}}(G(m), B) \\
& \cong {\text{Map}}(G(m), \Delta[p], B)
\end{aligned}$$ so $\Delta[p] \times B$ is strictly local. By its construction, it follows that $\coprod_i B_{[p_i]}$ is also strictly local. In particular, the map $$\coprod_i B[p_i] \rightarrow F\left( \coprod_i B[p_i] \right)$$ is a Dwyer-Kan equivalence.
Now, suppose that $X$ is any cofibrant object. Then it can be written as a colimit of objects of the above form, and we can assume that it can be written as $$X \simeq {\text{colim}}_{{{\bf \Delta}^{op}}}X_j$$ where $X_j=\coprod_I B[p_i]$. Then, using arguments about mapping spaces and strictly local objects as in [@thesis 8.5], we can show that $${\text{Map}}(X,Y) \simeq {\text{Map}}(FX,Y)$$ for any strictly local fibrant object $Y$, completing the proof.
The Quillen pair $$\xymatrix@1{F \colon \mathcal L({\Theta_nSp})^{{{\bf \Delta}^{op}}}_{f, disc} \ar@<.5ex>[r] & \Theta_nSp-Cat \colon R. \ar@<.5ex>[l]}$$ is a Quillen equivalence.
To prove this result, we can use Lemma \[cofibrant\] to prove that $F$ reflects weak equivalences between cofibrant objects. Then, we show that for any fibrant $\Theta_nSp$-category, the map $F((RY)^c) \rightarrow Y$ is a Dwyer-Kan equivalence, where $(RY)^c$ denotes a cofibrant replacement of $RY$. The proof follows just as in the $n=1$ case [@thesis 8.6].
Fibrations in ${\Theta_nSp}$ {#fibrationproof}
============================
In this section we give the proof of Proposition \[fibrations\], establishing properties of fibrations in ${\Theta_nSp}$.
We begin with the case where $n=1$, so that ${\Theta_nSp}$ is just ${\mathcal{CSS}}$, the model structure for complete Segal spaces.
\[cssfibs\] The statement of Proposition \[fibrations\] holds when $n=1$.
Recall that the generating acyclic cofibrations in ${\mathcal{CSS}}$ are of the form $$V[m,k] \times \Delta[p]^t \cup \Delta [m] \times G(p)^t \rightarrow \Delta[m] \times \Delta[p]^t$$ or $$V[m,k] \times E^t \cup \Delta[m] \times \Delta[0]^t \rightarrow \Delta[m] \times E^t$$ where $m \geq 1$, $0 \leq k \leq m$, $p \geq 0$, and $E$ denotes the nerve of the category with two objects and a single isomorphism between them.
Suppose that $X$ and $Y$ are discrete simplicial spaces. To show that any map $X \rightarrow Y$ is a fibration, it suffices to prove that that it has the right lifting property with respect to these two kinds of generating acyclic cofibrations, which is equivalent to the existence of dotted-arrow lifts in the diagrams of simplicial sets $$\xymatrix{V[m,k] \ar[r] \ar[d] & X_n \ar[d] & \\
\Delta[m] \ar[r] \ar@{-->}[ur] & P \ar[r] \ar[d] & X_1 \times_{X_0} \cdots \times_{X_0} X_1 \ar[d] \\
& Y_n \ar[r] & Y_1 \times_{Y_0} \cdots \times_{Y_0} Y_1}$$ and $$\xymatrix{V[m,k] \ar[r] \ar[d] & {\text{Map}}(E^t,X) \ar[d] & \\
\Delta[m] \ar[r] \ar@{-->}[ur] & Q \ar[r] \ar[d] & X_0 \ar[d] \\
& {\text{Map}}(E^t, Y) \ar[r] & Y_0 }$$ where $P$ and $Q$ denote the pullbacks of their respective lower square diagrams. In the first diagram, since $X$ and $Y$ are discrete, $X_0=X_1=X_n$ and $Y_0=Y_1=Y_n$ for all $n \geq 2$, so $P=X_n$ and the right-hand vertical map in the upper square is an isomorphism. Therefore, the necessary lift exists. Similarly, in the second diagram, we can again use the fact that $X$ and $Y$ are discrete to show that ${\text{Map}}(E^t,X)=X_0$ and ${\text{Map}}(E^t,Y)=Y_0$, from which it follows that $Q=X_0$ and the right-hand vertical map in the upper diagram is an isomorphisms, implying the existence of the desired lift. Therefore, we have established that (1) holds in ${\mathcal{CSS}}$.
For (2), Suppose that $X \rightarrow Y$ and $X' \rightarrow Y'$ have the right lifting property with respect to the two kinds of generating acyclic cofibrations. For the first kind, we need to find a dotted-arrow lift in any diagram of the form $$\xymatrix{V[m,k] \ar[r] \ar[d] & (X \amalg X')_n \ar[d] & \\
\Delta[m] \ar[r] \ar@{-->}[ur] & P \ar[r] \ar[d] & (X \amalg X')_1 \times_{(X \amalg X')_0} \cdots \times_{(X \amalg X')_0} (X \amalg X')_1 \ar[d] \\
& (Y \amalg Y')_n \ar[r] & (Y \amalg Y')_1 \times_{(Y \amalg Y')_0} \cdots \times_{(Y \amalg Y')_0} (Y \amalg Y')_1. }$$ However, since all maps in sight are given by coproducts of maps, we can rewrite the right-hand vertical map in the lower diagram as $$(X_1 \times_{X_0} \cdots \times_{X_0} X_1) \amalg (X'_1 \times_{X'_0} \cdots \times_{X'_0} X'_1) \rightarrow (Y_1 \times_{Y_0} \cdots \times_{Y_0} Y_1) \amalg (Y'_1 \times_{Y'_0} \cdots \times_{Y'_0} Y'_1).$$ Since $\Delta[m]$ is connected, finding a lift reduces to finding a lift on one of the components, which holds since we have assumed that each component map $X \rightarrow X'$ or $X' \rightarrow Y'$ is a fibration. A similar argument can be used to establish the right lifting property with respect to the second type of acyclic cofibration.
The proof of Proposition \[fibrations\] can then be established via the following inductive result.
If conditions (1) and (2) from Proposition \[fibrations\] hold for $\Theta_{n-1}Sp$, $n \geq 2$, then they hold for ${\Theta_nSp}$.
The generating acyclic cofibrations of ${\Theta_nSp}$ are of three kinds: $$V[m,k] \times \Theta_p(c_1, \ldots, c_p) \cup \Delta[m] \times G(p)(c_1, \ldots, c_p) \rightarrow \Delta[m] \times \Theta_p(c_1, \ldots, c_p)$$ for $m \geq 1$, $0 \leq k \leq m$, $p \geq 0$, and $c_1, \ldots, c_p$ objects of $\Theta_{n-1}$, $$V[m,k] \times T_\# \Delta [0] \cup \Delta[m] \times T_\# E \rightarrow \Delta[m] \times T_\# \Delta[0],$$ for $m,k$ as before, and $$V[m,k] \times V[1](B) \cup \Delta[m] \times V[1](A) \rightarrow \Delta[m] \times V[1](B)$$ where $A \rightarrow B$ is a map in $\mathcal T_{n-1}$, the set of generating cofibrations for $\Theta_{n-1}Sp$.
Let us first consider the case where $X \rightarrow Y$ is a map between discrete objects. Showing that this map has the right lifting property with respect to the first two kinds of generating acyclic cofibrations is analogous to the proof of Proposition \[cssfibs\]. For the third kind, we need to show the existence of a dotted-arrow lift in any diagram of the form $$\xymatrix{V[m,k] \ar[r] \ar[d] & {\text{Map}}(V[1](B), X) \ar[d] & \\
\Delta[m] \ar[r] \ar@{-->}[ur] & P \ar[r] \ar[d] & {\text{Map}}(V[1](A), X) \ar[d] \\
& {\text{Map}}(V[1](B), Y) \ar[r] & {\text{Map}}(V[1](A), Y)}$$ where $P$ denotes the pushout of the lower square.
Now, recall from [@rezktheta] that we can define the mapping object $M_X(x_0, x_1)(c_1)$ to be the object of $\Theta_{n-1}Sp$ defined as the pullback in the diagram $$\xymatrix{M_X(x_0, x_1)(c_1) \ar[r] \ar[d] & X[1](c_1) \ar[d] \\
{(x_0, x_1)} \ar[r] & X[0] \times X[0].}$$ Furthermore, we get $${\text{Map}}(V[1](B), X) = \coprod_{x_0, x_1} {\text{Map}}(B, M_X(x_0, x_1))$$ and analogously for other objects in the above diagram. Since we have reduced the problem to the world of $\Theta_{n-1}Sp$, our inductive hypothesis shows that the necessary lift exists. Hence, condition (1) holds.
The same kind of argument, and again using the ideas of the proof of Proposition \[cssfibs\], we can verify that condition (2) holds as well.
[99]{}
David Ayala and Nick Rozenblyum, work in progress.
Bernard Badzioch, Algebraic theories in homotopy theory, *Ann. of Math.* (2) 155 (2002), no. 3, 895–913.
Clark Barwick, Homotopy coherent algebra II: Iterated wreath products of $O$ and $(\infty, n)$-categories, in preparation.
Clark Barwick and Christopher Schommer-Pries, On the unicity of the homotopy theory of higher categories, preprint available at math.AT/1112.0040.
Beke, Tibor. Sheafifiable homotopy model categories. II. *J. Pure Appl. Algebra* 164 (2001), no. 3, 307-324.
Clemens Berger, A cellular nerve for higher categories, *Adv.Math. * 169 (2002), no. 1, 118-175.
Clemens Berger, Iterated wreath product of the simplex category and iterated loop spaces, *Adv. Math.* 213 (2007) 230-270.
J.E. Bergner, A model category structure on the category of simplicial categories, *Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. * 359 (2007), 2043-2058.
J.E. Bergner, Rigidification of algebras over multi-sorted theories, *Algebr. Geom. Topol. * 6 (2006) 1925-1955.
J.E. Bergner, Simplicial monoids and Segal categories, *Contemp. Math. * 431 (2007) 59-83.
J.E. Bergner, Correction to “Simplicial monoids and Segal categories", available at math.AT/0806.1767.
J.E. Bergner, A survey of $(\infty,1)$-categories, in J. Baez and J. P. May, *Towards Higher Categories*, *IMA Volumes in Mathematics and Its Applications*, Springer, 2010, 69-83.
J.E. Bergner, Three models for the homotopy theory of homotopy theories, *Topology* 46 (2007), 397-436.
Julia E. Bergner and Charles Rezk, Enriched Segal categories, in preparation.
Julia E. Bergner and Charles Rezk, Reedy categories and the $\Theta$-construction, preprint available at math.AT/1110.1066.
Daniel Dugger and David I. Spivak, Mapping spaces in quasicategories, preprint available at math.AT/0911.0469.
W.G. Dwyer and J. Spalinski, Homotopy theories and model categories, in *Handbook of Algebraic Topology*, Elsevier, 1995.
P.G. Goerss and J.F. Jardine, *Simplicial Homotopy Theory, Progress in Math*, vol. 174, Birkhauser, 1999.
Philip S. Hirschhorn, *Model Categories and Their Localizations, Mathematical Surveys and Monographs 99*, AMS, 2003.
A. Hirschowitz and C. Simpson, Descente pour les $n$-champs, preprint available at math.AG/9807049.
Mark Hovey, *Model Categories, Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, 63*. American Mathematical Society 1999.
A. Joyal, Simplicial categories vs quasi-categories, in preparation.
A. Joyal, The theory of quasi-categories I, in preparation.
André Joyal and Myles Tierney, Quasi-categories vs Segal spaces, *Contemp. Math. * 431 (2007) 277-326.
Jacob Lurie, $(\infty, 2)$-categories and Goodwillie calculus, preprint available at math.CT/09050462.
Jacob Lurie, *Higher topos theory. Annals of Mathematics Studies*, 170. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2009.
Jacob Lurie, On the classification of topological field theories. *Current developments in mathematics*, 2008, 129-280, Int. Press, Somerville, MA, 2009.
Saunders Mac Lane, *Categories for the Working Mathematician, Second Edition, Graduate Texts in Mathematics 5*, Springer-Verlag, 1997.
Regis Pellissier, Catégories enrichies faibles, preprint available at math.AT/0308246.
Daniel Quillen, *Homotopical Algebra, Lecture Notes in Math 43*, Springer-Verlag, 1967.
C.L. Reedy, Homotopy theory of model categories, unpublished manuscript, available at http://www-math.mit.edu/`~`psh.
Charles Rezk, A cartesian presentation of weak $n$-categories, *Geom. Topol. * 14 (2010) 521–-571.
Charles Rezk, A model for the homotopy theory of homotopy theory, *Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. *, 353(3), 973-1007.
Carlos Simpson, *Homotopy theory of higher categories. New Mathematical Monographs,* 19. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2012.
Bertrand Toën, Vers une axiomatisation de la théorie des catégories supérieures, *K-Theory* 34 (2005), no. 3, 233-263.
D.R.B. Verity, Weak complicial sets I: Basic homotopy theory. *Adv. Math. * 219 (2008), no. 4, 1081–1149.
[^1]: The first-named author was partially supported by NSF grants DMS-0805951 and DMS-1105766, and by a UCR Regents Fellowship. The second-named author was partially supported by NSF grant DMS-1006054.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Spingarn’s method of partial inverses has found many applications in nonlinear analysis and in optimization. We show that it can be employed to solve composite monotone inclusions in duality, thus opening a new range of applications for the partial inverse formalism. The versatility of the resulting primal-dual splitting algorithm is illustrated through applications to structured monotone inclusions and optimization.'
author:
- |
Maryam A. Alghamdi,$\!^{\sharp}$ Abdullah Alotaibi,$\!^{\natural}$ Patrick L. Combettes,$\!^{\flat,\natural}$ and Naseer Shahzad$\,^\natural$\
$^\sharp$King Abdulaziz University\
Department of Mathematics\
Sciences Faculty for Girls, P. O. Box 4087\
Jeddah 21491, Saudi Arabia\
$^\natural$King Abdulaziz University\
Department of Mathematics, P. O. Box 80203\
Jeddah 21859, Saudi Arabia\
$^\flat$UPMC Université Paris 06\
Laboratoire Jacques-Louis Lions – UMR CNRS 7598\
75005 Paris, France\
date:
title: |
A Primal-Dual Method of Partial Inverses\
for Composite Inclusions[^1]
---
[**Keywords**]{} convex optimization, duality, method of partial inverses, monotone operator, splitting algorithm
[**Mathematics Subject Classifications (2010)**]{} Primary 47H05; Secondary 65K05, 90C25.
Introduction
============
Let ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}}$ be a real Hilbert space, let $A\colon{\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}}\to 2^{{\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}}}$ be a set-valued operator, let ${\ensuremath{\text{\rm gra}\,}}A={\big\{{(x,u)\in{\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}}\times{\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}}}~\big |~{u\in Ax}\big\}}$ denote the graph of $A$, let $V$ be a closed vector subspace of ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}}$, and let $P_V$ and $P_{V^\bot}$ denote respectively the projectors onto $V$ and onto its orthogonal complement. The partial inverse of $A$ with respect to $V$ is defined through $$\label{e:2013-07-25a}
{\ensuremath{\text{\rm gra}\,}}A_V={\big\{{(P_Vx+P_{V^\bot}u,P_Vu+P_{V^\bot}x)}~\big |~{(x,u)\in{\ensuremath{\text{\rm gra}\,}}A}\big\}}.$$ This operator, which was introduced by Spingarn in [@Spin83], can be regarded as an intermediate object between $A$ and $A^{-1}$. A key result of [@Spin83] is that, if $A$ is maximally monotone, problems of the form $$\label{e:999fgr623l17-27h}
\text{find}\;\;x\in V\;\;\text{and}\;\;
u\in V^\bot\;\;\text{such that}\;\;u\in Ax$$ can be solved by applying the proximal point algorithm algorithm [@Rock76] to the partial inverse $A_V$. The resulting algorithm, known as the *method of partial inverses*, has been applied to various problems in nonlinear analysis and optimization; see, e.g., [@Jat104; @Bura06; @Joca09; @Ecks92; @Idri89; @Lema89; @Mahe95; @Penn02; @Spin83; @Spin85; @Spin87-2]. The goal of the present paper is to propose a new range of applications of the method of partial inverses by showing that it can be applied to solving the following type of monotone inclusions in duality.
\[prob:1\] Let ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal G}}}$ be real Hilbert spaces, let $A\colon{\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}}\to 2^{{\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}}}$ and $B\colon{\ensuremath{{\mathcal G}}}\to 2^{{\ensuremath{{\mathcal G}}}}$ be maximally monotone operators, and let $L\colon{\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}}\to{\ensuremath{{\mathcal G}}}$ be a bounded linear operator. Solve the primal inclusion $$\label{e:primal}
\text{find}\;\;x\in{\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}}\;\;\text{such that}\;\;
0\in Ax+L^*BLx$$ together with the dual inclusion $$\label{e:dual}
\text{find}\;\;v\in{\ensuremath{{\mathcal G}}}\;\;\text{such that}\;\;
0\in -LA^{-1}(-L^*v)+B^{-1}v.$$
The operator duality described in – is an extension of the classical Fenchel-Rockafellar duality setting for functions [@Rock67] which has been studied in particular in [@Baus12; @Siop11; @Ecks99; @Penn00; @Robi99]. Our main result shows that, through a suitable reformulation, Problem \[prob:1\] can be reduced to a problem of the form and that the method of partial inverses applied to the latter leads to a splitting algorithm in which the operators $A$, $B$, and $L$ are used separately.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec:2\], we revisit the method of partial inverses and propose new convergence results. Our method of partial inverses for solving Problem \[prob:1\] is presented in Section \[sec:3\], together with applications. An alternative implementation of this method is proposed in Section \[sec:4\], where further applications are provided. Section \[sec:5\] contains concluding remarks.
[**Notation.**]{} The scalar product of a real Hilbert space ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}}$ is denoted by ${{\left\langle{{\cdot}\mid{\cdot}}\right\rangle}}$ and the associated norm by $\|\cdot\|$; ${\ensuremath{\:\rightharpoonup\:}}$ and $\to$ denote, respectively, weak and strong convergence, and ${\ensuremath{\text{\rm Id}}\,}$ is the identity operator. We denote by ${\ensuremath{\EuScript B}\,}({\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}},{\ensuremath{{\mathcal G}}})$ the class of bounded linear operators from ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}}$ to a real Hilbert space ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal G}}}$. Let $A\colon{\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}}\to 2^{{\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}}}$. The inverse $A^{-1}$ of $A$ is defined via ${\ensuremath{\text{\rm gra}\,}}A^{-1}={\big\{{(u,x)\in{\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}}\times{\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}}}~\big |~{(x,u)\in{\ensuremath{\text{\rm gra}\,}}A}\big\}}$, $J_A=({\ensuremath{\text{\rm Id}}\,}+A)^{-1}$ is the resolvent of $A$, ${\ensuremath{\text{\rm ran}\,}}A=\bigcup_{x\in{\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}}}Ax$ is the range of $A$, and ${\ensuremath{\text{\rm zer}\,}}A={\big\{{x\in{\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}}}~\big |~{0\in Ax}\big\}}$ is the set of zeros of $A$. We denote by $\Gamma_0({\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}})$ the class of lower semicontinuous convex functions $f\colon{\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}}\to{\ensuremath{\left]-\infty,+\infty\right]}}$ such that ${\ensuremath{\text{\rm dom}\,}}f={\big\{{x\in{\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}}}~\big |~{f(x)<{\ensuremath{{+\infty}}}}\big\}}\neq{\ensuremath{{\varnothing}}}$. Let $f\in\Gamma_0({\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}})$. The conjugate of $f$ is the function $f^*\in\Gamma_0({\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}})$ defined by $f^*\colon u\mapsto
\sup_{x\in{\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}}}({{\left\langle{{x}\mid{u}}\right\rangle}}-f(x))$. For every $x\in{\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}}$, $f+\|x-\cdot\|^2/2$ possesses a unique minimizer, which is denoted by ${\ensuremath{\text{\rm prox}}}_fx$. We have $$\label{e:prox2}
{\ensuremath{\text{\rm prox}}}_f=J_{\partial f},\quad\text{where}\quad
\partial f\colon{\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}}\to 2^{{\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}}}\colon x\mapsto
{\big\{{u\in{\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}}}~\big |~{(\forall y\in{\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}})\;\:{{\left\langle{{y-x}\mid{u}}\right\rangle}}+f(x){\ensuremath{\leqslant}}f(y)}\big\}}$$ is the subdifferential of $f$. See [@Livre1] for background on monotone operators and convex analysis.
A method of partial inverses {#sec:2}
============================
Throughout this section, ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathcal K}}}$ denotes a real Hilbert space. We establish the convergence of a relaxed, error-tolerant method of partial inverses. First, we review some results about partial inverses and the proximal point algorithm.
[[@Spin83 Section 2]]{} \[l:2013-07-26a\] Let $\boldsymbol{A}\colon{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathcal K}}}\to 2^{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathcal K}}}}$ be maximally monotone, let $\boldsymbol{V}$ be a closed vector subspace of ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathcal K}}}$, and let $\boldsymbol{z}\in{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathcal K}}}$. Then $\boldsymbol{A}_{\boldsymbol{V}}$ is maximally monotone and $\boldsymbol{z}\in{\ensuremath{\text{\rm zer}\,}}\boldsymbol{A}_{\boldsymbol{V}}$ $\Leftrightarrow$ $(P_{\boldsymbol{V}}\boldsymbol{z},
P_{\boldsymbol{V}^\bot}\boldsymbol{z})\in{\ensuremath{\text{\rm gra}\,}}\boldsymbol{A}$.
\[l:999fgr623l17-29\] Let $\boldsymbol{A}\colon{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathcal K}}}\to 2^{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathcal K}}}}$ be maximally monotone, let $\boldsymbol{V}$ be a closed vector subspace of ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathcal K}}}$, let $\boldsymbol{z}\in{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathcal K}}}$, and let $\boldsymbol{p}\in{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathcal K}}}$. Then $\boldsymbol{p}=J_{\boldsymbol{A}_{\boldsymbol{V}}}\boldsymbol{z}$ $\Leftrightarrow$ $P_{\boldsymbol{V}}\boldsymbol{p}+
P_{\boldsymbol{V}^\bot}(\boldsymbol{z}-\boldsymbol{p})
=J_{\boldsymbol{A}}\boldsymbol{z}$.
This result, which appears implicitly in [@Spin83 Section 4], follows from the equivalences $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e:h5-hGEWD12a}
P_{\boldsymbol{V}}\boldsymbol{p}+P_{\boldsymbol{V}^\bot}
(\boldsymbol{z}-\boldsymbol{p})=J_{\boldsymbol{A}}\boldsymbol{z}
&\Leftrightarrow&
\big(P_{\boldsymbol{V}}\boldsymbol{p}+P_{\boldsymbol{V}^\bot}
(\boldsymbol{z}-\boldsymbol{p}),
\boldsymbol{z}-P_{\boldsymbol{V}}\boldsymbol{p}-
P_{\boldsymbol{V}^\bot}(\boldsymbol{z}-\boldsymbol{p})\big)\in{\ensuremath{\text{\rm gra}\,}}\boldsymbol{A}\nonumber\\
&\Leftrightarrow&
\big(P_{\boldsymbol{V}}\boldsymbol{p}+P_{\boldsymbol{V}^\bot}
(\boldsymbol{z}-\boldsymbol{p}),
P_{\boldsymbol{V}}(\boldsymbol{z}-\boldsymbol{p})+
P_{\boldsymbol{V}^\bot}\boldsymbol{p}\big)\in{\ensuremath{\text{\rm gra}\,}}\boldsymbol{A}
\nonumber\\
&\Leftrightarrow&
(\boldsymbol{p},\boldsymbol{z}-\boldsymbol{p})\in{\ensuremath{\text{\rm gra}\,}}\boldsymbol{A}_{\boldsymbol{V}}
\nonumber\\
&\Leftrightarrow&
\boldsymbol{p}=J_{\boldsymbol{A}_{\boldsymbol{V}}}\boldsymbol{z}, \end{aligned}$$ where we have used .
[[@Joca09 Remark 2.2(vi)]]{} \[l:2009\] Let $\boldsymbol{B}\colon{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathcal K}}}\to 2^{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathcal K}}}}$ be a maximally monotone operator such that ${\ensuremath{\text{\rm zer}\,}}\boldsymbol{B}\neq{\ensuremath{{\varnothing}}}$, let $\boldsymbol{z}_0\in{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathcal K}}}$, let $(\boldsymbol{c}_n)_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}$ be a sequence in ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathcal K}}}$, and let $(\lambda_n)_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}$ be a sequence in $\left]0,2\right[$. Suppose that $\sum_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}\lambda_n(2-\lambda_n)={\ensuremath{{+\infty}}}$ and $\sum_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}\lambda_n\|\boldsymbol{c}_n\|<{\ensuremath{{+\infty}}}$, and set $$\label{e:alg04}
(\forall n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}})\quad
\boldsymbol{z}_{n+1}=\boldsymbol{z}_n+\lambda_n
\big(J_{\boldsymbol{B}}\boldsymbol{z}_n+
\boldsymbol{c}_n-\boldsymbol{z}_n\big).$$ Then $J_{\boldsymbol{B}}\boldsymbol{z}_n-\boldsymbol{z}_n\to
\boldsymbol{0}$ and $(\boldsymbol{z}_n)_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}$ converges weakly to a point in ${\ensuremath{\text{\rm zer}\,}}\boldsymbol{B}$.
The next theorem analyzes a method of partial inverses and extends the results of [@Ecks92] and [@Spin83].
\[t:2013-08-19\] Let $\boldsymbol{A}\colon{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathcal K}}}\to 2^{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathcal K}}}}$ be a maximally monotone operator, let $\boldsymbol{V}$ be a closed vector subspace of ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathcal K}}}$, let $(\lambda_n)_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}$ be a sequence in $\left]0,2\right[$, and let $(\boldsymbol{e}_n)_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}$ be a sequence in ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathcal K}}}$ such that $\sum_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}\lambda_n(2-\lambda_n)={\ensuremath{{+\infty}}}$ and $\sum_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}\lambda_n\|\boldsymbol{e}_n\|<{\ensuremath{{+\infty}}}$. Suppose that the problem $$\label{e:999fgr623l17-27a}
\text{find}\;\;\boldsymbol{x}\in
\boldsymbol{V}\;\;\text{and}\;\;\boldsymbol{u}
\in\boldsymbol{V}^\bot\;\;\text{such that}\;\;\boldsymbol{u}\in
\boldsymbol{A}\boldsymbol{x}$$ has at least one solution, let $\boldsymbol{x}_0\in\boldsymbol{V}$, let $\boldsymbol{u}_0\in\boldsymbol{V}^\bot$, and set $$\label{e:999fgr623l18-20b}
(\forall n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}})\quad
\begin{array}{l}
\left\lfloor
\begin{array}{l}
\boldsymbol{p}_n=J_{\boldsymbol{A}}(\boldsymbol{x}_n+
\boldsymbol{u}_n)+\boldsymbol{e}_n\\
\boldsymbol{r}_n=\boldsymbol{x}_n+\boldsymbol{u}_n-
\boldsymbol{p}_n\\
\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1}=
\boldsymbol{x}_n-\lambda_n P_{\boldsymbol{V}}\boldsymbol{r}_n\\
\boldsymbol{u}_{n+1}=
\boldsymbol{u}_n-\lambda_n P_{\boldsymbol{V}^\bot}
\boldsymbol{p}_n.
\end{array}
\right.\\[2mm]
\end{array}$$ Then the following hold:
1. \[t:2013-08-19i\] $P_{\boldsymbol{V}}(\boldsymbol{p}_n-\boldsymbol{e}_n)-
\boldsymbol{x}_n\to\boldsymbol{0}$ and $P_{\boldsymbol{V}^\bot}(\boldsymbol{r}_n+\boldsymbol{e}_n)-
\boldsymbol{u}_n\to\boldsymbol{0}$.
2. \[t:2013-08-19ii\] There exists a solution $(\overline{\boldsymbol{x}},\overline{\boldsymbol{u}})$ to such that $\boldsymbol{x}_n{\ensuremath{\:\rightharpoonup\:}}\overline{\boldsymbol{x}}$ and $\boldsymbol{u}_n{\ensuremath{\:\rightharpoonup\:}}\overline{\boldsymbol{u}}$.
Set $$\label{e:999fgr623l18-19k}
(\forall n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}})\quad
\boldsymbol{z}_n=\boldsymbol{x}_n+\boldsymbol{u}_n
\quad\text{and}\quad
\boldsymbol{c}_n=P_{\boldsymbol{V}}\boldsymbol{e}_n-
P_{\boldsymbol{V}^\bot}\boldsymbol{e}_n.$$ Then $\sum_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}\lambda_n\|\boldsymbol{c}_n\|{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}\sum_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}\lambda_n(\|P_{\boldsymbol{V}}\boldsymbol{e}_n\|+
\|P_{\boldsymbol{V}^\bot}\boldsymbol{e}_n\|)
{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}2\sum_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}\lambda_n\|\boldsymbol{e}_n\|<{\ensuremath{{+\infty}}}$. Furthermore, since $(\boldsymbol{x}_n)_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}$ lies in $\boldsymbol{V}$ and $(\boldsymbol{u}_n)_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}$ lies in $\boldsymbol{V}^\bot$, can be rewritten as $$\label{e:999fgr623l17-27b}
(\forall n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}})\quad
\begin{array}{l}
\left\lfloor
\begin{array}{l}
\boldsymbol{p}_n=J_{\boldsymbol{A}}(\boldsymbol{x}_n+
\boldsymbol{u}_n)+\boldsymbol{e}_n\\
\boldsymbol{r}_n=\boldsymbol{x}_n+\boldsymbol{u}_n-
\boldsymbol{p}_n\\
\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1}=
\boldsymbol{x}_n+\lambda_n(P_{\boldsymbol{V}}\boldsymbol{p}_n-
\boldsymbol{x}_n)\\
\boldsymbol{u}_{n+1}=
\boldsymbol{u}_n+\lambda_n(P_{\boldsymbol{V}^\bot}
\boldsymbol{r}_n-\boldsymbol{u}_n),
\end{array}
\right.\\[2mm]
\end{array}$$ which yields $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e:999fgr623l17-30b}
(\forall n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}})\quad&
P_{\boldsymbol{V}}\bigg(\frac{\boldsymbol{z}_{n+1}-\boldsymbol{z}_n}
{\lambda_n}+\boldsymbol{z}_n-\boldsymbol{c}_n\bigg)
+P_{\boldsymbol{V}^\bot}\bigg(\boldsymbol{z}_n-\bigg(
\frac{\boldsymbol{z}_{n+1}-\boldsymbol{z}_n}
{\lambda_n}+\boldsymbol{z}_n-\boldsymbol{c}_n\bigg)\bigg)\nonumber\\
&=P_{\boldsymbol{V}}\bigg(\frac{\boldsymbol{z}_{n+1}
-\boldsymbol{z}_n}{\lambda_n}+\boldsymbol{z}_n-
\boldsymbol{c}_n\bigg)
+P_{\boldsymbol{V}^\bot}\bigg(\frac{\boldsymbol{z}_n-
\boldsymbol{z}_{n+1}}{\lambda_n}+\boldsymbol{c}_n\bigg)\nonumber\\
&=P_{\boldsymbol{V}}\bigg(\frac{\boldsymbol{x}_{n+1}-
\boldsymbol{x}_n}{\lambda_n}+\boldsymbol{x}_n
\bigg)+P_{\boldsymbol{V}^\bot}
\bigg(\frac{\boldsymbol{u}_n-\boldsymbol{u}_{n+1}}
{\lambda_n}\bigg)
-\boldsymbol{e}_n\nonumber\\
&=P_{\boldsymbol{V}}\boldsymbol{p}_n+
P_{\boldsymbol{V}^\bot}(\boldsymbol{u}_n-\boldsymbol{r}_n)
-\boldsymbol{e}_n\nonumber\\
&=P_{\boldsymbol{V}}\boldsymbol{p}_n+
P_{\boldsymbol{V}^\bot}(\boldsymbol{p}_n-\boldsymbol{x}_n)
-\boldsymbol{e}_n\nonumber\\
&=\boldsymbol{p}_n-\boldsymbol{e}_n\nonumber\\
&=J_{\boldsymbol{A}}\boldsymbol{z}_n.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, it follows from , , and Lemma \[l:999fgr623l17-29\] that $$\label{e:999fgr623l18-20x}
(\forall n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}})\quad\boldsymbol{z}_{n+1}=
\boldsymbol{z}_n+\lambda_n\big(J_{\boldsymbol{A}_{\boldsymbol{V}}}
\boldsymbol{z}_n+\boldsymbol{c}_n-\boldsymbol{z}_n\big).$$ Altogether, we derive from Lemmas \[l:2013-07-26a\] and \[l:2009\] that $$\label{e:999fgr623l18-22d}
J_{\boldsymbol{A}_{\boldsymbol{V}}}\boldsymbol{z}_n-\boldsymbol{z}_n
\to\boldsymbol{0}$$ and that there exists $\boldsymbol{z}\in{\ensuremath{\text{\rm zer}\,}}\boldsymbol{A}_{\boldsymbol{V}}$ such that $$\label{e:999fgr623l18-22c}
\boldsymbol{z}_n{\ensuremath{\:\rightharpoonup\:}}\boldsymbol{z}.$$
\[t:2013-08-19i\]: In view of , , Lemma \[l:999fgr623l17-29\], and , we have $$\label{e:999fgr623l18-21m}
\boldsymbol{x}_n-P_{\boldsymbol{V}}(\boldsymbol{p}_n-
\boldsymbol{e}_n)
=\boldsymbol{x}_n-P_{\boldsymbol{V}}J_{\boldsymbol{A}}
\boldsymbol{z}_n
=\boldsymbol{x}_n-P_{\boldsymbol{V}}
J_{\boldsymbol{A}_{\boldsymbol{V}}}\boldsymbol{z}_n
=P_{\boldsymbol{V}}\big(\boldsymbol{z}_n-
J_{\boldsymbol{A}_{\boldsymbol{V}}}\boldsymbol{z}_n\big)
\to\boldsymbol{0}$$ and $$\label{e:999fgr623l18-21n}
\boldsymbol{u}_n-P_{\boldsymbol{V}^\bot}(
\boldsymbol{r}_n+\boldsymbol{e}_n)
=P_{\boldsymbol{V}^\bot}\boldsymbol{z}_n-P_{\boldsymbol{V}^\bot}
\big(\boldsymbol{z}_n-J_{\boldsymbol{A}}\boldsymbol{z}_n\big)
=P_{\boldsymbol{V}^\bot}J_{\boldsymbol{A}}\boldsymbol{z}_n
=P_{\boldsymbol{V}^\bot}\big(\boldsymbol{z}_n-
J_{\boldsymbol{A}_{\boldsymbol{V}}}\boldsymbol{z}_n\big)
\to\boldsymbol{0}.$$
\[t:2013-08-19ii\]: Since $\boldsymbol{z}\in{\ensuremath{\text{\rm zer}\,}}(\boldsymbol{A}_{\boldsymbol{V}})$, it follows from Lemma \[l:2013-07-26a\] that $(\overline{\boldsymbol{x}},\overline{\boldsymbol{u}})=
(P_{\boldsymbol{V}}\boldsymbol{z},P_{\boldsymbol{V}^\bot}
\boldsymbol{z})$ solves . Furthermore, using , , and the weak continuity of $P_{\boldsymbol{V}}$ and $P_{\boldsymbol{V}^\bot}$, we get $\boldsymbol{x}_n=P_{\boldsymbol{V}}\boldsymbol{z}_n{\ensuremath{\:\rightharpoonup\:}}P_{\boldsymbol{V}}\boldsymbol{z}=\overline{\boldsymbol{x}}$ and $\boldsymbol{u}_n=
P_{\boldsymbol{V}^\bot}\boldsymbol{z}_n{\ensuremath{\:\rightharpoonup\:}}P_{\boldsymbol{V}^\bot}\boldsymbol{z}=\overline{\boldsymbol{u}}$.
\[r:2013-08-21\] Theorem \[t:2013-08-19\]\[t:2013-08-19ii\] was obtained in [@Ecks92 Section 5] under the additional assumptions that $\sum_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}\|e_n\|<{\ensuremath{{+\infty}}}$, $\text{inf}_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}\lambda_n>0$, and $\text{sup}_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}\lambda_n<2$; the original weak convergence result of [@Spin83] corresponds to the case when $(\forall n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}})$ $\boldsymbol{e}_n=\boldsymbol{0}$ and $\lambda_n=1$. As noted in [@Joca09 Remark 2.2(iii)], our assumptions do not require that $\sum_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}\|e_n\|<{\ensuremath{{+\infty}}}$ and they even allow for situations in which $(e_n)_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}$ does not converge weakly to $0$.
\[r:h5-hGEWD18\] It follows from Lemma \[l:2013-07-26a\] that any algorithm that constructs a zero of $\boldsymbol{A}_{\boldsymbol{V}}$ can be used to solve . We have chosen to employ the proximal point algorithm of Lemma \[l:2009\] because it features a flexible error model and it allows for under- and over-relaxations which can prove very useful in improving the convergence pattern of the algorithm. In addition, leads to the simple implementation in terms of the resolvent $J_{\boldsymbol{A}}$. An alternative proximal point method is $$\label{e:alg14}
(\forall n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}})\quad
\boldsymbol{z}_{n+1}=\boldsymbol{z}_n+\lambda_n
\big(J_{\gamma_n\boldsymbol{A}_{\boldsymbol{V}}}\boldsymbol{z}_n+
\boldsymbol{c}_n-\boldsymbol{z}_n\big),$$ where $(\gamma_n)_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}$ lies ${\ensuremath{\left]0,+\infty\right[}}$ (weak convergence conditions under various hypotheses on $(\lambda_n)_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}$, $(\gamma_n)_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}$, and $(\boldsymbol{e}_n)_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}$ exist; see for instance [@Opti04 Corollary 4.5] and [@Ecks92 Theorem 3]). However, due to the presence of the parameters $(\gamma_n)_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}$, results in an algorithm which is much less straightforward to execute than . This issue is also discussed in [@Ecks92; @Mahe95; @Spin83].
Primal-dual composite method of partial inverses {#sec:3}
================================================
The following technical facts will be needed subsequently.
\[l:hj73aKi-24\] Let ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal G}}}$ be real Hilbert spaces, and let $L\in{\ensuremath{\EuScript B}\,}({\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}},{\ensuremath{{\mathcal G}}})$. Set ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathcal K}}}={\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}}\oplus{\ensuremath{{\mathcal G}}}$ and $\boldsymbol{V}={\big\{{(x,y)\in{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathcal K}}}}~\big |~{Lx=y}\big\}}$. Then, for every $(x,y)\in{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathcal K}}}$, the following hold:
1. \[l:hj73aKi-24i\] $P_{\boldsymbol{V}}(x,y)
=\big(x-L^*({\ensuremath{\text{\rm Id}}\,}+LL^*)^{-1}(Lx-y),y+({\ensuremath{\text{\rm Id}}\,}+LL^*)^{-1}(Lx-y)\big)$.
2. \[l:hj73aKi-24ii\] $P_{\boldsymbol{V}}(x,y)
=\big(({\ensuremath{\text{\rm Id}}\,}+L^*L)^{-1}(x+L^*y),L({\ensuremath{\text{\rm Id}}\,}+L^*L)^{-1}(x+L^*y)\big)$.
3. \[l:hj73aKi-24iii\] $P_{\boldsymbol{V}^\bot}(x,y)
=\big(L^*({\ensuremath{\text{\rm Id}}\,}+LL^*)^{-1}(Lx-y),-({\ensuremath{\text{\rm Id}}\,}+LL^*)^{-1}(Lx-y)\big)$.
4. \[l:hj73aKi-24iv\] $P_{\boldsymbol{V}^\bot}(x,y)
=\big(x-({\ensuremath{\text{\rm Id}}\,}+L^*L)^{-1}(x+L^*y),y-L({\ensuremath{\text{\rm Id}}\,}+L^*L)^{-1}(x+L^*y)\big)$.
Set $\boldsymbol{T}\colon{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathcal K}}}\to{\ensuremath{{\mathcal G}}}\colon(x,y)\mapsto Lx-y$. Then $\boldsymbol{T}\in{\ensuremath{\EuScript B}\,}({\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathcal K}}},{\ensuremath{{\mathcal G}}})$, $\boldsymbol{T}^*\colon{\ensuremath{{\mathcal G}}}\to{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathcal K}}}\colon v\mapsto (L^*v,-v)$, $\boldsymbol{T}\boldsymbol{T}^*=({\ensuremath{\text{\rm Id}}\,}+LL^*)$ is invertible, and $\boldsymbol{V}=\text{\rm ker}\,\boldsymbol{T}$ is a closed vector subspace of ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathcal K}}}$. Let us fix $(x,y)\in{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathcal K}}}$.
\[l:hj73aKi-24i\]: Since $\boldsymbol{V}=\text{\rm ker}\,\boldsymbol{T}$, it follows from [@Livre1 Example 28.14(iii)] that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e:genna2013-08-24s}
P_{\boldsymbol{V}}(x,y)
&=(x,y)-\boldsymbol{T}^*(\boldsymbol{T}\boldsymbol{T}^*)^{-1}
\boldsymbol{T}(x,y)\nonumber\\
&=\big(x-L^*({\ensuremath{\text{\rm Id}}\,}+LL^*)^{-1}(Lx-y),y+({\ensuremath{\text{\rm Id}}\,}+LL^*)^{-1}(Lx-y)\big).\end{aligned}$$
\[l:hj73aKi-24i\]$\Rightarrow$\[l:hj73aKi-24ii\]: We have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e:genna2013-08-19b}
&\hskip -4mm
({\ensuremath{\text{\rm Id}}\,}+L^*L)\big(x-L^*({\ensuremath{\text{\rm Id}}\,}+LL^*)^{-1}(Lx-y)-({\ensuremath{\text{\rm Id}}\,}+L^*L)^{-1}
(x+L^*y)\big)\nonumber\\
&=
x+L^*Lx-L^*({\ensuremath{\text{\rm Id}}\,}+LL^*)^{-1}(Lx-y)-L^*LL^*({\ensuremath{\text{\rm Id}}\,}+LL^*)^{-1}(Lx-y)-
x-L^*y\nonumber\\
&=L^*(Lx-y)-L^*({\ensuremath{\text{\rm Id}}\,}+LL^*)^{-1}(Lx-y)-L^*LL^*({\ensuremath{\text{\rm Id}}\,}+LL^*)^{-1}(Lx-y)
\nonumber\\
&=L^*\big({\ensuremath{\text{\rm Id}}\,}+LL^*-{\ensuremath{\text{\rm Id}}\,}-LL^*\big)({\ensuremath{\text{\rm Id}}\,}+LL^*)^{-1}(Lx-y)
\nonumber\\
&=0.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $x-L^*({\ensuremath{\text{\rm Id}}\,}+LL^*)^{-1}(Lx-y)=({\ensuremath{\text{\rm Id}}\,}+L^*L)^{-1}(x+L^*y)$. Likewise, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e:genna2013-08-19o}
&\hskip -4mm
({\ensuremath{\text{\rm Id}}\,}+LL^*)\big(y+({\ensuremath{\text{\rm Id}}\,}+LL^*)^{-1}(Lx-y)-
L({\ensuremath{\text{\rm Id}}\,}+L^*L)^{-1}(x+L^*y)\big)\nonumber\\
&=y+LL^*y+Lx-y-L({\ensuremath{\text{\rm Id}}\,}+L^*L)^{-1}(x+L^*y)
-LL^*L({\ensuremath{\text{\rm Id}}\,}+L^*L)^{-1}(x+L^*y)\nonumber\\
&=L(x+L^*y)-L({\ensuremath{\text{\rm Id}}\,}+L^*L)^{-1}(x+L^*y)
-LL^*L({\ensuremath{\text{\rm Id}}\,}+L^*L)^{-1}(x+L^*y)\nonumber\\
&=\big(L({\ensuremath{\text{\rm Id}}\,}+L^*L)-L-LL^*L\big)({\ensuremath{\text{\rm Id}}\,}+L^*L)^{-1}(x+L^*y)\nonumber\\
&=0\end{aligned}$$ and hence $y+({\ensuremath{\text{\rm Id}}\,}+LL^*)^{-1}(Lx-y)=L({\ensuremath{\text{\rm Id}}\,}+L^*L)^{-1}(x+L^*y)$.
\[l:hj73aKi-24i\]$\Rightarrow$\[l:hj73aKi-24iii\]: $P_{\boldsymbol{V}^\bot}(x,y)=(x,y)-P_{\boldsymbol{V}}(x,y)
=\big(L^*({\ensuremath{\text{\rm Id}}\,}+LL^*)^{-1}(Lx-y),-({\ensuremath{\text{\rm Id}}\,}+LL^*)^{-1}(Lx-y)\big)$.
\[l:hj73aKi-24ii\]$\Rightarrow$\[l:hj73aKi-24iv\]: $P_{\boldsymbol{V}^\bot}(x,y)
=(x,y)-P_{\boldsymbol{V}}(x,y)
=\big(x-({\ensuremath{\text{\rm Id}}\,}+L^*L)^{-1}(x+L^*y),y-L({\ensuremath{\text{\rm Id}}\,}+L^*L)^{-1}(x+L^*y)\big)$.\
Our main algorithm is introduced and analyzed in the next theorem. It consists of applying to the operator $\boldsymbol{A}\colon(x,y)\mapsto Ax\times By$ and the subspace $\boldsymbol{V}={\big\{{(x,y)\in{\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}}\oplus{\ensuremath{{\mathcal G}}}}~\big |~{Lx=y}\big\}}$.
\[t:2013-08-22\] In Problem \[prob:1\], set $Q=({\ensuremath{\text{\rm Id}}\,}+L^*L)^{-1}$ and assume that ${\ensuremath{\text{\rm zer}\,}}(A+L^*BL)\neq{\ensuremath{{\varnothing}}}$. Let $(\lambda_n)_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}$ be a sequence in $\left]0,2\right[$, let $(a_n)_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}$ be a sequence in ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}}$, and let $(b_n)_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}$ be a sequence in ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal G}}}$ such that $\sum_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}\lambda_n(2-\lambda_n)={\ensuremath{{+\infty}}}$ and $\sum_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}\lambda_n\sqrt{\|a_n\|^2+\|b_n\|^2}<{\ensuremath{{+\infty}}}$. Let $x_0\in{\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}}$ and $v_0\in{\ensuremath{{\mathcal G}}}$, and set $y_0=Lx_0$, $u_0=-L^*v_0$, and $$\label{e:999fgr623l18-22x}
(\forall n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}})\quad
\begin{array}{l}
\left\lfloor
\begin{array}{l}
p_n=J_{A}(x_n+u_n)+a_n\\
q_n=J_{B}(y_n+v_n)+b_n\\
r_n=x_n+u_n-p_n\\
s_n=y_n+v_n-q_n\\
t_n=Q(r_n+L^*s_n)\\
w_n=Q(p_n+L^*q_n)\\
x_{n+1}=x_n-\lambda_n t_n\\
y_{n+1}=y_n-\lambda_n Lt_n\\
u_{n+1}=u_n+\lambda_n(w_n-p_n)\\
v_{n+1}=v_n+\lambda_n(Lw_n-q_n).
\end{array}
\right.\\[2mm]
\end{array}$$ Then the following hold:
1. \[t:2013-08-22i\] $x_n-w_n+Q(a_n+L^*b_n)\to 0$ and $y_n-Lw_n+LQ(a_n+L^*b_n)\to 0$.
2. \[t:2013-08-22ii\] $u_n-r_n+t_n-a_n+Q(a_n+L^*b_n)\to 0$ and $v_n-s_n+Lt_n-b_n+LQ(a_n+L^*b_n)\to 0$.
Moreover, there exists a solution $\overline{x}$ to and a solution $\overline{v}$ to such that the following hold:
1. \[t:2013-08-22iii\] $-L^*\overline{v}\in A\overline{x}$ and $\overline{v}\in BL\overline{x}$.
2. \[t:2013-08-22iv\] $x_n{\ensuremath{\:\rightharpoonup\:}}\overline{x}$ and $v_n{\ensuremath{\:\rightharpoonup\:}}\overline{v}$.
Set $$\label{e:genna2013-08-15A}
{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathcal K}}}={\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}}\oplus{\ensuremath{{\mathcal G}}}\quad\text{and}\quad
\boldsymbol{V}={\big\{{(x,y)\in{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathcal K}}}}~\big |~{Lx=y}\big\}}$$ and note that $$\label{e:genna2013-08-15b}
\boldsymbol{V}^\bot={\big\{{(u,v)\in{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathcal K}}}}~\big |~{u=-L^*v}\big\}}.$$ In addition, set $$\label{e:h5-hGEWD19a}
\boldsymbol{Z}=
{\big\{{(x,v)\in{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathcal K}}}}~\big |~{-L^*v\in Ax\;\;\text{and}\;\;v\in BLx}\big\}}$$ and $$\label{e:genna2013-08-15H}
\boldsymbol{A}\colon{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathcal K}}}\to 2^{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathcal K}}}}\colon(x,y)\mapsto Ax\times By.$$ We also introduce the set $$\label{e:999fgr623l18-23s}
\boldsymbol{S}={\big\{{(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{u})\in
\boldsymbol{V}\times\boldsymbol{V}^\bot}~\big |~{
\boldsymbol{u}\in\boldsymbol{A}\boldsymbol{x}}\big\}}.$$ Observe that $$\label{e:h5-hGEWD19b}
\boldsymbol{S}=
{\big\{{\big((x,Lx),(-L^*v,v)\big)\in{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathcal K}}}\times{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{\mathcal K}}}}~\big |~{(x,v)\in\boldsymbol{Z}}\big\}}.$$ Thus (see [@Siop11; @Penn00] for the first two equivalences), $$\label{e:h5-hGEWD21}
{\ensuremath{\text{\rm zer}\,}}\big(A+L^*BL\big)\neq{\ensuremath{{\varnothing}}}\;\Leftrightarrow\;{\ensuremath{\text{\rm zer}\,}}\big(-LA^{-1}(-L^*)+B^{-1}\big)\neq{\ensuremath{{\varnothing}}}\;\Leftrightarrow\;\boldsymbol{Z}\neq{\ensuremath{{\varnothing}}}\;\Leftrightarrow\;\boldsymbol{S}\neq{\ensuremath{{\varnothing}}}.$$ Now define $(\forall n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}})$ $\boldsymbol{e}_n=(a_n,b_n)$, $\boldsymbol{p}_n=(p_n,q_n)$, $\boldsymbol{r}_n=(r_n,s_n)$, $\boldsymbol{u}_n=(u_n,v_n)$, and $\boldsymbol{x}_n=(x_n,y_n)$. Then $\boldsymbol{x}_0\in\boldsymbol{V}$ and $\boldsymbol{u}_0\in\boldsymbol{V}^\bot$. Moreover, by [@Livre1 Proposition 23.16], $\boldsymbol{A}$ is maximally monotone and $$\label{e:999fgr623l18-23t}
(\forall n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}})\quad J_{\boldsymbol{A}}
(\boldsymbol{x}_n+\boldsymbol{u}_n)=
\big(J_A(x_n+u_n),J_B(y_n+v_n)\big).$$ Furthermore, it follows from and Lemma \[l:hj73aKi-24\]\[l:hj73aKi-24ii\] that $$\label{e:genna2013-08-15S}
(\forall n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}})\quad P_{\boldsymbol{V}}\boldsymbol{r}_n
=\big(Q(r_n+L^*s_n),LQ(r_n+L^*s_n)\big),$$ and from Lemma \[l:hj73aKi-24\]\[l:hj73aKi-24iv\] that $$\label{e:genna2013-08-15T}
(\forall n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}})\quad P_{\boldsymbol{V}^\bot}\boldsymbol{p}_n
=\big(p_n-Q(p_n+L^*q_n),q_n-LQ(p_n+L^*q_n)\big).$$ Thus, we derive from , , and that yields . Altogether, since $\sum_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}\lambda_n\|\boldsymbol{e}_n\|=
\sum_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}\lambda_n\sqrt{\|a_n\|^2+\|b_n\|^2}<{\ensuremath{{+\infty}}}$, Theorem \[t:2013-08-19\]\[t:2013-08-19i\] and Lemma \[l:hj73aKi-24\] imply that \[t:2013-08-22i\] and \[t:2013-08-22ii\] are satisfied, and Theorem \[t:2013-08-19\]\[t:2013-08-19ii\] implies that there exists $(\overline{\boldsymbol{x}},\overline{\boldsymbol{u}})
\in\boldsymbol{S}$ such that $\boldsymbol{x}_n{\ensuremath{\:\rightharpoonup\:}}\overline{\boldsymbol{x}}$ and $\boldsymbol{u}_n{\ensuremath{\:\rightharpoonup\:}}\overline{\boldsymbol{u}}$. Therefore, by , there exists $(\overline{x},\overline{v})\in\boldsymbol{Z}$ such that $(x_n,v_n){\ensuremath{\:\rightharpoonup\:}}(\overline{x},\overline{v})$. Since $\boldsymbol{Z}\subset
({\ensuremath{\text{\rm zer}\,}}(A+L^*BL))\times({\ensuremath{\text{\rm zer}\,}}(-LA^{-1}(-L^*)+B^{-1}))$ [@Siop11 Proposition 2.8(i)], the proof is complete.
\[r:hj73aKi-26\] In the special case when $A=0$ and $L$ has closed range, an algorithm was proposed in [@Penn02] to solve the primal problem , i.e., to find a point in ${\ensuremath{\text{\rm zer}\,}}(L^*BL)$. It employs the method of partial inverses in ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal G}}}$ for finding $y\in V$ and $v\in V^\bot$ such that $v\in By$, where $V={\ensuremath{\text{\rm ran}\,}}L$, and then solves $Lx=y$. Each iteration of the resulting algorithm requires the computation of the generalized inverse of $L$, which is numerically demanding.
The following application of Theorem \[t:2013-08-22\] concerns multi-operator inclusions.
\[prob:2\] Let $m$ be a strictly positive integer, and let ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}}$ and $({\ensuremath{{\mathcal G}}}_i)_{1{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}i{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}m}$ be real Hilbert spaces. Let $z\in{\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}}$, let $C\colon{\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}}\to 2^{{\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}}}$ be maximally monotone, and, for every $i\in\{1,\ldots,m\}$, let $B_i\colon{\ensuremath{{\mathcal G}}}_i\to 2^{{\ensuremath{{\mathcal G}}}_i}$ be maximally monotone, let $o_i\in{\ensuremath{{\mathcal G}}}_i$, and let $L_{i}\in{\ensuremath{\EuScript B}\,}({\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}},{\ensuremath{{\mathcal G}}}_i)$. Solve $$\label{e:2012-09-24p}
\text{find}\;\;\overline{x}\in{\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}}\;\;\text{such that}\;\;z\in
C\overline{x}+{\ensuremath{\displaystyle\sum}}_{i=1}^mL_{i}^*B_i(L_i\overline{x}-o_i)$$ together with the dual problem $$\begin{gathered}
\label{e:2012-09-24d}
\text{find}\;\;\overline{v}_1\in{\ensuremath{{\mathcal G}}}_1,\ldots,\overline{v}_m
\in{\ensuremath{{\mathcal G}}}_m\;\;\text{such that}\\
(\forall i\in\{1,\ldots,m\})\;
-o_i\in-L_iC^{-1}
\bigg(z-{\ensuremath{\displaystyle\sum}}_{j=1}^mL_j^*\overline{v}_j\bigg)
+B_i^{-1}\overline{v}_i.\end{gathered}$$
\[c:h5-hGEWD21\] In Problem \[prob:2\], set $Q=({\ensuremath{\text{\rm Id}}\,}+\sum_{i=1}^mL_i^*L_i)^{-1}$ and assume that $z\in{\ensuremath{\text{\rm ran}\,}}(C+\sum_{i=1}^mL_{i}^*B_i(L_i\cdot-o_i)$. Let $(\lambda_n)_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}$ be a sequence in $\left]0,2\right[$ such that $\sum_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}\lambda_n(2-\lambda_n)={\ensuremath{{+\infty}}}$, let $(a_n)_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}$ be a sequence in ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}}$, and let $x_0\in{\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}}$. For every $i\in\{1,\ldots,m\}$, let $(b_{i,n})_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}$ be a sequence in ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal G}}}_i$, let $v_{i,0}\in{\ensuremath{{\mathcal G}}}_i$, and set $y_{i,0}\!=\!L_ix_0$. Suppose that $\sum_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}\lambda_n\sqrt{\|a_n\|^2\!+\!
\sum_{i=1}^m\|b_{i,n}\|^2}<{\ensuremath{{+\infty}}}$, and set $u_0=-\sum_{i=1}^mL_i^*v_{i,0}$ and $$\label{e:h5-hGEWD20}
(\forall n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}})\quad
\begin{array}{l}
\left\lfloor
\begin{array}{l}
p_n=J_{C}(x_n+u_n+z)+a_n\\
r_n=x_n+u_n-p_n\\
\text{For}\;i=1,\ldots,m\\
\left\lfloor
\begin{array}{l}
q_{i,n}=o_i+J_{B_i}(y_{i,n}+v_{i,n}-o_i)+b_{i,n}\\
s_{i,n}=y_{i,n}+v_{i,n}-q_{i,n}\\
\end{array}
\right.\\[1mm]
t_n=Q(r_n+\sum_{i=1}^mL_i^*s_{i,n})\\
w_n=Q(p_n+\sum_{i=1}^mL_i^*q_{i,n})\\
x_{n+1}=x_n-\lambda_n t_n\\
u_{n+1}=u_n+\lambda_n(w_n-p_n)\\
\text{For}\;i=1,\ldots,m\\
\left\lfloor
\begin{array}{l}
y_{i,n+1}=y_{i,n}-\lambda_n L_it_n\\
v_{i,n+1}=v_{i,n}+\lambda_n(L_iw_n-q_{i,n}).
\end{array}
\right.\\[1mm]
\end{array}
\right.\\[2mm]
\end{array}$$ Then there exists a solution $\overline{x}$ to and a solution $(\overline{v}_i)_{1{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}i{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}m}$ to such that the following hold:
1. \[c:h5-hGEWD21i\] $z-\sum_{i=1}^mL_i^*\overline{v}_i\in C\overline{x}$ and $(\forall i\in\{1,\ldots,m\})$ $\overline{v}_i\in B_i(L_i\overline{x}-o_i)$.
2. \[c:h5-hGEWD21ii\] $x_n{\ensuremath{\:\rightharpoonup\:}}\overline{x}$ and $(\forall i\in\{1,\ldots,m\})$ $v_{i,n}{\ensuremath{\:\rightharpoonup\:}}\overline{v}_i$.
Set $A\colon{\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}}\to 2^{{\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}}}\colon x\mapsto -z+Cx$, ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal G}}}=\bigoplus_{i=1}^m{\ensuremath{{\mathcal G}}}_i$, $L\colon{\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}}\to{\ensuremath{{\mathcal G}}}\colon x\mapsto (L_ix)_{1{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}i{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}m}$, and $B\colon{\ensuremath{{\mathcal G}}}\to 2^{{\ensuremath{{\mathcal G}}}}\colon
(y_i)_{1{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}i{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}m}\mapsto{\ensuremath{\raisebox{-0.5mm}{\mbox{\LARGE{$\times$}}}}}_{\!i=1}^{\!m}B_i(y_i-o_i)$. Then $L^*\colon{\ensuremath{{\mathcal G}}}\to{\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}}\colon (y_i)_{1{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}i{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}m}
\mapsto\sum_{i=1}^mL_i^*y_i$ and Problem \[prob:2\] is therefore an instantiation of Problem \[prob:1\]. Moreover, [@Livre1 Propositions 23.15 and 23.16] yield $$\label{e:J}
J_A\colon x\mapsto J_C(x+z)\quad\text{and}\quad
J_B\colon (y_i)_{1{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}i{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}m}\mapsto
\big(o_i+J_{B_i}(y_i-o_i)\big)_{1{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}i{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}m}.$$ Now set $(\forall n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}})$ $b_n=(b_{i,n})_{1{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}i{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}m}$, $q_n=(q_{i,n})_{1{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}i{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}m}$, $s_n=(s_{i,n})_{1{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}i{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}m}$, $v_n=(v_{i,n})_{1{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}i{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}m}$, and $y_n=(y_{i,n})_{1{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}i{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}m}$. In this setting, coincides with and the claims therefore follow from Theorem \[t:2013-08-22\]\[t:2013-08-22iii\]&\[t:2013-08-22iv\].
The next application addresses a primal-dual structured minimization problem.
\[prob:3\] Let $m$ be a strictly positive integer, and let ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}}$ and $({\ensuremath{{\mathcal G}}}_i)_{1{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}i{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}m}$ be real Hilbert spaces. Let $z\in{\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}}$, let $f\in\Gamma_0({\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}})$, and, for every $i\in\{1,\ldots,m\}$, let $g_i\in\Gamma_0({\ensuremath{{\mathcal G}}}_i)$, $o_i\in{\ensuremath{{\mathcal G}}}_i$, and $L_{i}\in{\ensuremath{\EuScript B}\,}({\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}},{\ensuremath{{\mathcal G}}}_i)$. Solve the primal problem $$\label{e:h5-hGEWD23p}
{\ensuremath{\underset{\substack{{x\in{\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}}}}}{\text{minimize}}\;\;f(x)+\sum_{i=1}^mg_i(L_ix-o_i)-{{\left\langle{{x}\mid{z}}\right\rangle}} }}$$ together with the dual problem $$\label{e:h5-hGEWD23d}
{\ensuremath{\underset{\substack{{v_1\in{\ensuremath{{\mathcal G}}}_1,\ldots,\,v_m\in{\ensuremath{{\mathcal G}}}_m}}}{\text{minimize}}\;\;f^*\bigg(
z-\sum_{i=1}^mL_i^*v_i\bigg)+\sum_{i=1}^m
\big(g^*_i(v_i)+{{\left\langle{{v_i}\mid{o_i}}\right\rangle}}\big) }}.$$
\[c:nych5-hGEWD27\] In Problem \[prob:3\], set $Q=({\ensuremath{\text{\rm Id}}\,}+\sum_{i=1}^mL_i^*L_i)^{-1}$ and assume that $$\label{e:h5-hGEWD23a}
z\in{\ensuremath{\text{\rm ran}\,}}\bigg(\partial f+\sum_{i=1}^m
L_i^*(\partial g_i)(L_i\cdot-o_i)\bigg),$$ Let $(\lambda_n)_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}$ be a sequence in $\left]0,2\right[$ such that $\sum_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}\lambda_n(2-\lambda_n)={\ensuremath{{+\infty}}}$, let $(a_n)_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}$ be a sequence in ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}}$, and let $x_0\in{\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}}$. For every $i\in\{1,\ldots,m\}$, let $(b_{i,n})_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}$ be a sequence in ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal G}}}_i$, let $v_{i,0}\in{\ensuremath{{\mathcal G}}}_i$, and set $y_{i,0}=L_ix_0$. Suppose that $\sum_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}\lambda_n\sqrt{\|a_n\|^2+
\sum_{i=1}^m\|b_{i,n}\|^2}<{\ensuremath{{+\infty}}}$, and set $u_0=-\sum_{i=1}^mL_i^*v_{i,0}$ and $$\label{e:nych5-hGEWD26}
(\forall n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}})\quad
\begin{array}{l}
\left\lfloor
\begin{array}{l}
p_n={\ensuremath{\text{\rm prox}}}_{f}(x_n+u_n+z)+a_n\\
r_n=x_n+u_n-p_n\\
\text{For}\;i=1,\ldots,m\\
\left\lfloor
\begin{array}{l}
q_{i,n}=o_i+{\ensuremath{\text{\rm prox}}}_{g_i}(y_{i,n}+v_{i,n}-o_i)+b_{i,n}\\
s_{i,n}=y_{i,n}+v_{i,n}-q_{i,n}\\
\end{array}
\right.\\[1mm]
t_n=Q(r_n+\sum_{i=1}^mL_i^*s_{i,n})\\
w_n=Q(p_n+\sum_{i=1}^mL_i^*q_{i,n})\\
x_{n+1}=x_n-\lambda_n t_n\\
u_{n+1}=u_n+\lambda_n(w_n-p_n)\\
\text{For}\;i=1,\ldots,m\\
\left\lfloor
\begin{array}{l}
y_{i,n+1}=y_{i,n}-\lambda_n L_it_n\\
v_{i,n+1}=v_{i,n}+\lambda_n(L_iw_n-q_{i,n}).
\end{array}
\right.\\[1mm]
\end{array}
\right.\\[2mm]
\end{array}$$ Then there exists a solution $\overline{x}$ to and a solution $(\overline{v}_i)_{1{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}i{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}m}$ to such that $z-\sum_{i=1}^mL_i^*\overline{v}_i\in\partial f(\overline{x})$, $x_n{\ensuremath{\:\rightharpoonup\:}}\overline{x}$, and $(\forall i\in\{1,\ldots,m\})$ $v_{i,n}{\ensuremath{\:\rightharpoonup\:}}\overline{v}_i\in\partial g_i(L_i\overline{x}-o_i)$.
Set $C=\partial f$ and $(\forall i\in\{1,\ldots,m\}$ $B_i=\partial g_i$. Then, using the same type of argument as in the proof of [@Svva12 Theorem 4.2], we derive from that Problem \[prob:2\] reduces to Problem \[prob:3\] and that reduces to . Thus, the assertions follow from Corollary \[c:h5-hGEWD21\].
Alternative composite primal-dual method of partial inverses {#sec:4}
============================================================
The partial inverse method relies on the implicit assumption that the operator $({\ensuremath{\text{\rm Id}}\,}+L^*L)^{-1}$ is relatively easy to implement. In some instances, it may be advantageous to work with $({\ensuremath{\text{\rm Id}}\,}+LL^*)^{-1}$ instead. In this section we describe an alternative method tailored to such situations.
\[t:nych5-hGEWD29\] In Problem \[prob:1\], set $R=({\ensuremath{\text{\rm Id}}\,}+LL^*)^{-1}$ and assume that ${\ensuremath{\text{\rm zer}\,}}(A+L^*BL)\neq{\ensuremath{{\varnothing}}}$. Let $(\lambda_n)_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}$ be a sequence in $\left]0,2\right[$, let $(a_n)_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}$ be a sequence in ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}}$, and let $(b_n)_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}$ be a sequence in ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal G}}}$ such that $\sum_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}\lambda_n(2-\lambda_n)={\ensuremath{{+\infty}}}$ and $\sum_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}\lambda_n\sqrt{\|a_n\|^2+\|b_n\|^2}<{\ensuremath{{+\infty}}}$. Let $x_0\in{\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}}$ and $v_0\in{\ensuremath{{\mathcal G}}}$, and set $y_0=Lx_0$, $u_0=-L^*v_0$, and $$\label{e:nych5-hGEWD29x}
(\forall n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}})\quad
\begin{array}{l}
\left\lfloor
\begin{array}{l}
p_n=J_{A}(x_n+u_n)+a_n\\
q_n=J_{B}(y_n+v_n)+b_n\\
r_n=x_n+u_n-p_n\\
s_n=y_n+v_n-q_n\\
t_n=R(Lr_n-s_n)\\
w_n=R(Lp_n-q_n)\\
x_{n+1}=x_n+\lambda_n(L^*t_n-r_n)\\
y_{n+1}=y_n-\lambda_n(t_n+s_n)\\
u_{n+1}=u_n-\lambda_n L^*w_n\\
v_{n+1}=v_n+\lambda_nw_n.
\end{array}
\right.\\[2mm]
\end{array}$$ Then the conclusions of Theorem \[t:2013-08-22\] are true.
The proof is analogous to that of Theorem \[t:2013-08-22\] except that we replace by $$\label{e:nych5-hGEWD29S}
(\forall n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}})\quad P_{\boldsymbol{V}}\boldsymbol{r}_n
=\big(r_n-L^*R(Lr_n-s_n),s_n+R(Lr_n-s_n)\big),$$ and by $$\label{e:nych5-hGEWD29T}
(\forall n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}})\quad P_{\boldsymbol{V}^\bot}\boldsymbol{p}_n
=\big(L^*R(Lp_n-q_n),-R(Lp_n-q_n)\big)$$ by invoking Lemma \[l:hj73aKi-24\]\[l:hj73aKi-24i\]&\[l:hj73aKi-24iii\].
Next, we present an application to a coupled inclusions problem. This problem has essentially the same structure as Problem \[prob:2\], except that primal and dual inclusions are interchanged.
\[prob:4\] Let $m$ be a strictly positive integer, and let $({\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}}_i)_{1{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}i{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}m}$ and ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal G}}}$ be real Hilbert spaces. Let $o\in{\ensuremath{{\mathcal G}}}$, let $D\colon{\ensuremath{{\mathcal G}}}\to 2^{{\ensuremath{{\mathcal G}}}}$ be maximally monotone, and, for every $i\in\{1,\ldots,m\}$, let $z_i\in{\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}}_i$, let $A_i\colon{\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}}_i\to 2^{{\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}}_i}$ be maximally monotone, and let $L_{i}\in{\ensuremath{\EuScript B}\,}({\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}}_i,{\ensuremath{{\mathcal G}}})$. Solve the primal problem $$\label{e:h5-hGEWD29p}
\text{find}\;\;\overline{x}_1\in{\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}}_1,\ldots,
\overline{x}_m\in{\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}}_m
\;\;\text{such that}\;\;
(\forall i\in\{1,\ldots,m\})\;
z_i\in A_i\overline{x}_i+L_i^*D\bigg({\ensuremath{\displaystyle\sum}}_{j=1}^mL_j
\overline{x}_j-o\bigg)$$ together with the dual problem $$\label{e:h5-hGEWD29d}
\text{find}\;\;\overline{v}\in{\ensuremath{{\mathcal G}}}\;\;\text{such that}\;\;
-o\in-\sum_{i=1}^mL_iA_i^{-1}
\big(z_i-L_i^*\overline{v}\big)
+D^{-1}\overline{v}.$$
\[c:nych5-hGEWD29\] In Problem \[prob:4\], set $R=({\ensuremath{\text{\rm Id}}\,}+\sum_{i=1}^mL_iL_i^*)^{-1}$ and assume that has at least one solution. Let $(\lambda_n)_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}$ be a sequence in $\left]0,2\right[$ such that $\sum_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}\lambda_n(2-\lambda_n)={\ensuremath{{+\infty}}}$, let $(b_n)_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}$ be a sequence in ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal G}}}$, and let $v_0\in{\ensuremath{{\mathcal G}}}$. For every $i\in\{1,\ldots,m\}$, let $(a_{i,n})_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}$ be a sequence in ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}}_i$, let $x_{i,0}\in{\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}}_i$, and set $u_{i,0}=-L_i^*v_{0}$. Suppose that $\sum_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}}}\lambda_n\sqrt{\|b_n\|^2+
\sum_{i=1}^m\|a_{i,n}\|^2}<{\ensuremath{{+\infty}}}$, and set $y_{0}=\sum_{i=1}^mL_ix_{i,0}$ and $$\label{e:nych5-hGEWD29a}
(\forall n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}})\quad
\begin{array}{l}
\left\lfloor
\begin{array}{l}
\text{For}\;i=1,\ldots,m\\
\left\lfloor
\begin{array}{l}
p_{i,n}=J_{A_i}(x_{i,n}+u_{i,n}+z_i)+a_{i,n}\\
r_{i,n}=x_{i,n}+u_{i,n}-p_{i,n}\\
\end{array}
\right.\\[1mm]
q_n=o+J_{D}(y_n+v_n-o)+b_n\\
s_n=y_n+v_n-q_n\\
t_n=R(\sum_{i=1}^mL_ir_{i,n}-s_n)\\
w_n=R(\sum_{i=1}^mL_ip_{i,n}-q_n)\\
\text{For}\;i=1,\ldots,m\\
\left\lfloor
\begin{array}{l}
x_{i,n+1}=x_{i,n}+\lambda_n(L_i^*t_n-r_{i,n})\\
u_{i,n+1}=u_{i,n}-\lambda_n L_i^*w_n\\
\end{array}
\right.\\[1mm]
y_{n+1}=y_n-\lambda_n(t_n+s_n)\\
v_{n+1}=v_n+\lambda_nw_n.
\end{array}
\right.\\[2mm]
\end{array}$$ Then there exists a solution $(\overline{x}_i)_{1{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}i{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}m}$ to and a solution $\overline{v}$ to such that the following hold:
1. \[c:nych5-hGEWD29i\] $\overline{v}\in D(\sum_{i=1}^mL_i\overline{x}_i-o)$ and $(\forall i\in\{1,\ldots,m\})$ $z_i-L_i^*\overline{v}\in A_i\overline{x}_i$.
2. \[c:nych5-hGEWD29ii\] $v_n{\ensuremath{\:\rightharpoonup\:}}\overline{v}$ and $(\forall i\in\{1,\ldots,m\})$ $x_{i,n}{\ensuremath{\:\rightharpoonup\:}}\overline{x}_i$.
Set $B\colon{\ensuremath{{\mathcal G}}}\to 2^{{\ensuremath{{\mathcal G}}}}\colon y\mapsto D(y-o)$, ${\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}}=\bigoplus_{i=1}^m{\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}}_i$, $L\colon{\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}}\to{\ensuremath{{\mathcal G}}}\colon (x_i)_{1{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}i{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}m}\mapsto
\sum_{i=1}^mL_ix_i$, and $A\colon{\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}}\to 2^{{\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}}}\colon
(x_i)_{1{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}i{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}m}\mapsto{\ensuremath{\raisebox{-0.5mm}{\mbox{\LARGE{$\times$}}}}}_{\!i=1}^{\!m}(-z_i+A_ix_i)$. Then $L^*\colon{\ensuremath{{\mathcal G}}}\to{\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}}\colon y\mapsto(L_i^*y)_{1{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}i{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}m}$ and hence Problem \[prob:4\] is a special case of Problem \[prob:1\]. On the other hand, [@Livre1 Propositions 23.15 and 23.16] yield $$\label{e:J'}
J_A\colon (x_i)_{1{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}i{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}m}\mapsto
\big(J_{A_i}(x_i+z_i)\big)_{1{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}i{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}m}\quad\text{and}\quad
J_B\colon y\mapsto o+J_{D}(y-o).$$ Now set $(\forall n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb N}})$ $a_n=(a_{i,n})_{1{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}i{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}m}$, $p_n=(p_{i,n})_{1{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}i{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}m}$, $r_n=(r_{i,n})_{1{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}i{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}m}$, $u_n=(u_{i,n})_{1{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}i{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}m}$, and $x_n=(x_{i,n})_{1{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}i{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}m}$. Then reduces to and we can appeal to Theorem \[t:nych5-hGEWD29\] to conclude.
\[r:nych5-hGEWD30\] In Problem \[prob:4\], set $D=\partial g$, where $g\in\Gamma_0({\ensuremath{{\mathcal G}}})$, and $(\forall i\in\{1,\ldots,m\}$ $A_i=\partial f_i$, where $f_i\in\Gamma_0({\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}}_i)$ and $z_i\in{\ensuremath{\text{\rm ran}\,}}\big(\partial f_i+L_i^*(\partial g)(L_i\cdot-o)\big)$. Then, arguing as in the proof of Corollary \[c:nych5-hGEWD27\], we derive from Corollary \[c:nych5-hGEWD29\] an algorithm for solving the primal problem $$\label{e:nych5-hGEWD29P}
{\ensuremath{\underset{\substack{{x_1\in{\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}}_1,\ldots,\,x_m\in{\ensuremath{{\mathcal H}}}_m}}}{\text{minimize}}\;\;
\sum_{i=1}^m\big(f_i(x_i)-{{\left\langle{{x_i}\mid{z_i}}\right\rangle}}\big)
+g\bigg(\sum_{i=1}^mL_ix_i-o_i\bigg) }}$$ together with the dual problem $$\label{e:nych5-hGEWD29D}
{\ensuremath{\underset{\substack{{v\in{\ensuremath{{\mathcal G}}}}}}{\text{minimize}}\;\;\sum_{i=1}^mf_i^*\big(z_i-L_i^*v\big)
+g^*(v)+{{\left\langle{{v}\mid{o}}\right\rangle}} }}$$ by replacing $J_{A_i}$ by ${\ensuremath{\text{\rm prox}}}_{f_i}$ and $J_D$ by ${\ensuremath{\text{\rm prox}}}_g$ in .
Concluding remarks {#sec:5}
==================
We have shown that the method of partial inverses can be used to solve composite monotone inclusions in duality and have presented a few applications of this new framework. Despite their apparent complexity, all the algorithms developed in this paper are instances of the method of partial inverses, which is itself an instance of the proximal point algorithm. This underlines the fundamental nature of the proximal point algorithm and its far reaching ramifications. Finally, let us note that in [@Luis12] the method of partial inverses was coupled to standard splitting methods for the sum of two monotone operators to solve inclusions of the form $0\!\in\!Ax\!+\!Bx\!+\!N_Vx$, where $N_V$ is the normal cone operator of the closed vector subspace $V$. Combining this approach to our results should lead to new splitting methods for more general problems involving composite operators, such as those studied in [@Svva12].
[**Acknowledgement.**]{} This work was funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research (DSR), King Abdulaziz University, under grant number 4-130/1433 HiCi. The authors, therefore, acknowledge technical and financial support of KAU.
[99]{}
H. H. Bauschke, R. I. Bo[ţ]{}, W. L. Hare, and W. M. Moursi, Attouch–Théra duality revisited: Paramonotonicity and operator splitting, [*J. Approx. Theory,*]{} 164, pp. 1065–1084, 2012.
H. H. Bauschke and P. L. Combettes, [*Convex Analysis and Monotone Operator Theory in Hilbert Spaces.*]{} Springer, New York, 2011.
H. H. Bauschke, P. L. Combettes, and D. R. Luke, Finding best approximation pairs relative to two closed convex sets in Hilbert spaces, [*J. Approx. Theory,*]{} 127, pp. 178–192, 2004.
L. M. Briceño-Arias, Forward-Douglas-Rachford splitting and forward-partial inverse method for solving monotone inclusions, preprint, <http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.5942>
L. M. Briceño-Arias and P. L. Combettes, A monotone+skew splitting model for composite monotone inclusions in duality, [*SIAM J. Optim.,*]{} 21, pp. 1230–1250, 2011.
R. S. Burachik, C. Sagastizábal, and S. Scheimberg, An inexact method of partial inverses and a parallel bundle method, [*Optim. Methods Softw.,*]{} 21, pp. 385–400, 2006.
P. L. Combettes, Solving monotone inclusions via compositions of nonexpansive averaged operators, [*Optimization,*]{} 53, pp. 475–504, 2004.
P. L. Combettes, Iterative construction of the resolvent of a sum of maximal monotone operators, [*J. Convex Anal.,*]{} 16, pp. 727–748, 2009.
P. L. Combettes and J.-C. Pesquet, Primal-dual splitting algorithm for solving inclusions with mixtures of composite, Lipschitzian, and parallel-sum type monotone operators, [*Set-Valued Var. Anal.*]{}, 20, pp. 307–330, 2012.
J. Eckstein and D. P. Bertsekas, On the Douglas-Rachford splitting method and the proximal point algorithm for maximal monotone operators, [*Math. Programming,*]{} 55, pp. 293–318, 1992.
J. Eckstein and M. C. Ferris, Smooth methods of multipliers for complementarity problems, [*Math. Programming,*]{} 86, pp. 65–90, 1999.
H. Idrissi, O. Lefebvre, and C. Michelot, Applications and numerical convergence of the partial inverse method, [*Lecture Notes in Math.,*]{} 1405, pp. 39–54, 1989.
B. Lemaire, The proximal algorithm, in: [*New Methods in Optimization and Their Industrial Uses,*]{} (J.-P. Penot, Ed.), pp. 73–87. Birkhäuser, Boston, MA, 1989.
Ph. Mahey, S. Oualibouch, and Pham Dinh Tao, Proximal decomposition on the graph of a maximal monotone operator, [*SIAM J. Optim.*]{} 5, pp. 454–466, 1995.
T. Pennanen, Dualization of generalized equations of maximal monotone type, [*SIAM J. Optim.,*]{} 10, pp. 809–835, 2000.
T. Pennanen, A splitting method for composite mappings, [*Numer. Funct. Anal. Optim.,*]{} 23, pp. 875–890, 2002.
S. M. Robinson, Composition duality and maximal monotonicity, [*Math. Programming,*]{} 85, pp. 1–13, 1999.
R. T. Rockafellar, Duality and stability in extremum problems involving convex functions, [*Pacific J. Math.,*]{} 21, pp. 167–187, 1967.
R. T. Rockafellar, Monotone operators and the proximal point algorithm, [*SIAM J. Control Optim.,*]{} 14, pp. 877–898, 1976.
J. E. Spingarn, Partial inverse of a monotone operator, [*Appl. Math. Optim.*]{}, 10, pp. 247–265, 1983.
J. E. Spingarn, Applications of the method of partial inverses to convex programming: Decomposition, [*Math. Programming*]{} 32, pp. 199–223, 1985.
J. E. Spingarn, A projection method for least-squares solutions to overdetermined systems of linear inequalities, [*Linear Algebra and Its Applications,*]{} 86, pp. 211–236, 1987.
[^1]: Contact author: P. L. Combettes, , phone: +33 1 4427 6319, fax: +33 1 4427 7200.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
TIFR/TH/01-04
[**Looking for the Charged Higgs Boson at LHC[^1]**]{}\
[**D.P. Roy**]{}\
Tata Institute of Fundamental Research\
Homi Bhabha Road, Mumbai 400 005, India
1. I discuss LHC signatures of the charged Higgs boson of the MSSM, focussing mainly on the case of the $H^\pm$ being heavier than top quark.
The minimal supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) contains two complex Higs doublets, $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$, corresponding to eight scalar states. Three of these are absorbed as Goldstone bosons leaving five physical states – the two neutral scalars $(h^0,H^0)$, a pseudo-scalar $(A^0)$ and a pair of charged Higgs bosons $(H^\pm)$. All the tree-level masses and couplings of these particles are given in terms of two parameters, $m_{H^\pm}$ and $\tan\beta$, the latter representing the ratio of the two vacuum expectation values \[1\]. While any one of the above neutral Higgs bosons may be hard to distinguish from that of the Standard Model, the $H^\pm$ carries a distinctive hall-mark of the SUSY Higgs sector. Moreover the couplings of the $H^\pm$ are uniquely related to $\tan\beta$, since the physical charged Higgs boson corresponds to the combination H\^= -\^\_1 + \^\_2 . \[one\] Therefore the detection of $H^\pm$ and measurement of its mass and couplings are expected to play a very important role in probing the SUSY Higgs sector.
The $t \rightarrow bH^+$ decay is known to provide promising signatures for charged Higgs boson search at TEVATRON upgrade and LHC for $M_H < m_t$ \[2\]. But it is hard to extend the $H^\pm$ search beyond $m_t$, because in this case the combination of dominant production and decay channels, $tH^-
\rightarrow t\bar tb$, suffers from a large QCD background \[3\]. Moreover the subdominant production channels of $H^\pm W^\mp$ and $H^\pm H^\mp$ have been found to give no viable signature at LHC \[4\]. In view of this we have undertaken a systematic study of a heavy $H^\pm$ signature at LHC from its dominant production channel $tH^-
(\bar tH^+)$, followed by the decays $H^- \rightarrow \bar
tb,\tau\bar\nu$ and $W^- h^0$. While the 1st represents the dominant decay channel of charged Higgs boson, the $\tau\nu$ and $Wh^0$ are the largest subdominant channels in the high and low $\tan\beta$ regions respectively, with B\_ (10) \~15% [and]{} B\_[Wh\^0]{} (= 1 - 5) 5%. \[two\] The signature for the dominant decay channel of $H^- \rightarrow \bar
tb$ has been analysed separately assuming three and four $b$-tagging. The analyses are generally based on parton level Monte Carlo program with gaussian smearing of lepton and jet momenta for simulating detector resolution.
[**(i) $H^\pm \rightarrow tb$ Signature with Four $b$-tags \[5\]**]{}:
The dominant signal and background processes are gg tH\^- |b + [h.c.]{} t|t b|b, \[three\] gg t|t b|b, \[four\] followed by the leptonic decay of one top and hadronic decay of the other, i.e. t|t b|b b|b b|b W\^+ W\^- b|b b|b q|q. \[five\]
A basic set of kinematic and isolation cuts, p\_T > 20 [GeV]{}, || < 2.5, R = \^[1/2]{} > 0.4 \[six\] is imposed on all the jet and lepton momenta. The $p_T$ cut is also imposed on the missing-$p_T$, obtained by vector addition of the $p_T$’s after resolution smearing. This is followed by the mass reconstruction of the $W$ and the top quark pair, so that one can identify the pair of $b$-jets accompanying the latter. While the harder of these two $b$-jets $(b_1)$ comes from $H^\pm$ decay in the signal, both of them come mainly from gluon splitting in the background. Consequently the $S/B$ ratio is improved by imposing the following cuts on this $b$-jet pair: M\_[bb]{} > 120 [GeV]{}, E\_[b\_1]{} > 120 [GeV and]{} \_[bb]{} < 0.75. \[seven\] Then each of this $b$-jet pair is combined with each of the reconstructed pair of top to give 4 entries for the invariant mass $M_{tb}$ per event. One of these 4 entries corresponds to the $H^\pm$ mass for the signal event, while the others constitute a combinatorial background. Fig. 1 shows this $tb$ invariant mass distribution for the signal (\[three\]) and background (\[four\]). The right hand scale corresponds to the cross-section for $\epsilon^4_b = 0.1$ – i.e. an optimistic $b$-tagging efficiency of $\epsilon_b = 0.56$. Reducing it to a more conservative value of $\epsilon_b = 0.4$ would reduce both the signal and background by a factor of 4 each.
Table 1. Number of signal and background events\
in the 4 $b$-tagged channel per $100 ~{\rm fb}^{-1}$ luminosity\
in a mass window of $M_{H^\pm} \pm 40~{\rm GeV}$ at\
$\tan\beta = 40 ~(\epsilon_b =
0.4)$.
$$\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
&&& \\
$M_{H^\pm}({\rm GeV})$ & $S$ & $B$ & $S/\sqrt{B}$ \\
&&& \\
\hline
&&& \\
310 & 32.7 & 26.9 & 6.3 \\
&&& \\
407 & 22.7 & 17.3 & 5.5 \\
&&& \\
506 & 13.2 & ~9.9 & 4.2 \\
&&& \\
605 & ~7.5 & ~5.5 & 3.2 \\
&&& \\
\hline
\end{tabular}$$ Table 1 lists the number of signal and background events for a typical annual luminosity of $100~{\rm fb}^{-1}$, expected from the high luminosity LHC run, assuming $\epsilon_b = 0.4$. While the $S/B$ ratio is $> 1$, the viability of the signal is limited by the signal size[^2]. One expects a $> 3\sigma$ signal upto $M_{H^\pm} = 600~{\rm
GeV}$ at $\tan\beta = 40$. The signal size is very similar at $\tan\beta = 1.5$, but smaller in between. The reason the extreme values of $\tan\beta$ are favoured is that the signal process (\[three\]) is controlled by the $tbH^\pm$ Yukawa coupling, H\^+ , \[eight\] which is large for $\tan\beta \sim 1$ and $\sim m_t/m_b$. Interestingly these two regions of $\tan\beta$ are favoured by $b -
\tau$ unification for a related reason: i.e. one needs a large $tbH^\pm$ Yukawa coupling contribution to the RGE to control the rise of $m_b$ as one goes down from the GUT to the low energy scale \[6\].
[**(ii) $H^\pm \rightarrow tb$ Signature with Three $b$-tags \[7\]:**]{}
The contributions to this signal come from (\[three\]) as well as gb tH\^- + [h.c.]{} t|tb + [h.c.]{}, \[nine\] followed by the leptonic decay of one top and hadronic decay of the other. The signal cross-section from (\[nine\]) is 2-3 times larger than from (\[three\]), while their kinematic distributions are very similar. Combining the two and subtracting the overlapping piece to avoid double counting \[8\] results in a signal cross-section, which is mid-way between the two. The background comes from (\[four\]) as well as gb t|tb + [h.c.]{} [and]{} gg t|tg, \[ten\] where the gluon jet in the last case is mis-tagged as a $b$-jet. Assuming the standard mistagging factor of 1% this contribution turns out in fact to be the largest source of the background, as we see below.
The basic kinematic cuts are as in (\[six\]) except for a harder $p_T$-cut, $p_T > 30 ~{\rm GeV}$, since the 3 $b$-jets coming from $H^\pm$ and $t\bar t$ decays are all reasonably hard. This is followed by the mass reconstruction of the top quark pair as before, so that one can identify the accompanying (3rd) $b$-jet. We impose a $p_T > 80 ~{\rm GeV}$ cut on this $b$-jet to improve the $S/B$ ratio. Finally this $b$-jet is combined with each of the reconstructed top pair to give two entries of $M_{tb}$ per event. One of them corresponds to the $H^\pm$ mass for the signal while the other constitutes the combinatorial background. Fig. 2 shows this $tb$ invariant mass distribution of the signal along with the above mentioned backgrounds, including a $b$-tagging efficiency factor of $\epsilon_b = 0.4$. While the $S/B$ ratio is $< 1$ the signal cross-section is much larger than the previous case. Table 2 lists the number of signal and background events for a luminosity of $100~{\rm fb}^{-1}$ at $\tan\beta = 40$. The results are very similar at $\tan\beta = 1.5$. Comparing this with Table 1 we see that the $S/\sqrt{B}$ ratio is very similar in the two channels. One should bear in mind however the larger $p_T$ cut assumed for the 3 $b$-tagged channel. The cross-sections in both the cases were calculated with the MRS-LO structure functions \[9\].
Table 2. Number of signal and background events\
in the 3 $b$-tagged channel per $100~{\rm fb}^{-1}$ luminosity\
in a mass window of $M_{H^\pm} \pm 40~{\rm GeV}$ at\
$\tan\beta = 40 ~(\epsilon_b =
0.4)$.
$$\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
&&& \\
$M_{H^\pm} ~({\rm GeV})$ & $S$ & $B$ & $S\sqrt{B}$ \\
&&& \\
\hline
&&& \\
310 & 133 & 443 & 6.2 \\
&&& \\
407 & 111 & 403 & 5.6 \\
&&& \\
506 & ~73 & 266 & 4.5 \\
&&& \\
605 & ~43 & 156 & 3.4 \\
&&& \\
\hline
\end{tabular}$$
[**(iii) $H^\pm \rightarrow \tau\nu$ Signature \[10\]:**]{}
For simplicity we have estimated the signal and background cross-sections from gb t H\^- + [h.c.]{} b|q q |+ [h.c.]{} \[eleven\] gg t|t b|q q |b|+ [h.c.]{} \[twelve\] followed by the 1-prong hadronic decay of $\tau$. The signal contains a hard a positively polarized $\tau$, while the background contains a relatively soft and negatively polarized $\tau$ from $W$ boson decay. The polarization difference can be exploited to sharpen the signal by simply requiring the charged pion to carry $> 80$% of the visible $\tau$ momentum. Fig. 3 shows the signal and background cross-sections against the transverse mass of the $\tau$-jet with the missing-$p_T$. We see that by exploiting the polarization difference one can get a clean $H^\pm$ signal in this channel for the large $\tan\beta$ region at the level of a few fb. This has been recently confirmed by a more detailed simulation by the CMS collaboration including detector acceptance \[11\].
[**(iv) $H^\pm \rightarrow W^\pm h^0$ Signature \[12\]:**]{}
We have estimated the signal cross-section from gb tH\^- + [h.c.]{} bW\^+ W\^- h\^0 + [h.c.]{}, \[fourteen\] followed by $h^0 \rightarrow b\bar b$, $W^\pm \rightarrow \ell\nu$ and $W^\mp \rightarrow q\bar q$. Thus the final state consists of the same particles as the dominant decay mode of eq. (\[nine\]). Therefore we have to consider the background from the $H^- \rightarrow
t\bar b$ decay (\[nine\]) along with those from the QCD processes of eq. (\[ten\]).
We require 3 $b$-tags along with the same basic cuts as in section (ii). This is followed by the mass reconstruction of $W^\pm$ and the top, which helps to identify the accompanying $b$-pair and the $W$. The resulting $bb$ and $Wb$ invariant masses are then subjected to the constraints, M\_[bb]{} = m\_[h\^0]{} 10 [GeV]{} [and]{} M\_[Wb]{} m\_t 20 [GeV]{}. \[fifteen\] The $h^0$ mass constraint and the veto on the second top helps to distinguish the $H^\pm \rightarrow W^\pm h^0$ signal from the backgrounds. However the former is severely constrained by the signal size as well as the $S/B$ ratio. Consequently one expects at best a marginal signal in this channel and that too only in a narrow strip of the $M_{H^\pm} - \tan\beta$ parameter space, at the boundary of the LEP exclusion region. Fig. 4 shows the signal (\[fourteen\]) along with the backgrounds from (\[nine\]) and (\[ten\]) against the reconstructed $H^\pm$ mass at one such point – $M_{H^\pm} = 220~{\rm
GeV}$ and $\tan\beta = 2$.
The LEP limit of $m_{h_0} (m_{A_0}) > 100 ~{\rm GeV}$ in the low $\tan\beta$ region implies that the $H^\pm \rightarrow Wh^0
(WA^0)$ decay channel has as high a threshold as the $t\bar b$ channel, while the latter has a more favourable coupling. Consequently the $H^\pm \rightarrow Wh^0 (WA^0)$ decay $BR$ is restricted to be $\lsim
5\%$ over the LEP allowed region \[13\]. However the LEP constraint does not hold in singlet extensions of the MSSM like the NMSSM \[14\]. Consequently the $H^\pm \rightarrow Wh^0 (WA^0)$ can be the dominant decay mode for $M_{H^\pm} \sim 160~{\rm GeV}$ in the low $\tan\beta$ region and lead to a spectacular signal at the LHC, as is illustrated in \[12\]. One needs a systematic analysis of the LHC signatures for both neutral and charged Higgs bosons in the NMSSM, particularly in the low $\tan\beta$ region.
It should be mentioned here that these parton level Monte Carlo analyses of the $H^\pm$ signature in $tb$ and $Wh^0$ decay channels need to be followed up by detailed simulation with PYTHIA, including detector acceptance, as in the case of the $\tau\nu$ channel \[11\]. Finally it should be noted that practically all the analyses of $H^\pm$ signal so far are based on the lowest order production vertex, represented by the Yukawa coupling of eq. (\[eight\]). One loop electroweak corrections to this vertex can give upto 10 (20)% reduction in the signal cross-section at high (low) $\tan\beta$, as recently shown in \[15\]. The corresponding correction from QCD loops is expected to be larger, but not yet available. This is evidently important for a quantitative evaluation of this signal. One should also bear in mind the possibility of a large correction to this vertex from SUSY loops depending on the choice of SUSY parameters \[16\].
[99]{}
J.F. Gunion, H.E. Haber, G.L. Kane and S. Dawson, “[*The Higgs Hunters’ Guide*]{}” (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1990). S. Raychaudhuri and D.P. Roy, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**52**]{}, 1556 (1995) and D [**53**]{}, 4902 (1996); E. Ma, D.P. Roy and J. Wudka, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**80**]{}, 1162 (1998). V. Barger, R.J.N. Phillips and D.P. Roy, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} B [**324**]{}, 236 (1994); J.F. Gunion, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} B [**322**]{}, 125 (1994). A.A. Barrientos Bendezú and B.A. Kniehl, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**59**]{}, 015009 (1999) and hep-ph/9908385; S. Moretti and K. Odagiri, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**59**]{}, 055008 (1999). D.J. Miller, S. Moretti, D.P. Roy and W.J. Stirling, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**61**]{}, 055011 (2000). V. Barger, M.S. Berger and P. Ohmann, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**47**]{}, 1093 (1993). S. Moretti and D.P. Roy, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} B [**470**]{}, 209 (1999). F. Borzumati, J.-L. Kneur and N. Polonsky, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**60**]{}, 115011 (1999); D. Dicus, T. Stelzer, Z. Sullivan and S. Willenbrock, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**59**]{}, 094016 (1999). A.D. Martin, R.G. Roberts, W.J. Stirling and R.S. Thorne, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} B [**443**]{}, 301 (1998). D.P. Roy, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} B [**459**]{}, 607 (1999). R. Kinnunen, Higgs working group report for the [*Les Houches Workshop*]{} on [*Physics at TeV Colliders*]{}, hep-ph/0002258, pp 46-48. M. Drees, M. Guchait and D.P. Roy, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} B [**471**]{}, 39 (1999). S. Moretti and W.J. Sterling, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} B [**347**]{}, 291 (1995), Erratum, [*ibid*]{}, B [**366**]{}, 451 (1996); A. Djouadi, J. Kalinowski and P.M. Zerwas, [*Z. Phys.*]{} C [**70**]{}, 435 (1996). M. Drees, E. Ma, P.N. Pandita, D.P. Roy and S. Vempati, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} B [**433**]{}, 346 (1998). L.G. Jin, C.S. Li, R.J. Oakes and S.H. Zhu, hep-ph/9907482. J.A. Coarasa, D. Garcia, J. Guasch, R.A. Jimenez and J. Sola, [*Eur. Phys. J.*]{}, C [**2**]{}, 373 (1998).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
width 0pt
\[fig:looking1\]
1. Fig. 1. The reconstructed $tb$ invariant mass distribution of the $H^\pm$ signal (\[three\]) and the QCD background (\[four\]) in the isolated lepton plus multi-jet channel with 4 $b$-tags. The scale on the right corresponds to a $b$-tagging efficiency fator $\epsilon^4_b = 0.1$.
\[fig:looking2\]
1. Fig. 2. The reconstructed $tb$ invariant mass distribution of the $H^\pm$ signal and different QCD backgrounds in the isolated lepton plus multijet channel with 3 $b$-tags.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
width 0pt
\[fig:looking3a\]
\[fig:looking3b\]
1. Fig. 3. Distribution of the $H^\pm$ signal and background cross-sections in the transverse mass of the $\tau$-jet with the missing-$p_T$ for (a) all 1-prong $\tau$-jets, (b) those where the charged pion carries over 80% of the $\tau$-jet $p_T$ $(M_{H^\pm} =
200,400,600 \ {\rm GeV \ and} \ \tan\beta = 40)$.
\[fig:looking4\]
1. Fig. 4. The $H^\pm \rightarrow Wh^0$ signal cross-section is shown against the reconstructed $H^\pm$ mass for $M_{H^\pm} = 220~{\rm
GeV}$ and $\tan\beta = 2$ along with the $H^\pm \rightarrow tb$ and the QCD backgrounds.
[^1]: Invited talk at the Cairo International Conference on High Energy Physics, 9-14 January 2001.
[^2]: Increasing the $p_T$ cut of $b$-jets from 20 to 30 GeV would reduce the signal (background) size by a factor of about \[three\](\[four\] ), hence reducing the viability of this signal.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The cosmological Slavnov-Taylor (ST) identity of the Einstein-Hilbert action coupled to a single inflaton field is obtained from the Becchi-Rouet-Stora-Tyutin (BRST) symmetry associated with diffeomorphism invariance in the Arnowitt-Deser-Misner (ADM) formalism. The consistency conditions between the correlators of the scalar and tensor modes in the squeezed limit are then derived from the ST identity, together with the softly broken conformal symmetry. Maldacena’s original relations connecting the 2- and 3-point correlators at horizon crossing are recovered, as well as the next-to-leading corrections, controlled by the special conformal transformations.'
author:
- 'D. Binosi'
- 'A. Quadri'
date: 'November 15, 2015'
title: |
The Cosmological Slavnov-Taylor Identity\
from BRST Symmetry in Single-Field Inflation
---
Introduction
============
Non-gaussianities of the CMB spectrum in single field inflationary models are described by correlators involving gravitational scalar and tensor modes that fulfil a set of consistency conditions first derived in a seminal paper by Maldacena [@Maldacena:2002vr]. The latter hold in a particular limit (the so-called squeezed limit), where one of the momenta is much smaller than the others.
Recently, there has been a renewed interest in providing a rigorous mathematical derivation of these (and associated) relations in terms of cosmological Slavnov-Taylor (ST) identities, [*i.e.*]{} functional identities for the connected inflationary generating functional. So far the approach has been the one of translating at the path-integral level diffeomorphism invariance or (softly broken) conformal symmetry [@Collins:2014fwa; @Armendariz-Picon:2014xda; @Goldberger:2013rsa; @Berezhiani:2013ewa], thus obtaining the aforementioned identities through formal manipulations of the (gauge-fixed) path-integral for each symmetry.
However, from the algebraic point of view the situation does not seem to be very satisfactory. The gauge invariance of the Einstein-Hilbert action coupled to the inflaton field is broken by the gauge-fixing and it should be therefore replaced by the corresponding Becchi-Rouet-Stora-Tyutin (BRST) symmetry [@Becchi:1974md; @Becchi:1975nq; @Becchi:1996yh; @Tyutin:1975qk]. The latter, in turn, should yield a single ST identity [@Slavnov:1972fg; @Taylor:1971ff] which is expected to encode all the relevant consistency relations between the correlators of the tensor and scalar gravitational modes.
In this paper we prove that this is indeed the case. Starting from the Arnowitt-Deser-Misner (ADM) formulation of the gravitational action [@Arnowitt:1962hi; @Arnowitt:1960es], we derive the BRST symmetry associated with diffeomorphism invariance. A careful discussion of the lapse and shift vector (that are not dynamical and can be eliminated through their equations of motion) is worked out. Next, as is customary in the gauge-fixing procedure [*à la*]{} BRST, we identify the relevant set of external sources (antifields) required to define the composite operators entering into the BRST transformation of the fields [@Gomis:1994he]. This allows to finally derive the (unique) ST identity associated with BRST symmetry, which, under functional differentiations with respect to appropriate field and antifield combinations, give rise to relations between the one-particle irreducible (1-PI) Green functions of the theory. One of the advantages of the resulting functional formulation is that it can be generalized to study quantum corrections to the tree-level amplitudes, although in the present paper we will not attempt to go beyond the classical approximation.
The direct application of this approach is however hampered by the fact that in cosmology one is usually interested in correlation functions evaluated at a fixed time, usually coinciding with horizon crossing. Such correlators are computed by using the so-called “in-in” formalism [@Weinberg:2005vy]. We therefore introduce the corresponding generating functional $W(t)$ and derive the ST identity it fulfils, as a consequence of the BRST invariance of the classical gauge-fixed action. We then motivate the need to introduce the 1-PI generating functional at fixed time $\Gzt(t)$, as a necessary tool in order to recover the consistency conditions in the squeezed limit for the soft momentum $\vec{q}$. In this respect, one should notice that the reconstruction of the 1-PI vertex functional from $W(t)$ is carried out once one has integrated out the lapse and shift vector. This in turn introduces some sources of non-locality, despite the fact that the Einstein-Hilbert action in the ADM formalism is local. However, for an attractor background [@Cheung:2007sv] under the adiabaticity assumption, guaranteeing that the growing modes solution of the classical equations of motion are constant, one can see that such non-localities disappear [@Berezhiani:2013ewa].
When these conditions are met, suitable analyticity assumptions of the 1-PI Green’s functions can be made, which allows, once one factors out the two point correlator of the soft momentum $\vec{q}$, to constrain the remaining contribution to scalar and/or graviton correlators “in-in” amplitudes through the ST identity. Indeed, the constant and linear term in $\vec{q}$ of the expansion of the amplitudes for $\vec{q} \rightarrow 0$ can be traced back to the invariance under dilatations [@Maldacena:2002vr] and special conformal transformations [@Creminelli:2012ed] respectively. In our approach they can be both derived from a single ST identity. In addition, the particular form of the BRST symmetry ensures that there are no graviton contributions for purely scalar functions at the leading and next-to-leading order in $\vec{q}$.
Thus, the BRST formalism introduced provides a unified approach to obtain the expansion of the relevant Green’s functions as $\vec{q}$ goes to zero.
The paper is organized as follows. In Sect. \[sec:ADM.action\] we review the ADM formulation of gravity coupled to a single scalar field and set up our notations. In Sect. \[sec.brst.gf\] we derive the BRST symmetry of the theory, introduce the gauge-fixing as well as the ghost sector. The ensuing ST identity is derived in Sect. \[sec.ST\]. In Sect. \[sec.maldacena\] the spacetime symmetries are formulated within the BRST approach and it is explained how dilatations and special conformal transformations are recovered from BRST symmetry. This paves the way to the derivation in Sect. \[sec:cosmological.sti\] of the cosmological ST identity fulfilled by the generating functional of correlators at horizon crossing in the “in-in” formalism. The results of Refs.[@Maldacena:2002vr] and [@Creminelli:2012ed] on the consistency conditions at the leading and next-to-leading order in the squeezed limit for 2- and 3-point scalar and graviton correlators are also reproduced. Finally, our conclusions are presented in Sect. \[sec.mcc\]. The paper ends with some Appendices, devoted to clarify some technical aspects of the derivations, and in particular: the diagonalization of the quadratic ADM action (Appendix \[app.quadratic.part.adm\]); the derivation of the metric propagator (Appendix \[app.metric.prop\]); the functional identities for the effective action and the connected generating functional (Appendix \[app.funct\]); the consistency conditions in functional form (Appendix \[app.gauge.indip.mast\]).
ADM Action {#sec:ADM.action}
==========
The Einstein-Hilbert action for gravity coupled to a single scalar field reads $$\begin{aligned}
S = \frac{1}{2} \int \! \sqrt{g}\, \left[R - (\nabla \phi)^2 - 2 V(\phi) \right],
\label{action}\end{aligned}$$ where, using the same notations as in [@Maldacena:2002vr], we have set $M^{-2}_{\rm Planck} = 8 \pi G_N = 1$.
Passing to the ADM formulation, one introduces the lapse function ${\cal N}$ and shift vector ${\cal N}^i$ which are implicitly defined through the metric decomposition $$\begin{aligned}
\d s^2&=-{\cal N}^2\d t^2+h_{ij}\left(\d x^i+{\cal N}^i\d t\right)\left(\d x^j+{\cal N}^j\d t\right).
\label{adm.metric.decomp}\end{aligned}$$ The action (\[action\]) can be then written as the sum of three terms, $S=S_1+S_2+S_3$, with $$\begin{aligned}
S_1 &= \frac12\int\!{\mathrm d}t\!\int\! {\mathrm d}^3 \vec{x} \, \sqrt{h}\, {\cal N}\, ^{(3)}\! R,\nonumber \\
S_2 &= \frac{1}{2} \int\!dt\int\! d^3 \vec{x} \, \sqrt{h}\, {\cal N}^{-1} (E_{ij} E^{ij} - E^2);\qquad
E_{ij} = \frac{1}{2} ( \dot\deltag_{ij} - \nabla_i\, {\cal N}_j - \nabla_j\, {\cal N}_i );\quad E = E^i_i,\nonumber \\
S_3 &= \frac{1}{2} \int\!{\mathrm d}t\!\int\! {\mathrm d}^3 \vec{x} \, \sqrt{h}\, \left[{\cal N}^{-1} (\dot{\phi} - {\cal N}^{\,i} \partial_i \phi)^2-{\cal N} h^{ij} \partial_i \phi \partial_j \phi-2{\cal N} V(\phi)\right].
\label{ADMSi}\end{aligned}$$
The homogenous solution of this action is obtained for ${\cal N}=1$, ${\cal N}^i=0$, $h_{ij}=\widehat{h}_{ij}=e^{2\rho}\delta_{ij}$, and corresponds to a de Sitter (dS) spacetime. In addition, $\rho=\rho(t)$ and $\phi=\varphi(t)$ depends only on time, and satisfy the equations of motion $$\begin{aligned}
3\dot{\rho}^2&=\frac12\dot{\varphi}^2+V(\varphi);&
\ddot{\rho}&=-\frac12\dot{\varphi}^2;&
\ddot{\varphi}+3\dot\rho\dot{\varphi}+V'(\varphi)=0.
\label{eom1}\end{aligned}$$ The Hubble parameter is then given by $H \equiv \dot{\rho}$, whereas the slow roll parameters can be defined according to $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon&=\frac12\left(\frac{V'}{V}\right)^2\sim\frac12\frac{\dot\varphi^2}{\dot\rho^2};&
\eta &=\frac{V''}{V}\sim-\frac{\ddot\varphi}{\dot\rho\dot\varphi}+\frac12\frac{\dot\varphi^2}{\dot\rho^2}.
\label{slowroll}\end{aligned}$$ The approximate relations above hold when the slow roll parameters are small, which will in turn lead to a period of accelerated expansion.
In the ensuing analysis, we consider quantum fluctuations around the dS background solution. We will choose a general gauge, defined through $$\begin{aligned}
h_{ij} &= \widehat{h}_{ij} +e^{2\rho} \deltag_{ij};& \phi&=\varphi+\delta\phi;& {\cal N}=1+\delta{\cal N},
\label{gengauge}\end{aligned}$$ and expand the ADM action up to quadratic orders in the various fields. The straightforward but somehow lengthy computations are summarized in Appendix \[app.quadratic.part.adm\], where it is also shown that, upon substitution of the solutions of the equations of motion for the lapse function and the shift vector, one gets back, after choosing the appropriate gauge, the same results reported in [@Maldacena:2002vr].
In the gauge-fixing [*à la*]{} BRST we are going to carry out in the next Section, one needs to keep all degrees of freedom, including the non-dynamical ones. Propagators are obtained as usual by inversion of the 2-point sector of the classical action after gauge-fixing. For that purpose it is convenient to diagonalize the quadratic part of the action (see Appendix \[app.quadratic.part.adm\]). Elimination of the non-dynamical lapse and shift vector in the effective action is equivalent to consider diagrams that are one-particle reducible with respect to such fields.
BRST symmetry and gauge-fixing {#sec.brst.gf}
==============================
In a gravitational theory gauge transformations correspond to (minus) the Lie derivative with respect to the vector field of gauge parameters $\xi$, that is one has $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_\xi\Phi=-\underset{\xi}{\cal L}\Phi;\qquad \Phi={\cal N},{\cal N}_i, h_{ij},\phi.\end{aligned}$$ Since ${\cal N}=(-g^{00})^{1/2}$ and ${\cal N}^i=-g^{0i}/g^{00}$, the individual transformations of all the fields $\Phi$ can be obtained starting from the gauge transformation of the four-dimensional metric, which reads $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_\xi g_{\mu\nu}=-\xi^\rho\nabla_\rho g_{\mu\nu}-g_{\mu\rho}\nabla_\nu\xi^\rho+g_{\nu\rho}\nabla_\mu\xi^\rho.
\label{diffeo-g}\end{aligned}$$ One then gets $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_\xi{\cal N}&=-\nabla_0(\xi^0{\cal N})+{\cal N}{\cal N}^k\nabla_k\xi^0-\xi^k\nabla_k\,{\cal N},\nonumber \\
\delta_\xi{\cal N}^i&={\cal N}^2h^{ij}\nabla_j\xi^0-\nabla_0\xi^i+{\cal N}^j\nabla_j\xi^i-\xi^0\nabla_0{\cal N}^i-{\cal N}^i\nabla_0\xi^0+{\cal N}^i{\cal N}^j\nabla_j\xi^0,\nonumber \\
\delta_\xi h_{ij}&=-\xi^0\nabla_0h_{ij}-\xi^m\nabla_m h_{ij}-h_{im}{\cal N}^m\nabla_j\xi^0-h_{jm}{\cal N}^m\nabla_i\xi^0-h_{im}\nabla_j\xi^m-h_{jm}\nabla_i\xi^m,\nonumber \\
\delta_\xi\phi&=-\xi^\mu\partial_\mu\phi.
\label{brst.full}\end{aligned}$$ In fact, it should be noticed that, as the metric is torsion-free, the covariant derivatives can be replaced by conventional ones, so that becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_\xi g_{\mu\nu}=-\xi^\rho\partial_\rho g_{\mu\nu}-g_{\mu\rho}\partial_\nu \xi^\rho-g_{\nu\rho}\partial_\mu \xi^\rho,
\label{diffeo-g-simple}\end{aligned}$$ with similar simplified expressions obtained (through $\nabla\to\partial$) holding for the individual gauge transformations .
The BRST transformations are then generated by replacing in eqs[brst.full]{}[diffeo-g-simple]{} the gauge parameter vector field with the ghost field, $\xi\to c$, and correspondingly $\delta_\xi\to s$ (with $s$ denoting the BRST differential). The action of the BRST differential on the ghosts is finally fixed by demanding the fulfilment of the nilpotency condition; indeed, applying $s$ on eq[diffeo-g-simple]{} and requiring that $s^2=0$ we get $$\begin{aligned}
s c^\mu = -c^\nu\partial_\nu c^\mu.
\label{brst.ghost}\end{aligned}$$
The inversion of the quadratic part of the action requires to fix a gauge. In our BRST approach this is achieved by supplying a gauge fixing condition ${\cal F}_\mu$ and coupling it with a corresponding set of Nakanishi-Lautrup multipliers [@Nakanishi:1966zz; @Lautrup:1967zz].
While the procedure is completely general, in order to fix the ideas we apply it after choosing a comoving gauge for the inflaton field $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal F}_0 \equiv \delta \phi = 0,
\label{comov.gauge.infl}\end{aligned}$$ as well as a transverse gauge-fixing condition which is reminiscent of the Landau gauge often employed in Yang-Mills theories, [*i.e.*]{},$$\begin{aligned}
{\cal F}_j \equiv \partial^i \deltag_{ij}-\frac13\partial_j \deltag^i_i=0.
\label{como_trans}\end{aligned}$$ Notice that at the classical level the metric $\delta h_{ij}$ can be written without loss of generality as $$\begin{aligned}
\delta h_{ij}&=2\psi\delta_{ij}+2\partial_i\partial_j E+\partial_iF_j+\partial_jF_i+\gamma_{ij};& \partial^i F_i&=0;& \partial^i\gamma_{ij}&=0;\ \gamma_i^i=0.
\label{metric.decomp}\end{aligned}$$ The transverse condition Eq. (\[como\_trans\]) then implies, disregarding zero modes of the three-dimensional Laplacian (as in comoving gauge), $F_i=E=0$. The gauge fixing conditions and are then implemented by coupling them to the auxiliary, non-dynamical fields $b^0$ and $b^i$ respectively (representing the aforementioned Nakanishi-Lautrup multipliers), and adding to the action the term $$\begin{aligned}
S_\s{\mathrm{GF}}=\int\!\d t\!\int\! \d^3 \vec{x} \, \left[ b^0 {\cal F}_0 + b^j {\cal F}_j \right].
\label{NL.term}\end{aligned}$$ Clearly, the conditions and are recovered once the $b$-fields are eliminated through their (trivial) equations of motion.
In the temporal sector the only non-vanishing propagator is the mixed one $b^0\delta \phi$. Nevertheless, since there are no interaction vertices involving the $b^0$ field, one can safely set $\delta \phi=0$ everywhere in the effective action. This result will be recovered by functional methods later on in Sect. \[sec.ST\] and Appendix \[app.funct\].
On the other hand, the inversion of the metric propagator requires some care. In the ADM formalism it is convenient to exploit the invariance under coordinate reparametrization to express the metric two-point function as $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{S}^{(2)}&=\int\!{\mathrm d}t\!\int\! {\mathrm d}^3 \vec{x} \,\delta h^{ij}\widetilde{\Gamma}^{(2)}_{ij\,mn}\delta h^{mn};&
\widetilde{\Gamma}^{(2)}_{ij\,mn}=\sum_{\alpha=1}^7{\cal O}^{(\alpha)}_{ij\,mn}\theta_\alpha,
\label{quadact}\end{aligned}$$ where the seven bi-tensors ${\cal O}^{(i)}$ are defined as $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal O}^{(1)}_{ij\,mn}&=\delta_{im}\delta_{jn}+\delta_{jm}\delta_{in};&
{\cal O}^{(2)}_{ij\,mn}&=\delta_{ij}\delta_{mn};&
{\cal O}^{(3)}_{ij\,mn}&=\delta_{jn}\frac{\partial_i\partial_m}{\partial^2}+\delta_{in}\frac{\partial_m\partial_j}{\partial^2};\nonumber \\
{\cal O}^{(4)}_{ij\,mn}&=\delta_{im}\frac{\partial_j\partial_n}{\partial^2}+\delta_{mj}\frac{\partial_i\partial_n}{\partial^2};&
{\cal O}^{(5)}_{ij\,mn}&=\delta_{mn}\frac{\partial_i\partial_j}{\partial^2};&
{\cal O}^{(6)}_{ij\,mn}&=\delta_{ij}\frac{\partial_m\partial_n}{\partial^2};\nonumber \\
{\cal O}^{(7)}_{ij\,mn}&=\frac{\partial_i\partial_m\partial_j\partial_n}{\partial^4}
\label{bitensors}\end{aligned}$$ and the coefficients $\theta_\alpha$ are differential operators in $\partial_t$ whose explicit form is given in eq[thethetas]{}.
Since the $\theta$’s are differential operators, the second variation of the quadratic action with respect to the metric does not coincide with $\widetilde{\Gamma}^{(2)}$ (as it would were the $\theta_\alpha$ algebraic coefficients). Instead, one has (up to total derivative terms) $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{\Gamma}_{ij\,mn}^{'(2)}(\vec{x},t;\vec{z},t')=\frac{\delta^2\widetilde{S}^{(2)\!}}{\delta h^{im}(\vec{x},t)\delta h^{jn}(\vec{z},t')}=\sum_{\alpha=1}^7\delta^3(\vec{z}-\vec{x})\delta(t'-t){\cal O}^{(\alpha)}_{ij\,mn}\Theta_\alpha,\end{aligned}$$ where the new differential operators $\Theta$ are completely determined by the old ones $\theta$, see eqs[Theta1]{}[Theta2]{}.
It is then relatively straightforward to invert the two-point functions in the $b^i$-$\delta g^{jk}$ sector, as it is explicitly shown in Appendix \[app.diff.eq.metric.prop\]. In particular, eq[grav.prop]{} shows that the metric propagator is chracterized by two scalar functions $r_1$ and $r_2$ satisfying a system of coupled differential equations. This system supports also a constant solution, for which $\partial_t r_1=\partial_t r_2=0$. Evidently, the latter has to be identified with the one at the time $t=t_*$ of horizon crossing, where [@Maldacena:2002vr] $$\begin{aligned}
\dot\rho_*\,{\mathrm e}^{\rho_*}\sim p, \end{aligned}$$ a $*$ meaning that the corresponding quantity has been evaluated at $t=t_*$. Specifically one finds $$\begin{aligned}
r_1 = -\frac2{p^2} e^{-\rho_*};\qquad
r_2 = \frac2{p^2} e^{-\rho_*}\left(\frac{\dot{\rho}_*^2}{\ddot{\rho}_*}-1\right).
\label{grav.prop.params}\end{aligned}$$ Notice that $r_2$ is then proportional to the inverse of the slow-roll parameter $\epsilon$ defined in Eq. and therefore it can give rise to potentially large effects when gravitons propagate in loops.
On the other hand, such contributions are expected not to affect physical observables, for the physical propagator for the graviton is controlled by the function $r_1$ alone. To prove this, one observes that all the coefficients $\psi, E, F_i$ and $\gamma_{ij}$ in eq[metric.decomp]{} can be obtained by applying appropriate projectors to the metric $\delta h_{ij}$; in particular, for the physical graviton $\gamma_{ij}$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_{ij}&=\frac12P^\gamma_{ij\,mn}\delta h_{mn},\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
P^\gamma_{ij\,mn}&=\sum_{\alpha=1}^7c_\alpha{\cal O}^{(\alpha)}_{ij\,mn};& &c_1=-c_2=-c_3=-c_4=c_5=c_6=c_7=1.\end{aligned}$$ thus giving rise to the physical propagator (with $T$ being the usual time-order product) $$\begin{aligned}
\langle T[\gamma_{ij}\gamma_{kl}]\rangle&=\frac14P^\gamma_{ij\,mn}P^\gamma_{kl\,pq}\langle \delta h_{mn}\delta h_{pq}\rangle \nonumber \\
&=\frac14\sum_{\alpha=1}^7r_\alpha P^\gamma_{ij\,mn}P^\gamma_{kl\,pq}{\cal O}^{(\alpha)}_{mn\,pq}=r_1P^\gamma_{ij\,kl}.\end{aligned}$$ We then see that the dependence on $r_2$ has disappeared and one obtains a propagator characterized by the single scalar form factor $r_1$ satisfying the differential equation . As a result, since $r_2$ controls the unphysical part of the propagator, one expects that such contributions cancel out in physical amplitudes against corresponding ghost loops contributions.
BRST invariance requires finally to add the ghost action, which reads $$\begin{aligned}
S_\s{\mathrm{FPG}} &= \int\! \d t\int\!\d^3 \vec{x}
\left[ \dot{\varphi} \bar c^0 c^0 - \bar c^i s {\cal F}_i \right].
\label{s.GFpFPG}\end{aligned}$$ The BRST variation of the anti-ghost fields $\bar c^\mu$ is defined by pairing them with the corresponding Nakanishi-Lautrup field in a so-called BRST doublet: $s \bar c^\mu = b^\mu$, $s b^\mu = 0$ [@Barnich:2000zw; @Quadri:2002nh]. This ensures that the sum $S_\s{\mathrm{GF}}+S_\s{\mathrm{FPG}}$ is an exact BRST variation, so that BRST nilpotency ensures that this term decouples from the physical observables of the theory.
The quadratic part of the ghost action is obtained from eq[s.GFpFPG]{} when considering the BRST differential in the linearized approximation $s_\s{\!\ell}$, which is obtained by keeping on the right-hand side of eq[brst.full]{} only terms linear in the fields. Recalling that both $\rho$ and $\varphi$ are independent of the spatial coordinates, and using the background metric $\widehat{h}$ to raise/lower indices, one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
\label{brst.lin}
s_\s{\!\ell} \delta {\cal N} &= -\partial_0 c^0;&\quad
s_\s{\!\ell} \delta {\cal N}^i &= \partial^i c^0 - \partial^0 c^i;&\quad s_\s{\!\ell} \delta h_{ij} &= -2 \dot \rho c^0 \widehat{h}_{ij} - \partial_j c_i - \partial_i c_j;&\quad
s_\s{\!\ell} \delta \phi &= - c^0 \dot{\varphi},\end{aligned}$$ and, accordingly, $$\begin{aligned}
S^{(2)}_\s{\mathrm{FPG}} &=\int\!\d t\!\int\! \d^3 \vec{x}\,\left[ \dot{\varphi} \bar c^0 c^0-\bar c^i \left( \square c_i + \frac{1}{3} \partial_i \partial_j c^j \right)\right].\end{aligned}$$ Notice that there is no mixing term between the temporal and spatial ghosts, so that by inverting this action one immediately gets the propagators $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_{\bar c^0 c^0} &= \dot{\varphi}^{-1};&
\Delta_{\bar c_i c_j} = \frac{1}{p^2} \left ( \delta_{ij} - \frac{1}{4} \frac{p_i p_j}{p^2} \right).\end{aligned}$$
The Slavnov-Taylor identity {#sec.ST}
===========================
It is possible to recast the invariance under the BRST symmetry of the classical gauge-fixed action in a functional form through the so-called Slavnov-Taylor (ST) identity.
For that purpose one introduces for each of the fields $\Phi$ with a non-linear BRST variation $s \Phi$ an external source $\Phi^*$, called anti-field. The anti-field $\Phi^*$ has opposite statistics with respect to $\Phi$, whereas its ghost charge (which is a conserved quantum number), gh($\Phi^*$), is related to the ghost charge gh($\Phi$) of the corresponding field through gh($\Phi^*$) = $-1 -$gh($\Phi$). Conventionally setting gh$(c^\mu)=1$, it turns out that the ghost charge of the anti-ghost and all anti-fields, with the exception of $c^*_\mu$, is $-1$; the ghost charge of $c^*_\mu$ is $-2$, whereas all the other fields have ghost number zero.
Next, anti-fields are coupled to $s\Phi$ in the tree-level vertex functional $\G^{(0)}$ (which has ghost number zero); that is one sets $$\begin{aligned}
\G^{(0)} &= S + S_\s{\mathrm{GF}} + S_\s{\mathrm{FPG}} + S_\s{\mathrm{AF}},\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
S_\s{\mathrm{AF}} &= \sum_\Phi \int\!\d t\!\int\! \d^3 \vec{x}\, \Phi^* \, s \Phi \, , \end{aligned}$$ and the sum runs over $\Phi = \{ \delta h_{ij}, \delta {\cal N}, {\cal N}_i, \delta \phi, c_0, c_i \}$. Then $\G^{(0)}$ is BRST invariant if and only if one imposes $s \Phi^* = 0$. Notice that we do not introduce a source for $\bar c^\mu$ since its BRST variation is linear.
The invariance of $\G^{(0)}$ under the BRST differential $s$ translates then into the following functional equation, known as the ST identity $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal S}(\G^{(0)}) = \int\!\d t\!\int\! \d^3 \vec{x}\, &\left[
\Gz_{\delta h^{ij*}}\Gz_{\delta h_{ij}}+\Gz_{\delta {\cal{N}}^{*}}\Gz_{\delta {\cal{N}}}+\Gz_{{\cal{N}}^{i*}}\Gz_{{\cal{N}}_i}+\Gz_{\delta\phi^*}\Gz_{\delta\phi}+b_\mu\Gz_{\bar c^\mu}+\Gz_{c^{\mu*}}\Gz_{c_\mu}\right]=0.
\label{SGamma0}\end{aligned}$$ In the equation above we have introduced the notation $\Gz_\Phi=\delta\Gz/\delta\Phi(t,\vec x)$, omitting at the same time the argument of the fields to avoid notational clutter.
Taking functional derivatives of ${\cal S}(\G^{(0)})$ and setting afterwards all fields and anti-fields to zero will generate the complete set of the all-order ST identities of the theory; this is in exact analogy to what happens with the effective action, where taking functional derivatives of $\Gamma$ and setting afterwards all fields to zero generates the 1-PI Green functions of the theory. However, in order to reach meaningful expressions, one needs to keep in mind that: ([*i*]{}) ${\cal S}(\G^{(0)})$ has ghost charge 1, and ([*ii*]{}) functions with non-zero ghost charge vanish, since the latter is a conserved quantity. Thus, in order to extract non-zero identities from eq[SGamma0]{}, one needs to differentiate the latter with respect to a combination of fields, containing either one ghost field, or two ghost fields and one anti-field. The only exception to this rule is when differentiating with respect to a ghost anti-field, which needs to be compensated by three ghost fields.
The dependence of $\G$ on the gauge-fixing and the anti-ghost fields is controlled by the $b$-equations and the anti-ghost equations. They are (we omit the space-time arguments for simplicity) $$\begin{aligned}
\Gz_{b^0} &= \delta \phi,& &{\mbox{(temporal {\it b}-equation)}} \nonumber \\
\Gz_{b^i} &= \partial^k \delta h_{ki} - \frac{1}{3} \partial_i \delta h^k_k ,&
&{\mbox{(spatial {\it b}-equation)}} \nonumber \\
\Gz_{\bar c^0} &= - \Gz_{\delta \phi^*} , &
&{\mbox{(temporal anti-ghost equation)} } \nonumber \\
\Gz_{\bar c^i} &= \partial^k \Gz_{\delta h^{ki*}} -
\frac{1}{3} \partial_i \Gz_{\delta h^{k*}_k}&
&{\mbox{(spatial anti-ghost equation)} } $$ The temporal anti-ghost equation states that the dependence of the vertex functional on the temporal anti-ghost field happens only via the combination $\delta \phi^{*'} = \delta \phi^* - \bar c^0$. In a similar way the spatial anti-ghost equation guarantees that the dependence of the vertex functional on the spatial anti-ghosts $\bar c^i$ is through the combination $\delta h^{ij*'} = \delta h^{ij*} + \partial^i \bar c^j - \frac{1}{3} \partial_\ell \bar c^\ell \delta h^{ij} $ only.
In classical cosmology computations it is customary to eliminate the lapse function and shift vector through their equations of motion. In our formulation this can be achieved by considering the generating functional $\Gt$ for diagrams which are one-particle reducible with respect to lapse and shift propagators and one-particle irreducible with respect to all other fields; details of the algebraic construction of $\Gt$ are reported in Appendix \[app.funct\].
It turns out that the effective action $\Gt$ satisfies the following ST identity: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eff.sti}
{\cal S}(\widetilde \G) = \int\!\d t\!\int\! \d^3 \vec{x}\, \left[
\Gt_{\delta h^{ij*}}\Gt_{\delta h_{ij}}
+ \Gt_{\delta\phi^*} \Gt_{\delta\phi}+ b^\mu \Gt_{\bar c^\mu} +
\Gt_{c^{\mu *} } \Gt_{c_\mu }
\right] = 0.\end{aligned}$$ This is the basic functional relation, valid in any gauge, from which we will start deriving the consistency conditions of the inflationary theory. It is worthwhile to notice that, being based on the diffeomorphism invariance only, this is the most natural formulation that is supposed to hold true even when loop corrections are included (provided that one can consistently make sense of the UV and IR divergences arising in graviton loops, something which is far beyond the scope of the present paper).
The relevant consistency conditions embodied in the ST identity are of two types.
If one takes a derivative with respect to the ghost field $c$ and then with respect to a combination of zero ghost charge fields other than the multiplier $b$ and afterwards set all fields and external sources to zero, one gets relations that are valid in any gauge (the gauge dependence being controlled by the $b$-term in the ST identity). On the other hand, if we take a derivative of eq[eff.sti]{} with respect to the combination $cb$ and then set $c$ to zero, one obtains a functional identity encoding the gauge dependence of the vertex functional. This is further discussed in Appendix \[app.gauge.indip.mast\].
Spacetime symmetries in BRST language {#sec.maldacena}
=====================================
In order to proceed further, we need to elaborate on the relation between the BRST symmetry of the action and its (classical) invariance under diffeomorphism, dilatation and special conformal transformations. To this end, we will adopt an explicit parametrization of the metric $h_{ij}$; specifically we write [@Maldacena:2002vr] $$\begin{aligned}
h_{ij}=\widehat{h}_{ij}+e^{2\rho}\delta h_{ij},\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{h}_{ij}&=e^{2\rho}e^{2\zeta}\delta_{ij};&
\delta h_{ij}&=e^{2\zeta}\left(\gamma_{ij}+\frac12\gamma_i^k\gamma_{kj}+\cdots\right);&
\partial^i\gamma_{ij}=\gamma_i^i=0.
\label{malconv}\end{aligned}$$ Within this parametrization, the ST identity reads then $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal S}(\widetilde \G^{(0)}) = \int\!\d t\!\int\! \d^3 \vec{x}\, \left[\Gzt_{\zeta^*} \Gzt_{\zeta}+
\Gzt_{\gamma^{ij*}} \Gzt_{\gamma_{ij}}
+ \cdots\right]=0,
\label{eff.sti.mald}\end{aligned}$$ where $\widetilde{\Gamma}^{(0)}$ is the tree-level version of the generating functional introduced in the previous section, and the dots indicate terms containing the $b$ or the ghost field.
As already discussed, if we are interested only in gauge independent ST identities, we can take a derivative with respect to the ghost field and drop all gauge variant terms, to obtain the relation $$\begin{aligned}
\int\!\d t\!\int\! \d^3 \vec{x}\,\left[\widetilde{\Gamma}^{(0)}_{c^\ell\zeta^*}\widetilde{\Gamma}^{(0)}_\zeta+\widetilde{\Gamma}^{(0)}_{c^\ell\gamma^{*ij}}\widetilde{\Gamma}^{(0)}_{\gamma_{ij}}\right]=0.
\label{M-master}\end{aligned}$$ We will refer to eq[M-master]{} as the ‘master’ consistency relation; in fact we will show that the known consistency conditions related to diffeomorphism, dilation or special conformal transformations invariance, are all descendant of the basic identity . However, before we can do that, we need first to explicitly derive the BRST transformations of the $\zeta$ and $\gamma$ fields.
BRST transformations of $\zeta$ and $\gamma$
--------------------------------------------
In general it is not possible to derive closed expressions for the BRST variations $s\zeta$ and $s\gamma$; however a recursive procedure can be devised that allows to grade them according to the number of graviton fields $\gamma$, the resulting expressions being however valid to all orders in the $\zeta$ field. We start by taking a BRST variation of the metric $h_{ij}$ in the representation , yielding up to second order in $\gamma$ $$\begin{aligned}
sh_{ij}&=2(s\zeta)e^{2\rho}e^{2\zeta}\left(\delta_{ij}+\gamma_{ij}+\frac12\gamma_i^k\gamma_{kj}\right)+\frac12e^{2\rho}e^{2\zeta}\left[2s\gamma_{ij}+\left(s\gamma_i^k\right)\gamma_{kj}+\gamma_i^ks\left(\gamma_{kj}\right)\right].
\label{sh-1}\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, eq[brst.full]{} gives for the same BRST variation the result $$\begin{aligned}
sh_{ij}&=-c^m\partial_m\left[e^{2\rho}e^{2\zeta}\left(\delta_{ij}+\gamma_{ij}+\frac12\gamma_i^k\gamma_{kj}\right)\right]-e^{2\rho}e^{2\zeta}\left(\delta_{im}+\gamma_{im}+\frac12\gamma_i^k\gamma_{km}\right)\partial_j c^m\nonumber \\
&-e^{2\rho}e^{2\zeta}\left(\delta_{jm}+\gamma_{jm}+\frac12\gamma_j^k\gamma_{km}\right)\partial_i c^m.
\label{sh-2}\end{aligned}$$
Tracing both equations, and equating the zeroth order terms in the graviton field gives $$\begin{aligned}
(s\zeta)_{0}=-c^m\partial_m\zeta-\frac13\partial_m c^m.
\label{sz0}\end{aligned}$$ Again by equating terms of order zero (but this time without taking the trace), and using the result above, we get $$\begin{aligned}
(s\gamma_{ij})_{0}=\frac23\delta_{ij}\partial^m c_m-\partial_jc_i-\partial_ic_j.
\label{sg0}\end{aligned}$$ The grade 1 BRST transformations can be obtained in exactly the same way. In particular, from tracing the relations and and keeping the terms with one graviton fields, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
(s\zeta)_{1}=-\frac13\gamma^{im}\partial_ic_m+\frac16\gamma^{im}(\partial_i c_m+\partial_m c_i)=0,
\label{sz1}\end{aligned}$$ while, finally, using the above results together with eqs[sh-1]{}[sh-2]{} will give $$\begin{aligned}
(s\gamma_{ij})_{1}=-c^m\partial_m\gamma_{ij}+\frac12\gamma_{im}\left(\partial^mc_j-\partial_jc^m\right)+\frac12\gamma_{jm}\left(\partial^mc_i-\partial_ic^m\right).
\label{sg1}\end{aligned}$$
This is as far as we can go, without considering in the expansion pieces containing three $\gamma$ fields; it will however turn out to be enough for the ensuing analysis.
Dilatation and special conformal transformations
------------------------------------------------
At the classical level invariance under BRST stems from gauge invariance of the original action; in a gravitational theory therefore it arises from diffeomorphism (or coordinate transformation) invariance. Of particular relevance for the discussion that will follow, are the invariance under dilatations [@Maldacena:2002vr] and special conformal transformations[^1] [@Creminelli:2012ed], which are obtained by carrying out the following replacements of the ghost field: $$\begin{aligned}
c_m&\to\lambda x_m;& &\mathrm{dilatations},\label{dil}\\
c_m&\to b^i{\cal M}_{im}(\vec{x}\,)\equiv b^i[-\delta_{im}\vec{x}^{\,2}+2x_ix_m];& &\mathrm{special\ conformal\ transformations.}\label{sct}\end{aligned}$$ It is then immediate to realize from eq[sz0]{} that in both cases one has $$\begin{aligned}
(s\gamma)_{0}=0.
\label{zerograde}\end{aligned}$$ As a consequence:
- The two-point function $\widetilde\Gamma^{(0)}_{c^\ell\gamma^*}$ which is controlled by the antifield combination $\gamma^*(s\gamma)_{0}$ vanishes, along with all other $n$-point functions $\widetilde\Gamma^{(0)}_{c^\ell\gamma^*\zeta_1\cdots\zeta_{n-2}}$ (with $n>2$)[^2].
- The three-point function $\widetilde\Gamma^{(0)}_{c^\ell\zeta^*\gamma}$ that is controlled by the antifield combination $\zeta^*(s\zeta)_{1}$ vanishes.
As we will see, dilatations and special conformal transformations determine the leading and next to leading order in the squeezed limit expansion of a 1-PI function (or correlator) involving a soft scalar; then eq[zerograde]{} ensures that there are no graviton contributions for purely scalar functions (or correlators) at the leading and next to leading order.
\[sec:cosmological.sti\]Cosmological ST identities
==================================================
We are now in a position to work out the ST identities dictated by dilatation, diffeomorphism and special conformal invariance, ultimately showing that they coincide with the consistency relations worked out in [@Maldacena:2002vr] and [@Creminelli:2012ed]. Before doing this it is necessary however to discuss the standard formalism for computing correlation functions in cosmological models, and how these functions are related to the 1-PI functions naturally appearing in our approach.
In-in formalism
---------------
Cosmological correlation functions are computed in the so-called “in-in” formalism [@Weinberg:2005vy]. This formalism allows to evaluate expectation values of products of fields at a fixed time by imposing conditions on the fields at very early times (in the present paper chosen to be those corresponding to Bunch-Davies states [@Maldacena:2002vr]).
The correlators of products of fields at the given time $t$ are collected into a functional $W(t)$, defined as the generating functional of the “in-in” correlators. Namely by collectively denoting the quantum fields by $\delta \phi(t,\vec{x})$ and by $J(\vec{x})$ the corresponding source, $W(t)$ is given by $$W(t) = \sum_{N=2}^{\infty} \int\! {\mathrm d}^3x_1 \cdots\! \int\! {\mathrm d}^3x_N \,\frac{1}{N!} \langle \delta \phi(t,\vec{x}_1) \dots\delta \phi(t,\vec{x}_N) \rangle J(\vec{x}_1) \dots J(\vec{x}_N).
\label{eq.in.1}$$ The path-integral generating the correlators $\langle \delta \phi(t,\vec{x}_1) \dots\delta \phi(t,\vec{x}_N) \rangle $ is written in the Schwinger-Keldysh formalism [@Weinberg:2005vy]. One needs to double the fields of the theory (we call them left- and right fields, in agreement with the notation of [@Weinberg:2005vy]). Then the path-integral generating $W(t)$ can be written as ($\delta \pi$ denote the conjugate momenta to $\delta \phi$) $$\begin{aligned}
e^{W(t)/g} & = & \int \prod \delta \phi_\s{\mathrm L} \prod \delta \pi_\s{\mathrm L}\prod \delta \phi_\s{\mathrm R} \prod \delta \pi_\s{\mathrm R}\nonumber \\
& & \exp \left ( -i \int_{-\infty}^t dt' \, \frac{1}{g}
\widetilde L[\delta \phi_\s{\mathrm L}, \delta \pi_\s{\mathrm L}; t']\right ) \times \exp \left ( +i \int_{-\infty}^t dt' \, \frac{1}{g}
\widetilde L[\delta \phi_\s{\mathrm R}, \delta \pi_\s{\mathrm R}; t'] \right ) \nonumber \\
& & \times \prod \delta[\delta \phi_\s{\mathrm L}(t) - \delta \phi_\s{\mathrm R}(t)]
\times \prod \delta[\delta \pi_\s{\mathrm L}(t) - \delta \pi_\s{\mathrm R}(t)]
\times \exp\left({\frac{1}{g} \int\mathrm{d}^3 \vec{x} \, \delta \phi(\vec{x},t) J(\vec{x})}\right) \nonumber \\
& & \times \Psi_{\mathrm{vac}}[\delta \phi_\s{\mathrm L}(-\infty)] \Psi_{\mathrm{vac}}[\delta \phi_\s{\mathrm R}(-\infty)]
\label{eq.path.int}\end{aligned}$$ where $\widetilde L$ is the Lagrangian and $\Psi_\mathrm{vac}[\delta \phi]$ is the wave function of the vacuum. In the above equation we have re-installed a coupling constant $g$.
The classical approximation is recovered in the limit $g \rightarrow 0$, since by standard power-counting arguments one can show that the $g$-dependence of $W(t)$ is at loop $n$ is $g^{-n}$. The tree graphs are then recovered in the limit $g \rightarrow 0$. In this limit the path-integral (\[eq.path.int\]) is dominated by the stationary points of the Lagrangian, namely $\delta \phi_\s{\mathrm L} = \delta \phi_\s{\mathrm R} = \delta \phi_{cl}$, and $\delta \pi_\s{\mathrm L} = \delta \pi_\s{\mathrm R} = \delta \pi_{cl}$, and the classical solutions satisfy the prescribed Bunch-Davies conditions at $t= -\infty$. At the stationary point the action integrals cancel and one recovers the well-known result [@Maldacena:2002vr] that at the classical level the “in-in” correlation functions are computed by taking the product of the fields obtained as the solutions of the classical field equations with the given free-field initial conditions.
ST identity for $W(t)$ and its Legendre transform
-------------------------------------------------
In Eq.(\[eq.path.int\]) $\widetilde L$ is the gauge-fixed Lagrangian. Since the integration in the action integrals is limited to $t$, only invariance under spatial BRST transformations (i.e. those obtained by setting $c^0=0$) holds for $\widetilde L$. Assuming that the vacuum wave function $\Psi_\mathrm{vac}$ and the integral measure are also invariant under spatial diffeomorphisms, then $W(t)$, as defined in eq[eq.path.int]{}, satisfies the ST identity ($J_
\Phi$ denotes the source of the field $\Phi$) $$\begin{aligned}
\int \!\d^3x &\left[ \frac{\delta W(t)}{\delta (\delta h^*_{{ij}}(t,\vec{x}))} J_{\delta h_{ij}}(\vec{x}) +\frac{\delta W}{\delta (\delta \phi^*(t,\vec{x}))} J_{\delta \phi}(\vec{x})\right. \nonumber \\
& +\left.
\frac{\delta W}{\delta J_{b^\mu}(t,\vec{x})} J_{\bar c^\mu}(\vec{x}) +
\frac{\delta W}{\delta c^{\mu*}(t,\vec{x})} J_{c^\mu}(\vec{x}) \right] = \Delta(c^0),
\label{Wt.st} \end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta(c^0)$ is a breaking term vanishing at $c^0 = \frac{\delta W}{\delta J_{c^0}} = 0$.
The ST identity for $W(t)$ in Eq.(\[Wt.st\]) embodies relations between connected Green’s functions involving at least one insertion of the BRST transformation of the fields. Therefore it cannot be directly used to obtain the consistency conditions between the correlators of the scalar and graviton fields in the squeezed limit.
The appropriate way to recover such consistency conditions is to carry out a Legendre transformation according to $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde \G^{(0)}(t) &= W(t) + \int\!\mathrm{d}^3x\, J(\vec{x}) \, \Phi(t,\vec{x});&
\Phi(t,\vec{x}) &= \frac{\delta W(t)}{\delta J(\vec{x})},
\label{legendre.transf}\end{aligned}$$ where the superscript “(0)” reminds us that we are working at the tree (classical) level. The two-point 1-PI amplitude is then minus the inverse of the bi-spectrum, e.g., for the scalar correlator $$\Gzt(t)_{\zeta(t,\vec{x}_1) \zeta(t,\vec{x}_2)} = - \langle \zeta(t,\vec{x}_1) \zeta(t,\vec{x}_2) \rangle^{-1},
\label{2point}$$ (a similar relation holds for the graviton correlator).
Then if one sets $c^0=0$, which is possible at the classical level, where one does not need an additional source to define the composite operator $\Delta(c^0)$, one obtains the basic ST identity for the fixed time 1-PI generating functional $\widetilde \G^{(0)}(t)$, which we write in the parameterization of the metric given in Eq.(\[malconv\]) : $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal S}(\widetilde \G^{(0)}(t)) = \int\! \d^3 \vec{x}\, \Big [ & \Gzt(t)_{\zeta^*} \Gzt(t)_{\zeta}+
\Gzt(t)_{\gamma^{ij*}} \Gzt(t)_{\gamma_{ij}} \nonumber \\
& + b^\mu \Gzt(t)_{\bar c^\mu} + \Gzt(t)_{c^*_\mu} \Gzt(t)_{c^\mu} \Big ]_{c^0=0}=0 \, .
\label{eff.sti.mald.at.time.t}\end{aligned}$$ Notice that eq[brst.ghost]{} implies that $s c^0$ vanishes at $c^0=0$.
By exploiting the decomposition of the connected amplitudes in terms of the 1-PI vertices, one can easily obtain the desired consistency conditions between in-in correlators.
The only property used in the ensuing derivation is the fulfilment of the ST identity eq[eff.sti.mald.at.time.t]{}. We remark that one does not need to explicitly know the 1-PI vertices generated by $\Gzt(t)$ (apart from some regularity assumptions in the squeezed limit where one of the momenta is much smaller than the others, a condition that will be checked against explicit computations of the connected correlators available in the literature). In particular it is important to realize that $\Gzt(t)$ does not coincide with the classical action, as is already apparent from the two-point function .
In what follows we will omit the time-dependence on $\Gzt$ in order to avoid notational clutter.
Dilatations ST identities
-------------------------
### Three scalars (one soft)
The relation between the connected and 1-PI Green function for the case of three scalars is $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\zeta(\vec{x}\,')\zeta(\vec{y}\,')\zeta(\vec{z}\,')\rangle&=
\int\! \d^3 \vec{x}\!\int\! \d^3 \vec{y}\!\int\! \d^3 \vec{z}\, \langle\zeta(\vec{x}\,')\zeta(\vec{x}\,)\rangle\langle\zeta(\vec{y}\,')\zeta(\vec{y}\,)\rangle\langle\zeta(\vec{z}\,')\zeta(\vec{z}\,)\rangle\Gzt_{\zeta\zeta\zeta}(\vec{x},\vec{y},\vec{z}\,).
\label{con1PI-3zeta}\end{aligned}$$ The ST identity that controls the 1-PI function $\Gzt_{\zeta\zeta\zeta}$ can be obtained by taking two derivatives with respect to the scalar field $\zeta$ of the master equation , and setting afterwards all fields to zero. Then, using the fact that the tadpole contributions $\widetilde\Gamma^{(0)}_\zeta$ and $\widetilde\Gamma^{(0)}_{\gamma_{ij}}$ vanish, we obtain in the dilatation case $$\begin{aligned}
\int\!\d^3 \vec{w}\,&\left[\Gzt_{\zeta c^\ell\zeta^*}(\vec{y},\vec{x},\vec{w}\,)\Gzt_{\zeta\zeta}(\vec{w},\vec{z}\,)+
\Gzt_{\zeta c^\ell\zeta^*}(\vec{z},\vec{x},\vec{w}\,)\Gzt_{\zeta\zeta}(\vec{w},\vec{y}\,)+
\Gzt_{c^\ell\zeta^*}(\vec{x},\vec{w}\,)\Gzt_{\zeta\zeta\zeta}(\vec{w},\vec{y},\vec{z}\,)\right.\nonumber \\
&\left.+\Gzt_{c^\ell\gamma^*_{ij}}(\vec{x},\vec{w}\,)\Gzt_{\gamma^{ij}\zeta\zeta}(\vec{w},\vec{y},\vec{z}\,)\right]
=0.
\label{3sf}\end{aligned}$$
For the dilatation case the last term vanishes at leading order, and therefore only the 2- and 3-point functions $\Gzt_{c^\ell\zeta^*}$ and $\Gzt_{\zeta c^\ell\zeta^*}$ need to be considered. The latter are both generated by the term $\int\zeta^*(s\zeta)_{0}$ appearing in the antifield action; in particular, at the classical level, one has the results $$\begin{aligned}
\Gzt_{c^\ell\zeta^*}(\vec{x},\vec{w}\,)&=-\frac13\partial_{w^\ell}\,\delta(\vec{x}-\vec{w}\,),\label{Gczeta*}\\
\Gzt_{\zeta c^\ell\zeta^*}(\vec{y},\vec{x},\vec{w}\,)&=-\delta(\vec{y}-\vec{w}\,)\partial_{w^\ell}\delta(\vec{x}-\vec{w}\,),\end{aligned}$$ which inserted back into eq[3sf]{} gives $$\begin{aligned}
\frac13\partial_{x^\ell}\Gzt_{\zeta\zeta\zeta}(\vec{x},\vec{y},\vec{z}\,)-\partial_{x^\ell}\delta(\vec{x}-\vec{y}\,)\Gzt_{\zeta\zeta}(\vec{x},\vec{z}\,)-\partial_{x^\ell}\delta(\vec{x}-\vec{z}\,)\Gzt_{\zeta\zeta}(\vec{x},\vec{y}\,)=0.
\label{confgeneral}\end{aligned}$$
As already said, for a dilatation transformation one has $c^\ell\sim x^\ell$, so that to get back the effect of such transformation on our Green functions we need to multiply by $x^\ell$ and integrate over $\mathrm{d}^3\vec{x}$; we then obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\int\!\mathrm{d}^3\vec{x}\,\Gzt_{\zeta\zeta\zeta}(\vec{x},\vec{y},\vec{z}\,)=\left(6+\vec{y}\spr\vec{\partial}_y+\vec{z}\spr\vec\partial_z\right)\Gzt_{\zeta\zeta}(\vec{y},\vec{z}\,).
\label{3scalxspace}\end{aligned}$$ Notice the automatic appearance of the squeezed limit as the $\d^3\vec{x}$ integral ensures that the corresponding scalar field is inserted with zero momentum.
To see this explicitly, let’s now Fourier transform everything to momentum space. Using translational invariance one can set to zero say the $\vec{z}$ coordinate; using then momentum conservation $\vec{k}_2=-\vec{q}-\vec{k}_1$, so that, setting $\vec{k}_1=\vec{k}$, the first term in the equation above reads[^3] $$\begin{aligned}
\int\!\mathrm{d}^3\vec{x}\,\Gzt_{\zeta\zeta\zeta}(\vec{x},\vec{y},\vec{z}\,)&=\int\!\mathrm{d}^3\vec{x}\,\!\int\!\frac{\d^3\vec{q}}{(2\pi)^3}\,\,e^{-i\vec{q}\cdot \vec{x}}\!\int\!\frac{\d^3\vec{k}}{(2\pi)^3}\,e^{-i\vec{k}\cdot \vec{y}}\,\Gzt_{\zeta\zeta\zeta}(\vec{q},\vec{k},-\vec{q}-\vec{k}\,)\nonumber \\
&=\int\!\frac{\d^3\vec{k}}{(2\pi)^3}\,e^{-i\vec{k}\cdot \vec{y}}\,\Gzt_{\zeta\zeta\zeta}(0,\vec{k},-\vec{k}\,).\end{aligned}$$
For the second term, again making use of translational invariance and the resulting momentum conservation, one finds $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\vec{y}\spr\vec{\partial}_y+\vec{z}\spr\vec\partial_z\right)\Gzt_{\zeta\zeta}(\vec{y},\vec{z}\,)&=\vec{y}\spr\vec{\partial}_y\int\!\frac{\d^3\vec{k}}{(2\pi)^3}\,e^{-i\vec{k}\cdot \vec{y}}\,\Gzt_{\zeta\zeta}(\vec{k},-\vec{k}\,)\nonumber \\
&=-\int\!\frac{\d^3\vec{k}}{(2\pi)^3}\,e^{-i\vec{k}\cdot \vec{y}}\left(3+\vec{k}\spr\vec{\partial}_k\right)\Gzt_{\zeta\zeta}(\vec{k},-\vec{k}\,).\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, in momentum space eq[3scalxspace]{} reads $$\begin{aligned}
\Gzt_{\zeta\zeta\zeta}(0,\vec{k},-\vec{k}\,)=\left(3-\vec{k}\spr\vec{\partial}_k\right)\Gzt_{\zeta\zeta}(\vec{k},-\vec{k}\,).
\label{res1}\end{aligned}$$ This relation can be further simplified at horizon crossing, where $\Gzt_{\zeta\zeta}(\vec{k},-\vec{k}\,)\sim k^{3-n_s}$ [@Maldacena:2002vr]; thus we obtain the final result $$\begin{aligned}
\Gzt_{\zeta\zeta\zeta}(0,\vec{k},-\vec{k}\,)=n_s\Gzt_{\zeta\zeta}(\vec{k},-\vec{k}\,).
\label{malda1-1PI}\end{aligned}$$
Before moving on, notice the following. The absence of singularities in the 1-PI three-point function $\Gzt_{\zeta\zeta\zeta}(\vec{q},\vec{k}_1,\vec{k_2}\,)$ in the squeezed limit $\vec{q}\to0$ can be checked by direct inspection of the expressions given in [@Maldacena:2002vr], once one recovers the corresponding 1-PI amplitude from the connected one by multiplying the latter by the appropriate (inverse) external propagators. Thus one can write in this limit[^4] $$\begin{aligned}
\Gzt_{\zeta\zeta\zeta}({\vec q},\vec{k}_1,\vec{k_2}\,)=\Gzt_{\zeta\zeta\zeta}(0,\vec{k},-\vec{k}\,)+\left.\vec{q}\spr\vec{\partial}\,\Gzt_{\zeta\zeta\zeta}({\vec q},\vec{k}_1,\vec{k_2}\,)\right\vert_{\vec{q}=0}+{\cal O}(q^2).
\label{texp}\end{aligned}$$ Then, eq[3scalxspace]{} through show that the leading order term in this expansion is completely determined by the dilatation transformations $c^m\to\lambda x^m$; in addition, as already anticipated, the vanishing of the BRST variation of the (zero grade) graviton field under this transformation, eq[zerograde]{}, implies that there will be no graviton contribution at this order. We will see in Sect. \[SCTs\] that the next to leading order in the expansion is determined by the special conformal transformations of [@Creminelli:2012ed].
Coming back to eq[malda1-1PI]{}, as a final step let us recast this result in terms of connected Green functions in the squeezed limit $\vec{q}\to0$, evaluating the leading term of the resulting amplitude. In momentum space eq[con1PI-3zeta]{} reads $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\zeta(\vec{q}\,)\zeta(\vec{k}_1)\zeta(\vec{k}_2)\rangle&=
\langle\zeta(\vec{q}\,)\zeta(-\vec{q}\,)\rangle\langle\zeta(\vec{k}_1)\zeta(-\vec{k}_1)\rangle\langle\zeta(\vec{k}_2)\zeta(-\vec{k}_2)\rangle\Gzt_{\zeta\zeta\zeta}(\vec{q},\vec{k}_1,\vec{k}_2).
\label{con1PI-3zeta.momspace}\end{aligned}$$ Now, the 2-point correlator $\langle\zeta(\vec{q}\,)\zeta(-\vec{q}\,)\rangle$ diverges as $q^{-3}$ in this limit. On the other hand, we know that the 1-PI Green function $\Gzt_{\zeta\zeta\zeta}(\vec{q},\vec{k}_1,-\vec{k}_1-\vec{q}\,)$ is smooth in the same limit, and therefore we can safely replace $\Gzt_{\zeta\zeta\zeta}(\vec{q},\vec{k}_1,-\vec{k}_1-\vec{q}\,)$ with its value at $\vec{q}=0$. Thus, using the result eq[malda1-1PI]{} we finally obtain[^5] $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\zeta(\vec{q}\,)\zeta(\vec{k}_1)\zeta(\vec{k}_2)\rangle \underset{\vec{q}\to 0}{\sim} -n_s\langle\zeta(\vec{q}\,)\zeta(-\vec{q}\,)\rangle\langle\zeta(\vec{k}_1)\zeta(-\vec{k}_1)\rangle.
\label{malda1-con}\end{aligned}$$
### One soft scalar and two gravitons
The derivation of this ST identity is very close to what we have described in the previous case of three scalar fields. One starts from the 3-point correlator $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\zeta(\vec{x}\,')\gamma^{\lambda_1}(\vec{y}\,')\gamma^{\lambda_2}(\vec{z}\,')\rangle&=\int\! \d^3 \vec{x}\!\int\! \d^3 \vec{y}\!\int\! \d^3 \vec{z}\, \langle\zeta(\vec{x}\,')\zeta(\vec{x}\,)\rangle\sum_{\lambda,\lambda'=\pm}\epsilon^{\lambda'}_{ab}(\vec{y}\,')\epsilon^\lambda_{mn}(\vec{y}\,)\langle\gamma^{\lambda'}(\vec{y}\,')\gamma^\lambda(\vec{y}\,)\rangle\nonumber \\
&\times\sum_{\lambda,\lambda'=\pm}\epsilon^{\lambda'}_{cd}(\vec{z}\,')\epsilon^\lambda_{rs}(\vec{z}\,)\langle\gamma^{\lambda'}(\vec{z}\,')\gamma^\lambda(\vec{z}\,)\rangle\Gzt_{\zeta\gamma^{mn}\gamma^{rs}}(\vec{x},\vec{y},\vec{z}\,)\epsilon_{ab}^{\lambda_1}(\vec{y}\,')\epsilon_{cd}^{\lambda_2}(\vec{z}\,'),
\label{con1PI-1zeta2gamma}\end{aligned}$$ with the polarization tensors normalized according to $\epsilon^{\lambda\,ij}\epsilon_{ij}^{\lambda'}=2\delta^{\lambda\lambda'}$ and such that .
The ST identity governing the behavior of the three-point 1-PI function $\Gzt_{\zeta\gamma\gamma}$ is then obtained by taking two derivatives with respect to a graviton field of the master equation , and setting all fields to zero afterwards. This gives $$\begin{aligned}
\int\!\d^3 \vec{w}\,&\left[\Gzt_{\gamma^{mn}c^\ell\gamma_{ij}^*}(\vec{y},\vec{x},\vec{w})\Gzt_{\gamma^{ij}\gamma^{rs}}(\vec{w},\vec{z})+
\Gzt_{\gamma^{rs}c^\ell\gamma_{ij}^*}(\vec{z},\vec{x},\vec{w})\Gzt_{\gamma^{ij}\gamma^{mn}}(\vec{w},\vec{y})\right.\nonumber \\
&\left.+\Gzt_{c^\ell\zeta^*}(\vec{x},\vec{w}\,)\Gzt_{\zeta\gamma^{mn}\gamma^{rs}}(\vec{w},\vec{y},\vec{z}\,)+\Gzt_{c^\ell\gamma_{ij}^*}(\vec{x},\vec{w})\Gzt_{\gamma^{ij}\gamma^{mn}\gamma^{rs}}(\vec{w},\vec{y},\vec{z}\,)\right]=0,
\label{1s2g}\end{aligned}$$ with the last term in the sum being zero (at tree-level) under dilatation transformations. At tree-level we have $$\begin{aligned}
\Gzt_{\gamma_{ab}c^\ell\gamma_{ij}^*}(\vec{y},\vec{x},\vec{w}\,)&=-\delta(\vec{x}-\vec{w})\delta_{ai}\delta_{bj}\partial_{w^\ell}\delta(\vec{w}-\vec{y})\nonumber \\
&+\frac12\delta_{ai}\delta_{bm}\delta(\vec{w}-\vec{y})\left[\delta_j^\ell\partial_{w^m}\delta(\vec{x}-\vec{w})-\delta^{m\ell}\partial_{w^j}\delta(\vec{x}-\vec{w})\right]\nonumber \\
&+\frac12\delta_{aj}\delta_{bm}\delta(\vec{w}-\vec{y})\left[\delta_i^\ell\partial_{w^m}\delta(\vec{x}-\vec{w})-\delta^{m\ell}\partial_{w^i}\delta(\vec{x}-\vec{w})\right].
\label{G_gcg*}\end{aligned}$$ We now insert the equation above together with eq[Gczeta\*]{} back into eq[1s2g]{}; next we multiply by $x^\ell$ and integrate in ${\mathrm d}^3\vec{x}$ to get, in a completely analogous way to the three scalar case[^6] $$\begin{aligned}
\int\!\mathrm{d}^3\vec{x}\,\Gzt_{\zeta\gamma^{mn}\gamma^{rs}}(\vec{x},\vec{y},\vec{z}\,)=\left(6+\vec{y}\spr\vec{\partial}_y+\vec{z}\spr\vec{\partial}_z\right)\Gzt_{\gamma^{mn}\gamma^{rs}}(\vec{y},\vec{z}\,),\end{aligned}$$ and therefore, in momentum space, $$\begin{aligned}
\Gzt_{\zeta\gamma^{mn}\gamma^{rs}}(0,\vec{k},-\vec{k})&=\left(3-\vec{k}\spr\vec{\partial}_k\right)\Gzt_{\gamma^{mn}\gamma^{rs}}(\vec{k},-\vec{k}).
\label{res2}\end{aligned}$$
At horizon crossing, one has $\Gzt_{\gamma\gamma}(\vec{k},-\vec{k})\sim k^{3-n_t}$ [@Maldacena:2002vr]; thus, we get the final relation $$\begin{aligned}
\Gzt_{\zeta\gamma^{mn}\gamma^{rs}}(0,\vec{k},-\vec{k})&=n_t\Gzt_{\gamma^{mn}\gamma^{rs}}(\vec{k},-\vec{k}).
\label{malda2-1PI}\end{aligned}$$ In momentum space eq[con1PI-1zeta2gamma]{} reads $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\zeta(\vec{q}\,)\gamma^{\lambda_1}(\vec{k}\,)\gamma^{\lambda_2}(\vec{p}\,)\rangle&=\langle\zeta(\vec{q}\,)\zeta(-\vec{q}\,)\rangle\sum_{\lambda,\lambda'=\pm}\epsilon^\lambda_{ab}(\vec{k}\,)\epsilon^{\lambda'}_{mn}(-\vec{k})\langle\gamma^{\lambda'}(\vec{k}\,)\gamma^\lambda(-\vec{k}\,)\rangle\nonumber \\
&\times\sum_{\lambda,\lambda'=\pm}\epsilon^\lambda_{cd}(\vec{p}\,)\epsilon^{\lambda'}_{rs}(\vec{p}\,)\langle\gamma^{\lambda'}(-\vec{p}\,)\gamma^\lambda(\vec{p}\,)\rangle\Gzt_{\zeta\gamma^{mn}\gamma^{rs}}(\vec{q},\vec{k},\vec{p}\,)\epsilon_{ab}^{\lambda_1}(\vec{k}\,)\epsilon_{cd}^{\lambda_2}(\vec{p}\,).\end{aligned}$$ Substituting the result into the above equation, we obtain for the corresponding connected amplitude in the squeezed limit $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\zeta(\vec{q}\,)\gamma^{\lambda_1}(\vec{k}\,)\gamma^{\lambda_2}(\vec{p}\,)\rangle&\underset{\vec{q}\to0}{\sim}-n_t\langle\zeta(\vec{q}\,)\zeta(-\vec{q}\,)\rangle\sum_{\lambda,\lambda'=\pm}\epsilon^\lambda_{ab}(\vec{k}\,)\epsilon^{\lambda'}_{cd}(-\vec{k})\langle\gamma^{\lambda'}(\vec{k}\,)\gamma^\lambda(-\vec{k}\,)\rangle\epsilon_{ab}^{\lambda_1}(\vec{k}\,)\epsilon_{cd}^{\lambda_2}(\vec{-k}\,)\nonumber \\
&=-4n_t r_1(\vec{k})\delta^{\lambda_1\lambda_2}\langle\zeta(\vec{q}\,)\zeta(-\vec{q}\,)\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ For completeness we report here the expression of the correlator $\langle \gamma^{\lambda'}\gamma^\lambda\rangle$ in terms of the graviton propagator: $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\gamma^{\lambda'}(\vec{k}\,)\gamma^\lambda(-\vec{k}\,)\rangle =
\frac{1}{4} \epsilon^\lambda_{ij}(-\vec{k}\,) \epsilon^{\lambda'}_{mn}(\vec{k}\,) \Delta_{ij,mn}(\vec{k}) \, .\end{aligned}$$
Diffeomorphism ST identities
----------------------------
To exhaust the three-point sector one needs to analyze two more correlators: $\langle\gamma\zeta\zeta\rangle$ and $\langle\gamma\gamma\gamma\rangle$, in which the graviton field is now soft. The corresponding consistency conditions have nothing to do with dilatation invariance, rather, as we will see, being a result of (the more general) diffeomorphism invariance.
### One soft graviton and two scalars
The amplitude we need to consider is in momentum space $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\gamma^{\lambda_1}(\vec{q}\,)\zeta(\vec{k}\,)\zeta(\vec{p}\,)\rangle&=
\sum_{\lambda,\lambda'=\pm}\epsilon^{\lambda'}_{ab}(\vec{q}\,)\epsilon^\lambda_{mn}(-\vec{q}\,)\langle\gamma^{\lambda'}(\vec{q}\,)\gamma^\lambda(-\vec{q}\,)\rangle\langle\zeta(\vec{k}\,)\zeta(-\vec{k}\,)\rangle\nonumber \\
&\times\langle\zeta(\vec{p}\,)\zeta(-\vec{p}\,)\rangle\Gzt_{\gamma^{mn}\zeta\zeta}(\vec{q},\vec{k},\vec{p}\,)\epsilon^{\lambda_1}_{ab}(\vec{q}\,)\nonumber \\
&=2r_1(\vec{q}\,)\langle\zeta(\vec{k}\,)\zeta(-\vec{k}\,)\rangle\langle\zeta(\vec{p}\,)\zeta(-\vec{p}\,)\rangle\epsilon^{\lambda_1}_{mn}(\vec{q}\,)\Gzt_{\gamma^{mn}\zeta\zeta}(\vec{q},\vec{k},\vec{p}\,).
\label{con1PI-1gamma2zeta}\end{aligned}$$ Now observe that the 3-point function $\Gzt_{\gamma\zeta\zeta}$ admits the following form factor decomposition $$\begin{aligned}
\Gzt_{\gamma^{mn}\zeta\zeta}(\vec{q},\vec{k},\vec{p}\,)&=A\left(\delta^{mn}-\frac{q^m q^n}{q^2}\right)+B\frac{q^m q^n}{q^2}+C\frac{k^m k^n}{k^2}+D\left(\frac{k^m q^n}{q^2}+\frac{q^m k^n}{q^2}\right),
\label{deco}\end{aligned}$$ which means that the only form factor we are interested in is $C$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon^{\lambda_1}_{mn}(\vec{q}\,)\Gzt_{\gamma^{mn}\zeta\zeta}(\vec{q},\vec{k},\vec{p}\,)&=\epsilon^{\lambda_1}_{mn}(\vec{q}\,)\frac{k^m k^n}{k^2}C.\end{aligned}$$ This holds as a consequence of the divergenceless condition $q^m \epsilon^\lambda_{mn}(q)=0$ and the traceless property $\epsilon^\lambda_{mm}(q)=0$ of the graviton polarizations.
This form factor can be determined at the lowest perturbative level by resorting to the ST identity satisfied by the 3-point function $\Gzt_{\gamma\zeta\zeta}$, which has been derived in eq[3sf]{}. This clearly indicates that the sought for identity cannot be a consequence of dilatation invariance as we know that for such transformations $\Gzt_{c\gamma^*}$ vanishes, and therefore no information can be extracted for $\Gzt_{\gamma\zeta\zeta}$.
However, as a result of diffeomorphism invariance, one has $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\frac23i\delta_{mn}q^\ell-iq_n\delta_m^\ell-iq_m\delta_n^\ell\right)\Gzt_{\gamma^{mn}\zeta\zeta}(\vec{q},\vec{k},\vec{p}\,)&=\frac13iq^\ell\Gzt_{\zeta\zeta\zeta}(\vec{q},\vec{k},\vec{p}\,)+ik^\ell\Gzt_{\zeta\zeta}(\vec{p}\,)+ip^\ell\Gzt_{\zeta\zeta}(\vec{k}\,)\end{aligned}$$ which, using the decomposition leads to the two conditions (we write $\vec{p}=-\vec{q}-\vec{k}$) $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac43(A-B)+\frac23C-\frac23\frac{\vec{q}\cdot\vec{k}}{q^2}D=\frac13\Gzt_{\zeta\zeta\zeta}(\vec{q},\vec{k},-\vec{q}-\vec{k}\,)-\Gzt_{\zeta\zeta}(\vec{k}\,)\nonumber \\
&-2\frac{\vec{q}\cdot\vec{k}}{k^2}C-2D=\Gzt_{\zeta\zeta}(\vec{q}+\vec{k}\,)-\Gzt_{\zeta\zeta}(\vec{k}\,).
\label{ffacts}\end{aligned}$$ Using the fact that the two-point function is a function of $k$ only, the rhs of the last equation above admits the expansion $$\begin{aligned}
\Gzt_{\zeta\zeta}(\vec{q}+\vec{k}\,)-\Gzt_{\zeta\zeta}(\vec{k}\,)&=\vec{q}\spr\vec{\partial}_k\Gzt_{\zeta\zeta}(\vec{k}\,)+{\cal O}(q^2)\nonumber\\
&=\frac{\vec{q}\spr\vec{k}}{k^2}\left[k\partial_k \Gzt_{\zeta\zeta}(\vec{k}\,)\right]+{\cal O}(q^2).\end{aligned}$$ implying that, in the squeezed limit $\vec{q}\to0$, the second equation in will yield $$\begin{aligned}
2D\underset{\vec{q}\to0}{\sim}-\frac{\vec{q}\cdot\vec{k}}{k^2}\left[2C+k\partial_k \Gzt_{\zeta\zeta}(\vec{k}\,)\right].
\label{fres}\end{aligned}$$ From the hypothesis of the attractor background as well as the adiabaticity condition [@Berezhiani:2013ewa], we know that $\widetilde\G^{(0)}$ is analytical in the squeezed limit. It then follows that the form factors $A$ and $B$ must be equal in this limit; then, substituting the result into the first equation of , will give to leading order$$\begin{aligned}
C&\underset{\vec{q}\to0}{\sim}\frac32\frac1{1+\cos^2(\vec{q},\vec{k}\,)}\left[\frac13\Gzt_{\zeta\zeta\zeta}(0,\vec{k},-\vec{k}\,)-\Gzt_{\zeta\zeta}(\vec{k}\,)-\frac13\cos^2(\vec{q},\vec{k}\,)k\partial_k \Gzt_{\zeta\zeta}(\vec{k}\,)\right].\end{aligned}$$ where $(\vec{q},\vec{k}\,)$ represents the angle between the vectors $\vec{q}$ and $\vec{k}$.
Using finally the result , we get $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon^{\lambda_1}_{mn}(\vec{q}\,)\Gzt_{\gamma^{mn}\zeta\zeta}(\vec{q},\vec{k},\vec{p}\,)&\underset{\vec{q}\to0}{\sim}-{\epsilon^{\lambda_1}_{mn}(\vec{q}\,)k^m k^n}[\partial_{k^2}\Gzt_{\zeta\zeta}(\vec{k}\,)],\end{aligned}$$ or, at the connected level[^7] $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\gamma^{\lambda_1}(\vec{q}\,)\zeta(\vec{k}\,)\zeta(\vec{p}\,)\rangle&\underset{\vec{q}\to0}{\sim}-2r_1(\vec{q}\,){\epsilon^{\lambda_1}_{mn}(\vec{q})k^m k^n}[\partial_{k^2}\langle\zeta(\vec{k}\,)\zeta(-\vec{k}\,)\rangle].\end{aligned}$$
### Three gravitons (one soft)
The calculation of the three-graviton correlator amplitude proceeds in exactly the same way, even though its evaluation is a bit more complex from the algebraic point of view. One starts from the amplitude $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\gamma^{\lambda_1}(\vec{q}\,)\gamma^{\lambda_2}(\vec{k}\,)\gamma^{\lambda_3}(\vec{p}\,)\rangle&=\sum_{\lambda,\lambda'=\pm}\epsilon^{\lambda'}_{ab}(\vec{q}\,)\epsilon^\lambda_{mn}(-\vec{q}\,)\langle\gamma^{\lambda'}(\vec{q}\,)\gamma^\lambda(-\vec{q}\,)\rangle\epsilon_{ab}^{\lambda_1}(\vec{q}\,)\nonumber \\
&\times\sum_{\lambda,\lambda'=\pm}\epsilon^{\lambda'}_{cd}(\vec{k}\,)\epsilon^\lambda_{rs}(-\vec{q}\,)\langle\gamma^{\lambda'}(\vec{k}\,)\gamma^\lambda(-\vec{k}\,)\rangle\epsilon_{cd}^{\lambda_2}(\vec{k}\,)\nonumber \\
&\times\sum_{\lambda,\lambda'=\pm}\epsilon^{\lambda'}_{ef}(\vec{p}\,)\epsilon^\lambda_{tu}(-\vec{p}\,)\langle\gamma^{\lambda'}(\vec{p}\,)\gamma^\lambda(-\vec{p}\,)\rangle\epsilon_{ef}^{\lambda_3}(\vec{p}\,)\Gzt_{\gamma^{mn}\gamma^{rs}\gamma^{tu}}(\vec{q},\vec{k},\vec{p}\,)\nonumber\\
&=8r_1(\vec{q}\,)r_1(\vec{k}\,)r_1(\vec{p}\,)\epsilon^{\lambda_1}_{mn}(\vec{q}\,)\epsilon^{\lambda_2}_{rs}(\vec{k}\,)\epsilon^{\lambda_3}_{tu}(\vec{p}\,)\Gzt_{\gamma^{mn}\gamma^{rs}\gamma^{tu}}(\vec{q},\vec{k},\vec{p}\,).
\label{con1PI-13gamma}\end{aligned}$$ Notice that the amplitude $\epsilon^{\lambda_2}_{rs}\epsilon^{\lambda_3}_{tu}\Gzt_{\gamma^{mn}\gamma^{rs}\gamma^{tu}}$ admits exactly the form factor decomposition shown in eq[deco]{}, so that one has[^8] $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon^{\lambda_1}_{mn}(\vec{q}\,)\epsilon^{\lambda_2}_{rs}(\vec{k}\,)\epsilon^{\lambda_3}_{tu}(\vec{p}\,)\Gzt_{\gamma^{mn}\gamma^{rs}\gamma^{tu}}(\vec{q},\vec{k},\vec{p}\,)&=\epsilon^{\lambda_1}_{mn}(\vec{q}\,)\frac{k^m k^n}{k^2}C^{\lambda_2\lambda_3}\end{aligned}$$
As in the previous case the form factor $C$ can be obtained by analyzing the ST identity constraining the function $\Gamma_{\gamma\gamma\gamma}$, which has been derived in eq[1s2g]{}. As in the previous case one obtains the two conditions $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac23C^{\lambda_2\lambda_3}-\frac23\frac{\vec{q}\cdot\vec{k}}{q^2}D^{\lambda_2\lambda_3}=\epsilon^{\lambda_2}_{rs}(\vec{k}\,)\epsilon^{\lambda_3}_{tu}(\vec{p}\,)\left[\frac13\Gzt_{\zeta\gamma^{rs}\gamma^{tu}}(\vec{q},\vec{k},-\vec{k}-\vec{q}\,)-\Gzt_{\gamma^{rs}\gamma^{tu}}(\vec{k}\,)\right]+\cdots\nonumber \\
&-2\frac{\vec{q}\cdot\vec{k}}{k^2}C^{\lambda_2\lambda_3}-2D^{\lambda_2\lambda_3}=\epsilon^{\lambda_2}_{rs}(\vec{k}\,)\epsilon^{\lambda_3}_{tu}(\vec{p}\,)\frac{\vec{q}\cdot\vec{k}}{k^2}\left[k\partial_k \Gzt_{\gamma^{rs}\gamma^{tu}}(\vec{k}\,)\right]+\cdots,\end{aligned}$$ where the dots stands for terms that vanish in the squeezed limit $\vec{q}\to0$. In this limit, using the result eq[res2]{}, one then obtains at leading order $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon^{\lambda_1}_{mn}(\vec{q}\,)\epsilon^{\lambda_2}_{rs}(\vec{k}\,)\epsilon^{\lambda_3}_{tu}(\vec{p}\,)\Gzt_{\gamma^{mn}\gamma^{rs}\gamma^{tu}}(\vec{q},\vec{k},\vec{p}\,)&\underset{\vec{q}\to0}{\sim}-\epsilon^{\lambda_1}_{mn}(\vec{q}\,)\epsilon^{\lambda_2}_{rs}(\vec{k}\,)\epsilon^{\lambda_3}_{tu}(-\vec{k}\,)k^m k^n[\partial_{k^2}\Gzt_{\gamma^{rs}\gamma^{tu}}(\vec{k}\,)].\end{aligned}$$
We now take the squeezed limit of eq[con1PI-13gamma]{}, and substitute the result above by taking into account that $$\begin{aligned}
2r_1(\vec{k}\,)\epsilon^{\lambda_2}_{rs}(\vec{k}\,)2r_1(\vec{k}\,)\epsilon^{\lambda_3}_{tu}(-\vec{k}\,)[\partial_{k^2}\Gzt_{\gamma^{rs}\gamma^{tu}}(\vec{k}\,)]&=\left[\partial_{k^2}\sum_{\lambda\lambda'=\pm}\epsilon^\lambda_{rs}(\vec{k}\,)\epsilon_{tu}^{\lambda'}(-\vec{k}\,)\langle\gamma^\lambda(\vec{k}\,)\gamma^{\lambda'}(-\vec{k}\,)\rangle\right]\nonumber \\
&\times\epsilon^{\lambda_2}_{rs}(\vec{k}\,)
\epsilon^{\lambda_3}_{tu}(-\vec{k}\,),\end{aligned}$$ so we finally get the result $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\gamma^{\lambda_1}(\vec{q}\,)\gamma^{\lambda_2}(\vec{k}\,)\gamma^{\lambda_3}(\vec{p}\,)\rangle&\underset{\vec{q}\to0}{\sim}-2r_1(\vec{q}\,)\epsilon^{\lambda_1}_{mn}(\vec{q}\,)\epsilon^{\lambda_2}_{rs}(\vec{k}\,)\epsilon^{\lambda_3}_{tu}(-\vec{k}\,)k^mk^n\nonumber \\
&\times\left[\partial_{k^2}\sum_{\lambda\lambda'=\pm}\epsilon_\lambda^{rs}(\vec{k}\,)\epsilon^{tu}_{\lambda'}(-\vec{k}\,)\langle\gamma^\lambda(\vec{k}\,)\gamma^{\lambda'}(-\vec{k}\,)\rangle\right].\end{aligned}$$
Special conformal transformations ST identities\[SCTs\]
-------------------------------------------------------
For the special conformal transformations, we adopt the same procedure used in the case of dilatations; therefore, we multiply the ST identity with ${\cal M}_{im}$ defined in eq[sct]{}, integrate in $\mathrm{d}^3\vec{x}$, and, finally, Fourier transform the resulting expression.
For the term proportional to the three-point function we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\int\!\mathrm{d}^3\vec{x}\,{\cal M}_{im}(\vec{x}\,)\frac13\partial_{x^m}\Gzt_{\zeta\zeta\zeta}(\vec{x},\vec{y},\vec{z}\,)&=-2\int\!\mathrm{d}^3\vec{x}\,x_i\Gzt_{\zeta\zeta\zeta}(\vec{x},\vec{y},\vec{z}\,)\nonumber \\
&=2i\int\!\frac{\mathrm{d}^3\vec{k}_1}{(2\pi)^3}\int\!\frac{\mathrm{d}^3\vec{k}_2}{(2\pi)^3}\mathrm{e}^{-i\vec{k_1}\cdot\vec{y}}\mathrm{e}^{-i\vec{k_2}\cdot\vec{z}}\left.\partial_{q^i}\Gzt_{\zeta\zeta\zeta}(\vec{q},\vec{k}_1,\vec{k}_2\,)\right\vert_{\vec{q}=0},\end{aligned}$$ from which we see here that, as announced earlier, special conformal transformations determine (modulo a numerical factor) the next to leading order term in the squeezed limit expansion .
The second term in gives $$\begin{aligned}
\int\!\mathrm{d}^3\vec{x}\,{\cal M}_{im}(\vec{x}\,)[-\partial_{x^m}\delta(\vec{x}-\vec{y})\Gzt_{\zeta\zeta}(\vec{x},\vec{z})]=[6y_i+{\cal M}_{im}(\vec{y}\,)\partial_{y^m}]\Gzt_{\zeta\zeta}(\vec{y},\vec{z}),\end{aligned}$$ whereas the last term yields an identical result upon the replacement $\vec{y}\to\vec{z}$. Taking this into account we find after Fourier transforming the two terms the results $$\begin{aligned}
6y_i\Gzt_{\zeta\zeta}(\vec{y},\vec{z}\,)+6z_i\Gzt_{\zeta\zeta}(\vec{z},\vec{y}\,)&=-6i\int\!\frac{\mathrm{d}^3\vec{k}_1}{(2\pi)^3}\int\!\frac{\mathrm{d}^3\vec{k}_2}{(2\pi)^3}\mathrm{e}^{-i\vec{k_1}\cdot\vec{y}}\mathrm{e}^{-i\vec{k_2}\cdot\vec{z}}\sum_{a=1}^2\partial_{k_a^i}\Gzt_{\zeta\zeta}(\vec{k}_1,\vec{k}_2),
\label{vanishingterm}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal M}_{im}(\vec{y}\,)\partial_{y^m}\Gzt_{\zeta\zeta}(\vec{y},\vec{z})+{\cal M}_{im}(\vec{z}\,)\partial_{z^m}\Gzt_{\zeta\zeta}(\vec{z},\vec{y})&=i\int\!\frac{\mathrm{d}^3\vec{k}_1}{(2\pi)^3}\int\!\frac{\mathrm{d}^3\vec{k}_2}{(2\pi)^3}\mathrm{e}^{-i\vec{k_1}\cdot\vec{y}}\mathrm{e}^{-i\vec{k_2}\cdot\vec{z}}P_i\Gzt_{\zeta\zeta}(\vec{k}_1,\vec{k}_2).\end{aligned}$$ where we have defined the operator $$\begin{aligned}
P_i&=\sum_{a=1}^2\left[6\partial_{k_a^i}-k_a^i\vec{\partial}_{k_a}^{\,2}+2\vec{k}_a\spr\vec{\partial}_{k_a}{\partial}_{k_a^i}\right].
\label{sct-op}\end{aligned}$$ Putting everything together one then obtains $$\begin{aligned}
\left.\partial_{q^i}\Gzt_{\zeta\zeta\zeta}(\vec{q},\vec{k}_1,\vec{k}_2)\right\vert_{\vec{q}=0}=\frac12P_i\Gzt_{\zeta\zeta}(\vec{k}_1,\vec{k}_2)\Big\vert_{\vec{q}=0}-3\sum_{a=1}^2\partial_{k_a^i}\Gzt_{\zeta\zeta}(\vec{k}_1,\vec{k}_2)\Big\vert_{\vec{q}=0}.
\label{res5}\end{aligned}$$
To recover the result of [@Creminelli:2012ed], one needs to consider the next to leading term in the squeezed limit expansion of eq[con1PI-3zeta.momspace]{}, or $$\begin{aligned}
\left.\partial_{q^i}\langle\zeta(\vec{k}_1)\zeta(-\vec{k}_1)\rangle\langle\zeta(\vec{k}_2)\zeta(-\vec{k}_2)\rangle\Gzt_{\zeta\zeta\zeta}(\vec{q},\vec{k}_1,\vec{k}_2)]\right\vert_{\vec{q}=0}.\end{aligned}$$ It is then relatively easy to show that, using the leading order result , that $$\begin{aligned}
\left.\partial_{q^i}\langle\zeta(\vec{k}_1)\zeta(-\vec{k}_1)\rangle\langle\zeta(\vec{k}_2)\zeta(-\vec{k}_2)\rangle\right\vert_{\vec{q}=0}\Gzt_{\zeta\zeta\zeta}(0,\vec{k},-\vec{k})=\,&
6\,\partial_{k^i}\langle\zeta(\vec{k}\,)\zeta(-\vec{k}\,)\rangle+2k^j\Gzt_{\zeta\zeta}(\vec{k},-\vec{k}\,)\times\nonumber \\
&\partial_{k^j}\langle\zeta(\vec{k}\,)\zeta(-\vec{k}\,)\rangle\partial_{k^i}\langle\zeta(\vec{k}\,)\zeta(-\vec{k}\,)\rangle,
\label{part1}\end{aligned}$$ whereas, using eq[res5]{}, a lengthy (but otherwise straightforward) calculation shows that $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\zeta(\vec{k}\,)\zeta(-\vec{k}\,)\rangle^2\left.\partial_{q^i}\Gzt_{\zeta\zeta\zeta}(0,\vec{k},-\vec{k})\right\vert_{\vec{q}=0}&=\frac12P_i\Gzt_{\zeta\zeta}(\vec{k}_1,\vec{k}_2)\Big\vert_{\vec{q}=0}-6\,\partial_{k^i}\langle\zeta(\vec{k}\,)\zeta(-\vec{k}\,)\rangle\nonumber \\
&-2k^j\Gzt_{\zeta\zeta}(\vec{k},-\vec{k}\,)\partial_{k^j}\langle\zeta(\vec{k}\,)\zeta(-\vec{k}\,)\rangle\partial_{k^i}\langle\zeta(\vec{k}\,)\zeta(-\vec{k}\,)\rangle.
\label{part2}\end{aligned}$$ Summing up eqs[part1]{}[part2]{} one obtains the final result [@Creminelli:2012ed] $$\begin{aligned}
\left.\partial_{q^i}\langle\zeta(\vec{k}_1)\zeta(-\vec{k}_1)\rangle\langle\zeta(\vec{k}_2)\zeta(-\vec{k}_2)\rangle\Gzt_{\zeta\zeta\zeta}(\vec{q},\vec{k}_1,\vec{k}_2)]\right\vert_{\vec{q}=0}&=\frac12P_i\Gzt_{\zeta\zeta}(\vec{k}_1,\vec{k}_2)\Big\vert_{\vec{q}=0}.\end{aligned}$$
It is evident that, due the fact that $\vec{k}_2=-\vec{k}_1$ the right-hand side of the expression above is zero, as is also zero the 1-PI result . Thus for the three-point correlator, the next to leading term in the squeezed limit expansion vanishes, and the leading order corrections starts at ${\cal O}(q^2)$; and the latter will involve graviton corrections as at this order $(s\gamma)_{0}$ won’t be zero anymore.
Discussion and conclusions {#sec.mcc}
==========================
As we have shown in the last two sections, relations between 2- and 3-point correlators in the squeezed limit are nothing but a manifestation of ST identities. These latter identities in turn are derived from a single master consistency condition by taking one derivative with respect to the ghost field and then a certain number of derivatives with respect to fields with zero ghost number (not containing the $b$-field), setting afterwards all fields and external sources to zero. The generalization of the identities and for the scalar 1-PI $n$-point fixed-time functions is immediate, and one has $$\begin{aligned}
\Gzt_{\zeta\zeta_1\cdots\zeta_{n-1}}(0,\vec{k}_1,\dots,-\sum_{a=1}^{n-2}\vec{k}_a)&=[3(n-1)-\sum_{a=1}^{n-2}\vec{k}_a\spr\vec{\partial}_{k^a}]\Gzt_{_1\cdots\zeta_{n-1}}(\vec{k}_1,\dots,-\sum_{a=1}^{n-2}\vec{k}_a),\\
\left.\partial_{q^i}\Gzt_{\zeta\zeta_1\cdots\zeta_{n-1}}(\vec{q},\vec{k}_1,\dots,\vec{k}_{n-1})\right\vert_{\vec{q}=0}&=\frac12P_i\Gzt_{\zeta_1,\dots\zeta_{n-1}}(\vec{k}_1,\dots,-\sum_{a=1}^{n-2}\vec{k}_a)\nonumber \\
&-3\sum_{a=1}^{n-1}\partial_{k_a^i}\Gzt_{\zeta_1,\dots\zeta_{n-1}}(\vec{k}_1,\dots,-\sum_{a=1}^{n-2}\vec{k}_a).
\label{res6}\end{aligned}$$ with $P^i$ the trivial generalization of the operator . What is much less obvious and possibly deserves further investigation, is the relation between these fixed time 1-PI functions and the corresponding $n$-point connected correlators, as $\Gzt(t)$ does not correspond to the effective action.
Also, in renormalizable gauge theories the big advantage of the ST identity is that, for anomaly-free models, it survives quantization. Therefore the functional identity holding true for the tree-level action extends to the full vertex functional when radiative corrections are included. At higher orders in the loop expansion the BRST transformation gets renormalized and its effect on the master consistency condition is accounted for by the non-trivial corrections to the Green functions involving the insertion of an antifield and a ghost. When considering cosmological theories, however, the situation is much more involved. The “in-in” formalism requires a doubling of the field variables, splitting them into left and right fields. This requires a reassessment of the analysis presented here, which avoided this splitting in view of the fact that for tree graphs at fixed times, left and right fields are the same.
For the sake of completeness we work out in Appendix \[app.gauge.indip.mast\] the derivation of the identities stemming from the master consistency condition without replacing the antifield-ghost Green functions with their classical counterpart. These identities are bound to be the correct ones for any extension of the classical theory of gravity coupled to a scalar field when (even partial) radiative corrections are taken into account (see e.g. [@NeferSenoguz:2008nn; @Enqvist:2013eua]).
One should notice that the ST identity guarantees the physical unitarity of the theory, that is the cancellation of all ghost contributions. Therefore, any approximation to include quantum corrections (even within a fixed sector of the theory) needs to respect the ST identity in order to be consistent. If, on the other hand, the latter identity is broken, unphysical and potentially large numerical contributions may arise, as hinted at by the $1/\epsilon$ term in the unphysical part of the graviton propagator parameterized by $r_2$ \[see eq[grav.prop.params]{}\].
The present formalism can be extended in a straightforward way to multi-field inflationary theories [@Byrnes:2010em]. It turns out however that in general it is impossible to obtain consistency conditions arising from the ST identity and involving only correlators of the scalar and graviton metric components (for a recent discussion, see, [*e.g.*]{}, [@Kenton:2015lxa]). This is because one can use the temporal gauge-fixing condition to eliminate only one inflaton scalar fluctuation, leaving in multi field scenarios the remaining contributions to the ST identity arising from gravitationally coupled scalars.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We thank the anonymous JCAP referee for pointing out an error in an earlier version of this paper, and for his critical remarks that have helped in expanding and elucidating many aspects of the framework proposed. One of us (A.Q.) would like to thank the warm hospitality of Prof. K. Costello at Perimeter Institute, where an early version of this project was started.
Quadratic Part of the ADM Action {#app.quadratic.part.adm}
================================
We expand the ADM action in eq[ADMSi]{} up to second order in the fluctuations around the classical background. One obtains, for the gravitational part $$\begin{aligned}
S_1^{(2)} = -\frac{1}{4}\int\!{\mathrm d}t\!\int\! {\mathrm d}^3 \vec{x} \,e^{\rho} &\bigg[\frac{1}{2} \partial^k \deltag^{ij} \partial_k \deltag_{ij} - \frac{1}{2} \partial^k \deltag_i^i \partial_k \deltag_j^j+ \partial^k \deltag_i^i \partial^j \deltag_{kj} - \partial^i \deltag^{kj} \partial_j \deltag_{ki}\nonumber \\
&-2\delta{\cal N}( \partial^i \partial^j \deltag_{ij} - \partial^2 \deltag_i^i )\bigg],\nonumber\\
S^{(2)}_2 =\int\!{\mathrm d}t\!\int\! {\mathrm d}^3 \vec{x} \, e^{\rho}&\bigg[-3e^{2 \rho}\dot{\rho}^2 \delta {\cal N}^{\,2} +\delta{\cal N} \left( \frac{3}{2} e^{2 \rho} \dot{\rho}^2 \deltag_i^i -2 \dot{\rho}\, \partial^i\, {\cal N}_i + e^{2\rho} \dot{\rho}\, \dot\deltag_i^i \right) \nonumber \\
& + \frac{3}{8} e^{2 \rho} \left(2 \deltag^{ij} \deltag_{ij} - \deltag_i^i \deltag_j^j\right) \dot{\rho}^2 + \frac12e^{2\rho}\left(2\deltag^{ij}\dot{\deltag_{ij}}-\deltag_i^i\dot{\deltag_j^j}\right)\dot{\rho} \nonumber \\
& -\frac{1}{4} ( \partial_{[i} {\cal N}_{j]} \dot\deltag_{ij} - 2 \partial^i\, {\cal N}_i \dot\deltag_j^j )+ e^{-2\rho} \left ( \frac{1}{8} \partial^{[i}{\cal N}^{j]} \partial_{[i}{\cal N}_{j]} - \frac{1}{2} \partial^i\, {\cal N}_i \,\partial^j {\cal N}_j \right )\nonumber \\
& + e^{2\rho} \left ( \frac{1}{8} \dot\deltag^{ij} \dot\deltag_{ij} - \frac{1}{8} \dot\deltag_i^i \dot\deltag_j^j \right ) \bigg ],\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the symmetrization convention $v_{[a}u_{b]} = v_a u_b + v_b u_a$. The inflaton part yields instead $$\begin{aligned}
S_3^{(2)} = -\frac{1}{2} \int\!{\mathrm d}t\!\int\! {\mathrm d}^3 \vec{x} \, e^{3\rho}&\left\{-\bigg[\delta{\cal N}^{\,2}-\frac12\delta{\cal N}\deltag_i^i-\frac18( 2 \deltag^{ij} \deltag_{ij} - \deltag_i^i\deltag_j^j )
\bigg]\dot{\varphi}^2\right.&\nonumber \\
&+\left[2\delta{\cal N}-\deltag_i^i
\right]\dot{\delta\phi}\,\dot{\varphi}\,-\dot{\delta\phi}^2-2e^{-2\rho}\dot{\varphi}\,\delta\phi\,\partial^i\,{\cal N}_i\nonumber \\
&+V''(\varphi) \delta \phi^2+\left[ 2 V'(\varphi) \delta \phi + V(\varphi) \deltag_{ii} \right] \delta {\cal N}+V'(\varphi) \deltag_i^i \delta \phi \nonumber \\
&-\left.\frac14 V(\varphi)(2 \deltag^{ij} \deltag_{ij} - \deltag_i^i\deltag_j^j) +e^{-2\rho}\partial^i \delta \phi \partial_i \delta \phi\right\}.\end{aligned}$$ Due to the algebraic character of the equations of motion for the lapse and shift vector we can diagonalize the quadratic part by eliminating the mixing between ${\cal N}$, ${\cal N}^i$ and the other fields. For that purpose we collect all the terms involving the fluctuations of the lapse function or the shift vector and set $$\begin{aligned}
S^{(2)}&=\widetilde{S}^{(2)}_1+\widetilde{S}_2^{(2)}+\widetilde{S}_3^{(2)}+S^{(2)}_\s{\delta{\cal N}\textrm{-}{\cal N}^i};& \widetilde{S}_i^{(2)}&=\left.S^{(2)}_i\right\vert_{\delta{\cal N}={\cal N}_i=0},\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
S^{(2)}_\s{\delta{\cal N}\textrm{-}{\cal N}^i}=\int\!{\mathrm d}t\!\int\! {\mathrm d}^3 \vec{x} \,&\left[a\,\delta{\cal N}^{\,2}+b\,\delta{\cal N}+c\,\delta{\cal N}\partial^i\,{\cal N}_i+d\,\partial^i\,{\cal N}_i+q^{ij}\partial_{[i}{\cal N}_{j]}\right.\nonumber \\
&+\left.r\partial^{[i}{\cal N}^{j]}\partial_{[i}{\cal N}_{j]}+s\partial^i\, {\cal N}_i \,\partial^j {\cal N}_j\right],
\label{Nsector}\end{aligned}$$ and we have defined the coefficients $$\begin{aligned}
a&=-\frac12e^{3\rho}(6\dot{\rho}^2-\dot{\varphi}^2);&
b&=\frac12e^\rho( \partial^i \partial^j \deltag_{ij} - \partial^2 \deltag_i^i)+e^{3\rho}\dot{\rho}\dot{\deltag_i^i}-e^{3\rho}\dot{\varphi}\,\dot{\delta\phi}-e^{3\rho}V'(\varphi)\delta\phi;\nonumber \\
c&=-2e^{\rho}\dot{\rho};&
d&=\frac12e^{\rho}(\dot{\deltag_i^i}+2\dot{\varphi}\,\delta\phi);\nonumber \\
q_{ij}&=-\frac14e^\rho\dot{\deltag_{ij}};&
r&=\frac18e^{-\rho};\nonumber \\
s&=-\frac12e^{-\rho}.
\label{coeff1}\end{aligned}$$ Then, after the change of variable $$\begin{aligned}
\delta{\cal N}'&=\delta{\cal N}+\frac1{2a}(b+c\,\partial^i\,{\cal N}_i),\end{aligned}$$ the action eq[Nsector]{} becomes $$\begin{aligned}
S^{(2)}_\s{\delta{\cal N}\textrm{-}{\cal N}_i}&=\int\!{\mathrm d}t\!\int\! {\mathrm d}^3 \vec{x} \,\left[-\frac{b^2}{4a}+a\,\delta{\cal N}'^{\,2}+(d'\delta^{ij}+2q^{ij})\,\partial_i\,{\cal N}_j+{\cal N}^i R_{ij} {\cal N}^j\right], \end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
d'&=d-\frac{bc}{2a};& s'&=s-\frac{c^2}{4a};& R_{ij}&=-2r\delta_{ij}\partial^2 -(2r+s')\partial_i\partial_j.\end{aligned}$$ Diagonalization is eventually achieved by making the change of variables $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal N}'_i&={\cal N}_i-\frac12R_{ij}^{-1}(\partial^jd'+2\partial_k q^{jk});&
R_{ij}^{-1}&=-\frac1{2r\partial^2}\delta_{ij}+\frac1{4r+s'}\left(1+\frac{s'}{2r}\right)\frac{\partial_i\partial_j}{\partial^4},\end{aligned}$$ yielding the final result $$\begin{aligned}
S^{(2)}_\s{\delta{\cal N}\textrm{-}{\cal N}_i}&=\int\!{\mathrm d}t\!\int\! {\mathrm d}^3 \vec{x} \,\left[-\frac{b^2}{4a}-\frac14(\partial^id'+2\partial_m q^{im})R^{-1}_{ij}(\partial^jd'+2\partial_n q^{jn})+\delta{\cal N}'a\,\delta{\cal N}'+{\cal N}'_i R^{ij} {\cal N}'_j\right].
\label{Slapseshift}\end{aligned}$$ Then, in the new primed variables the equations of motion of the lapse function and shift vector are simply given by $$\begin{aligned}
\delta{\cal N}'&=0 \qquad\Longrightarrow\qquad\delta{\cal N}=-\frac b{2a}-\frac c{2a}\partial^i{\cal N}_i;\nonumber \\
{\cal N}'_i&=0 \qquad\Longrightarrow \qquad{\cal N}_i=\frac12R_{ij}^{-1}(\partial^jd'+2\partial_k q^{jk}),\end{aligned}$$ which will leave the following contribution to the remaining terms in the action $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{S}^{(2)}_\s{\delta{\cal N}\textrm{-}{\cal N}_i}&=\int\!{\mathrm d}t\!\int\! {\mathrm d}^3 \vec{x} \,\left[-\frac{b^2}{4a}-\frac14(\partial^id'+2\partial_m q^{im})R^{-1}_{ij}(\partial^jd'+2\partial_n q^{jn})\right]\nonumber \\
&=\int\!{\mathrm d}t\!\int\! {\mathrm d}^3 \vec{x} \,\left[\frac{d}{c^2}(ad-bc)+\frac{4a}{c^2}q^{im}\frac{\partial_i\partial_m}{\partial^2}\left(d'+\frac{\partial^j\partial^n}{\partial^2}q_{jn}\right)\right.\nonumber \\
&\left.\hspace{2.5cm}+\frac{q_{im}}{2r}\frac{\partial^m\partial^n}{\partial^4}\left(\partial^i\partial^j-\delta^{ij}\partial^2\right)q_{jn}\right].
\label{remainder}\end{aligned}$$
We now choose a comoving type of gauge for the scalar sector by setting $$\begin{aligned}
\delta\phi=0,
\label{como_infl}\end{aligned}$$
but leaving unspecified the gauge for the metric sector. Then we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{S}^{(2)}_\s{\delta{\cal N}\textrm{-}{\cal N}_i}&=\int\!{\mathrm d}t\!\int\! {\mathrm d}^3 \vec{x} \,\frac{e^{3\rho}}{16}\,\dot{\delta h}_{im}\left[\left(1+\frac{\dot{\varphi}^2}{2\dot\rho^2}\right)\left(\delta^{im}\delta^{jn}+\frac{\partial^i\partial^j\partial^m\partial^n}{\partial^4}\right)-4\delta^{ij}\frac{\partial^m\partial^n}{\partial^2}\right.\nonumber \\
&\left.\hspace{4cm}+2\left(1-\frac{\dot{\varphi}^2}{2\dot\rho^2}\right)\delta^{jn}\frac{\partial^i\partial^m}{\partial^2}\right]\dot{\delta h}_{jn}\nonumber \\
&-\int\!{\mathrm d}t\!\int\! {\mathrm d}^3 \vec{x} \,\frac{e^{\rho}}{8\dot\rho}\,\dot{\delta h}_{im}\frac1{\partial^2}\left(\partial^i\partial^m-\delta^{im}\partial^2\right)\left(\partial^j\partial^n-\delta^{jn}\partial^2\right)\delta h_{jn},\end{aligned}$$ with the remaining terms of the action giving $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{S}_1^{(2)} &=\int\!{\mathrm d}t\!\int\! {\mathrm d}^3 \vec{x} \,\frac{e^{\rho}}8\delta h_{im} \left[\delta^{im}\left(2\partial^j\partial^n-\delta^{jn}\partial^2\right)-\delta^{ij}\left(2\partial^m\partial^n-\delta^{mn}\partial^2\right)\right]\delta h_{jn};\nonumber \\
\widetilde{S}_3^{(2)} &=\int\!{\mathrm d}t\!\int\! {\mathrm d}^3 \vec{x} \,\frac{e^{3 \rho}}8 \left[4\dot\rho\left(2\delta h^{ij}\dot{\delta h_{ij}}-\delta h_i^i\dot{\delta h_j^j}\right)+2V\left(2\delta h^{ij}\delta h_{ij}-\delta h_i^i\delta h_j^j\right)\right.\nonumber \\
&\left.+\dot{\delta h^{ij}}\dot{\delta h_{ij}}-\dot{\delta h_i^i}\dot{\delta h_j^j}\right].\end{aligned}$$
If we were to choose the comoving gauge also for the metric sector we would set $$\begin{aligned}
\deltag_{ij}&=2\zeta\delta_{ij}+\gamma_{ij};&
\partial^i\gamma_{ij}&=0;&\gamma_i^i&=0.
\label{como}\end{aligned}$$ This would yield the lapse function and shift vector solutions[^9] $$\begin{aligned}
\delta{\cal N}&=\frac{\dot\zeta}{\dot\rho};&
{\cal N}_i&=\partial_i\psi;&
\psi&=-\frac\zeta{\dot\rho}+\chi;&
\partial^2\chi&=e^{2\rho}\frac{\dot{\varphi}^2\dot\zeta}{2\dot\rho^2}.
\label{lapse.shift.vec.eom}\end{aligned}$$ In addition, it is lengthy but straightforward to observe that $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{S}^{(2)}_\s{{\cal N},{\cal N}_i}
&=\int\!{\mathrm d}t\!\int\! {\mathrm d}^3 \vec{x} \,e^{3\rho}\left[3\dot\zeta^2+\frac{\dot{\varphi}^2\dot\zeta^2}{2\dot\rho^2}-2e^{-2\rho}\frac{\dot\zeta}{\dot\rho}\partial^2\zeta\right],\end{aligned}$$ [*i.e.*]{}, as expected tensor fluctuations do not contribute to the scalar part of the action. Then one immediately obtains for the quadratic parts of the action in the scalar fluctuation $\zeta$ $\left.\widetilde{S}^{(2)}\right\vert_{\zeta}$ and in the vector fluctuation $\left.\widetilde{S}^{(2)}\right\vert_{\gamma}$ the following results, up to irrelevant total derivative terms $$\begin{aligned}
\left.\widetilde{S}^{(2)}\right\vert_{\gamma}&=\frac{1}{8} \int\!{\mathrm d}t\!\int\! {\mathrm d}^3 \vec{x} \, \left[e^{3\rho}\dot{\gamma}^{ij}\dot{\gamma}_{ij}-e^{\rho} \partial^k \gamma^{ij} \partial_k \gamma_{ij}\right],\nonumber \\
\left.\widetilde{S}^{(2)}\right\vert_{\zeta}&=\frac12\int\!{\mathrm d}t\!\int\! {\mathrm d}^3 \vec{x} \,\frac{\dot{\varphi}^2}{\dot\rho^2}\left[e^{3\rho}\dot\zeta^2-e^\rho(\partial\zeta)^2\right].\end{aligned}$$ They match those of [@Maldacena:2002vr].
The metric propagator {#app.metric.prop}
=====================
Bi-tensor coefficients of the metric two-point function
-------------------------------------------------------
The coefficients $\theta_\alpha$ in the expansion of the metric two-point function on the basis of the bi-tensors in Eq.(\[bitensors\]) are given by the following differential operators: $$\begin{aligned}
\theta_1&=-\frac{e^{3\rho}}{16}\left[\partial_t^2-5\dot\rho\partial_t-(4V+ e^{-2\rho}\partial^2)\right];\nonumber \\
\theta_2&=\frac{e^{3\rho}}{16}\bigg(1-\frac{\dot{\varphi}^2}{2\dot\rho^2}\bigg)\partial_t^2+\frac{e^{3\rho}}{16}\bigg[-5\dot\rho-3\frac{\dot{\varphi}^2}{2\dot\rho}-\frac{\ddot{\varphi}\dot{\varphi}}{\dot\rho^2}+\frac{\dot{\varphi}^2\ddot\rho}{\dot\rho^3}-2\frac{e^{-2\rho}}{\dot\rho}\partial^2\bigg]\partial_t-\frac{e^{3\rho}}{4}V-\frac{e^{\rho}}{8}\partial^2;\nonumber \\
\theta_3&\equiv\theta_4=\frac{e^{3\rho}}{16}\partial_t^2+\frac{e^{3\rho}}{16}3\dot\rho\partial_t-\frac{e^{\rho}}{16}\partial^2;\nonumber \\
\theta_5&\equiv\theta_6=-\frac{e^{3\rho}}{16}\bigg(1-\frac{\dot{\varphi}^2}{2\dot\rho^2}\bigg)\partial_t^2-\frac{e^{3\rho}}{16}\bigg[3\dot\rho-3\frac{\dot{\varphi}^2}{2\dot\rho}-\frac{\ddot{\varphi}\dot{\varphi}}{\dot\rho^2}+\frac{\dot{\varphi}^2\ddot\rho}{\dot\rho^3}-\frac{e^{-2\rho}}{\dot\rho}\partial^2\bigg]\partial_t+\frac{e^{\rho}}{8}\partial^2;\nonumber \\
\theta_7&=-\frac{e^{3\rho}}{16}\bigg(1+\frac{\dot{\varphi}^2}{2\dot\rho^2}\bigg)\partial_t^2-\frac{e^{3\rho}}{16}\bigg[3\dot\rho+3\frac{\dot{\varphi}^2}{2\dot\rho}+\frac{\ddot{\varphi}\dot{\varphi}}{\dot\rho^2}-\frac{\dot{\varphi}^2\ddot\rho}{\dot\rho^3}+2\frac{e^{-2\rho}}{\dot\rho}\partial^2\bigg]\partial_t.
\label{thethetas}\end{aligned}$$ In the second variation of the quadratic action with respect to the metric a new set operators $\Theta_\alpha$ appears; they read $$\begin{aligned}
\Theta_\alpha=2c_\alpha(t)\partial_{t}^2+2\partial_{t}c_\alpha(t)\partial_{t}+[2a_\alpha(t)-\partial_{t}b_\alpha(t)+\partial_{t}^2c_\alpha(t)],
\label{Theta1}\end{aligned}$$ with the coefficients $a_\alpha$, $b_\alpha$ and $c_\alpha$ determined from the $\theta_\alpha$ operators in eq[thethetas]{} after casting them in the form $$\begin{aligned}
\theta_\alpha=c_\alpha(t)\partial^2_t+b_\alpha(t)\partial_t+a_\alpha(t).
\label{Theta2}\end{aligned}$$
The $\Theta_a$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{BigTheta.Eq}
& \Theta_1 = - \Theta_3 = - \Theta_4 = -\frac{1}{8} e^{3 \rho} (
\partial_t^2 + 3 \dot{\rho} \partial_t ) + \frac{1}{8} e^{\rho} \partial^2 ; \\
& \Theta_2 = - \Theta_5 = - \Theta_6 = \frac{ e^{3 \rho} }{8}\Big ( 1 - \frac{\dot{\phi}^2}{2 \dot{\rho}^2} \Big ) \partial_t^2 +
\frac{ e^{3 \rho} }{8} \Big ( 3 \dot{\rho}
- \frac{3}{2} \frac{\dot{\phi}^2}{\dot{\rho}}
- \frac{ \dot{\phi} \ddot{\phi}}{\dot{\rho}^2}
+ \frac{\ddot{\rho} \dot{\phi}^2}{ \dot{\rho}^3} \Big ) \partial_t
- \frac{e^\rho}{8} \Big ( 1 + \frac{\ddot{\rho}}{ \dot{\rho}^2} \Big ) \partial^2; \\
& \Theta_7 = -\frac{ e^{3 \rho} }{8}\Big ( 1 + \frac{\dot{\phi}^2}{2 \dot{\rho}^2} \Big ) \partial_t^2 +
\frac{ e^{3 \rho} }{8} \Big (- 3 \dot{\rho}
- \frac{3}{2} \frac{\dot{\phi}^2}{\dot{\rho}}
- \frac{ \dot{\phi} \ddot{\phi}}{\dot{\rho}^2}
+ \frac{\ddot{\rho} \dot{\phi}^2}{ \dot{\rho}^3} \Big ) \partial_t
+ \frac{e^\rho}{8} \Big ( 1 - \frac{\ddot{\rho}}{ \dot{\rho}^2} \Big ) \partial^2 \, .\end{aligned}$$
The operator $\Theta_1$ is proportional to the usual one entering into the field equation for the physical graviton modes (see e.g. Eq. (5.2.20) of [@Weinberg:2008zzc] once one takes into account the fact that the scale factor $a$ equals $e^\rho$ in our notations).
Differential equations for the metric propagator {#app.diff.eq.metric.prop}
------------------------------------------------
The inversion of the metric quadratic action in the $b$-$\delta g$ sector is relatively straightforward.
One starts by passing to (three-)momentum space, $-i\partial\to {\vec p}$. We need then to solve the following matrix equation $$\begin{aligned}
\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
\widetilde{\Gamma}_{mn}^{'(2)\, ij}({\vec p}\,) & B_a^{ij}({\vec p}\,) \\
B_{mn}^c(-{\vec p}\,)& 0
\end{array}
\right]
\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
\Delta_{rs}^{mn}({\vec p}\,) & C^{mn}_d({\vec p}\,) \\
C^a_{rs}(-{\vec p}\,)& D^a_d(-{\vec p}\,)
\end{array}
\right] =
\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
\frac12{\cal O}^{(1)\, ij}_{rs} & 0 \\
0 & \delta^b_d
\end{array}
\right]\end{aligned}$$ where eq[NL.term]{} implies $B_a^{ij}({\vec p}\,)=ip^i\delta^j_a-\frac i3p_a\delta^{ij}$. One has therefore the following four conditions to satisfy: $$\begin{aligned}
& \widetilde{\Gamma}_{mn}^{'(2)\, ij}({\vec p}\,)\Delta_{rs}^{mn}({\vec p}\,)+B_a^{ij}({\vec p}\,)C^a_{rs}(-{\vec p}\,)=\frac12{\cal O}^{(1)\, ij}_{rs}, \label{c1} \\
& \widetilde{\Gamma}_{mn}^{'(2)\, ij}({\vec p}\,)C^{mn}_d({\vec p}\,)+B_a^{ij}({\vec p}\,) D^a_d(-{\vec p}\,)=0, \label{c2}\\
& B_{mn}^c(-{\vec p}\,)\Delta_{rs}^{mn}({\vec p}\,)=0,\label{c3}\\
& B_{mn}^c(-{\vec p}\,)C^{mn}_d({\vec p}\,)=\delta^b_d.\label{c4}\end{aligned}$$
eq[c3]{} is the statement of the transversality of the metric propagator; writing $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_{rs}^{mn}({\vec p}\,)=\sum_{\alpha=1}^7r_{\alpha}(p){\cal O}^{(\alpha)\, mn}_{rs},\end{aligned}$$ it implies that in this gauge only the functions $r_1$ and $r_2$ need to be determined, whereas $$\begin{aligned}
r_3=r_4=-r_5=-r_6=-r_7=-r_1.\end{aligned}$$
The solution of eq[c4]{} is instead characterized by a single function $X$, and reads $$\begin{aligned}
C^{mn}_d({\vec p}\,)=X(p)\delta^{mn}p_d+\frac i{p^2}\left(\delta^m_dp^n+\delta^n_dp^m\right)-\frac i{2p^4}p^mp^np_d.\end{aligned}$$ eq[c2]{} can be then used to fix $X$. Writing $$\begin{aligned}
D^a_d({\vec p}\,)=\Xi_1(p)\delta^a_d+\Xi_2(p)p^ap_d, \end{aligned}$$ one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
&-p^2\Xi_1=2\left(2\Theta_1+3\Theta_2+\Theta_6\right),\\
&-ip^2\Xi_2=\left(2\Theta_3+\Theta_4+3\Theta_5+\Theta_7\right)X+\frac i{p^2}\left(-\Theta_1+\Theta_3+\Theta_4+\frac32\Theta_5+\frac32\Theta_7\right),\\
&\left(2\Theta_1+\frac32\Theta_2+\frac23\Theta_3+\frac23\Theta_4+\Theta_5+\Theta_6+\frac13\Theta_7\right)X
=0. \label{Xeq}\end{aligned}$$ Now, on the one hand, as the differential operator appearing in eq[Xeq]{} has a term that does not involve any derivative with respect to $t$, then a possible solution is provided by $X=0$. On the other hand, eq[c1]{} gives consistent equations only for $X=0$, in which case it yields the two independent relations $$\begin{aligned}
2\Theta_1 r_1&=\frac12;&
(2\Theta_1 + 3 \Theta_2 + \Theta_6)s &= \frac12.
\label{r1eq}\end{aligned}$$ where $s=r_1+r_2$. Summarizing, the inversion of the metric two-point sector is achieved by setting $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta^{mn}_{rs}(p)&=r_1\left[{\cal O}^{(1)\,mn}_{rs}-{\cal O}^{(3)\,mn}_{rs}-{\cal O}^{(4)\,mn}_{rs}+{\cal O}^{(5)\,mn}_{rs}+{\cal O}^{(6)\,mn}_{rs}+{\cal O}^{(7)\,mn}_{rs}\right]+r_2{\cal O}^{(2)\,mn}_{rs}, \label{grav.prop} \\
C^{mn}_d(p)&=\frac i{p^2}\left(\delta^m_dp^n+\delta^n_dp^m\right)-\frac i{2p^4}p^mp^np_d, \\
D^a_d(p)&=-\frac2{p^2}\delta^a_d\left(2\Theta_1+3\Theta_2+\Theta_6\right)-\frac1{p^4}p^ap_d\left(-\Theta_1+\Theta_3+\Theta_4+\frac32\Theta_5+\frac32\Theta_7\right),\end{aligned}$$ with $r_{1,2}$ determined by the differential equations above.
Identities for the connected generating functional {#app.funct}
==================================================
The connected Green functions are generated by the functional $\cal{W}$, which is formally given by the Legendre transform of the vertex functional $\G$ with respect to the fields. $\G$ is a functional of the fields of the theory, which we collectively denote by $\Phi$, and the external sources (e.g. the anti-fields, or other sources coupled to composite operators), that are denoted by $\Sigma$. One has then $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal W}[J_\Phi,\Sigma] = \Gamma[\Phi,\Sigma] + \int\!\d t\int\! \d^3 \vec{x}\, J_\Phi(t,\vec{x}\,) \Phi(t,\vec{x}\,)\end{aligned}$$ where the source $J_\zeta$, coupled to the field $\zeta$, satisfies the conditions $$\begin{aligned}
\label{src.j}
& J_\Phi(t,\vec{x}\,) = - \frac{\delta \G}{\delta \Phi(t,\vec{x}\,)} , &
\Phi(t,\vec{x}\,) = \frac{\delta {\cal W}}{\delta J_\Phi(t,\vec{x}\,)} . \end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, for the external sources $\Sigma$ the following relation holds true $$\begin{aligned}
\label{src.beta}
\frac{\delta \G}{\delta \Sigma(t,\vec{x}\,)} = \frac{\delta {\cal W}}{\delta \Sigma(t,\vec{x}\,)}. \end{aligned}$$ The temporal $b$-equation reads at the connected level $$\begin{aligned}
-J_{b_0}(t,\vec{x}\,) = \frac{\delta {\cal W}}{\delta J_{\delta \phi}(t,\vec{x}\,)}.
\label{temp.beq.conn}\end{aligned}$$ In the above equation we have denoted by $J_{b_0}$ the source coupled to $b_0$ and similarly for $J_{\delta \phi}$. Let us now take a derivative with respect to $J_{\delta \phi}$ of eq[temp.beq.conn]{}. One then sees that the $\delta \phi$-propagator is zero (we set the external sources equal to zero after differentiation): $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\delta^2 {\cal W}}{\delta J_{\delta \phi}(t,\vec{x}\,) \delta J_{\delta \phi}(t,\vec{y}) } = 0 .
\label{deltaphi.prop}\end{aligned}$$
In a similar way, by taking a derivative of eq.(\[temp.beq.conn\]) with respect to $J_{\delta h^{ij}}$ and then setting the sources to zero one has $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\delta^2 {\cal W}}{\delta J_{\delta h_{ij} }(t,\vec{x}\,) \delta J_{\delta \phi}(t,\vec{y}) } = 0 \, .
\label{deltaphi.graviton.prop}\end{aligned}$$ Finally, by taking a derivative with respect to $J_b$ of eq.(\[temp.beq.conn\]) we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\delta^2 {\cal W}}{\delta J_{b_0}(t,\vec{x}\,) \delta J_{\delta \phi}(t,\vec{y}) } = - \delta(t-t') \delta^{(3)}(\vec{x} - \vec{y})\, .
\label{deltaphi.b.prop}\end{aligned}$$ Hence the only non-vanishing propagator involving $\delta \phi$ is the mixed $b$-$\delta \phi$ one. Moreover, by the temporal $b$-equation we see that there are no interaction vertices involving $b$ and therefore one can safely set $\delta \phi=0$ everywhere in the effective action. While this is expected in a comoving gauge, this is actually a proof that the $\delta \phi=0$ condition can indeed be consistently chosen.
The spatial $b$-equation reads at the connected level $$\begin{aligned}
-J_{b^i} = \partial^k \frac{\delta {\cal W}}{\delta J_{\delta h_{ki}}(t,\vec{x}\,)} - \frac{1}{3} \partial_i \frac{\delta {\cal W}}{\delta J_{\delta h^k_k}(t,\vec{x}\,)} \, .
\label{spat.b.eq}\end{aligned}$$ By taking a derivative with respect to $\delta J_{\delta h^{mn}}$ and then setting the sources to zero one gets the transversality condition for the metric propagator of eq[c3]{}. The mixed $\delta \phi$-$\delta h$ propagator is zero, as we already know. Finally by taking a derivative of eq[spat.b.eq]{} with respect to $J_{b^i}$ one gets back eq[c2]{}.
Effective action {#effective-action .unnumbered}
----------------
The equations of motion for the lapse function and the shift vector are algebraic. It is therefore customary to replace in the action $\delta {\cal N}$ and ${\cal N}^i$ with the solution of their equations of motion. In the functional formalism this is equivalent to set the sources $J_{\delta {\cal N}}$ and $J_{{\cal N}^i}$ to zero in ${\cal W}$ and then take a Legendre transform back to the effective action $\widetilde \G$: $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde \G[\delta \phi,\delta h, b, \bar c, c; \dots] = \left . {\cal W} \right |_{J_{\delta {\cal N}} = J_{{\cal N}^i} = 0} -
{\sum_{\Phi}}' \int\! \d t\int\!\d^3 \vec{x} \, J_{\Phi} (t,\vec{x}\,) \Phi(t,\vec{x}\,)\end{aligned}$$ where the primed sum now runs over the fields with the exception of the lapse and the shift vector and the dots in the arguments of $\widetilde \G$ stand for the anti-fields and possibly other external sources coupled to composite operators.
By looking at eqs[src.j]{}[src.beta]{} it is easy to see that the effective action $\widetilde \G$ satisfies the following ST identity: $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal S}(\widetilde \G) = \int\!\d t\int\! \d^3 \vec{x}\, \left[
\Gt_{\delta h^{ij*}}\Gt_{\delta h_{ij}}
+ \Gt_{\phi^*} \Gt_{\phi}+ b^\mu \Gt_{\bar c^\mu} +
\Gt_{c^{\mu *} } \Gt_{c_\mu }
\right] = 0.\end{aligned}$$
All order ST identity {#app.gauge.indip.mast}
=====================
For completeness, in this Appendix we collect the general form of both gauge independent as well as gauge dependent relations arising from the ST identity.
Gauge independent identities
----------------------------
As remarked in Sect. \[sec.ST\], these relations are obtained by taking functional derivatives with respect to field combinations that do not involve the Nakanishi Lautrup multiplier $b$. Some of the following identities have been used in their classical approximation to recover Maldacena’s consistency conditions in the squeezed limit (see Sect. \[sec.maldacena\]).
We will give explicit expressions for all identities involving up to three insertions of $\delta \phi$ and $\delta h_{ij}$. To obtain them, we first take a derivative with respect to the ghost field $c$ and then take the derivative with respect to the field combination indicated (the notation $\widetilde \G_{\zeta_1 \dots \zeta_n \Phi^*_1 \dots \Phi^*_n}$ means that we evaluate the derivative of $\widetilde \G$ with respect to $\zeta_1 \dots \zeta_n, \Phi^*_1 \dots \Phi^*_n$ and then set the fields and external sources to zero).\
$(i)$ One derivative w.r.t $\delta h_{k l}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{master.1}
\int\left[\widetilde \G_{c^\rho \delta h^{ij*} \delta h_{k l}} \widetilde \G_{\delta h_{ij}}+
\widetilde \G_{c^\rho \delta h^{ij*}} \widetilde \G_{\delta h_{ij} \delta h_{k l}}+
\widetilde \G_{c^\rho \delta \phi^{*} \delta h_{k l}} \widetilde \G_{\delta \phi}+
\widetilde \G_{c^\rho \delta \phi^{*}} \widetilde \G_{\delta \phi \delta h_{k l}}\right] = 0.\end{aligned}$$
$(ii)$ One derivative with respect to $\delta \phi$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{master.2}
\int\left[\widetilde \G_{c^\rho \delta h^{ij*} \delta \phi} \widetilde \G_{\delta h_{ij}}+
\widetilde \G_{c^\rho \delta h^{ij*}} \widetilde \G_{\delta h_{ij} \delta \phi}+
\widetilde \G_{c^\rho \delta \phi^{*} \delta \phi} \widetilde \G_{\delta \phi}+
\widetilde \G_{c^\rho \delta \phi^{*}} \widetilde \G_{\delta \phi \delta \phi}\right] = 0.\end{aligned}$$
$(iii)$ Two derivatives with respect to $\delta h_{k l}, \delta h_{m n}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{master.3}
&\int\left[ \widetilde \G_{c^\rho \delta h^{ij*} \delta h_{k l} \delta h_{m n}} \widetilde \G_{\delta h_{ij}}+
\widetilde \G_{c^\rho \delta h^{ij*} \delta h_{k l}} \widetilde \G_{\delta h_{ij} \delta h_{m n}}+
\widetilde \G_{c^\rho \delta h^{ij*} \delta h_{m n}} \widetilde \G_{\delta h_{ij} \delta h_{k l}}+
\widetilde \G_{c^\rho \delta h^{ij*}} \widetilde \G_{\delta h_{ij} \delta h_{k l} \delta h_{m n}}\right.
\nonumber \\
&\left.+ \widetilde \G_{c^\rho \delta \phi^{*} \delta h_{k l} \delta h_{m n}} \widetilde \G_{\delta \phi}+
\widetilde \G_{c^\rho \delta \phi^{*} \delta h_{k l}} \widetilde \G_{\delta \phi \delta h_{m n}}+
\widetilde \G_{c^\rho \delta \phi^{*} \delta h_{m n}} \widetilde \G_{\delta \phi \delta h_{k l}} +
\widetilde \G_{c^\rho \delta \phi^{*}} \widetilde \G_{\delta \phi \delta h_{k l} \delta h_{m n}}\right] = 0.\end{aligned}$$
$(iv$ One derivative w.r.t $\delta h_{ij}$ and one with respect to $\delta \phi$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{master.4}
&\int\left[ \widetilde \G_{c^\rho \delta h^{ij*} \delta \phi \delta h_{k l}} \widetilde \G_{\delta h_{ij}}+
\widetilde \G_{c^\rho \delta h^{ij*} \delta h_{k l}} \widetilde \G_{\delta \phi \delta h_{ij}}+
\widetilde \G_{c^\rho \delta h^{ij*} \delta \phi} \widetilde \G_{\delta h_{ij} \delta h_{k l}}+
\widetilde \G_{c^\rho \delta h^{ij*}} \widetilde \G_{\delta \phi \delta h_{ij} \delta h_{k l}}\right.
\nonumber \\
&\left.
+\widetilde \G_{c^\rho \delta \phi^{*} \delta \phi \delta h_{k l}} \widetilde \G_{\delta \phi}+
\widetilde \G_{c^\rho \delta \phi^{*} \delta h_{k l}} \widetilde \G_{\delta \phi \delta \phi}+
\widetilde \G_{c^\rho \delta \phi^{*} \delta \phi} \widetilde \G_{\delta \phi \delta h_{k l}}
\widetilde \G_{c^\rho \delta \phi^{*}} \widetilde \G_{\delta \phi \delta \phi \delta h_{k l}}\right]= 0.\end{aligned}$$
$(v)$ Two derivatives with respect to $\delta \phi$ \[we set $\delta\phi_i=\delta\phi(z_i)$\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{master.5}
&\int\left[
\widetilde \G_{c^\rho \delta h^{ij*} \delta \phi_2 \delta \phi_1} \widetilde \G_{\delta h_{ij}}+
\widetilde \G_{c^\rho \delta h^{ij*} \delta \phi_1} \widetilde \G_{\delta \phi_2 \delta h_{ij}}+
\widetilde \G_{c^\rho \delta h^{ij*} \delta \phi_2} \widetilde \G_{\delta h_{ij} \delta \phi_1}+
\widetilde \G_{c^\rho \delta h^{ij*}} \widetilde \G_{\delta h_{ij} \delta \phi_2 \delta \phi_1}\right. \nonumber \\
&\left.
+\widetilde \G_{c^\rho \delta \phi^{*} \delta \phi_2 \delta \phi_1} \widetilde \G_{\delta \phi}+
\widetilde \G_{c^\rho \delta \phi^{*} \delta \phi_1} \widetilde \G_{\delta \phi_2 \delta \phi}+
\widetilde \G_{c^\rho \delta \phi^{*} \delta \phi_2} \widetilde \G_{\delta \phi_1 \delta \phi} +
\widetilde \G_{c^\rho \delta \phi^{*}} \widetilde \G_{\delta \phi_2 \delta \phi_1 \delta \phi}\right] = 0.\end{aligned}$$
Gauge-dependent identities
--------------------------
We now take a derivative with respect to $c^\rho$ and w.r.t $b^\mu$ of eq[eff.sti]{} and set the ghost field to zero.In order to be concrete we use the comoving gauge and the transverse gauge-fixing condition for the spatial part of the metric discussed in Sect. \[sec.brst.gf\]. One gets the following formula $$\begin{aligned}
\int\Gt_{c^\rho \bar c^\mu} = - \int\left[\left(- \delta_{j\mu} \partial_i + \frac{1}{3} \delta_{\mu s} \hat g_{ij} \partial_s \right)
\Gt_{c^\rho h^*_{ij}}
+ \delta_{\mu 0} \Gt_{\delta c^\rho \delta \phi^*} \right],
\label{ghost.sti}\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the temporal and spatial $b$-equations in order to obtain the explicit form of $\Gt_{b^\mu \delta h_{ij}}$ and of $\Gt_{b^\mu \delta \phi}$, which depend on the specific gauge choice. We can further differentiate eq[ghost.sti]{} with respect to $\delta h$ and $\delta \phi$, as being linear in the fluctuations, they cannot receive quantum corrections.
The relations found has a simple interpretation in this sector. Indeed, by taking the functional derivatives of both sides of Eq.(\[ghost.sti\]) with respect to the metric or inflaton fluctuations, one sees that the Green function with one anti-ghost and one ghost and any number of $\delta h$ and $\delta \phi$ fields is determined in terms of the corresponding insertions on the rhs of eq[ghost.sti]{} with the relevant anti-fields.
[25]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, ****, (), .
, , , ****, (), .
, , , ****, (), .
, , , ****, (), .
, ****, (), .
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
(), .
(), .
, ****, (), .
, ****, ().
, , , ****, (), .
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, (), .
, , , , ****, (), .
, , , ****, (), .
, ****, ().
, **** ().
, , , ****, (), .
, ****, (), .
, ****, (), .
, ****, (), .
, ****, (), .
, ****, (), .
, ** (), <http://www.oup.com/uk/catalogue/?ci=9780198526827>.
Z. Kenton and D. J. Mulryne, JCAP [**1510**]{}, no. 10, 018 (2015) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2015/10/018 \[arXiv:1507.08629 \[astro-ph.CO\]\].
[^1]: These transformations of the spatial coordinates are related to certain isometries of de Sitter space (besides translations, rotations and dilatations) taken at large times [@Creminelli:2012ed].
[^2]: These functions vanish in general for the classical case. This is because eq[sg0]{} contains no coupling to the $\zeta$ field and the BRST variations found are all order expressions in the $\zeta$ field.
[^3]: Here and in the entire ensuing analysis we will omit from all correlation functions the overall momentum conserving delta function $(2\pi)^3\delta(\sum\vec{k})$.
[^4]: Notice however that, in general, there might be singularities in the effective action $\Gzt$. This is because it contains diagrams that are one-particle reducible with respect to the lapse and the shift vector; thus, once one eliminates these auxiliary fields through their equations of motion, the appearance of $1/\partial^2$ terms in $\psi$ in eq[lapse.shift.vec.eom]{} via the dependence on $\chi$ might in principle yield singularities at zero momentum in some kinematical soft configurations.
[^5]: Within our convention on the Legendre transform one has that the inverse of the propagator is [*minus*]{} the two-point 1-PI function: ${\cal W}(t)_{J_\Phi J_\Phi}\widetilde\Gamma^{(0)}_{\Phi\Phi}=-1$, with ${W}(t)_{J_\Phi J_\Phi}\equiv\langle\Phi\Phi\rangle$.
[^6]: Notice that under the dilatation transformation the only non-zero term in eq[G\_gcg\*]{} is the first one.
[^7]: We use ${W}(t)_{J_\Phi J_\Phi}\widetilde{\Gamma}^{(0)}_{\Phi\Phi}=-1$, which implies .
[^8]: Obviously, in this case the form factors depend on the helicities $\lambda_2$ and $\lambda_3$
[^9]: A second gauge choice could have been $$\delta\phi=\widetilde{\varphi}(t,\vec x);\qquad \deltag_{ij}=\gamma_{ij};\qquad
\partial_i\gamma_{ij}=0;\qquad\gamma_{ii}=0,$$ in which case one immediately obtains $$\delta N=\frac{\dot{\varphi}}{2\dot\rho}\widetilde{\varphi};\qquad {\cal N}_i=\partial_i\chi;\qquad
\partial^2\chi=e^{2\rho}\frac{\dot{\varphi}^2}{2\dot\rho^2}\frac{\mathrm d}{{\mathrm d}t}\left[-\frac{\dot\rho}{\dot{\varphi}}\widetilde{\varphi}\right].$$
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'With the ever increasing application of Convolutional Neural Networks to customer products the need emerges for models to efficiently run on embedded, mobile hardware. Slimmer models have therefore become a hot research topic with various approaches which vary from binary networks to revised convolution layers. We offer our contribution to the latter and propose a novel convolution block which significantly reduces the computational burden while surpassing the current state-of-the-art. Our model, dubbed EffNet, is optimised for models which are slim to begin with and is created to tackle issues in existing models such as MobileNet and ShuffleNet.'
bibliography:
- 'strings.bib'
- 'refs.bib'
title: 'EN: An Efficient Structure for Convolutional Neural Networks'
---
convolutional neural networks, computational efficiency, real-time inference
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Tomomi Sunayama,'
- 'Masahiro Takada,'
- 'Martin Reinecke,'
- 'Ryu Makiya,'
- 'Takahiro Nishimichi,'
- 'Eiichiro Komatsu,'
- 'Shun Saito,'
- 'Naoyuki Tamura,'
- Kiyoto Yabe
bibliography:
- 'refs.bib'
title: Mitigating the impact of fiber assignment on clustering measurements from deep galaxy redshift surveys
---
\
\
\
YITP-19-121\
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Clustering of galaxies can be faithfully measured from spectroscopic surveys as long as the selection of galaxies is fair. However, practical constraints often violate fair sampling.
The well known example is the fiber collision. Fibers cannot be placed to galaxies which are too close to each other in the angular separation. This alters the measured clustering because spectra of targets in over-dense regions are taken less frequently. There are two approaches to mitigate this effect. One approach is the so-called “nearest neighbor” method [@Zehavi_etal2005; @Hahn_etal2017; @Berlind_etal2006; @Yang_etal2019], which is based on the assumption that two objects close in angular positions are physically close. We then weight galaxies by the number of nearby galaxies we cannot observe. The other approach is to weight galaxy pairs by the angular correlation function of the target galaxies [@Hawkins_etal2003; @Li_etal2006; @White_etal2011; @Okumura_etal2016].
These methods work only for relatively shallow surveys such as SDSS/BOSS [@Alam_etal2015], for which objects close in angular positions are likely physically close, and the angular correlation of target galaxies contains meaningful information. Unfortunately, both conditions are violated by the upcoming deep spectroscopic surveys with the Subaru Prime Focus Spectrograph (PFS) [@Takada_etal2014] and the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) [@desi1; @desi2]. In the PFS cosmology survey, we observe emission line galaxies (ELGs) in the wide redshift range from $z=0.6$ to $2.4$ over $1400~{\rm deg}^2$. The DESI survey also targets ELGs from $z=0.6$ to $1.6$ over $15000~{\rm deg}^2$. Both PFS and DESI surveys are much deeper than SDSS/BOSS; thus, it is less likely than BOSS that two galaxies close in the angular separation are physically close. Moreover, the distribution of target galaxies in sky is close to uniform due to a wide redshift range of the surveys. The DESI team considered two ways to unbias clustering measurements. One way is to generate random catalogs with angular positions selected from the observed galaxies [@Burden_etal2017; @Pinol_etal2017]. The other way is to up-weight galaxy pairs by the inverse of the probability that a pair of galaxies is observed [@Bianchi_etal2018; @BianchiPercival2017; @Smith_etal2019].
The PFS survey is significantly deeper than DESI; thus, the above effects are exacerbated. The PFS will have many more target galaxies than it can place fibers on. This leads to a new effect, which we investigate in this paper. We shall show how the PFS cosmology fiber assignment affects clustering measurements, and how to mitigate the issues. The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we give an overview of the PFS cosmology survey, its fiber assignment algorithm, and the galaxy mocks we use for our analysis. In Section 3, we present how the PFS fiber assignment alters the clustering measurement. In Section 4, we discuss how to mitigate the effects. We conclude in Section 5.
Specifications of the PFS cosmology survey {#sec:overview}
==========================================
The PFS is a massively multiplexed, optical and near-infrared spectrometer, mounted at the prime focus of the 8.2m Subaru Telescope [@2016SPIE.9908E..1MT]. It is now under construction. Its focal plane is equipped with 2394 robotically reconfigurable fibers distributed over the 1.3-degree wide hexagonal field-of-view, as illustrated in the top panel of Fig. \[fig:tileratio\_ets1\][^1]. The spectrograph system is designed to cover a wide range of wavelengths from 380 to 1260 nm in a single exposure.
In this section, we provide an overview of the PFS cosmology survey design and discuss details of the fiber assignment algorithm used in the PFS cosmology. We also describe the galaxy mock catalog we use in this paper.
Survey design: tiling and fiber assignment
------------------------------------------
The PFS cosmology program aims at mapping the three-dimensional distribution of about 4 million [[\[[Oii]{}\]]{}]{} ELGs up to $z=2.4$ given the wavelength coverage of PFS [@Takada_etal2014]. We use the pre-existing, deep multi-color imaging catalog of the Subaru Hyper Suprime-Cam (HSC) survey [@2018PASJ...70S...4A] to construct a catalog of target galaxies. The HSC survey has a depth of $i\sim 26$ ($5\sigma$ for a point source with $2^{\prime\prime}$ aperture), and 5 passbands $grizy$ in each field over about 1400 deg$^2$. We select target galaxies using magnitude and color information [@Takada_etal2014].
![\[fig:tileratio\_ets1\] [*Top*]{}: An illustration of the configuration of 2394 fiber-fed positioners in the focal plane of PFS, taken from Ref. [@Shimono2016]. The shaded hexagon region in the middle left panel denotes the field-of-view corresponding to about 1.25 deg$^2$ on the sky. Each positioner has two motors to cover its patrol area to allocate its fiber to a desired target (denoted by the dashed black circle in the top left panel). The two panels in the right show configurations of the patrol areas of positioners (black circles) and dead “dot” regions (grey circles) at two different locations in the focal plane. Target galaxies cannot be observed in the dot regions. [*Bottom*]{}: The default tiling strategy of the PFS cosmology survey. The blue points show the distribution of target galaxies in $0.6<z<1.2$, taken from the mock catalog.](pfs_cobra_mono.png "fig:"){width="80.00000%"} ![\[fig:tileratio\_ets1\] [*Top*]{}: An illustration of the configuration of 2394 fiber-fed positioners in the focal plane of PFS, taken from Ref. [@Shimono2016]. The shaded hexagon region in the middle left panel denotes the field-of-view corresponding to about 1.25 deg$^2$ on the sky. Each positioner has two motors to cover its patrol area to allocate its fiber to a desired target (denoted by the dashed black circle in the top left panel). The two panels in the right show configurations of the patrol areas of positioners (black circles) and dead “dot” regions (grey circles) at two different locations in the focal plane. Target galaxies cannot be observed in the dot regions. [*Bottom*]{}: The default tiling strategy of the PFS cosmology survey. The blue points show the distribution of target galaxies in $0.6<z<1.2$, taken from the mock catalog.](tiles.png "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}
There are two factors to consider, “completeness” and “success rate”, when defining an optimal design/strategy of the PFS cosmology survey. The completeness is defined as the ratio of the number of fiber-assigned (observed) galaxies to the number of targets in each field, whereas the success rate is defined as the ratio of the number of successful redshift measurements to the number of fiber-assigned galaxies. An optimal survey design will have both high completeness and high success rate.
To explore an optimal survey design of the PFS cosmology program, we first need to understand the key difference between the PFS and the previous spectroscopic surveys such as BOSS [@eisenstein2001]. First, each fiber positioner of PFS has a finite “patrol” area within which the fiber can move to a desired target (see Fig. \[fig:tileratio\_ets1\]). The efficiency of allocating the 2394 fibers to input targets can be calculated as follows. Suppose that each positioner has “$m$” target galaxies within its patrol area on average. Since the PFS program observes galaxies over a wide redshift range of $0.6\le z\le 2.4$, the angular distribution of target galaxies on the sky is safely considered as homogeneous; thus, we can assume the number of target galaxies for each positioner follows a Poisson distribution with the mean “$m$” (here we ignore the overlapping regions of neighboring positioners’ patrol areas for simplicity). Assuming a two-visit observation of each field [@Takada_etal2014] the efficiency of fiber allocation to targets is given by $$\begin{aligned}
E&= 1- P(n=0) - \frac{1}{2}P(n=1) \nonumber\\
&= 1 - e^{-m} - \frac{1}{2}m e^{-m},
\label{eq:efficiency}\end{aligned}$$ where $P(n)=(m^n/n!)e^{-m}$ is the probability that a fiber (positioner) has $n$ target galaxies in its patrol area. The term with $P(n=0)$ in the first line on the r.h.s. gives a probability that the fiber does not have any target ($n=0$), therefore zero efficiency. The term with $P(n=1)$ gives a probability that the fiber has only one target galaxy; therefore the galaxy is surely observed in either of the two visits, leading to 50% ($=1/2$) efficiency.
As shown in Ref. [@Takada_etal2014], if we feed 8000 target galaxies into each field ($m=8000/2394\simeq 3.3$), the efficiency is $E\simeq 0.90$. With this number of targets, we could make a reasonably good use of the high PFS multiplexity. In this case, the completeness is given by $2\times 2394\times 0.9/8000\simeq 0.54$, i.e. 54% completeness. This can be compared to the BOSS, which reached about 90% completeness. If we had more than 8000 targets, the completeness would become even lower.
The low completeness results in non-uniform sampling of galaxies. If a positioner has 1 or 2 targets within its patrol area, those galaxies are surely observed during the two visits. If a fiber has 3 or more targets, only 2 galaxies are observed. This causes a non-uniform (non-random) sampling of target galaxies. Compared to this, BOSS observed almost all target galaxies due to the high completeness. In addition, most of galaxies which are close in angular separations in the PFS survey are likely due to a chance projection of multiple galaxies at different redshifts. In BOSS, they are likely physically close.
The success rate will multiply the completeness, further reducing the number of successful redshift measurements in each field. Ref. [@Takada_etal2014] estimated about 74% success rate using the COSMOS mock catalog [@Jouvel2009] that gives a model estimate of [[\[[Oii]{}\]]{}]{} strength as a function of the HSC broadband photometry of each target galaxy.
With this survey design, we can cover 1400 deg$^2$ with reasonably high number density of galaxies over $0.6\le z\le 2.4$, using about 100 Subaru nights (including the 0.7 weather factor). The lower panel of Fig. \[fig:tileratio\_ets1\] illustrates the survey strategy; it has two visits for each field with a large dithering pattern, separated by about radius of the hexagonal Field-of-View (FoV) between the two visits. Throughout this paper, we call each hexagonal region in the lower panel of Fig. \[fig:tileratio\_ets1\] a “tile”.
In summary, the PFS cosmology survey differs from BOSS in three aspects:
- The PFS survey has a low ($\approx$ 50%) completeness, whereas BOSS has about 90% completeness.
- In the PFS survey, we have 4788 available fibers for roughly 8000 target galaxies in each field with two visits. In BOSS, there are 1000 available fibers for roughly 600 galaxies, which enables almost uniform sampling.
- The non-uniform sampling of target galaxies due to the limited patrol area of each fiber positioner.
These differences cause different systematic effects in the clustering measurements from the PFS survey, and we develop a method to correct them.
Exposure Targeting Software (ETS) {#sec:ETS}
---------------------------------
To simulate the fiber assignments to target galaxies in a galaxy survey, we use the fiber assignment software, Exposure Targeting Software (ETS)[^2], developed by the PFS project [@Shimono2016]. The ETS requires an input file containing RA and DEC of target galaxies with priority. We run the ETS on the mock catalogs to simulate the fiber assignment, which allows us to include all possible effects of tiling and fiber assignments on the clustering measurements. Here we assume the same priority for all mock target galaxies.
We have several options to choose for an algorithm to determine how to assign each fiber to a target in the list. In this paper we employ a “naive” algorithm, which assigns a fiber to a target with the highest priority among all the available targets within the patrol area. If there are multiple targets with the same priority, it selects one target randomly.
Light-cone mock catalogs of target galaxies in a PFS-like survey {#sec:mocks}
----------------------------------------------------------------
To make a quantitative study of the effects of tiling and fiber assignment, we use mock catalogs of target galaxies in a light-cone volume of $0.6\le z\le 2.4$. We generate the mock catalogs using the publicly available code, ${\tt lognormal\_galaxies}$[^3], as developed in Ref. [@Agrawal_etal2017].
The code generates the grid-based log-normal density field with a given input power spectrum. We use the linear matter power spectrum to generate the matter density field (used to compute the velocity field) and the matter power spectrum times the linear bias squared to generate the galaxy density field. The matter power spectrum is calculated by [CAMB]{}[@camb] assuming the $\Lambda$CDM model with the [*Planck*]{} 2015 cosmological parameters [@Planck2015cosmoparams]. The code then generates an integer number of galaxies in each grid from the galaxy density field by the Poisson distribution with mean given by the input. Finally, the code places the generated galaxies at random positions within each grid; that is, we ignore clustering of galaxies at scales below the grid size.
The code also allows us to generate the grid-based peculiar velocity field of galaxies from the underlying matter density field. First we generate the peculiar velocity field in Fourier space by using the linear continuity equation $$\begin{aligned}
\bm{v}(\bm{k}) = i\mathcal{H}f\frac{\bm{k}}{k^2}\delta_m(\bm{k}),\end{aligned}$$ where $\bm{k}$ is a wavenumber vector of each Fourier grid, $\mathcal{H} \equiv aH$ with the scale factor $a$ and the Hubble expansion rate $H=\dot a/a$, $f = d\ln{D}/d \ln{a}$ is the logarithmic growth rate with the linear growth factor $D$, and $\delta_m$ is the matter density field. We then Fourier transform $\bm{v}(\bm{k})$ to configuration space. Note that we assume that all the galaxies in the same grid have the same peculiar velocity.
As the log-normal method is an approximated method, it cannot fully reproduce detailed properties of clustering in the large-scale structure such as higher-order moments. However, it is sufficient for the purpose of this paper, which is to quantitatively evaluate the fiber assignment effects on two-point correlation functions. An advantage of the log-normal model is that it allows us to generate a large number of mock catalogs in the light-cone volume.
Following the nominal survey design of the PFS cosmology program given in Ref. [@Takada_etal2014], we generate mock catalogs of galaxies in 7 redshift slices, as summarized in Table \[table:cone\]. The table also gives the assumed linear bias parameter of galaxies in each redshift slice. In this paper, we focus on one of the spatially-contiguous regions corresponding to the “Fall equatorial field” in the HSC-Wide survey footprints as given in Table 5 of Ref. [@2018PASJ...70S...4A], since the PFS redshift survey is based on a spectroscopic follow-up observation of the HSC galaxies. The area is about 630 deg$^2$, and in the following we use 100 realizations of the mock catalogs to have sufficient statistics. Due to the configuration of the log-normal simulations, the survey area for the mock catalogs is 560 deg$^2$. The grid size is $97.5/1024\simeq 0.095~{\rm degrees}$ on a side, corresponding to about 3–6 $h^{-1}$Mpc over the redshift range of the survey.
----------- ------------- ----------------------- ----------------------- ----------------------- ----------------------- -------
$z$-slice $z$-range $L_{x}$ $L_{y}$ $L_{z}$ $10^4\bar{n}_{\rm g}$ $b_g$
\[$h^{-1}{\rm Mpc}$\] \[$h^{-1}{\rm Mpc}$\] \[$h^{-1}{\rm Mpc}$\] $[h^3{\rm Mpc}^{-3}]$
slice1 \[0.6,0.8\] 2129 243 401 5.4 1.18
slice2 \[0.8,1.0\] 2591 296 355 17.2 1.26
slice3 \[1.0,1.2\] 3000 343 316 16.6 1.34
slice4 \[1.2,1.4\] 3365 385 282 22.4 1.42
slice5 \[1.4,1.6\] 3692 422 253 15.8 1.50
slice6 \[1.6,2.0\] 4123 471 434 7.2 1.62
slice7 \[2.0,2.4\] 4607 527 361 7.8 1.78
----------- ------------- ----------------------- ----------------------- ----------------------- ----------------------- -------
: \[table:cone\] Details of target galaxies in 7 redshift slices, generated from the log-normal mock catalogs of light-cone volume. $\bar{n}_{\rm g}$ denotes the mean number density of target galaxies (not fiber-assigned galaxies) in each redshift slice, and $b_{\rm g}$ is the linear galaxy bias parameter. $L_x$, $L_y$ and $L_z$ denote the comoving side lengths of three-dimensional volume at each redshift, where $L_z$ is the width in the line-of-sight direction.
Fiber assignment artifacts {#sec:ets_effects}
==========================
To investigate the effects of fiber assignment on the clustering measurements, we run the ETS on each of 100 log-normal mock galaxy catalogs. Here we consider the distribution of pointings of the hexagonal FoV as given in the lower panel of Fig. \[fig:tileratio\_ets1\]. We assume a 100% success rate of redshift determination for fiber-assigned galaxies in the mock; that is, we do not include a failure of the redshift measurement for simplicity as the purpose of this paper is to study the effects of tiling and fiber assignments.
For each mock we estimate the two-point correlation function using the Landy-Szalay estimator [@LandySzalay1993]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:CF}
\xi(r,\mu)=\frac{DD(r,\mu)-2DR(r,\mu)+RR(r,\mu)}{RR(r,\mu)}, \end{aligned}$$ where $DD(r,\mu)$ is the number of galaxy pairs separated by $r$ with cosine angle $\mu$ between the direction connecting the pair and the line-of-sight (LOS) direction, $RR(r,\mu)$ is the number of pairs in the random catalog, and $DR(r,\mu)$ is the number of pairs of galaxy and random catalogs. Note that these pair counts in bins are normalized appropriately according to the total number of pairs in each category. We use the plane-parallel approximation and take the $z$-axis as the LOS direction. We compute RA and DEC from comoving coordinates in the transverse directions ($x$ and $y$ coordinates) of galaxies in the mock scaled by the angular diameter distances, such that the side lengths $L_x$ and $L_y$ of the simulation box at each redshift slice scale to 70 deg and 8 deg, respectively. We use linearly spaced bins; $\Delta r=2~h^{-1}{\rm Mpc}$ bin width from $r=2$ to $200~h^{-1}{\rm Mpc}$ and $\Delta \mu=0.05$ in $\mu=[0,1]$ (note that we can always choose the pair-separation vector such that the direction cosine $\mu$ is non-negative). We first generate 10 random samples with the same number density as the target galaxy catalog, and run the ETS in each random sample to encode geometrical artifacts due to tiling. Then, we combine these 10 random samples to create one random catalog.
{width="48.00000%"} {width="48.00000%"}
Here we consider the real-space correlation function for clarity of the nature of problems. The left panel of Fig. \[fig:ets1\] compares the correlation functions of galaxies before and after the ETS at $z=1.3$. The redshift slice of $z=1.3$ has the highest number density (see Table \[table:cone\]), and the results from the other redshift slices are similar. We here consider the correlation function averaged over the angle, i.e., the $\mu$ bins. We find that the ETS modifies the correlation function at all scales, which may appear surprising at first because the comoving length of one tile at $z=1.3$ is $50~h^{-1}{\rm Mpc}$ in the transverse direction. We explain the reason behind this in the next Section. These results are different from those of Refs. [@Burden_etal2017; @Pinol_etal2017] from a simulation of the DESI-like fiber assignments. They showed a smaller systematic error in the correlation function, and the error exists only at $r<100~h^{-1}{\rm Mpc}$. However, they considered a single redshift slice (treated a single simulation box for the redshift survey), and did not include multiple redshift slices taken from the light-cone volume.
The right panel shows the ratio of the correlation functions before and after the ETS. We show the ratios for the angle-averaged correlation functions (blue) as well as for those of transverse ($\mu<0.2$) and LOS ($\mu>0.8$) correlation functions. We find that the fiber assignment produces a $\mu$-dependent correlation function even for the real-space galaxy distribution (i.e. we ignored redshift space distortion in each mock). We find that the LOS direction is more strongly affected by the fiber assignments. Any anisotropy shown here is due to a non-uniform sampling of target galaxies that violates statistical isotropy.
Mitigation of tiling and fiber-assignments effects in the clustering measurements {#sec:random}
=================================================================================
The bias seen in Fig.\[fig:ets1\] is caused by two effects: the tiling of the survey field and the fiber assignment. In this Section, we explain and correct each effect.
Tiling {#subsec:tiling}
------
![\[fig:pic\_long\] An illustration of the tiling effect on the clustering measurement for a low-completeness (e.g. 50%) survey such as the PFS survey. The rectangular shapes represent individual tiles. The number of targets in each tile is generally modulated by the density fluctuations of large-scale structure with wavelengths greater than the tile size (the gray curve in the left figure). If we can observe only a fixed number of galaxies in each tile due to the fixed number of fibers in the focal plane of the spectrograph, we cannot capture the long-wavelength modes. ](pic_long.png){width="90.00000%"}
Fig. \[fig:pic\_long\] illustrates the problem. Limiting the number of observed galaxies to the number of available fibers reduces the correlation function amplitude, when the number of target galaxies is much larger than the number of fibers. The number of target galaxies varies from tile to tile because of the density fluctuation with wavelengths longer than the tile size. However, this long-wavelength mode fluctuation in each tile cannot be captured if the number of observed targets is limited to the number of available fibers. This was not a problem for the previous spectroscopic galaxy surveys such as BOSS, because the completeness was quite high, above 90% as described in Section \[sec:overview\]. On the other hand, the PFS cosmology survey aims for only 50% completeness.
To recover the long-wavelength fluctuations, we weight observed galaxies in each tile by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:CF}
w_i=\frac{N_{\rm target,i}}{N_{\rm obs,i}}, \end{aligned}$$ where $N_{\rm target,i}$ is the number of target galaxies in the $i$-th tile and $N_{\rm obs,i}$ is the number of observed galaxies. The modulation in the number of targets over different tiles is a result of the LOS projection, and the modulation does not necessarily reflect the number modulation of targets in a particular redshift slice. Fig. \[fig:scatter\_weight\] shows the correlation between $\delta N_{\rm lc}/\bar{N}_{\rm lc}$ and $\delta N_{\rm z=1.3}/\bar{N}_{\rm z=1.3}$, where $\delta N=N_i-\bar{N}$ and $N_i$ is the number of galaxies in the $i$-th tile. We find that the modulation in the number of targets over the light-cone volume is strongly correlated with the modulation in a particular redshift slice. We find similar correlations for the other redshift slices.
![\[fig:scatter\_weight\] The scatter distribution of the number of targets, measured from one realization of the mock catalog with the ETS. Each point represents one tile, and there are 377 points corresponding to 560 deg$^2$ (simulated area) in total. The $x$-axis denotes the number density fluctuation in each tile from the entire light-cone volume, $\delta N_{\rm lc}/\bar{N}_{\rm lc}$, which is a direct observable in the actual observation. The $y$-axis denotes the the number density fluctuation at one particular redshift slice at $z=1.3$, $\delta N_{\rm z=1.3}/\overline{N}_{\rm z=1.3}$, among 7 slices in the light-cone volume. ](dist_weight_pfs4.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
{width="48.00000%"} {width="48.00000%"}
Fig. \[fig:ratio\_weight\] shows the performance of the weighting method defined above. Compared to Fig. \[fig:ets1\], the weighting scheme recovers clustering on scales $r>60~h^{-1}{\rm Mpc}$ and reduces the scale-dependent deviation on small scales. However, it does not correct all the effect.
Before going to the next weighting method to correct for the remaining effect, we comment on required accuracy of the weighting method given by Eq. (\[eq:CF\]). We use photometric data to select our targets. However, the photometric error brings galaxies outside the selection into the target list, contaminating the estimated number of desired galaxies. Moreover, any masks may lead to uncertainty in the actual number of target galaxies in each tile. In Fig. \[fig:ratio\_weight\] we assumed no photometry error or no mask. To test the impact of these effects, we isolate the effect of tiling by ignoring the fiber assignment. Instead of running the ETS, we randomly select target galaxies in each tile with the fixed number of observed galaxies. In this way, we will not have any residual bias in correlation functions after applying the correct weights. We simulate uncertainties in the number of target galaxies by a Gaussian distribution with the true target number as mean. Fig. \[fig:ratio\_uncert\] shows the results, indicating that this weighting scheme requires 1% precision in the target number. This puts requirements on the quality of imaging surveys used for target selection.
{width="50.00000%"}
In principle, the Subaru FMOS galaxy redshift survey (FastSound) [@Okumura_etal2016] could have had the same issues. In practice, their low success rate rendered this effect subdominant due to the large statistical error. Therefore, they included the variations of the success rates only in the random catalog and could still recover the underlying correlation functions without weighting observed galaxies.
Fiber assignment {#sec:ETS2}
----------------
### Toy Model
{width="50.00000%"}
The remaining issue is under-sampling of over-dense regions due to fiber assignment. To understand the issue, we first use a simplified setup as illustrated in Fig. \[fig:pic2\]. We show four tiles with a side length of 1 degree approximating the PFS FoV and $50\times 50$ grids inside each tile approximating the fibers and their patrol areas in the PFS FoV. In this setup, we ignore the overlapping patrol areas of neighboring fibers. We apply these tiling and grid-patrol area configurations to each light-cone realization of the mock galaxy catalogs. Assuming two visits for each tile, we randomly select two galaxies from the target list in each grid. In this setup, all the target galaxies in an under-dense grid (which contains only one or two galaxies) are observed, whereas at most two galaxies are observed in a dense grid. This shows the nature of the fiber assignment problem: fibers are assigned to targets in non-uniform manner.
We use a weighting method to correct this problem. Specifically, we up-weight galaxies by the inverse of the probability that a target galaxy is observed. If a fiber has one or two targets in its patrol area, they are always observed during the two visits: 100% completeness. If a fiber has three or more targets in its patrol area, each of them has a lower probability to be observed. This probability is $2/n_{i,{\rm target}}$ for $n_{i,{\rm target}}\ge 3$, where $n_{i,{\rm target}}$ is the number of targets for the $i$-th fiber. We then up-weight the fiber-assigned galaxies by $n_{i,{\rm target}}/2$ for $n_{i,{\rm target}}\ge 3$. This is called the “Individual-Inverse Probability” (IIP) method as proposed in Ref. [@Smith_etal2019]. This is different from the “Pairwise-Inverse Probability” (PIP) method, which up-weights [*pairs*]{} of galaxies by the inverse of the probability that a galaxy [*pair*]{} is observed. However, the PIP method is equivalent to the IIP method in our setup, because we have no fiber collision inside of each grid.
{width="48.00000%"} {width="48.00000%"}
In Fig. \[fig:uniform:iip\], we show that this weighting method recovers the underlying correlation functions to better than 1% accuracy at all separations for the angle-averaged correlation functions. The transverse-direction ($\mu<0.2$) is also recovered well, whereas the LOS direction ($\mu>0.8$) is recovered only at $r>10~h^{-1}{\rm Mpc}$. The correlation functions are not recovered on small scales because the IIP method does not recover the target galaxies we missed, and it only down weights the ones who are preferentially selected. We miss more target galaxies along the LOS in non-random manner due to the number of visits (i.e., 2 visits).
### ETS
We now apply the IIP method to the mock catalogs with the ETS, which includes all the relevant effects such as the overlapping patrol areas of neighboring fibers and fiber collisions.
![\[fig:ets:prob\] Probabilities that each target galaxy is observed by fibers in the different redshift slices, derived from running the ETS 100 times on one mock catalog. ](prob_ets_cones.pdf){width="45.00000%"}
{width="48.00000%"} {width="48.00000%"}
What is the probability that a target galaxy is observed by the ETS? Each target galaxy in the mock catalog has a probability to be observed. We calculate this probability by running the ETS 100 times on one mock catalog. Fig. \[fig:ets:prob\] shows the probabilities to be observed for all targets in the different redshift slices. The probabilities have a wide distribution as a result of the fiber assignments via the ETS, compared to the discrete probabilities, 1 or $2/n_{i,{\rm target}}$ ($n_{i,{\rm target}}\ge 3$), for the toy model of tiles and fibers in Fig. \[fig:pic2\]. We find that the probabilities are similar for all the redshift slices. The weight for each target is given by the inverse of these probabilities.
In Fig. \[fig:ets:iip\], we show that the IIP method still recovers the underlying correlation functions from realistic mocks using the ETS to better than 1% accuracy at all separations (except the smallest one) for the angle-averaged correlation functions. The transverse-direction ($\mu<0.2$) is also recovered well, whereas the LOS direction ($\mu>0.8$) is recovered only at $r>10~h^{-1}{\rm Mpc}$.
Recovery of the redshift-space distortion effect {#sec:final_result}
------------------------------------------------
We now introduce the peculiar velocity field to the mock catalogs and investigate the impact of tiling and fiber assignment on the redshift-space distortions. Fig. \[fig:ets:iip\_s\] shows that the weights to correct the tiling effect and the IIP recover the underlying monopole and quadrupole correlation functions to better than 1% and 5% accuracy at $r>10~h^{-1}{\rm Mpc}$ respectively. We also find that the same method corrects for the tiling and fiber assignment effects for all the other redshift slices with similar accuracy.
{width="40.00000%"}{width="40.00000%"} {width="40.00000%"}{width="40.00000%"}
Conclusion {#sec:discussion}
==========
In this paper, we have investigated the tiling and fiber-assignment effects on galaxy clustering. The density fluctuation of long-wavelength is lost due to the tiling effects, and the target galaxies in under-dense regions are preferentially observed due to fiber-assignment effects. Even though we analyze these problems with the PFS survey in mind, they are not specific to the PFS survey: All fiber-fed spectroscopic galaxy surveys that are deep and have low completeness will suffer from the same problems. While the fiber collision problem in previous galaxy surveys such as BOSS alters the angular clustering, the tiling and fiber-assignment effects alter the clustering along the LOS direction more.
To mitigate the effects on clustering, we have applied two weighting methods. One is the weight by the number of target galaxies in each tile, which reconstructs the long-wavelength density fluctuations beyond the size of the FoV. The other is the weight by the inverse of the probability that a target galaxy is observed by the fiber assignment algorithm (the IIP method [@Smith_etal2019]). The IIP method down-weights observed galaxies in under-dense regions. We have demonstrated that these two weighting methods unbias both the monopole and quadrupole correlation functions to better than 1% and 5% accuracy at $r>10~h^{-1}{\rm Mpc}$ respectively.
We thank the PFS Collaboration, especially the members of the Cosmology Science Working Group, for useful discussion and feedback on this project. This work was supported in part by World Premier International Research Center Initiative (WPI Initiative), MEXT, Japan, JSPS KAKENHI Grant Numbers JP15H03654, JP15H05887, JP15H05893, JP15H05896, JP15K21733, JP16K17659, JP17K14273, JP18K13578, and JP19H00677, and Japan Science and Technology Agency CREST JPMHCR1414.
[^1]: Also see <https://pfs.ipmu.jp/research/parameters.html>
[^2]: The code is publicly available at <https://github.com/Subaru-PFS/ets_fiber_assigner>.
[^3]: <http://wwwmpa.mpa-garching.mpg.de/~komatsu/codes.html>.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The Indo-aryans of ancient India observed stars and constellations for ascertaining auspicious times in order to conduct sacrificial rites ordained by vedas. It is but natural that they would have recounted in the vedic texts about comets. In Rigveda ($\sim $ 1700 - 1500 BC) and Atharvaveda ($\sim $ 1150 BC), there are references to dhumaketus and ketus, which stand for comets in Sanskrit. Rigveda mentions a fig tree with roots held up in the sky (Parpola 2009, 2010). Could it have been inspired by the hirsute appearance of a comet’s tail? Similarly, could ‘Ketu’ (the torso or the tail part of Rahu) be a Dravidian loan word, since ‘kottu’, an old Tamil word, is associated with scorpion’s sting and top tuft of hair? Varahamihira in 550 AD and Ballal Sena ($\sim $ 1100 - 1200 AD) have described a large number of comets recorded by ancient seers such as Parashara, Vriddha Garga, Narada, Garga, etc. In this article, I conjecture that an episode narrated in Mahabharata of a radiant king, Nahusha, ruling the heavens, and later turning into a serpent after he had kicked the seer Agastya (also the star Canopus), is a mythological retelling of a cometary event.'
author:
- Patrick Das Gupta
title: COMETS IN ANCIENT INDIA
---
1 Introduction
==============
Barring the regular waxing and waning of the Moon, ancient observers seldom witnessed celestial objects undergoing metamorphosis. In the pre-telescope era, our ancestors were treated to such rare spectacles only on two occasions, during (a) the solar/lunar eclipses and (b) cometary sightings wherein a gradual growth of a tail is seen, as the comet approaches Sun.
Eclipses, of course, have been referred to in many ancient texts (see, for example, Stephenson 1997). Darkness inflicted on Sun and Moon caused confusion and fear among people, as can be inferred from Rigvedic allusions to a solar eclipse (Kochhar 2010). A proper understanding and reasonably accurate predictions of these periodic phenomena had to wait till the arrival of the Greek astronomer Hipparchus (190 BC) and, in India, of Aryabhatta (476 AD) on the scene (see, for example, Ansari 1977). On the other hand, cometary appearances are sporadic, and relatively rare due to their highly eccentric orbits around the Sun, with very large semi major axes. A bright comet with a tail that grows and arches as it nears the Sun must have been captivating and mysterious to our forefathers.
Comets are made of dust, organic compounds like frozen methane and ammonia, ice as well as dry ice. They have rocky nuclei of size $\sim $ 1- 10 km weighing $\sim 10^{15} - 10^{18} $ kg. Because of small mass, comets have very low surface gravity so that the pressure exerted by the solar wind plasma pushes the ionized and volatile substances outwards as they come within few AUs (1 AU $\simeq 1.5 \times 10^8 $ km) of Sun, leading to tail formation. Recently, the tail of the comet Siding Spring C/2013 A1 had a brief encounter with Mars during October 19-20, 2014, that was monitored [*in situ*]{} by both NASA ’s fleet of martian spacecrafts (that included MAVEN) as well as Indian Mars Orbiter Mission. At the time of writing this article, European Space Agency’s Rosetta spacecraft, that has been cruising in space for about a decade, succeeded in lowering its lander Philae on the $\sim $ 4 km wide rocky nucleus of comet 67P, on November 12, 2014.
Many comets of antiquity have been described in the astronomical records of the Greeks and the Chinese (Fotheringham 1919). In the Indian context, it is plausible that comets have been referred to in Rigveda, since the Sanskrit word dhumaketu (meaning literally ‘smoke banner’) appearing in about half a dozen hymns, eventually came to mean comet in Indian languages. In the subsequent vedic literature, comets have been highlighted, with various terms like Ketu, Dhumaketu, Shikhi or Keshi employed to describe them (Chandel & Sharma 1991, Iyengar 2006, 2010).
2 Vedic literature and Comets
=============================
Vedas - Rig, Yajur, Saama and Atharva, composed in archaic Sanskrit, are the oldest deciphered Indian texts. The word veda in Sanskrit means (sacred) knowledge, with cognates in other Indo-European languages, such as (w)oida in Greek, wit (witness) in English and wissen in German (Witzel 2003). Rigveda ($ \sim $ 1700 - 1500 BC), the oldest of all, consists of about 1028 hymns invoking mostly nature gods, goddesses and sacrificial rites. It also includes secular observations, vignettes of Indo-aryan life, their desires, struggles and battles (Griffith 1896). From the first mention of iron in Atharvaveda, the mantra portions of this text have been dated to about 1150 BC (Witzel 1995)
Some written documents of the Mitanni dynasty rule (1500 - 1350 BC) that contain Rigvedic terms were found in northern Syria. A person named Kikkuli of this period had authored a horse training manual involving numerous archaic Sanskrit terms. More surprisingly, a treaty between a Mitanni king and a Hittite monarch around 1380 BC invoked major Rigvedic gods like Indra, Varuna, Nasatya and Mitra as witnesses for the accord (Anthony 2007). From the Mitanni agreement, antiquity of Rigveda is confirmed (Witzel 1989, Kochhar 2000)
Archaeoastronomical arguments indicate that vedas have preserved even older traditions. In vedic texts, nakshatras or ‘lunar mansion’ (bright stars and constellations lying along Moon’s path) have an exalted status (Subbarayappa 2008). Krittika (Pleiades) is often listed as the first asterism among the 27 or 28 nakshatras, which according to Jacobi (1909), was due to its rising on the east during the vernal equinox, when these rituals were getting established. Because of the precession of equinoxes, it is Pisces at present, and not Pleiades, that rises on the east during the Spring equinox. This strongly suggests that the vedic practices began in the period 3000 - 2000 BC (Jacobi 1909).
Shatapatha Brahmana (SBr), $\sim $ 1000-700 BC, instructs one to light an auspicious sacrificial fire at the time of Krittika’s rise in the east since Pleiades ‘rises invariably in the due east’ (Chattopadhyaya 2008). SBr was obviously restating an ancient observation that had no bearing on the contemporary location of Krittika during its composition. Even Chinese annals of 2357 BC had recorded that Alcyone, the bright central star of Pleiades, was near the vernal equinox (Allen 1963, Chattopadhyaya 2008). Moreover, older vedic literature referred to the Big Bear constellation as rikshas (bears, in archaic Sanskrit) indicating a common Indo-European origin of the vedic people. By about 900 BC, the stars of Ursa Major had been identified with seven Rigvedic seers, and hence the name Saptarishi or seven sages (Ghurye 1972).
Rigveda also narrates Sun getting pierced thoroughly with darkness by a demon’s son, named Svarbhanu, till Atri restores Sun’s brilliance through sacred chants and offerings (Griffith 1896). The Atris were a powerful priestly clan, who had made substantial contributions to the corpus of vedic hymns (Kochhar 2010). The Svarbhanu episode portrays the occurrence of an ancient solar eclipse (Sengupta 1947, Markel 1990, Kochhar 2000, Yano 2003, Kochhar 2010, Vahia & Subbarayappa 2011).
Vedic rituals required strict temporal order. Jyotishavedanga (also referred to as Vedangajyotisha), ascribed to the commentator Lagadha, described the movements of Sun and Moon with respect to the nakshatras (lunar mansion) and stated categorically that positional astronomy’s sole purpose is to determine the times for performing vedic rituals (Pingree 1981, Yano 2003). Although Pingree (1981) had dated Lagadha to about 400 BC, some authors have placed the commentator earlier than 1100 BC (Achar 2000).
Apart from innate curiosity and determination of time for sacrificial rites, other reasons for keenly observing the night sky could have been the natural tendency to be drawn to lustre, radiance, golden and silver rays from Sun and Moon, etc. on one hand, and to eschew darkness on the other. This is amply evident from Rigvedic verses, as seen from the numerous hymns in praise of Agni (fire), Surya (Sun), Ushas (the dawns) and the Asvin twins or Nasatyas ($\beta $ and $\gamma $ Arietis). The mortal enemies of the Indo-aryans - Dasas and Dasyus, were portrayed as dark people. Rigveda praises Asvins ($\beta $ and $\gamma $ Arietis), the earliest deliverers of light, for saving some of the seers like Atri, Kanva, Rebha, Vandana, and Antaka from deep pits at different times, as well as rescuing Tugra’s son Bhujjyu from drowning in the sea with a ship’s aid. These lores signified possibly the role played by the twin stars in giving a sense of direction and hope to the despondents, before the breaking of dawn.
The above discussion makes it clear that for the seers of antiquity, the night sky and its attendants were sacred. It is highly unlikely that comets of the past would have gone unnoticed. Asko Parpola (2009) has drawn attention to a late Rigvedic verse that speaks of an Indian fig tree whose aerial roots are held up in the sky by the god Varuna (guardian of cosmic law). In the later Puranic texts (containing old Hindu royal genealogies and mythologies), the phenomena of gravity-defying stars and planets going round the fixed Dhruva (Pole star) is explained by claiming that these celestial objects are fastened to invisible rope like aerial roots growing outwards from the north star (Parpola 2009, 2010). This immediately raises the question - was this ‘aerial roots’ simile inspired from the hairy tail of a comet of bygone era?
One would expect that the ‘lustre eulogizing’ Indo-aryans would be enamoured of comets. On the contrary, comets and meteors were often thought to be associated with impending doom as inferred from Mahabharata and Puranas as well as from Varahamihira’s Brihat Samhita (Bhat 1981). A natural explanation is that appearances of comets and meteors are unpredictable. In the words of the renowned Indian astrophysicist M. N. Saha: ‘Comets appear from nowhere and on account of their weird appearance had always been taken to portend great calamity’ (Saha 1953). Meteors at times do lead to conflagrations and casualties. It is possible that the comets with their appendages did get associated with meteors, even in the past, for shooting stars do appear to have tails. Ketus (in plural) have also been discussed in Atharvaveda denoting rays of light or fire-smoke combine, and could have represented comets or meteors (Kochhar 2010). A verse from Atharvaveda that links dhumaketu (smoke banner) to mrityu (death), presumably because of its resemblance to the rising smoke from a funeral pyre (Whitney 1905, Iyengar 2006) may be hinting at yet another wrong reason for comet-phobia among our ancestors.
R. N. Iyengar (2010), observing that the word dhumaketu appears seven times (mostly associated with maruts) in Rigveda, and that Atharvaveda contains a hymn about Saptarishi (Ursa Major) being veiled by a dhumaketu, has concluded that dhumaketus referred to comets even in vedas. According to him, dhumaketus and maruts represent comets and meteor showers, respectively (Iyengar 2010). However, the standard and more natural interpretation of maruts is that they were minor gods associated with storms and cyclones who, at times, unleashed calamities on mortals. On the other hand, Indra in Rigveda was by far the most powerful nature god (of torrential rain, thunder and flood) and was likened to a solitary bull-like warrior, as can be reckoned from a hymn in which the maruts implore the seer Agastya to intercede on their behalf and request Indra not to slay them (Griffith 1896). This Rigvedic hymn has also been interpreted differently where it has been argued that it alludes to seer Agastya’s bringing about a reconciliation between two warring tribes - Indo-aryans (worshippers of Indra) and non-aryans (who prayed to maruts) (Ghurye 1977, Mahadevan 1986).
Signs and symbols used by the pre-vedic Indus Valley people ($\sim $ 2500-1900 BC) of Harappa, Mohenjo-daro, and of scattered north-western regions of India, have still remained undeciphered. These symbols are found predominantly on the steatite Indus seals. Parpola, while discussing the seal M-414, has made a very interesting conjecture that its first sign could represent the sting of a scorpion and therefore, the associated word could be the Proto-Dravidian word ‘kottu’ meaning ‘sting’ or ‘stinging’ or similar sounding words, which mean ‘top tuft of hair’, ‘crest of a bird’, or ‘pointed tip’, etc. (Parpola 2009). One could then ask: is the Sanskrit word ‘ketu’ a Dravidian loan word related to ‘kottu’? After all, ‘shikhi’ another vedic word for comet, also means ‘with tuft of hair’. Moreover, comets have tails and the sting of a scorpion ensues from the latter’s tail.
The epics too refer to comets. In Ramayana, deadly missiles are likened to comets. For instance, Ramayana mentions that when Dasaratha (father of Rama) and Kaikeyi (Rama’s stepmother) were fighting the demons, Dasaratha was gravely injured by a comet like missile. In another place, Ravana hurls a missile that resembles a small sun like comet that fatally wounds Lakshmana (Rama’s brother). Similarly, in Mahabharata, Veda Vyasa (the author of the epic as well as an editor of Rigveda) warns the blind king, Dhrtarashtra, about the ill-fated Pandava-Kaurava war, citing ominous signs like the nakshatra Pushya ($\gamma $, $\delta $ and $\theta $ Cancri) being obscured by the Dhumaketu (Kochhar 2010).
3 Of Rahu, Ketu and Ketus
=========================
The name of the eclipse causing demon, Svarbhanu, of Rigveda got transformed, over time, to Rahu. Actually as Sun’s foe, Rahu had made his debut earlier in Atharvaveda (Kochar 2010). This possibly led to a mix up between Svarbhanu and Rahu, as vedas were traditionally passed on orally. Elaborate myths concerning Rahu were narrated in later texts like Mahabharata, Bhagavata Purana and Vishnu Purana. Rahu had a serpentine form and, in a clandestine manner, it had partaken Amrita, a celestial ambrosia (making the gods immortal) that had emerged out of the churning of Ocean. However, the Sun and the Moon gods had witnessed Rahu’s deed. So, the demon tried devouring them, whereupon Vishnu severed its head by hurling his deadly discus, the Sudarshan chakra, at Rahu.
The head retained the name Rahu whereas the torso with a tail was christened Ketu. Now, the comets were already being referred to as ketus in the vedic literature. The obvious reason for naming the torso Ketu is that both have tails. As the demon had already consumed some amount of the ambrosia, Rahu as well as Ketu had become immortal. In the absence of a torso, the Sun or the Moon could not be retained for long after being swallowed by the head Rahu. Eventually they had to emerged out. That was the way Hindu mythology dealt with the phenomena of eclipses.
Since Rahu tried to seize Moon and Sun, it got listed as a graha (leading to seizure or grabbing, but the term later became synonymous with planet). Even the Sun and the Moon came to be known as grahas in Puranic and astrological texts. Gargyajyotisha, composed between BC and AD, probably by a descendant of the seer Garga, includes both Rahu and Ketu in its list of nine planets, with Ketu representing comets and not the severed torso of Rahu (Yano 2003). Was this because Garga, $\sim $ 100 BC (Kane 1975), had a penchant for observing comets, and had made a list of 77 comets that were characterized by a dark reddish hue, as mentioned in Varahamihira’s Brihat Samhita (BS) of 550 AD? Brihajjataka by Varahamihira lists Rahu and Ketu as planets, with Shikhi as another word for Ketu (Kochar 2010).
Atharvaveda-Parishishtha, with many of its chapters composed after Greek astrology was introduced in India around 300 AD, contain verses not only about grahas, nakshatras, rahu but also about ketus (comets) classified according to seasons (Miki and Yano 2010). Generally, Hindu temples have sculptures representing nava grahas (nine ‘planets’) with Ketu depicted as having an anthropomorphic bust with a tail. Did Ketu become a graha because of its possible association with the old Tamil word ‘kottu’ (scorpion’s sting) that has been discussed in section 2? After all, scorpions too, like the crabs, possess pincers to grab. Parpola (2009) has conjectured that the crab sign found in many Indus seals depict grahas (those who seize).
Aryabhatta in 499 AD, dispensing with Rahu and Ketu, gave the correct reason for the eclipses. The plane of Moon’s orbit (around Earth) is inclined with respect to the Earth-Sun orbital plane leading to a line of intersection. Total eclipses happen only when Moon and Sun get to be on this line at the same time, i.e. only when the Moon is either at the ascending or the descending node. Varahamihira provided a clearer explanation for the eclipses, but called the lunar nodes Rahu and Ketu. A great deal of mathematical techniques pertaining to trigonometry flourished in many parts of the world as a result of human preoccupation with eclipses. So, one wonders whether the chance coincidence of angular diameters of Sun and Moon being almost the same in contemporary times (leading to the total eclipses) played a significant evolutionary role in advancing mathematics.
As regards cometary records, BS had cited (besides Garga) the texts due to ancient seers like Parashara, Vriddha Garga and Narada. But their compositions on comets are no longer extant and, therefore, one has to fall back on the writings of Varahamihira and Ballala Sena’s Adbhuta Sagara for their work (Iyengar 2006). BS had stated categorically that it is not possible to determine by calculation the rising and setting of the comets. It had described in detail the motion of a comet named Chala Ketu (meaning, ‘moving comet’) underscoring its rise on the west and increase in its size as it moved towards north, touching Ursa Major (Chandel & Sharma 1991). BS had also delineated characteristics of 1000 comets (Subbarayappa & Sarma 1985). It appears that it added 9 to the existing number of comets to make the number a multiple of 10 (Miki and Yano, 2010). In India, the number nine was auspicious probably because any region could be divided into one central portion and eight other parts based on sub-division of regions along the four cardinal directions.
It is remarkable that, anticipating periodic orbits, Narada had emphatically claimed - ‘there is only one comet which comes time and again’, while Bhadrabahu had reckoned that comets are hundreds in number, each with different period (Sharma 1986, Chandel & Sharma 1991). Some historians place the Jaina seer Bhadrabahu around 322 BC as a contemporary of Alexander the great, and as a preceptor of king Chandragupta Maurya (Smith 1958). While, according to David Pingree (1983), Bhadrabahu composed his samhita only about one or two centuries before al Biruni (973 - 1048 AD). Parashara ($\sim $ 1000 - 700 BC) had listed 101 comets, describing features of 26 of them (including Chala Ketu discussed earlier) which were likely to have been directly observed by him (Iyengar 2006). Morbid names like skull, bone, marrow, etc. were attached to some of the comets classified by Parashara in the Death group of comets. As remarked earlier, even Atharvaveda associates comets with death since they look like the smoke rising from funeral pyre (Kochhar 2010).
King of Mithila and Vanga, Ballal Sena ($\sim $ 1100-1200 AD), had compiled cometary records due to seers Parashara, Vriddha Garga, Garga, Atharva, Varahamihira and Asitadevala in his Adbhuta Sagara. Interestingly, it appears that while discussing the comet Dhuma Ketu, Vriddha Garga observes that it has a starry nature and that it ejects a jet of smoke in a direction away from Sun before setting (Iyengar 2006).
4 Agastya, Nahusha, Saptarishi, and a possible comet
====================================================
Agastya was a seer who composed about 27 hymns in the Rigveda (Mahadevan 1986). He was referred to as Ugra or vigorous in this veda (Hiltebeitel 1977). It is curious to note that vigorous or ‘ojas’ is cognate with ‘aug’ (Gonda, 1972). Agastya has been associated with the star Canopus or Alpha Argus since $\sim $ 600 BC (Ghurye 1975). The Indo-aryans could see this bright star only after reaching latitudes lower than $37^\circ $. Tradition has it that Agastya was the first vedic seer to cross Vindhyas to reach lower latitudes of the southern region of India. The Rigvedic hymn CXCI (191) of book 1, most likely due to Mana’s son Agastya, that deplores and complains about stings and bites from poisonous aquatic worms, scorpions, reptiles and nocturnal insects, states that it is the Sun who will provide relief by scorching and sucking up the venom, and then towards the end, mentions that the poison will be carried away by Krittika (Pleiades) like bearer girls transporting water in jars (Griffith 1896).
There are three interesting points about this hymn. Firstly, it claims that it is the Sun drying up the water and thereby swallowing the poison that brings about a remedy, secondly it mentions Pleiades in connection with relief from venom, and the third is about water jars. Now, a later legend narrates that Agastya drained off an entire ocean to expose the dreadful demons hiding in the water. It is plausible that this myth grew out of this hymn. The second point hints at the origin of the lore of seven sisters (Pleiades) taking care of newly born and protecting them from diseases. Thirdly, Agastya was said to have been born in a jar, and was short in height. Was this hymn responsible for such a tale? Or, being very tiny as a boy, was he carried around by bearer girls in a jar? In section 2, one had wondered whether the Proto-Dravidian word ‘kottu’ (scorpion’s sting) had led to the Sanskrit word ‘ketu’ (comet). In the southern regions of India, Agastya is also associated with the Tamil word ‘akatti’ (Mahadevan 1986), which sounds similar not only to the seer’s name but also to ‘kottu’. The above Rigvedic hymn also associates its composer to scorpion stings. These are some interesting connections worth looking into.
The epic, Mahabharata, recounts the story of king Nahusha (known to Rigveda, but with no myth attached) who replaced Indra as the king of the gods, as Indra went into hiding after slaying the demon Vrtra. After being anointed as king of the gods, Nahusha turned radiant with ‘five hundred lights on his forehead burning’ as he absorbed energy from gods, seers, demons, goblins, etc., and dominated the heavens (Hiltebeitel 1977). To impress Indra’s consort Sachi, he ordered the seven seers (Ursa Major) to carry him in a palanquin. His arrogance infuriated the seer Bhrigu who requested Agastya to become a bearer of the palanquin. Since, Agastya was short in height, the carriage tilted on one side when he substituted one of the seven seers. The resulting imbalance made Nahusha very angry and he kicked Agastya, whereupon the latter cursed the former to turn into a serpent and fall from the heaven.
Hiltebeitel (1977) had linked the above tale with the origin of Deepawali (festival of lights) in India. However, the episode is more suggestive of Nahusha representing a comet that crossed the Big Bear from north and kept increasing in size as it moved southward towards Canopus (Agastya), and eventually disappearing beneath the horizon. According to the myths, Nahusha was a son of the daughter of Svarbhanu (later associated with Rahu and Ketu) and belonged to the lunar dynasty with ancestors such as Atri (one of the stars of Ursa Major), Moon and Mercury (Hiltebeitel 1977). The hoary comet’s overlap with the Big Bear could have conjured an imagery of its being carried by Saptarishi (it was also referred to as cart or ‘wain’ in the past; see Ghurye 1972, Hiltebeitel 1977). As the comet moved southwards, its tail got gradually elongated, finally making an apparent contact with Canopus, which was depicted as Nahusha kicking Agastya. This is a reasonable conjecture. To buttress the surmise further, it is to be noted that Varahamihira prescribed worship of Canopus for kings, and warned that if this southern star is struck by a comet or a meteor there would be famine (verse 22 of BS; see Bhat 1981). Rigvedic hymn 191 of book 1 already describes Agastya’s aversion towards reptiles, so one could imagine an antagonism between Canopus and comets.
Furthermore, one may interpret Indra’s hiding after Vrtra’s assasination thereafter Nahusha getting anointed as the lord of the heavens as a symbolic portrayal of the supergiant star Antares or Jyeshtha (Indra?) getting dimmer because of its variability or disappearing due to lunar occultation, while the comet brightened and grew in size. Besides comets being linked with the serpentine Ketu (section 3), Varahamihira, while referring to Agastya’s drinking up the ocean to reveal the hideouts of demons and dangerous creatures, had likened the gems in the hoods of exposed snakes to comets (Kern 1870).
It is not uncommon for a comet to become brighter as it moves from north to south. For instance, comet C/1853 G1 was discovered on April 5, 1853, south of $\rho $ aquilae (now in the northern constellation of Delphinus) by K. G. Schweizer. Then, it appeared in the southern hemisphere on April 30, 1853, with its tail pointing towards Canopus. It grew from $\sim 4^\circ $ to $8^\circ - 10^\circ $ in extent within a day, and was last sighted on June 11, 1853 (Kronk 2003). It has an estimated period of about 782 years, and hence, could have been seen in $\simeq $ 493 BC and $\simeq $ 289 AD. There is also the case of a comet having a serpentine shape. The Chinese document of Se-ma Ts’ien had recorded that the Standard of Tch’e-yeou appeared in 134 BC. It was comet-like but arched backwards in the shape of a standard (Chavannes 1899). According to Fotheringham (1919), this comet had also been identified by Hipparchus, as reported by the historian Pliny in Natural History.
Bruce Masse (2007) has given a very interesting interpretation of the episode of Vishnu’s Matsya Avatara (Fish incarnation) narrated in SBr, Mahabharata as well as Puranas. In this mythology (very similar to the Biblical Noah’s Ark tale), Manu, the progenitor of human race, had rescued a tiny but bright fish from a pond and had put it in a jar. The fish started growing fast so that it had to be transferred first to a river and then to the sea. It grew to become a gigantic horned fish in the ocean and warned Manu of an impending flood, and eventually saved him by escorting Manu to a safer high altitude land. According to Masse, Matsya Avatara represents an ancient comet which was small to begin with but grew as it neared the Sun and at the end it crashed into Indian ocean resulting in floods and tsunamis around May 10, 2807 BC.
5 Discussions
=============
In the distant past, our ancestors made use of their terrestrial experiences along with large helpings of imagination to explain celestial phenomena. When they saw Sun or Moon disappearing inch by inch during an eclipse, they pictured them being engulfed within the mouth of a demon, in the way preys get swallowed by pythons or boas. Darkness was an anathema to the ‘fire ritual’ practicing priests, who monitored stellar positions to ascertain auspicious hours for vedic rites. Appearance of any bright heavenly object, in particular comets, would have been a cynosure of their eyes. Therefore, one speculates whether the hirsute nature of a comet’s tail led them to conjure up invisible aerial roots of a tree on the Pole star tying up the stars and the planets to keep them from falling on to Earth (section 2).
Comets in India have been historically referred to as ketus and dhumaketus. By the time of Varahamihira (6-th century AD), Ketu was depicted as the dismembered serpentine torso of the eclipse causing Rahu. Because of their tails and the term ketus for comets, it was natural to associate reptiles with comets. It is also worth exploring whether ‘ketu’ is a Dravidian lone word, since a similar sounding old Tamil word ‘kottu’ is associated with scorpion’s sting, pointed end or top tuft of hair (section 2).
I have provided several arguments to support my surmise that the lore of the arrogant king Nahusha being carried by Saptarishi and ultimately thrown out of the heaven for kicking Agastya is an allusion to a bright comet of antiquity that crossed Ursa Major and moved southwards with its ever increasing tail size and went below the horizon after occulting Canopus. As an example, I cited the case of comet C/1853 G1 which was seen in the north near the star $\rho $ aquilae in 1853, which then appeared in the southern sky with a long tail pointed at Canopus (section 4). If my conjecture is right, it would imply that the Nahusha episode was added to Mahabharata after comets got associated with serpentine forms.
Comets continue to influence human imagination, be it Giotto’s fascination with Halley’s comet leading him to depict it as the star of Bethlehem in the 14th-century painting ‘The Adoration of the Magi’ or the space scientists’ determination to effect a soft landing of Philae probe on the nucleus of comet 67P (section 1). We are living in happening times when some of the science fantasies that could be only dreamt of in the past, are materializing in front of our eyes. Some day, we may see exo-comets or even better, telescopes may detect tails behind stars near the central blackhole of a quasar or a blazar due to the enormous radiation pressure from the accretion disc.
Endowed with memory and thinking ability, human beings have perceived and sought patterns in whatever they could observe or experiment with. Periodic phenomena like diurnal variations, apparent circling of stars around the Pole star, changes in lunar phases and the cycle of seasons, etc. were all of paramount importance for human survival, explorations as well as for practical conveniences. In order to keep track of the functional aspects of these natural effects, time markers and calendars came into being, which in turn with the help of geometry and angle measurements, led to the development of positional astronomy. Thereafter, it was a natural jump to Kepler’s laws of planetary motion and then it got catapulted to Newton’s laws of gravitation, encompassing not only cometary motions and stellar dynamics in galaxies but also galactic dynamics in clusters and dark matter.
acknowledgements
================
It is a pleasure to thank N. Rathnasree for her invaluable comments and Ujjwal Das Gupta for providing technical support.
References
==========
- Achar, B. N. N. 2000, Indian Journal of History of Science, 35, 173, and the references therein.
- Allen, R. H. 1963, Star names - their lore and meaning (Dover Publications Inc)
- Ansari, S. M. R. 1977, Bulletin of the Astronomical Society of India, 5, 10, and the references therein.
- Anthony, D. W. 2007, The Horse, the Wheel and Language: how bronze-age riders from the Eurasian Steppes shaped the modern world (New Jersey, Princeton University Press), and the references therein.
- Bhat, R. M. 1981, Varahamihira’s Brhat Samhita (Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Pvt. ltd.)
- Chandel, N. K. & Sharma, S. 1991, Indian Journal of History of Science, 26, 375, and the references therein.
- Chattopadhyaya, D. 2008, in Cosmic Perspectives, edited by S. K. Biswas, D. C. V. Mallik & C. V. Vishveshwara (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press) pp.41-50, and the references therein.
- Chavannes, E. 1899, Les Memoires historiques de Se-ma Ts’ien, 3
- Fotheringham, J. K. 1919, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 79, 162, and the references therein.
- Ghurye, G. S. 1972, Two Brahmanical Institutions - Gotra and Charana (Bombay, Popular Prakashan)
- Ghurye, G. S. 1977, Indian Acculturation: Agastya and Skanda (Bombay, Popular Prakashan)
- Gonda, J. 1972, The vedic god Mitra (Leiden)
- Griffith, Ralph T. H. (1896), The Hymns of the Rgveda (Delhi, Reprinted by Motilal Banarasidass Publishers Pvt. ltd., 1973)
- Hiltebeitel, A. 1977, History of Religions, 16, 329
- Iyengar, R. N. 2006, Journal of Geological Society of India, 67, 289
- Iyengar, R. N. 2010, Indian Journal of History of Science, 45,1
- Jacobi, H. G. 1909, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 41, 721
- Kane, P. V. 1975, History of Dharmasastra, Vol. 5 (Poona, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute).
- Kern, H. 1870, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain Ireland (New Series), 4, 430
- Kronk, G. W. 2003, Cometography - A catalog of Comets, Vol.2 (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press), and the references therein.
- Kochhar, R. 2000, The Vedic People (Delhi, Orient Longman)
- Kochhar, R. 2010, Indian Journal of History of Science, 45, 287, and the references therein.
- Mahadevan, I. 1986, Reprint from Journal of Tamil Studies, No.30
- Markel, S. 1990, South Asian Studies, 6, 9
- Masse, W. B. 2007, in Comet/asteroid impacts and human society (Berlin, Springer, Heidelberg)pp.25-70, and the references therein.
- Miki, M. & Yano, M. 2010, Journal of Indian and Buddhist studies, 58, 1126
- Parpola, A. 2009, Scripta, 1, 37, and the references therein.
- Parpola, A. 2010, A Dravidian solution to the Indus script problem, a lecture delivered in the World Classical Tamil Conference, Coimbatore (Chennai, Published by Central Institute of Classical Tamil)
- Pingree, D. E. 1981, Jyotihsastra: Astral and Mathematical Literature (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz), and the references therein.
- Pingree, D. 1983, Journal of the American Oriental Society 103, 353
- Saha, M. N. 1953, The Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, 47, 97
- Sengupta, P. C. 1947, Ancient Indian Chronology (Calcutta, Calcutta University Press)
- Sharma, S. D. 1986, IAU Colloquium on Oriental Astronomy (Oxford Press) pp.109-112.
- Smith, V. A. 1958, The Oxford History of India (Oxford) 3rd ed.
- Stephenson, F. R. 1997, Historical Eclipses and Earth’s Rotation (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press)
- Subbarayappa, B. V. & Sarma, K. V. 1985, Indian Astronomy - A source-book (Bombay, Nehru Centre)
- Subbarayappa, B. V. 2008, in Cosmic Perspectives, edited by S. K. Biswas, D. C. V. Mallik & C. V. Vishveshwara (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press) pp.25-40.
- Vahia, M. N. & Subbarayappa, B. V. 2011, Proceedings of the Fourth Symposium on History of Astronomy, edited by M. Soma & K. Tanikawa (Japan, NAO) pp.16-19.
- Witzel, M. 1989, Dialectes dans les littératures indo-aryennes
- Witzel, M. 1995, in Indian Philology and South Asian Studies. edited by George Erdosy, pp.85 - 125.
- Witzel, M. 2003, in Blackwell Companion to Hinduism, edited by Gavin Flood (London, Blackwell Publishing Ltd.) pp.68 - 101, and the references therein.
- Whitney, W. D. 1905, Atharva-veda-samhita, vol.2 ( Cambridge, Harvard University, USA)
- Yano, M. 2003, in Blackwell Companion to Hinduism, edited by Gavin Flood (London, Blackwell Publishing Ltd.) pp. 376 - 392, and the references therein.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Makespan minimization on identical parallel machines is a classical scheduling problem. We consider the online scenario where a sequence of $n$ jobs has to be scheduled non-preemptively on $m$ machines so as to minimize the maximum completion time of any job. The best competitive ratio that can be achieved by deterministic online algorithms is in the range $[1.88,1.9201]$. Currently no randomized online algorithm with a smaller competitiveness is known, for general $m$.
In this paper we explore the power of job migration, i.e. an online scheduler is allowed to perform a limited number of job reassignments. Migration is a common technique used in theory and practice to balance load in parallel processing environments. As our main result we settle the performance that can be achieved by deterministic online algorithms. We develop an algorithm that is $\alpha_m$-competitive, for any $m\geq 2$, where $\alpha_m$ is the solution of a certain equation. For $m=2$, $\alpha_2 = 4/3$ and $\lim_{m\rightarrow \infty} \alpha_m = W_{-1}(-1/e^2)/(1+ W_{-1}(-1/e^2))
\approx 1.4659$. Here $W_{-1}$ is the lower branch of the Lambert $W$ function. For $m\geq 11$, the algorithm uses at most $7m$ migration operations. For smaller $m$, $8m$ to $10m$ operations may be performed. We complement this result by a matching lower bound: No online algorithm that uses $o(n)$ job migrations can achieve a competitive ratio smaller than $\alpha_m$. We finally trade performance for migrations. We give a family of algorithms that is $c$-competitive, for any $5/3\leq c \leq 2$. For $c= 5/3$, the strategy uses at most $4m$ job migrations. For $c=1.75$, at most $2.5m$ migrations are used.
author:
- 'Susanne Albers[^1]'
- 'Matthias Hellwig[^2]'
title: On the Value of Job Migration in Online Makespan Minimization
---
Introduction
============
Makespan minimization on identical machines is a fundamental scheduling problem that has received considerable research interest over the last forty years. Let $\sigma = J_1, \ldots, J_n$ be a sequence of jobs that has to be scheduled non-preemptively on $m$ identical parallel machines. Each job $J_i$ is specified by a processing time $p_i$, $1\leq i \leq n$. The goal is to minimize the makespan, i.e. the maximum completion time of any job in a schedule. In the offline setting all jobs are known in advance. In the online setting the jobs arrive one by one. Each job $J_i$ has to be scheduled immediately on one of the machines without knowledge of any future jobs $J_k$, $k>i$. An online algorithm $A$ is called $c$-competitive if, for any job sequence, $A$’s makespan is at most $c$ times the optimum makespan for that sequence [@ST].
Early work on makespan minimization studied the offline setting. Already in 1966, Graham [@G] presented the [*List*]{} scheduling algorithm that schedules each job on a least loaded machine. [*List*]{} can be used as an offline and online strategy and achieves a performance ratio of $2-1/m$. Hochbaum and Shmoys devised a famous polynomial time approximation scheme [@HS]. More recent research, published mostly in the 1990s, investigated the online setting. The best competitive factor that can be attained by deterministic online algorithms is in the range $[1.88,1.9201]$. Due to this relatively high factor, compared to [*List*]{}’s ratio of $2-1/m$, it is interesting to consider scenarios where an online scheduler has more flexibility to serve the job sequence.
In this paper we investigate the impact of job migration. At any time an online algorithm may perform [*reassignments*]{}, i.e. a job already scheduled on a machine may be removed and transferred to another machine. Process migration is a well-known and widely used technique to balance load in parallel and distributed systems. It leads to improved processor utilization and reduced processing delays. Migration policies have been analyzed extensively in theory and practice.
It is natural to investigate makespan minimization with job migration. In this paper we present a comprehensive study and develop tight upper and lower bounds on the competitive ratio that can be achieved by deterministic online algorithms. It shows that even with a very limited number of migration operations, significantly improved performance guarantees are obtained.
[**Previous work:**]{} We review the most important results relevant to our work. As mentioned above, [*List*]{} is $(2-1/m)$-competitive. Deterministic online algorithms with a smaller competitive ratio were presented in [@A; @BFKV; @FW; @GW; @KPT]. The best algorithm currently known is 1.9201-competitive [@FW]. Lower bounds on the performance of deterministic strategies were given in [@A; @BKR; @FKT; @GRTW; @R; @RC]. The best bound currently known is 1.88, for general $m$. Randomized online algorithms cannot achieve a competitive ratio smaller than $e/(e-1)\approx 1.58$ [@CVW; @S]. No randomized algorithm whose competitive ratio is provably below the deterministic lower bound is currently known, for general $m$. If job preemption is allowed, the best competitiveness of online strategies is equal to $e/( e-1)\approx 1.58$ [@CVW2].
Makespan minimization with job migration was first addressed by Aggarwal et al. [@AMZ]. They consider an offline setting. An algorithm is given a schedule, in which all jobs are already assigned, and a budget. The algorithm may perform job migrations up to the given budget. The authors design strategies that perform well with respect to the best possible solution that can be constructed with the budget. Online makespan minimization on $m=2$ machines was considered in [@MLW; @TY]. The best competitiveness is 4/3. Sanders et al. [@SSS] study an online setting in which before the assignment of each job $J_i$, jobs up to a total processing volume of $\beta p_i$ may be migrated, for some constant $\beta$. For $\beta=4/3$, they present a 1.5-competitive algorithm. They also show a $(1+\epsilon)$-competitive algorithm, for any $\epsilon >0$, where $\beta$ depends exponentially on $1/\epsilon$. The algorithms are robust in that the stated competitive ratios hold after each job assignment. However in this framework, over time, $\Omega(n)$ migrations may be performed and jobs of total processing volume $\beta \sum_{i=1}^n p_i$ may be moved.
Englert et al. [@EOW] study online makespan minimization if an algorithm is given a buffer that may be used to partially reorder the job sequence. In each step an algorithm assigns one job from the buffer to the machines. Then the next job in $\sigma$ is admitted to the buffer. Englert et al. show that, using a buffer of size $\Theta(m)$, the best competitive ratio is $W_{-1}(-1/e^2)/(1+ W_{-1}(-1/e^2))$, where $W_{-1}$ is the Lambert $W$ function.
[**Our contribution:**]{} We investigate online makespan minimization with limited migration. The number of job reassignments does not depend on the length of the job sequence. We determine the exact competitiveness achieved by deterministic algorithms, for general $m$.
In Section \[sec:a1\] we develop an optimal algorithm. For any $m\geq 2$, the strategy is $\alpha_m$-competitive, where $\alpha_m$ is the solution of an equation representing load in an ideal machine profile for a subset of the jobs. For $m=2$, the competitive ratio is 4/3. The ratios are non-decreasing and converge to $W_{-1}(-1/e^2)/(1+ W_{-1}(-1/e^2))\approx 1.4659$ as $m$ tends to infinity. Again, $W_{-1}$ is the lower branch of the Lambert $W$ function. The algorithm uses at most $(\lceil (2-\alpha_m)/(\alpha_m-1)^2\rceil+4)m$ job migrations. For $m\geq 11$, this expression is at most $7m$. For smaller machine numbers it is $8m$ to $10m$. We note that the competitiveness of 1.4659 is considerably below the factor of roughly 1.9 obtained by deterministic algorithms in the standard online setting. It is also below the ratio of $e/(e-1)$ attainable if randomization or job preemption are allowed.
In Section \[sec:2\] we give a matching lower bound. We show that no deterministic algorithm that uses $o(n)$ job migrations can achieve a competitive ratio smaller than $\alpha_m$, for any $m\geq 2$. Hence in order to beat the factor of $\alpha_m$, $\Theta(n)$ reassignments are required. Finally, in Section \[sec:3\] we trade migrations for performance. We develop a family of algorithms that is $c$-competitive, for any constant $c$ with $5/3\leq c \leq 2$. Setting $c=5/3$ we obtain a strategy that uses at most $4m$ job migrations. For $c=1.75$, the strategy uses no more than $2.5m$ migrations.
Our algorithms rely on a number of new ideas. All strategies classify incoming jobs into small and large depending on a careful estimate on the optimum makespan. The algorithms consist of a job arrival phase followed by a migration phase. The optimal algorithm, in the arrival phase, maintains a load profile on the machines with respect to jobs that are currently small. In the migration phase, the algorithm removes a certain number of jobs from each machine. These jobs are then rescheduled using strategies by Graham [@G; @G2]. Our family of algorithms partitions the $m$ machines into two sets $A$ and $B$. In the arrival phase the algorithms prefer to place jobs on machines in $A$ so that machines in $B$ are available for later migration. In general, the main challenge in the analyses of the various algorithms is to bound the number of jobs that have to be migrated from each machine.
We finally relate our contributions to some existing results. First we point out that the goal in online makespan minimization is to construct a good schedule when jobs arrive one by one. Once the schedule is constructed, the processing of the jobs may start. It is not stipulated that machines start executing jobs while other jobs of $\sigma$ still need to be scheduled. This framework is assumed in all the literature on online makespan minimization mentioned above. Consequently it is no drawback to perform job migrations when the entire job sequence has arrived. Nonetheless, as for the algorithms presented in this paper, the machines can start processing jobs except for the up to 10 largest jobs on each machine. A second remark is that the algorithms by Aggarwal et al. [@AMZ] cannot be used to achieve good results in the online setting. The reason is that those strategies are designed to perform well relative to the best possible makespan attainable from an initial schedule using a given migration budget. The strategies need not perform well compared to a globally optimal schedule. The algorithms by Aggarwal et al. and ours are different, see [@AMZ].
On the other hand, our results exhibit similarities to those by Englert et al. [@EOW] where a reordering buffer is given. The optimal competitive ratio of $\alpha_m$ is the solution of an equation that also arises in [@EOW]. This is due to the fact that our optimal algorithm and that in [@EOW] maintain a certain load profile on the machines. Our strategy does so w.r.t. jobs that are currently small while the strategy in [@EOW] considers all jobs assigned to machines. In our framework the profile is harder to maintain because of [*shrinking jobs*]{}, i.e.jobs that are large at some time $t$ but small at later times $t'>t$. In the job migration phase our algorithm reschedules jobs removed from some machines. This operation corresponds to the ”final phase” of the algorithm in [@EOW]. However, our algorithm directly applies policies by Graham [@G; @G2] while the algorithm in [@EOW] computes a virtual schedule. In general, an interesting question is if makespan minimization with limited migration is equivalent to makespan minimization with a bounded reordering buffer. We cannot prove this in the affirmative. As for the specific algorithms presented in [@EOW] and in this paper, the following relation holds. All our algorithms can be transformed into strategies with a reordering buffer. The competitive ratios are preserved and the number of job migrations is equal to the buffer size. This transformation is possible because our algorithms are [*monotone*]{}: If a job does not have to be migrated at time $t$, assuming $\sigma$ ended at time $t$, then there is no need to migrate it at times $t'>t$. Hence, at any time a buffer can store the candidate jobs to be migrated. On the other hand, to the best of our knowledge, the algorithms by Englert et al. [@EOW] do not translate into strategies with job migration. All the algorithms in [@EOW] use the given buffer of size $cm$, for some constant $c$, to store the $cm$ largest jobs of the job sequence. However in our setting, a migration of the largest jobs does not generate good schedules. The problem are shrinking jobs, i.e. jobs that are among the largest jobs at some time $t$ but not at later times. We cannot afford to migrate all shrinking jobs, unless we invest $\Theta(n)$ migrations. With limited job migration, scheduling decisions are final for almost all of the jobs. Hence the corresponding algorithms are more involved than in the setting with a reordering buffer.
An optimal algorithm {#sec:a1}
====================
For the description of the algorithm and the attained competitive ratio we define a function $f_m(\alpha)$. Intuitively, $f_m(\alpha)$ represents accumulated normalized load in a “perfect” machine profile for a subset of the jobs. In such a profile the load ratios of the first $\lfloor m/\alpha\rfloor$ machines follow a Harmonic series of the form $(\alpha-1)/(m-1), \ldots, (\alpha-1)/(m-\lfloor m/\alpha\rfloor)$ while the remaining ratios are $\alpha/m$. Summing up these ratios we obtain $f_m(\alpha)$. Formally, let $$f_m(\alpha) = (\alpha-1)(H_{m-1}-H_{\lceil(1-1/\alpha)m\rceil-1}) + \lceil(1-1/\alpha)m\rceil \alpha/m,$$ for any machine number $m\geq 2$ and real-valued $\alpha>1$. Here $H_k = \sum_{i=1}^k 1/i$ denotes the $k$-th Harmonic number, for any integer $k\geq 1$. We set $H_0 = 0$. For any fixed $m\geq 2$, let $\alpha_m$ be the value satisfying $f_m(\alpha)=1$. Lemma \[lem:l1\] below implies that $\alpha_m$ is well-defined. The algorithm we present is exactly $\alpha_m$-competitive. By Lemma \[lem:l2\], the values $\alpha_m$ form a non-decreasing sequence. There holds $\alpha_2 = 4/3$ and $\lim_{m\rightarrow \infty} \alpha_m = W_{-1}(-1/e^2)/(1+ W_{-1}(-1/e^2))\approx 1.4659$. This convergence was also stated by Englert et al. [@EOW] but no thorough proof was presented. The following two technical lemmas are proven in the appendix.
\[lem:l1\] The function $f_m(\alpha)$ is continuous and strictly increasing in $\alpha$, for any integer $m\geq 2$ and real number $\alpha>1$. There holds $f_m(1+1/(3m)) <1$ and $f_m(2) \geq 1$.
\[lem:l2\] The sequence $(\alpha_m)_{m\geq 2}$ is non-decreasing with $\alpha_2= 4/3$ and $\lim_{m\rightarrow \infty} \alpha_m
= W_{-1}(-1/e^2)/(1+ W_{-1}(-1/e^2))$.
Description of the algorithm
----------------------------
Let $m\geq 2$ and $M_1, \ldots, M_m$ be the available machines. Furthermore, let $\alpha_m$ be as defined above. The algorithm, called [*ALG($\alpha_m$)*]{}, operates in two phases, a [*job arrival phase*]{} and a [*job migration phase*]{}. In the job arrival phase all jobs of $\sigma = J_1, \ldots, J_n$ are assigned one by one to the machines. In this phase no job migrations are performed. Once $\sigma$ is scheduled, the job migration phase starts. First the algorithm removes some jobs from the machines. Then these jobs are reassigned to other machines.
[**Job arrival phase.**]{} In this phase [*ALG($\alpha_m$)*]{} classifies jobs into small and large and, moreover, maintains a load profile with respect to the small jobs on the machines. At any time the load of a machine is the sum of the processing times of the jobs currently assigned to it. Let [*time $t$*]{} be the time when $J_t$ has to be scheduled, $1\leq t \leq n$.
In order to classify jobs [*ALG($\alpha_m$)*]{} maintains a lower bound $L_t$ on the optimum makespan. Let $p_t^+ = \sum_{i=1}^t p_i$ be the sum of the processing times of the first $t$ jobs. Furthermore, for $i=1, \ldots, 2m+1$, let $p_t^i$ denote the processing time of the $i$-th largest job in $J_1, \ldots, J_t$, provided that $i\leq t$. More formally, if $i\leq t$, let $p_t^i$ be the processing time of the $i$-th largest job; otherwise we set $p_t^i=0$. Obviously, when $t$ jobs have arrived, the optimum makespan cannot be smaller than the average load ${1\over m} p_t^+$ on the $m$ machines. Moreover, the optimum makespan cannot be smaller than $3p_t^{2m+1}$, which is three times the processing time of $(2m+1)$-st largest job seen so far. Define $$L_t = \max\{\textstyle{1\over m}p_t^+, 3p_t^{2m+1}\}.$$
A job $J_t$ is called [*small*]{} if $p_t \leq (\alpha_m-1)L_t$; otherwise it is [*large*]{}. As the estimates $L_t$ are non-decreasing over time, a large job $J_t$ does not necessarily satisfy $p_t > (\alpha_m-1)L_{t'}$ at times $t'>t$. Therefore we need a more refined notion of small and large. A job $J_i$, with $i\leq t$, is [*small at time $t$*]{} if $p_i \leq (\alpha_m-1)L_t$; otherwise it is [*large at time $t$*]{}. We introduce a final piece of notation. In the sequence $p_t^1, \ldots, p_t^{2m}$ of the $2m$ largest processing times up to time $t$ we focus on those that are large. More specifically, for $i=1, \ldots, 2m$, let $\hat{p}_t^i = p_t^i$ if $p_t^i >(\alpha_m-1)L_t$; otherwise let $\hat{p}_t^i = 0$. Define $$\textstyle{L^*_t = {1\over m}(p_t^+ - \sum_{i=1}^{2m}\hat{p}_t^i)}.$$ Intuitively, $L_t^*$ is the average machine load ignoring jobs that are large at time $t$. Since $\alpha_m\geq 4/3$, by Lemma \[lem:l2\], and $L_t \geq 3 p_t^{2m+1}$, there can exist at most $2m$ jobs that are large at time $t$.
[**Algorithm ALG($\alpha_m$):**]{}\
[*Job arrival phase.*]{} Each $J_t$, $1\leq t \leq n$, is scheduled as follows.\
- $J_t$ is small: Assign $J_t$ to an $M_j$ with $\ell_s(j,t)\leq \beta(j)L_t^*$.\
- $J_t$ is large: Assign $J_t$ to a least loaded machine.\
[*Job migration phase.*]{}\
- Job removal: Set $R:=\emptyset$. While there exists an $M_j$ with $\ell(j)>\max\{\beta(j)L^*,(\alpha-1)L\}$, remove the largest job from $M_j$ and add it to $R$.\
- Job reassignment: $R'= \{J_i\in R \mid p_i > (\alpha_m-1)L\}$. For $i=1, \ldots, m$, set $P_i$ contains $J_{r}^i$, if $i\leq |R'|$, and $J_{r}^{2m+1-i}$, if $p_r^{2m+1-i} > p_r^i/2$ and $2m+1-i\leq |R'|$. Number the sets in order of non-increasing total processing time. For $i=1, \ldots, m$, assign $P_i$ to a least loaded machine. Assign each $J_i \in R\setminus (P_1 \cup \ldots \cup P_m)$ to a least loaded machine.\
We describe the scheduling steps in the job arrival phase. Initially, the machines are numbered in an arbitrary way and this numbering $M_1, \ldots, M_m$ remains fixed throughout the execution of [*ALG($\alpha_m$)*]{}. As mentioned above the algorithm maintains a load profile on the machines as far as small jobs are concerned. Define $$\beta(j) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
(\alpha_m-1){m\over m-j} & \mbox{if}\ j \leq \lfloor m/\alpha_m\rfloor\\[4pt]
\alpha_m & \mbox{otherwise.}
\end{array}
\right.$$ We observe that $f_m(\alpha_m) = {1\over m}\sum_{j=1}^m \beta(j)$, taking into account that $m - \lfloor m/\alpha_m \rfloor = \lceil (1-1/\alpha_m)m\rceil$. For any machine $M_j$ $1\leq j \leq m$, let $\ell(j,t)$ denote its load at time $t$ [*before*]{} $J_t$ is assigned to a machine. Let $\ell_s(j,t)$ be the load caused by the jobs on $M_j$ that are small at time $t$. [*ALG($\alpha_m$)*]{} ensures that at any time $t$ there exists a machine $M_j$ satisfying $\ell_s(j,t)\leq \beta(j)L_t^*$.
For $t=1, \ldots, n$, each $J_t$ is scheduled as follows. If $J_t$ is small, then it is scheduled on a machine with $\ell_s(j,t)\leq \beta(j)L_t^*$. In Lemma \[lem:l3\] we show that such a machine always exists. If $J_t$ is large, then it is assigned to a machine having the smallest load among all machines. At the end of the phase let $L = L_n$ and $L^*=L_n^*$.
[**Job migration phase.**]{} This phase consists of a [*job removal step*]{} followed by a [*job reassignment step*]{}. At any time during the phase, let $\ell(j)$ denote the current load of $M_j$, $1\leq j\leq m$. In the removal step [*ALG($\alpha_m$)*]{} maintains a set $R$ of removed jobs. Initially $R=\emptyset$. During the removal step, while there exists a machine $M_j$ whose load $\ell(j)$ exceeds $\max\{\beta(j)L^*,(\alpha_m-1)L\}$, [*ALG($\alpha_m$)*]{} removes the job with the largest processing time currently residing on $M_j$ and adds the job to $R$.
If $R= \emptyset$ at the end of the removal step, then [*ALG($\alpha_m$)*]{} terminates. If $R\neq \emptyset$, then the reassignment step is executed. Let $R'\subseteq R$ be the subset of the jobs that are large at the end of $\sigma$, i.e. whose processing time is greater than $(\alpha_m-1)L$. Again there can exist at most $2m$ such jobs. [*ALG($\alpha_m$)*]{} first sorts the jobs of $R'$ in order of non-increasing processing time; ties are broken arbitrarily. Let $J_r^i$, $1\leq i \leq |R'|$, be the $i$-th job in this sorted sequence and $p_r^i$ be its processing time. For $i=1,\ldots,m$, [*ALG($\alpha_m$)*]{} forms jobs pairs consisting of the $i$-th largest and the $(2m+1-i)$-th largest jobs provided that the processing time of the latter job is sufficiently high. A pairing strategy combining the $i$-th largest and the $(2m+1-i)$-th largest jobs was also used by Graham [@G2]. Formally, [*ALG($\alpha_m$)*]{} builds sets $P_1, \ldots, P_m$ that contain up to two jobs. Initially, all these sets are empty. In a first step $J_r^i$ is assigned to $P_i$, for any $i$ with $1\leq i \leq \min\{m,|R'|\}$. In a second step $J_r^{2m+1-i}$ is added to $P_i$ provided that $p_r^{2m+1-i}> p_r^i/2$, i.e. the processing time of $J_r^{2m+1-i}$ must be greater than half times that of $J_r^i$. This second step is executed for any $i$ such that $1\leq i\leq m$ and $2m+1-i\leq |R'|$. For any set $P_i$, $1\leq i\leq m$, let $\pi_i$ be the total summed processing time of the jobs in $P_i$. [*ALG($\alpha_m$)*]{} now renumbers the sets in order of non-increasing $\pi_i$ values such that $\pi_1\geq \ldots \geq \pi_m$. Then, for $i=1, \ldots, m$, it takes the set $P_i$ and assigns the jobs of $P_i$ to a machine with the smallest current load. If $P_i$ contains two jobs, then both are placed on the same machine. Finally, if $R\setminus (P_1\cup \ldots \cup P_m) \neq \emptyset$, then [*ALG($\alpha_m$)*]{} takes care of the remaining jobs. These jobs may be scheduled in an arbitrary order. Each job of $R\setminus (P_1\cup \ldots \cup P_m)$ is scheduled on a machine having the smallest current load. This concludes the description of [*ALG($\alpha_m$)*]{}. A summary in pseudo-code is given in Figure \[fig:1\].
\[th:1\] ALG($\alpha_m$) is $\alpha_m$-competitive and uses at most $(\lceil (2-\alpha_m)/(\alpha_m-1)^2\rceil+4)m$ job migrations.
As we shall see in the analysis of [*ALG($\alpha_m$)*]{} in the job migration phase the algorithm has to remove at most $\mu_m= \lceil (2-\alpha_m)/(\alpha_m-1)^2\rceil+4$ jobs from each machine. Table \[t:1\] depicts the competitive ratios $\alpha_m$ (exactly and approximately) and the migration numbers $\mu_m$, for small values of $m$. We point out that $\alpha_m$ is a rational number, for any $m\geq 2$.
$m$ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\alpha_m$ ${\begin{minipage}{0.8cm}\vspace{2pt} \centering $4\over 3$ \end{minipage}}$ ${\begin{minipage}{0.8cm}\vspace{2pt} \centering $15 \over 11$ \end{minipage}}$ ${\begin{minipage}{0.8cm}\vspace{2pt} \centering $11\over 8$ \end{minipage}}$ ${\begin{minipage}{0.8cm}\vspace{2pt} \centering $125\over 89$ \end{minipage}}$ ${\begin{minipage}{0.8cm}\vspace{2pt} \centering $137\over 97$ \end{minipage}}$ ${\begin{minipage}{0.8cm}\vspace{2pt} \centering $273\over 193$ \end{minipage}}$ ${\begin{minipage}{0.8cm}\vspace{2pt} \centering $586\over 411$ \end{minipage}}$ ${\begin{minipage}{0.8cm}\vspace{2pt} \centering $1863\over 1303$ \end{minipage}}$ ${\begin{minipage}{0.8cm}\vspace{2pt} \centering $5029\over 3517$ \end{minipage}}$ ${\begin{minipage}{0.8cm}\vspace{2pt} \centering $58091\over 40451$ \end{minipage}}$
$\approx$ $1.3636$ $1.375$ $1.4045$ $1.4124$ $1.4145$ $1.4258$ $1.4298$ $1.4299$ $1.4360$
$\mu_m$ 10 9 9 8 8 8 8 8 8 7
: The values of $\alpha_m$ and $\mu_m$, for small $m$.[]{data-label="t:1"}
Analysis of the algorithm
-------------------------
We first show that the assignment operations in the job arrival phase are well defined. A corresponding statement was shown by Englert et al. [@EOW]. The following proof is more involved because we have to take care of large jobs in the current schedule.
\[lem:l3\] At any time $t$ there exists a machine $M_j$ satisfying $\ell_s(j,t)\leq \beta(j)L_t^*$.
Suppose that there exists a time $t$, $1\leq t\leq n$, such that $\ell_s(j,t)> \beta(j)L_t^*$ holds for all $M_j$, $1\leq j\leq m$. We will derive a contradiction.
Among the jobs $J_1, \ldots, J_t$, at most $2m$ can be large at time $t$: If there were at least $2m+1$ such jobs, then $L_t \geq 3p_t^{2m+1} > 3(\alpha_m-1)L_t \geq L_t$ because $\alpha_m\geq 4/3$, see Lemma \[lem:l2\]. Hence each of the jobs that is large at time $t$ is represented by a positive entry in the sequence $\hat{p}_t^1, \ldots, \hat{p}_t^{2m}$. Conversely, every positive entry in this sequence corresponds to a job that is large at time $t$ and resides on one of the $m$ machines or is equal to $J_t$ if $J_t$ is large. Hence if $J_t$ is large, $\sum_{j=1}^m \ell(j,t) + p_t
= \sum_{j=1}^m \ell_s(j,t) + \sum_{i=1}^{2m}\hat{p}_t^i$. If $J_t$ is small, then $\sum_{j=1}^m \ell(j,t) + p_t \geq \sum_{j=1}^m \ell(j,t)= \sum_{j=1}^m \ell_s(j,t) + \sum_{i=1}^{2m}\hat{p}_t^i$. In either case $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{j=1}^m \ell(j,t) + p_t &\geq& \sum_{j=1}^m \ell_s(j,t) + \sum_{i=1}^{2m}\hat{p}_t^i \
> \ \sum_{j=1}^m \beta(j) L_t^* + \sum_{i=1}^{2m}\hat{p}_t^i\\
&=& m(\alpha_m -1)L_t^*\sum_{j=1}^{\lfloor m/\alpha_m\rfloor} 1/(m-j) + (m-\lfloor m/\alpha_m\rfloor)\alpha_m L_t^*
+\sum_{i=1}^{2m}\hat{p}_t^i.\end{aligned}$$ Taking into account that $m- \lfloor m/\alpha\rfloor = \lceil(1-1/\alpha_m)m \rceil$ and that $f_m(\alpha_m) = 1$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{j=1}^m \ell(j,t) + p_t &>& mL_t^* ((\alpha_m-1)(H_{m-1}-H_{\lceil(1-1/\alpha_m)m\rceil-1}) + \lceil(1-1/\alpha_m)m\rceil \alpha_m/m) + \sum_{i=1}^{2m}\hat{p}_t^i\\
&=&mL_t^*f_m(\alpha_m) + \sum_{i=1}^{2m}\hat{p}_t^i
= m(1/m\sum_{i=1}^t p_t - 1/m \sum_{i=1}^{2m}\hat{p}_t^i) + \sum_{i=1}^{2m}\hat{p}_t^i \ = \ \sum_{i=1}^t p_i.\end{aligned}$$ This contradicts the fact that $\sum_{j=1}^m \ell(j,t) + p_t$ is equal to the total processing time $\sum_{i=1}^t p_i$ of $J_1, \ldots, J_t$.
We next analyze the job migration phase.
\[lem:r1\] In the job removal step ALG($\alpha_m$) removes at most $\lceil (2-\alpha_m)/(\alpha_m-1)^2\rceil +4$ jobs from each of the machines.
Consider any $M_j$, with $1\leq j \leq m$. We show that it suffices to remove at most $\lceil (2-\alpha_m)/(\alpha_m-1)^2\rceil +4$ jobs so that $M_j$’s resulting load is upper bounded by $\max\{\beta(j)L^*,(\alpha_m-1)L\}$. Since [*ALG($\alpha_m$)*]{} always removes the largest jobs the lemma follows.
Let time $n+1$ be the time when the entire job sequence $\sigma$ is scheduled and the job migration phase with the removal step starts. A job $J_i$, with $1\leq i \leq n$, is [*small at time $n+1$*]{} if $p_i \leq (\alpha_m-1)L$; otherwise it is [*large at time $n+1$*]{}. Since $L=L_n$ any job that is small (large) at time $n+1$ is also small (large) at time $n$. Let $\ell(j,n+1)$ be the load of $M_j$ at time $n+1$. Similarly, $\ell_s(j,n+1)$ is $M_j$’s load consisting of the jobs that are small at time $n+1$. Throughout the proof let $k:= \lceil (2-\alpha_m)/(\alpha_m-1)^2\rceil$.
First assume $\ell_s(j,n+1) \leq \beta(j)L^*$. If at time $n+1$ machine $M_j$ does not contain any jobs that are large at time $n+1$, then $\ell(j,n+1) = \ell_s(j,n+1) \leq \beta(j)L^*$. In this case no job has to be removed and we are done. If $M_j$ does contain jobs that are large at time $n+1$, then it suffices to remove these jobs. Let time $l$ be the last time when a job $J_l$ that is large at time $n+1$ was assigned to $M_j$. Since $L_l \leq L$, $J_l$ was also large at time $l$ and hence it was assigned to a least loaded machine. This implies that prior to the assignment of $J_l$, $M_j$ has a load of at most $p_l^+/m\leq L_l\leq L$. Hence it could contain at most $1/(\alpha_m-1)$ jobs that are large at time $n+1$ because any such job has a processing time greater than $(\alpha_m-1)L$. Hence at most $1/(\alpha_m-1)+1$ jobs have to be removed from $M_j$, and the latter expression is upper bounded by $k+4$.
Next assume $\ell_s(j,n+1) >\beta(j)L^*$. If $\ell_s(j,n) \leq \beta(j)L^*= \beta(j)L_n^*$, then $J_n$ was assigned to $M_j$. In this case it suffices to remove $J_n$ and, as in the previous case, at most $1/(\alpha_m-1)+1$ jobs that are large at time $n+1$. Again $1/(\alpha_m-1)+2\leq k+4$.
In the remainder of this proof we consider the case that $\ell_s(j,n+1) >\beta(j)L^*$ and $\ell_s(j,n) > \beta(j)L_n^*$. Let $t^*$ be the earliest time such that $\ell_s(j,t) > \beta(j)L_t^*$ holds for all times $t^*\leq t \leq n$. We have $t^*\geq 2$ because $\ell_s(j,1)=0\leq \beta(j)L_1^*$. Hence time $t^*-1$ exists. We partition the jobs residing on $M_j$ at time $n+1$ into three sets. Set $T_1$ is the set of jobs that were assigned to $M_j$ at or before time $t^*-1$ and are small at time $t^*-1$. Set $T_2$ contains the jobs that were assigned to $M_j$ at or before time $t^*-1$ and are large at time $t^*-1$. Finally $T_3$ is the set of jobs assigned to $M_j$ at or after time $t^*$. We show a number of claims that we will use in the further proof.
1. Each job in $T_2\cup T_3$ is large at the time it is assigned to $M_j$.\[c:r11\]
2. There holds $\sum_{J_i\in T_1\setminus\{J_l\}} p_i \leq \beta(j)L_{t^*-1}^*$, where $J_l$ is the job of $T_1$ that was assigned last to $M_j$.\[c:r12\]
3. There holds $|T_2| \leq 3$.\[c:r13\]
4. For any $J_l\in T_3$, $M_j$’s load immediately before the assignment of $J_l$ is at most $L_l$.\[c:r14\]
5. Let $J_l\in T_3$ be the last job assigned to $M_j$. If $M_j$ contains at least $k$ jobs, different from $J_l$, each having a processing time of at least $(\alpha_m-1)^2L$, then it suffices to remove these $k$ jobs and $J_l$ such that $M_j$’s resulting load is upper bounded by $(\alpha_m-1)L$. \[c:r15\]
6. If there exists a $J_l\in T_3$ with $p_l<(\alpha_m-1)^2L$, then $M_j$’s load immediately before the assignment of $J_l$ is at most $(\alpha_m-1)L$.\[c:r16\]
[*Proof of Claim \[lem:r1\].\[c:r11\].*]{} The jobs of $T_2$ are large at time $t^*-1$ and hence at the time they were assigned to $M_j$. By the definition of $t^*$, $\ell_s(j,t)> \beta(j)L_t^*$ for any $t^*\leq t \leq n$. Hence [*ALG($\alpha_m$)*]{} does not assign small jobs to $M_j$ at or after time $t^*$.
[*Proof of Claim \[lem:r1\].\[c:r12\].*]{} All jobs of $T_1\setminus\{J_l\}$ are small at time $t^*-1$ and their total processing time is at most $\ell_s(j,t^*-1)$. In fact, their total processing time is equal to $\ell_s(j,t^*-1)$ if $l=t^*-1$. By the definition of $t^*$, $\ell_s(j,t^*-1)\leq
\beta(j)L_{t^*-1}^*$.
[*Proof of Claim \[lem:r1\].\[c:r13\].*]{} We show that for any time $t$, $1\leq t\leq n$, when $J_t$ has been placed on a machine, $M_j$ can contain at most three jobs that are large at time $t$. The claim then follows by considering $t^*-1$. Suppose that when $J_t$ has been scheduled, $M_j$ contained more than three jobs that are large as time $t$. Among these jobs let $J_l$ be the one that was assigned last to $M_j$. Immediately before the assignment of $J_l$ machine $M_j$ had a load greater than $L_l$ because the total processing time of three large jobs is greater than $3(\alpha_m-1)L_t\geq
3(\alpha_m-1)L_l\geq L_l$ since $\alpha_m\geq 4/3$, see Lemma \[lem:l2\]. This contradicts the fact that $J_l$ is placed on a least loaded machine, which has a load of at most $p_l^+/m \leq
L_l$.
[*Proof of Claim \[lem:r1\].\[c:r14\].*]{} By Claim \[lem:r1\].\[c:r11\] $J_l$ is large at time $l$ and hence is assigned to a least loaded machine, which has a load of at most $p_l^+/m \leq L_l$.
[*Proof of Claim \[lem:r1\].\[c:r15\].*]{} Claim \[lem:r1\].\[c:r14\] implies that immediately before the assignment of $J_l$ machine $M_j$ has a load of at most $L_l\leq L$. If $M_j$ contains at least $k$ jobs, different from $J_l$, with a processing time of at least $(\alpha_m-1)^2L$, then the removal of these $k$ jobs and $J_l$ from $M_j$ leads to a machine load of at most $L - k(\alpha_m-1)^2 L \leq L -\lceil (2-\alpha_m)/(\alpha_m-1)^2\rceil(\alpha_m-1)^2 L
\leq (\alpha_m-1)L$, as desired.
[*Proof of Claim \[lem:r1\].\[c:r16\].*]{} By Claim \[lem:r1\].\[c:r11\] $J_l$ is large at time $l$ and hence $p_l> (\alpha_m-1)L_l$. Since $p_l<(\alpha_m-1)^2L$, it follows $L_l<(\alpha_m-1)L$. By Claim \[lem:r1\].\[c:r14\], $M_j$’s load prior to the assignment of $J_l$ is at most $L_l$ and hence at most $(\alpha_m-1)L$.
We now finish the proof of the lemma and distinguish two cases depending on the cardinality of $T_2\cup T_3$.
[**Case 1:**]{} If $|T_2\cup T_3| <k+4$, then by Claim \[lem:r1\].\[c:r12\] it suffices to remove the jobs of $T_2\cup T_3$ and the last job of $T_1$ assigned to $M_j$.
[**Case 2:**]{} Suppose $|T_2\cup T_3| \geq k+4$. By Claim \[lem:r1\].\[c:r13\], $|T_2|\leq 3$ and hence $|T_3|\geq k+1$. Among the jobs of $T_3$ consider the last $k+1$ ones assigned to $M_j$. If each of them has a processing time of at least $(\alpha_m-1)^2L$, then Claim \[lem:r1\].\[c:r15\] ensures that it suffices to remove these $k+1$ jobs. If one of them, say $J_l$, has a processing time smaller than $(\alpha_m-1)^2L$, then by Claim \[lem:r1\].\[c:r16\] $M_j$’s load prior to the assignment of $J_l$ is at most $(\alpha_m-1)L$. Again it suffices to remove these $k+1$ jobs from $M_j$.
After the job removal step each machine $M_j$, $1\leq j\leq m$, has a load of at most $\max\{\beta(j)L^*,(\alpha_m-1)L\}$. We first observe that this load is at most $\alpha_mL$. If $(\alpha_m-1)L\geq \beta(j)L^* $, there is nothing to show. We evaluate $\beta(j)L^*$. If $j> \lfloor m/\alpha_m\rfloor$, then $\beta(j)=\alpha_m$ and $\beta(j)L^* = \alpha_m L^*
\leq \alpha_m L$. If $j\leq \lfloor m/\alpha_m\rfloor$, then $\beta(j) = (\alpha_m-1)m/(m-j)
\leq (\alpha_m-1)m/(m-\lfloor m/\alpha_m\rfloor) = (\alpha_m-1)m/\lceil (1-1/\alpha_m)m\rceil)\leq \alpha_m$ and thus $\beta(j)L^* \leq \alpha_m L$. Hence $M_j$’s load is upper bounded by $\alpha_m {\mathit OPT}$, where ${\mathit OPT}$ denotes the value of the optimum makespan for the job sequence $\sigma$. The following lemma ensures that after the reassignment step, each machine still has a load of at most $\alpha_m {\mathit OPT}$.
After the reassignment step each machine $M_j$, $1\leq j\leq m$, has a load of at most $\alpha_m {\mathit OPT}$.
We show that all scheduling operations in the reassignment step preserve a load of at most $\alpha_m {\mathit OPT}$ on each of the machines. We first consider the assignment of the sets $P_1, \ldots, P_m$. Suppose that these sets are already sorted in order of non-increasing total processing times, i.e. $\pi_1\geq \ldots \geq \pi_m$. We first argue that $\pi_1$ and hence any $\pi_i$, $1\leq i\leq m$, is upper bounded by $\mathit{OPT}$. If $P_1$ contains at most one job, there is nothing to show because $\mathit{OPT}$ cannot be smaller than the processing time of any job in $\sigma$. Assume that $P_1$ contains two jobs. Then it consists of jobs $J_r^{i_1}$ and $J_r^{2m+1-i_1}$, for some $i_1$ with $1\leq i_1 \leq m$. Since the two jobs are paired there holds $p_r^{2m+1-i_1} > p_r^{i_1}/2$ and hence $p_r^{2m+1-i_1} > \pi_1/3$. Let $\mathit{OPT'}$ denote the optimum makespan for the job sequence $J_r^1, \ldots, J_r^{2m+1-i_1}$. Since $J_r^{i_1}$ and $J_r^{2m+1-i_1}$ are paired, jobs $J_r^{i}$ and $J_r^{2m+1-i}$ are also paired, for any $i_1 <i \leq m$, because $p_r^{2m+1-i} \geq p_r^{2m+1-i_1} > p_r^{i_1}/2 \geq p_r^{i}/2$. Further, the sets $P_1, \dots, P_m$ contain all jobs $J_r^1,\dots, J_r^{i^*-1}$, and none of these was paired. Thus the sets $P_1, \ldots, P_m$ contain all the jobs $J_r^1, \ldots, J_r^{2m+1-i_1}$, which implies $\pi_1\geq \mathit{OPT'}$ and $p_r^{2m+1-i_1} > \mathit{OPT'}/3$. It follows $p_r^i > \mathit{OPT'}/3$, for all $i$ with $1\leq i \leq 2m+1-i_1$. Graham [@G2] showed that given a sequence of up to $2m$ jobs, each having a processing time greater than a third times the optimum makespan, an optimal schedule is obtained by repeatedly pairing the $i$-th largest and $(2m+1-i)$-th largest jobs of the sequence. This is exactly the assignment computed by [*ALG($\alpha_m$)*]{} for $J_r^1, \ldots, J_r^{2m+1-i_1}$. We conclude $\pi_1= \mathit{OPT'}$ and $\pi_1\leq \mathit{OPT}$.
A final observation is that each job of $R'$ that is not contained in $P_1\cup\ldots \cup P_m$ has a processing time of at most $\mathit{OPT}/3$. A job in $R'\setminus (P_1\cup\ldots \cup P_m)$ is equal to a job $J_r^{2m+1-i_0}$, with $1\leq i_0< i_1$. Since $J_r^{2m+1-i_0}$ is not paired with $J_r^{i_0}$, there holds $p_r^{2m+1-i_0} \leq p_r^{i_0}/2$. Assume that $p_r^{2m+1-i_0} > \mathit{OPT}/3$. Then $p_r^{2m+1-i_0}$ is greater than a third times the optimum makespan for the jobs $J_r^1, \ldots, J_r^{2m+1-i_0}$. Using again the results by Graham [@G2], we obtain that an optimal schedule for the latter job sequence in obtained by repeatedly pairing $J_r^i$ with $J_r^{2m+1-i}$. However, since $p_r^{2m+1-i_0} \leq p_r^{i_0}/2$, the processing time $p_r^{2m+1-i_0}$ is at most a third times the resulting optimum makespan for $J_r^1, \ldots, J_r^{2m+1-i_0}$. Hence $p_r^{2m+1-i_0}$ is at most a third times $\mathit{OPT}$, which is a contradiction.
Next we compare the processing time of the jobs of $P_1\cup \ldots\cup P_m$ to $\sum_{i=1}^{2m}\hat{p}_n^i$. Set $R'$ contains the jobs of $R$ that are large at time $n+1$. There exist at most $2m$ jobs that are large at time $n+1$ and hence the processing time of each job in $R'$ is represented by a positive entry in the sequence $\hat{p}_n^1, \ldots, \hat{p}_n^{2m}$. It follows that the total processing time of the jobs in $R'$ and hence the total processing time of the jobs in $P_1\cup \ldots\cup P_m$ is at most $\sum_{i=1}^{2m}\hat{p}_n^i$. Recall that $\pi_1\geq \ldots \geq \pi_m$. Then, for any $j$ with $1\leq j\leq m$, the product $j\pi_j$ is upper bounded by the total processing time of $P_1\cup \ldots\cup P_m$ and hence $j\pi_j\leq \sum_{i=1}^{2m}\hat{p}_n^i$.
Now consider the assignment of the sets $P_1, \ldots, P_m$ to the machines. Each set is assigned to a least loaded machine. Hence when $P_j$, $1\leq j \leq m$, is scheduled, it is assigned to a machine whose current load is at most $\max\{\beta(j)L^*,(\alpha_m-1)L\}$. If the load is at most $(\alpha_m-1)L$, then the machine’s load after the assignment is at most $(\alpha_m-1)L+\pi_j \leq (\alpha_m-1)L+\mathit{OPT}
\leq \alpha_m\mathit{OPT}$. If the current load is only upper bounded by $\beta(j)L^*$, then we distinguish two cases.
If $j\leq \lfloor m/\alpha_m\rfloor$, then $j\leq m/\alpha_m$, which is equivalent to $m/(m-j) \leq \alpha_m/(\alpha_m-1)$. The resulting machine load is at most $$\beta(j)L^*+\pi_j = (\alpha_m-1){m\over m-j}({1\over m}\sum_{i=1}^n p_i - {1\over m}\sum_{i=1}^{2m}\hat{p}_t^j) +\pi_j \leq (\alpha_m-1){1\over m-j}(mL - j\pi_j) +\pi_j.$$ The last inequality follows because, as argued above, $j\pi_j \leq \sum_{i=1}^{2m}\hat{p}_t^i$. It follows that the machine load is upper bounded by $$(\alpha_m-1)\textstyle{1\over m-j}(mL - m\pi_j) +\alpha_m\pi_j
\leq \alpha_m(L-\pi_j) + \alpha_m\pi_j= \alpha_mL.$$ The last inequality holds because $m/(m-j) \leq \alpha_m/(\alpha_m-1)$, as mentioned above.
If $j> \lfloor m/\alpha_m\rfloor$, then $j\geq m/\alpha_m$ because $j$ is integral. In this case the machine load is upper bounded by $$\beta(j)L^*+\pi_j = \alpha_m(\sum_{i=1}^n p_i - \sum_{i=1}^{2m}\hat{p}_t^i)/m +\pi_j
\leq \alpha_m(\sum_{i=1}^n p_i- j\pi_j)/m+\pi_j \ \leq \ \alpha_m L,$$ because $j\alpha_m\geq m$.
Finally we consider the jobs $R\setminus (P_1\cup\ldots \cup P_m)$. Each job of $R\setminus R'$ has a processing time of at most $(\alpha_m-1)L$. As argued above, each job of $R'\setminus (P_1\cup\ldots \cup P_m)$ has a processing time of at most ${\mathit OPT}/3$, which is upper bounded by $(\alpha_m-1)\mathit{OPT}$ since $\alpha_m\geq 4/3$. Hence each job of $R\setminus (P_1\cup\ldots \cup P_m)$ has a processing time of at most $(\alpha_m-1)\mathit{OPT}$. Each of these jobs is scheduled on a least loaded machine and thus after the assignment the corresponding machine has a load of at most $\mathit{OPT}+ (\alpha_m-1)\mathit{OPT}
\leq \alpha_m \mathit{OPT}$.
The proof of Theorem \[th:1\] is complete.
A lower bound {#sec:2}
=============
We present a lower bound showing that [*ALG($\alpha_m$)*]{} is optimal.
Let $m\geq 2$. No deterministic online algorithm can achieve a competitive ratio smaller than $\alpha_m$ if $o(n)$ job migrations are allowed.
Let $A$ be any deterministic online algorithm that is allowed to use up to $g(n)$ job migrations on a job sequence of length $n$. Suppose that $A$ achieves a competitive ratio smaller than $\alpha_m$. We will derive a contradiction.
Choose an $\epsilon >0$ such that $A$ has a competitive ratio strictly smaller than $\alpha_m-\epsilon$. Let $\epsilon'=\epsilon/3$. Since $g(n)=o(n)$ there exists an $n_0$ such that $g(n)/n \leq \epsilon'/(2m)$, for all $n\geq n_0$. Hence there exists an $n_0$ such that $g(n+m)/(n+m) \leq \epsilon'/(2m)$, for all $n\geq \max\{m,n_0\}$. Let $n'$, with $n'\geq \max\{m,n_0\}$, be the smallest integer multiple of $m$. We have $g(n'+m)/n'\leq \epsilon'/m$ because $n'+m\leq 2n'$. An adversary constructs a job sequence consisting of $n'+m$ jobs. Let $p_1= m/n'$. By our choice of $n'$, there holds $p_1\leq \epsilon'/g(n'+m)$. The following adversarial sequence is similar to that used by Englert et al. [@EOW]. However, here we have to ensure that in migrating $o(n)$ jobs, an online algorithm cannot benefit much.
First the adversary presents $n'$ jobs of processing time $p_1$. We will refer to them as $p_1$-jobs. If after the assignment of these jobs $A$ has a machine $M_j$, $1\leq j \leq m$, whose load is at least $\alpha_m$, then the adversary presents $m$ jobs of processing time $p_2=\epsilon'/m$. Using job migration, $A$ can remove at most $g(n'+m)$ $p_1$-jobs from $M_j$. Since $g(n'+m)p_1\leq \epsilon'$, after job migration $M_j$ still has a load of at least $\alpha_m-\epsilon$. On the other hand the optimal makespan is $1+\epsilon'/m$. In an optimal assignment each machine contains $n'/m$ $p_1$-jobs and one $p_2$-job. The ratio $(\alpha_m-\epsilon')/(1+\epsilon'/m)$ is at least $\alpha_m-\epsilon$ by our choice of $\epsilon'$ and the fact that $\alpha_m\leq2$, see Lemma \[lem:l1\]. We obtain a contradiction.
In the following we study the case that after the assignment of the $p_1$-jobs each machine in $A$’s schedule has a load strictly smaller than $\alpha_m$. We number the machines in order of non-decreasing load such that $\ell(1)\leq \ldots\leq \ell(m)$. Here $\ell(j)$ denotes the load of $M_j$ after the $p_1$-jobs have arrived, $1\leq j\leq m$. For $j=1, \ldots, m-1$, define $\beta(j) = (\alpha_m-1)m/(m-j)$. We first argue that there must exist a machine $M_j$, $1\leq j\leq m-1$, in $A$’s schedule whose load is at least $\beta(j)$. Suppose that each machine $M_j$, $1\leq j\leq m-1$, had a load strictly smaller than $\beta(j)$. By Lemma \[lem:l1\], $\alpha_m>1$ and hence $\lceil(1-1/\alpha_m)m\rceil\geq 1$. Consider the $\lceil(1-1/\alpha_m)m\rceil$ machines with the highest load in $A$’s schedule. Each of these machines has a load strictly smaller than $\alpha_m$. The remaining machines have a load strictly smaller than $\beta(j) = (\alpha_m-1)m/(m-j)$, for $j=1,\ldots, m - \lceil(1-1/\alpha_m)m\rceil$. We conclude that after the arrival of the $p_1$-jobs the total load on the machines is strictly smaller than $$\begin{aligned}
& & (\alpha_m-1)m \sum_{j=1}^{m-\lceil(1-1/\alpha_m)m\rceil} {1\over m-j} + \lceil(1-1/\alpha_m)m\rceil \alpha_m\\
&=& m((\alpha_m-1)(H_{m-1}-H_{\lceil(1-1/\alpha_m)m\rceil-1}) + \lceil(1-1/\alpha_m)m\rceil \alpha_m/m)
= mf_m(\alpha_m) = m.\end{aligned}$$ The last equation holds because $f_m(\alpha_m)=1$, by the choice of $\alpha_m$. We obtain a contradiction to the fact that after the arrival of the $p_1$-jobs a total load of exactly $m$ resides on the machines.
Let $M_{j_0}$, with $1\leq j_0\leq m-1$, be a machine whose load is at least $\beta(j_0)$. Since $A$’s machines are numbered in order of non-decreasing load there exist at most $j_0-1$ machines having a smaller load than $\beta(j_0)$. The adversary presents $j_0$ jobs of processing time $p_2=m/(m-j_0)$. Using job migration $A$ can remove at most $g(n'+m)$ $p_1$-jobs from any of the machines, thereby reducing the load by at most $\epsilon'$. Hence in $A$’s final schedule there exists a machine having a load of a least $\beta(j_0)+m/(m-j_0)-\epsilon'$. This holds true if the $p_2$-jobs reside on different machines. If there exists a machine containing two $p_2$-jobs, then its load is at least $2m/(m-j_0)\geq (\alpha_m-1)m/(m-j_0) + m/(m-j_0) =
\beta(j_0) + m/(m-j_0)$ as desired. The inequality holds because $\alpha_m\leq 2$, by Lemma \[lem:l1\]. Hence $A$’s makespan is at least $\beta(j_0)+m/(m-j_0)-\epsilon'$.
The optimum makespan for the job sequence is upper bounded by $m/(m-j_0)+\epsilon'$. In an optimal schedule the $j_0$ $p_2$-jobs are assigned to different machines. The $n'$ $p_1$-jobs are distributed evenly among the remaining $m-j_0$ machines. If $n'$ is an integer multiple of $m-j_0$, then the load on each of these $m-j_0$ machines is exactly $n'p_1/(m-j_0)= m/(m-j_0)$, which is exactly equal to the processing time of a $p_2$-job. If $n'$ is not divisible by $m-j_0$, then the maximum load on any of these $m-j_0$ machines cannot be higher than $m/(m-j_0)+p_1 \leq m/(m-j_0) + \epsilon'/g(n'+m)
\leq m/(m-j_0) + \epsilon'$.
Dividing the lower bound on $A$’s makespan by the upper bound on the optimum makespan we obtain $(\alpha_m m/(m-j_0) - \epsilon')/(m/(m-j_0) + \epsilon') \geq (\alpha_m-\epsilon')/(1+\epsilon')\geq
\alpha_m-\epsilon$. The last inequality holds because $\epsilon'=\epsilon/3$ and $\alpha_m\leq2$, see Lemma \[lem:l1\]. We obtain a contradiction to the assumption that $A$’s competitiveness is strictly smaller than $\alpha_m-\epsilon$.
Algorithms using fewer migrations {#sec:3}
=================================
We present a family of algorithms [*ALG$(c)$*]{} that uses a smaller number of job migrations. We first describe the family and then analyze its performance.
Description of [*ALG$(c)$*]{}
-----------------------------
[*ALG$(c)$*]{} is defined for any constant $c$ with $5/3\leq c \leq 2$, where $c$ is the targeted competitive ratio. An important feature of [*ALG$(c)$*]{} is that it partitions the machines $M_1, \ldots, M_m$ into two sets $A=\{M_1, \ldots, M_{\lfloor m/2\rfloor}\}$ and $B=\{M_{\lceil m/2\rceil}, \ldots, M_m\}$ of roughly equal size. In a job arrival phase the jobs are preferably assigned to machines in $A$, provided that their load it not too high. In the job migration phase, jobs are mostly migrated from machines of $A$ (preferably to machines in $B$) and this policy will allow us to achieve a smaller number of migrations. Setting $c=5/3$ we obtain an algorithm [*ALG$(5/3)$*]{} that is $5/3$-competitive using $4m$ migrations. For $c=1.75$ the resulting algorithm [*ALG$(1.75)$*]{} is $1.75$-competitive and uses at most $2.5m$ migrations. In the following let $5/3\leq c \leq 2$.
[**Algorithm ALG$(c)$:**]{} [**Job arrival phase.**]{} At any time $t$ [*ALG$(c)$*]{} maintains a lower bound $L_t$ on the optimum makespan, which is defined as $\textstyle{L_t = \max\{{1\over m}p_t^+,p_t^1,2p_t^{m+1}\}}.$ Here we use the same notation as in Section \[sec:a1\]. Recall that $p_t^1$ and $p_t^{m+1}$ are the processing times of the largest and $(m+1)$-st largest jobs in $J_1, \ldots, J_t$, respectively. A job $J_t$ is [*small*]{} if $p_t\leq (2c-3)L_t$; otherwise it is [*large*]{}. A job $J_i$, with $i\leq t$, is [*small at time $t$*]{} if $p_i\leq (2c-3)L_t$. For any machine $M_j$ and any time $t$, $\ell(j,t)$ is $M_j$’s load immediately before $J_t$ is assigned and $\ell_s(j,t)$ is its load consisting of the jobs that are small at time $t$.
Any job $J_t$, $1\leq t\leq n$, is processed as follows. If $J_t$ is small, then [*ALG$(c)$*]{} checks if there is a machine in $A$ whose load value $\ell_s(j,t)$ is at most $(c-1)L_t$. If this is the case, then among the machines in $A$ with this property, $J_t$ is assigned to one having the smallest $\ell_s(j,t)$ value. If there is no such machine in $A$, then $J_t$ is assigned to a least loaded machine in $B$. If $J_t$ is large, then [*ALG$(c)$*]{} checks if there is machine in $A$ whose load value $\ell(j,t)$ is at most $(3-c)L_t$. If this is the case, then $J_t$ is scheduled on a least loaded machine in $A$. Otherwise $J_t$ is assigned to a least loaded machine in $B$. At the end of the phase let $L= L_n$.
[**Job migration phase.**]{} At any time during the phase let $\ell(j)$ denote the current load of $M_j$, $1\leq j\leq m$. We first describe the job removal step. For any machine $M_j\in B$, [*ALG$(c)$*]{} removes the largest job from that machine. Furthermore, while there exists a machine $M_j\in A$ whose current load exceeds $(c-1)L$, [*ALG$(c)$*]{} removes the largest job from the machine. Let $R$ be the set of all removed jobs. In the job reassignment step [*ALG$(c)$*]{} first sorts the jobs in order of non-increasing processing times. For any $i$, $1\leq i \leq |R|$, let $J_r^i$ be the $i$-th largest job in this sequence, and let $p_r^i$ be the corresponding processing time. For $i=1, \ldots, |R|$, $J_r^i$ is scheduled as follows. If there exists a machine $M_j\in B$ such that $\ell(j)+p_r^i\leq cL$, i.e.$J_r^i$ can be placed on $M_j$ without exceeding a makespan of $cL$, then $J_r^i$ is assigned to this machine. Otherwise the job is scheduled on a least loaded machine in $A$. A pseudo-code description of [*ALG$(c)$*]{} is given in Figure \[fig:2\].
[**Algorithm ALG$(c)$:**]{} Let $5/3\leq c \leq 2$.\
[*Job arrival phase.*]{} Each $J_t$, $1\leq t \leq n$, is scheduled as follows.\
- $J_t$ is small: Let $A'=\{M_j\in A \mid \ell_s(j,t)\leq (c-1)L_t\}$. If $A'\neq \emptyset$, then assign $J_t$ to a machine $M_j\in A'$ having the smallest $\ell_s(j,t)$ value. Otherwise assign $J_t$ to a least loaded machine $M_j\in B$.\
- $J_t$ is large: If there is an $M_j\in A$ with $\ell(j,t)\leq (3-c)L_t$, then assign $J_t$ to a least loaded machine in $A$. Otherwise assign $J_t$ to a least loaded machine in $B$.\
[*Job migration phase.*]{}\
- Job removal: Set $R:=\emptyset$. For any $M_j\in B$, remove the largest job from $M_j$ and add it to $R$. While there exists an $M_j\in A$ with $\ell(j)>(c-1)L$, remove the largest job from $M_j$ and add it to $R$.\
- Job reassignment: Sort the jobs of $R$ in order of non-increasing processing time. For $i=1, \ldots, |R|$, schedule $J_r^i$ as follows. If there is an $M_j\in B$ with $\ell(j) + p_r^i\leq cL$, then assign $J_r^i$ to $M_j$. Otherwise assign it to a least loaded machine in $A$.\
\[th:family\] ALG$(c)$ is $c$-competitive, for any constant $c$ with $5/3\leq c\leq 2$.
The proof of the above theorem is presented in Section \[sec:family21\]. In order to obtain good upper bounds on the number of job migrations, we focus on specific values of $c$. First, set $c=5/3$. In [*ALG(5/3)*]{} a job $J_t$ is small if $p_t \leq 1/3\cdot L_t$. In the arrival phase a small job is assigned to a machine in $A$ if there exists a machine in this set whose load consisting of jobs that are currently small is at most $2/3\cdot L_t$. A large job is assigned to a machine in $A$ if there exists a machine in this set whose load is at most $4/3 L_t$.
\[th:3\] ALG(5/3) is ${5\over 3}$-competitive and uses at most $4m$ job migrations.
In fact, for any $c$ with $5/3\leq c \leq 2$, [*ALG$(c)$*]{} uses at most $4m$ job migrations. Finally, let $c=1.75$. In [*ALG(1.75)*]{} a job $J_t$ is small if $p_t \leq 0.5\cdot L_t$. In the arrival phase a small job is assigned to a machine in $A$ if there is a machine in this set whose load consisting of jobs that are currently small is no more than $0.75 L_t$. A large job is assigned to a machine in $A$ if there exists a machine in this set whose load is at most $1.25 L_t$.
\[th:4\] ALG(1.75) is $1.75$-competitive and uses at most $2.5m$ job migrations.
Again, for any $c$ with $1.75\leq c \leq 2$, [*ALG$(c)$*]{} uses at most $2.5m$ job migrations. The proofs of Theorems \[th:3\] and \[th:4\] are contained in Section \[sec:family22\].
Analysis of [*ALG$(c)$*]{}
--------------------------
In this section we analyze [*ALG$(c)$*]{}, for any $c$ with $5/3\leq c \leq 2$, and prove Theorems \[th:family\], \[th:3\] and \[th:3\]. We first determine the competitive ratio of [*ALG$(c)$*]{} and then bound the number of job migrations performed for $c=5/3$ and $c=1.75$.
### Analysis of the competitive ratio {#sec:family21}
We start by showing two lemmas that will allow us to bound load on machines in $B$. Again, let time $n+1$ be the time when the entire job sequence $\sigma=J_1, \ldots, J_n$ has been scheduled and the migration phase starts. A job $J_i$, $1\leq i\leq n$, is [*small at time $n+1$*]{} if $p_i\leq (2c-3)L= (2c-3)L_n$; otherwise the job is [*large at time $n+1$*]{}. For any $M_j$, $1\leq j\leq m$, let $\ell(j,n+1)$ be its load at time $n+1$ and let $\ell_s(j,n+1)$ be the load consisting of the jobs that are small at time $n+1$. Let $L_{n+1}:=L$.
\[lem:2r1\] For any time $t$, $1\leq t\leq n+1$, and any $M_j\in B$, there holds $\ell(j,t)-p_l\leq (3-c)L_{t-1}$, where $J_l$ with $l<t$ is the last job assigned to $M_j$.
By the definition of [*ALG$(c)$*]{}, when $J_l$ is assigned to $M_j$, all machines of $A$ have a load greater than $(c-1)L_l$ and $M_j$ is a least loaded machine in $B$. Hence $M_j$’s load at time $l$ is at most $(3-c)L_l$ since otherwise the total load on the $m$ machines would be greater than $\lfloor m/2\rfloor (c-1) L_l+\lceil m/2\rceil (3-c) L_l
\geq mL_l\geq \sum_{i=1}^l p_i$, which is a contradiction. Hence $\ell(j,t) = \ell(j,l)+p_l \leq (3-c)L_l+p_l
\leq (3-c)L_{t-1}+p_l$.
\[lem:2r2\] Suppose that there exists a machine $M_{j^*}\in A$ with $\ell_s(j^*,n+1)< (2-c)L$. Then, for any $M_j \in B$, $\ell(j,n+1)-p_l \leq (c-1)L$, where $J_l$ is the last job assigned to $M_j$.
Consider any $M_j\in B$ and let $J_l$ be the last job assigned to it. First assume that $J_l$ is large at time $l$. By the definition of [*ALG$(c)$*]{}, at time $l$ all machines of $A$ have a load greater than $(3-c) L_l$. Moreover, $M_j$ is a least loaded machine in $B$ at time $l$. We argue that a least loaded machine in $B$ has a load of at most $(c-1) L_l$. If this were not the case, then immediately after the assignment of $J_l$ the total load on the $m$ machines would be greater than $\lfloor m/2\rfloor (3-c) L_l+\lceil m/2\rceil (c-1) L_l +p_l \geq (m/2-1/2) (3-c)L_l + (m/2+1/2) (c-1) L_l
+(2c-3)L_l = mL_l + (3c-5)L_l$. The inequality holds because $3-c \geq c-1$. Since $c \geq 5/3$ it follows $\lfloor m/2\rfloor (3-c) L_l+\lceil m/2\rceil (c-1) L_l +p_l \geq mL_l \geq \sum_{i=1}^l p_i$, which is a contradiction. Hence $\ell(j,n+1) = \ell(j,l)+p_l \leq (c-1)L_l+p_l \leq (c-1)L+p_l$.
Next assume that $J_l$ is small at time $l$. This implies $\ell_s(j,l) > (c-1)L_l$, for all $M_j\in A$. In particular, $\ell_s(j^*,l) > (c-1)L_l$. Since $\ell_s(j^*,l)\leq \ell_s(j^*,n+1)< (2-c) L$ it follows $L_l < (2-c)/(c-1)\cdot L$. By Lemma \[lem:2r1\], $\ell(j,l+1)\leq (3-c)L_l+p_l$ and we conclude $\ell(j,n+1)= \ell(j,l+1)\leq (3-c)L_l+p_l\leq (3-c)(2-c)/(c-1)\cdot L+p_l \leq (c-1) L+p_l$. The last inequality holds because $(3-c)(2-c)/(c-1)\leq c-1$ holds since $c\geq 5/3$.
We next analyze the job migration phase assuming that the job removal step has already taken place, i.e. each machine of $A$ has a load of at most $(c-1)L$ and the largest job was removed from each machine of $B$. We show that given such a machine configuration each job of $R$ can be assigned to a machine so that a load bound of $cL$ is preserved. For the analysis of the reassignment step we study two cases depending on whether or not at time $n+1$ all machines $M_j\in A$ have a load $\ell_s(j,n+1)\geq (2-c) L$.
\[lem:2rem1\] If $\ell_s(j,n+1)\geq (2-c) L$, for all $M_j\in A$, then in the reassignment step all jobs of $R$ are scheduled so that the resulting load on any of the machines is at most $c L$.
By assumption, at the end of the job arrival phase $\ell_s(j,n+1)\geq (2-c)L$, for all $M_j\in A$. We first show that this property is maintained throughout the job removal step. Suppose that a job $J_i$ that is small at time $n+1$ is removed from a machine $M_j\in A$. Since [*ALG$(c)$*]{} always removes the largest jobs from a machine, $M_j$ currently contains no jobs that are large at time $n+1$. Hence $M_j$’s current load $\ell(j)$ is equal to its current load $\ell_s(j)$ consisting of jobs that are small at time $n+1$. Since a job removal needs to be performed, $\ell_s(j) = \ell(j)
> (c-1) L$. Since $p_i \leq (2c-3) L$, the removal of $J_i$ leads to a load consisting of small jobs of at least $\ell_s(j) -p_l > (c-1) L - (2c-3) L = (2-c)L$.
After the job removal step each machine $M_j\in A$ has a load of at most $(c-1) L$. By Lemma \[lem:2r1\] each machine of $B$ has a load of at most $(3-c) L<cL$ after [*ALG$(c)$*]{} has removed the largest job from any of these machines. We show that each $J_k\in R$ can be scheduled on a machine such that the resulting load is at most $c L$. Consider any $J_k\in R$. There holds $p_k\leq L$. Suppose that $J_k$ cannot be feasibly scheduled on any of the machines. Let $\ell(j)$ denote $M_j$’s load immediately before the assignment of $J_k$, $1\leq j\leq m$. If $J_k$ cannot be placed on a machine in $A$, then each machine $M_j\in A$ must have a load greater than $(c-1) L$: If $\ell(j)\leq (c-1) L$, then $\ell(j) + p_k\leq c L$ and the assignment of $J_k$ to $M_j$ would be feasible. Hence since the start of the reassignment step each machine $M_j\in A$ must have received at least one job $J_{i_j}$ and its current load is $\ell(j) \geq (2-c) L + p_{i_j}$. When $J_{i_j}$ was reassigned, it could not be scheduled on any machine in $B$ without exceeding a load of $c L$. This implies, in particular, that $\ell(\lfloor m/2\rfloor+j) + p_{i_j} > c L$. Recall that the machines of $A$ are numbered $1, \ldots, \lfloor m/2\rfloor$ and those of $B$ are numbered $\lfloor m/2\rfloor+1, \ldots, m$. Finally, since $J_k$ cannot be placed on a machine in $B$, we have $\ell(m) + p_k > c L$.
It follows that when $J_k$ has to be scheduled the total processing time of the jobs is at least $$\sum_{j=1}^m \ell(j) + p_k \geq \lfloor m/2\rfloor (2-c) L + \sum_{j=1}^{\lfloor m/2\rfloor} p_{i_j} +
\sum_{j=\lfloor m/2\rfloor+1}^m \ell(j) + p_k.$$ If $m$ is even, then $\sum_{j=\lfloor m/2\rfloor+1}^m \ell(j) =
\sum_{j=1}^{m/2} \ell(m/2 +j)$. In this case we have $$\sum_{j=1}^m \ell(j) + p_k \geq m/2 \cdot (2-c)L + \sum_{j=1}^{m/2} (\ell(m/2 +j) +p_{i_j}) + p_k
> m/2 \cdot (2-c) L + m/2\cdot c L \ = \ mL.$$ If $m$ is odd, then $\sum_{j=\lfloor m/2\rfloor+1}^m \ell(j) =
\sum_{j=1}^{\lfloor m/2\rfloor} \ell(\lfloor m/2\rfloor +j)+ \ell(m)$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{j=1}^m \ell(j) + p_k &\geq& \lfloor m/2\rfloor \cdot (2-c) L + \sum_{j=1}^{\lfloor m/2\rfloor} (\ell(\lfloor m/2\rfloor +j)+p_{i_j})
+ \ell(m)+ p_k\\
&> & \lfloor m/2\rfloor \cdot (2-c) L + \lfloor m/2\rfloor \cdot c L + c L\\
&=& (m/2 - 1/2)2L + c L \ > \ mL.\end{aligned}$$ In both cases with obtain $\sum_{i=1}^n p_i \geq \sum_{j=1}^m \ell(j) + p_k > mL$, which contradicts the definition of $L$.
\[lem:2rem2\] If $\ell_s(j^*,n+1)< (2-c) L$, for some $M_{j^*}\in A$, then in the reassignment step all jobs of $R$ are scheduled so that the resulting load on any of the machines is at most $c L$.
In the removal step [*ALG$(c)$*]{} removes the largest job from each machine $M_j\in B$. Hence, if $\ell_s(j^*,n+1)< (2-c) L$ for some $M_j\in A$, then by Lemma \[lem:2r2\] each machine of $B$ has a load of at most $(c-1)L$ after the removal step. Moreover, each machine of $A$ has a load of at most $(c-1)L$ after the job removal.
Hence when the reassignment step starts, all machines have a load of at most $(c-1) L$. By the definition of $L$ each job has a processing time of at most $L$. Hence in the reassignment step the first $m$ jobs can be scheduled without exceeding a load of $c L$ on any of the machines. [*ALG$(c)$*]{} sorts the jobs of $R$ in order of non-increasing processing times. Thus when $m$ jobs of $R$ have been scheduled, each of the remaining jobs has a processing time of at most $1/2 L$. This holds true because by the definition of $L$ there cannot exist $m+1$ jobs of processing time greater than $1/2 L$. Each job of processing time at most $1/2 L$ can be scheduled on a least loaded machine without exceeding a load of $c L$ since $L+ 1/2 L < cL$. Hence every remaining job can be scheduled on a machine of $B$ and $A$.
Lemmas \[lem:2rem1\] and \[lem:2rem2\] imply Theorem \[th:family\].
### Analysis of the job migrations {#sec:family22}
It remains to evaluate the number of job removals in the job migration phase. We first consider [*ALG$(5/3)$*]{}.
\[lem:2r3\] In the removal step ALG$(5/3)$ removes at most seven jobs from each machine $M_j\in A$.
We show that, for any $M_j\in A$, it suffices to remove at most seven jobs from $M_j$ such that the resulting load is upper bounded by $2/3L$. The lemma then follows because in each removal operation [*ALG$(5/3)$*]{} removes the largest job.
First assume that $\ell_s(j,n+1)\leq 2/3L$. In this case it suffices to remove all jobs that are large at time $n+1$. Each such job has a processing time greater than $1/3L$ and was large at the time it was assigned to $M_j$. Consider the last time when such a job was assigned to $M_j$. At that time $M_j$ had a load of at most $4/3L$ and hence could contain no more than three jobs of processing time greater than $1/3L$. Thus at time $n+1$ machine $M_j$ contains at most four of these large jobs.
Next assume $\ell_s(j,n+1)> 2/3L$. If $\ell_s(j,n)\leq 2/3L_n$, then $J_n$ is assigned to $M_j$ because $L=L_n$. Hence it suffices to remove $J_n$ and, as shown in the last paragraph, four additional jobs of processing time greater than $1/3 L_n = 1/3L$.
In the following we concentrate on the case that $\ell_s(j,n+1)> 2/3L$ and $\ell_s(j,n)> 2/3L_n$. Let $t^*$ be the earliest time such that $\ell_s(j,t)> 2/3L_t$ holds for all times $t\geq t^*$. We have $t^*>1$ because $\ell_s(j,0)=0$. We partition the jobs that reside on $M_j$ at time $n+1$ into three sets. Set $T_1$ (set $T_2$) contains those jobs that were assigned to $M_j$ at or before time $t^*-1$ are small (large) at time $t^*-1$. Set $T_3$ contains the remaining jobs, which have arrived at or after time $t^*$.
1. Each job of $T_2\cup T_3$ is large at the time it is assigned to $M_j$.\[c:2r31\]
2. There holds $\sum_{J_i\in T_1\setminus\{J_l\}} p_i \leq 2/3 L_{t^*-1}$, where $J_l$ is the job of $T_1$ that was assigned last to $M_j$.\[c:2r32\]
3. There holds $|T_2| \leq 4$.\[c:2r33\]
4. For any $J_l\in T_3$, $M_j$’s load immediately before the assignment of $J_l$ is at most $4/3 L_l$.\[c:2r34\]
5. Let $J_l\in T_3$ be the last job assigned to $M_j$. If $M_j$ contains at least four jobs, different from $J_l$, each having a processing time of at least $1/6 L$, then it suffices to remove these four jobs and $J_l$ such that $M_j$’s resulting load is upper bounded by $2/3 L$. \[c:2r35\]
6. If there exists a $J_l\in T_3$ with $p_l<1/6L$, then $M_j$’s load immediately before the assignment of $J_l$ is at most $2/3L$.\[c:2r36\]
7. If there exists a $J_k\in T_2$ with $p_k<1/6L$, then $\sum_{J_i\in T_1}p_i + p_k\leq
2/3L$.\[c:2r37\]
[*Proof of Claim \[lem:2r3\].\[c:2r31\].*]{} The jobs of $T_2$ are large at time $t^*-1$ and hence at the time they were assigned to $M_j$. By the definition of $t^*$, $\ell_s(j,t)> 2/3 L_t$, for any $t^*\leq t \leq n$, and hence [*ALG($5/3$)*]{} does not assign small jobs to $M_j$.
[*Proof of Claim \[lem:2r3\].\[c:2r32\].*]{} By the choice of $t^*$, all jobs of $T_1\setminus\{J_l\}$ are small at time $t^*-1$ and their total processing time is at most $\ell_s(j,t^*-1)\leq 2/3 L_{t^*-1}$.
[*Proof of Claim \[lem:2r3\].\[c:2r33\].*]{} Each job of $T_2$ has a processing time greater than $1/3 L_{t^*-1}$. Consider the last time $l$ when a job $J_l\in T_2$ was assigned to $M_j$. Immediately before the assignment, $M_j$ had a load of at most $4/3 L_{t^*-1}$ and hence could contain not more than three jobs of processing time greater than $1/3 L_{t^*-1}$.
[*Proof of Claim \[lem:2r3\].\[c:2r34\].*]{} Consider any $J_l\in T_3$. By Claim \[lem:2r3\].\[c:2r31\] $J_l$ is large at time $l$ and hence $M_j$’s load prior to the assignment of $J_l$ is at most $4/3 L_l$.
[*Proof of Claim \[lem:2r3\].\[c:2r35\].*]{} By Claim \[lem:2r3\].\[c:2r34\] $M_j$’s load immediately before the assignment of $J_l$ is at most $4/3L_l$. Removing four jobs of processing time at least $1/6L$ each as well as $J_l$ reduces $M_j$’s load to a value of at most $2/3 L$.
[*Proof of Claim \[lem:2r3\].\[c:2r36\].*]{} By Claim \[lem:2r3\].\[c:2r31\] $J_l$ is large at time $l$ and hence $p_l> 1/3 L_l$. Since $p_l<1/6L$, we have $L_l<1/2L$. By Claim \[lem:2r3\].\[c:2r34\], $M_j$’s load immediately before the assignment of $J_l$ is at most $4/3 L_l$ and hence at most $2/3L$.
[*Proof of Claim \[lem:2r3\].\[c:2r37\].*]{} Job $J_k$ is large at time $t^*-1$ and hence $p_k > 1/3 L_{t^*-1}$. Since $p_k < 1/6 L$ it follows $L_{t^*-1} < 1/2 L$. By Claim \[lem:2r3\].\[c:2r32\], we have $\sum_{J_i\in T_1} p_i \leq 2/3 L_{t^*-1} + p_l$, where $J_l$ is the last job of $T_1$ assigned to $M_j$. Since $p_l$ is small at time $t^*-1$ we have $p_l \leq 1/3 L_{t^*-1} < 1/6 L$. In summary $\sum_{J_i\in T_1} p_i + p_k \leq 1/3L + 1/6 L + 1/6 L = 2/3 L$.
We proceed with the actual proof and distinguish two cases.
[**Case 1:**]{} If $|T_2\cup T_3|\leq 4$, then by Claim \[lem:2r3\].\[c:2r32\] it suffices to remove the jobs of $T_2\cup T_3$ and the last job of $T_1$ assigned to $M_j$.
[**Case 2:**]{} Assume $|T_2\cup T_3|\geq 5$. Then by Claim \[lem:2r3\].\[c:2r33\] there holds $|T_2| \leq 4$ and thus $T_3\neq \emptyset$. Let $J_l$ be the last job of $T_3$ assigned to $M_j$. If $T_2\cup T_3\setminus \{J_l\}$ contains at least four jobs of processing time at least $1/6 L$, then by Claim \[lem:2r3\].\[c:2r35\] it suffices to remove these four jobs and $J_l$. So suppose that this is not the case. Then $T_2\cup T_3\setminus \{J_l\}$ must contain a job of processing time smaller than $1/6 L$.
Assume there exists a job in $T_3\setminus \{J_l\}$ with this property. Then let $J_{l'}$ be the last job assigned to $M_j$ having a processing time smaller than $1/6 L$. By Claim \[lem:2r3\].\[c:2r36\], immediately before the assignment of $J_{l'}$ machine $M_j$ has a load of at most $2/3 L$. Therefore it suffices to remove $J_{l'}$ and the jobs of $T_3$ subsequently scheduled on $M_j$. In addition to $J_l$, this sequence consists of at most three jobs $J_k\neq J_l$, because $T_3\setminus \{J_l\}$ contains less than four jobs of processing time at least $1/6 L$.
Finally consider the case that all jobs of $T_3\setminus \{J_l\}$ have a processing time of at least $1/6 L$ and there is a job $J_{l'}\in T_2$ having a processing time smaller than $1/6 L$. By Claim \[lem:2r3\].\[c:2r37\] it suffices to remove $T_2\setminus \{J_{l'}\}\cup T_3$. By Claim \[lem:2r3\].\[c:2r33\] we have $|T_2\setminus \{J_{l'}\}| \leq 3$. Since $T_3\setminus \{J_l\}$ contains less than four jobs, each having a processing time of at least $1/6 L$, we have $|T_3|\leq 4$. We conclude that at most seven jobs have to be removed.
Lemma \[lem:2r2\] ensures that in the job removal step [*ALG$(5/3)$*]{} removes at most $7$ jobs from any machine in $A$. For any machine in $B$, one job is removed. Hence the total number of migrations is at most $7\lfloor m/2 \rfloor + \lceil m/2 \rceil \leq 4m$. This concludes the proof of Theorem \[th:3\]. We next turn to the algorithm [*ALG$(1.75)$*]{}.
\[lem:3r3\] In the job removal step ALG$(1.75)$ removes at most four jobs from each machine $M_j\in A$.
We show that, for any $M_j\in A$, it suffices to remove at most four jobs from $M_j$ such that the resulting load is upper bounded by $0.75L$. First assume that $\ell_s(j,n+1)\leq 0.75L$. Then it suffices to remove all jobs that are large at time $n+1$. Each such job has a processing time greater than $0.5L$ and was large at the time it was assigned to $M_j$. Consider the last time when such a job was assigned to $M_j$. At that time $M_j$ had a load of at most $1.25L$ and hence could contain no more than two jobs of processing time greater than $0.5L$. Thus at time $n+1$ machine $M_j$ contains at most three of these large jobs.
Next assume $\ell_s(j,n+1)> 0.75L$. If $\ell_s(j,n)\leq 0.75 L_n$, then $J_n$ is assigned to $M_j$ because $L=L_n$. Hence it suffices to remove $J_n$ and, as shown in the last paragraph, three additional jobs of processing time greater than $0.5 L_n = 0.5L$.
We concentrate on the case that $\ell_s(j,n+1)> 0.75L$ and $\ell_s(j,n)> 0.75L_n$. Let $t^*$ be the earliest time such that $\ell_s(j,t)> 0.75L_t$ holds for all times $t\geq t^*$. We partition the jobs that reside on $M_j$ at time $n+1$ into three sets. Set $T_1$ (set $T_2$) contains those jobs that were assigned to $M_j$ at or before time $t^*-1$ are small (large) at time $t^*-1$. Set $T_3$ contains the remaining jobs, which have arrived at or after time $t^*$.
1. Each job of $T_2\cup T_3$ is large at the time it is assigned to $M_j$.\[c:3r31\]
2. There holds $\sum_{J_i\in T_1\setminus\{J_l\}} p_i \leq 0.75 L_{t^*-1}$, where $J_l$ is the job of $T_1$ that was assigned last to $M_j$.\[c:3r32\]
3. There holds $|T_2| \leq 3$.\[c:3r33\]
4. For any $J_l\in T_3$, $M_j$’s load immediately before the assignment of $J_l$ is at most $1.25 L_l$.\[c:3r34\]
5. Let $J_l\in T_3$ be the last job assigned to $M_j$. If $M_j$ contains at least three jobs, different from $J_l$, each having a processing time of at least $1/6 L$, then it suffices to remove these three jobs and $J_l$ such that $M_j$’s resulting load is upper bounded by $0.75 L$. \[c:3r35\]
6. If there exists a $J_l\in T_3$ with $p_l<1/6L$, then $M_j$’s load immediately after the assignment of $J_l$ is at most $0.75L$.\[c:3r36\]
7. If $T'_2\subseteq T_2$ is a subset with $1\leq |T_2'|\leq 2$ and $p_i\leq 1/6L$, for all $J_i\in T_2$, then $\sum_{J_i\in T_1}p_i + \sum_{J_i\in T'_2}p_i\leq 0.75L$.\[c:3r37\]
[*Proof of Claim \[lem:3r3\].\[c:3r31\].*]{} The jobs of $T_2$ are large at time $t^*-1$ and hence at the time they were assigned to $M_j$. By the definition of $t^*$, $\ell_s(j,t)> 0.75 L_t$, for any $t^*\leq t \leq n$, and hence [*ALG($1.75$)*]{} does not assign small jobs to $M_j$ at times $t\geq t^*$.
[*Proof of Claim \[lem:3r3\].\[c:3r32\].*]{} All jobs of $T_1\setminus\{J_l\}$ are small at time $t^*-1$ and their total processing time is at most $\ell_s(j,t^*-1)\leq 0.75 L_{t^*-1}$, by the choice of $t^*$.
[*Proof of Claim \[lem:3r3\].\[c:3r33\].*]{} Each job of $T_2$ has a processing time greater than $0.5 L_{t^*-1}$. Consider the last time $l$ when a job $J_l\in T_2$ was assigned to $M_j$. Immediately before the assignment, $M_j$ had a load of at most $1.25 L_{t^*-1}$ and hence could contain not more than two jobs of processing time greater than $0.5 L_{t^*-1}$.
[*Proof of Claim \[lem:3r3\].\[c:3r34\].*]{} Consider any $J_l\in T_3$. By Claim \[lem:3r3\].\[c:2r31\] $J_l$ is large at time $l$ and hence $M_j$’s load prior to the assignment of $J_l$ is at most $1.25 L_l$.
[*Proof of Claim \[lem:3r3\].\[c:3r35\].*]{} By Claim \[lem:3r3\].\[c:3r34\] $M_j$’s load immediately before the assignment of $J_l$ is at most $1.25 L_l$. Removing three jobs of processing time at least $1/6L$ each as well as $J_l$ reduces $M_j$’s load to a value of at most $0.75 L$.
[*Proof of Claim \[lem:3r3\].\[c:3r36\].*]{} By Claim \[lem:3r3\].\[c:3r31\] $J_l$ is large at time $l$ and hence $p_l> 0.5 L_l$. Since $p_l<1/6L$, we have $L_l<1/3L$. Using Claim \[lem:3r3\].\[c:3r34\] we obtain that $M_j$’s load immediately after the assignment of $J_l$ is at most $1.25 L_l + p_l \leq 5/12 L + 1/6L < 0.75L$.
[*Proof of Claim \[lem:3r3\].\[c:3r37\].*]{} Any job $J_i\in T'_2$ is large at time $t^*-1$ and hence $p_i > 0.5 L_{t^*-1}$. Since $p_i < 1/6 L$ it follows $L_{t^*-1} < 1/3 L$. By Claim \[lem:3r3\].\[c:3r32\], we have $\sum_{J_i\in T_1} p_i \leq 0.75 L_{t^*-1} + p_l\leq 0.25L + 1/6 L$, where $J_l$ is the last job of $T_1$ assigned to $M_j$. Thus $\sum_{J_i\in T_1}p_i + \sum_{J_i\in T'_2}p_i\leq 0.25L + 3\cdot 1/6L\leq 0.75L$.
We finish the proof of the lemma using a case distinction on the size of $T_3$.
- $|T_3|=0$: Then by Claim \[lem:3r3\].\[c:3r32\] it suffices to remove $T_2$ and the last job of $T_1$ assigned to $M_j$. By Claim \[lem:3r3\].\[c:3r33\], $T_2$ contains no more than three jobs.
- $|T_3|= 1$: We may assume that the only job $J_l\in T_3$ has a processing time of at least $1/6L$ since otherwise by Claim \[lem:3r3\].\[c:3r36\] no job has to be removed. Moreover, we may assume that $|T_2|=3$ since otherwise, by Claim \[lem:3r3\].\[c:3r32\] it suffices to remove $T_2\cup T_3$ and the last job of $T_1$ assigned to $M_j$. If all the jobs of $T_2$ have a processing time of at least $1/6L$, then Claim \[lem:3r3\].\[c:3r35\] ensures that it suffices to remove $T_2\cup T_3$. If one job in $T_2$ has a processing time of at most $1/6L$, then Claim \[lem:3r3\].\[c:3r37\] ensures that it suffices to remove the other two jobs of $T_2$ and $T_3$.
- $|T_3|= 2$: We assume that both jobs in $T_3$ have a processing time of at least $1/6 L$ since otherwise, by Claim \[lem:3r3\].\[c:3r36\], we can just remove one job of $T_3$ and $T_2$. If $|T_2|=1$, then by Claim \[lem:3r3\].\[c:3r32\] it suffices to remove $T_2\cup T_3$ and the last job of $T_1$ assigned to $M_j$. It remains to consider the case $|T_2|\geq 2$. If none of the jobs in $T_2$ has a processing time smaller than $1/6L$, then Claim \[lem:3r3\].\[c:3r35\] applies. If one of the jobs has a processing time smaller than $1/6L$, then Claim \[lem:3r3\].\[c:3r37\] applies and it suffices to remove the at most two other jobs of $T_2$ and the jobs of $T_3$.
- $|T_3|= 3$: Again we assume that all jobs in $T_3$ have a processing time of at least $1/6 L$ since otherwise the desired statement follows from Claim \[lem:3r3\].\[c:3r36\], Moreover, we assume $|T_2|>0$; otherwise we can apply again Claim \[lem:3r3\].\[c:3r32\]. If there is one job in $T_2$ having a processing time of at least $1/6L$, the desired number of job removals follows from Claim \[lem:3r3\].\[c:3r35\]. If this is not the case, then Claim \[lem:3r3\].\[c:3r37\] ensures that it suffices to remove the last job of $T_2$ assigned to $M_j$ as well as $T_3$.
- $|T_3|\geq 4$: If four jobs in $T_3$ have a processing time of at least $1/6 L$, then by Claim \[lem:3r3\].\[c:3r35\] it is sufficient to remove three out of these in addition to the last job assigned to $M_j$. If at most three jobs have a processing time of at least $1/6 L$, then let $J_l\in T_3$ be last jobs assigned to $M_j$ having a processing time smaller than $1/6 L$. By Claim \[lem:3r3\].\[c:3r36\] it suffices to remove the jobs of $T_3$ subsequently assigned to $M_j$, and there exist at most three of these.
This concludes the proof.
Recall that [*ALG$(1.75)$*]{} migrates $\lceil m/2\rceil$ jobs from machines in $B$. Hence, using the above Lemma \[lem:3r3\], we obtain that the total number of migrations is at most $4\lfloor m/2\rfloor + \lceil m/2\rceil\leq 2.5m$. This finishes the proof of Theorem \[th:4\].
[10]{}
G. Aggarwal, R. Motwani and A. Zhu. The load rebalancing problem. [*Journal of Algorithms*]{}, 60(1):42–59, 2006.
S. Albers. Better bounds for online scheduling. [*SIAM Journal on Computing*]{}, 29:459-473, 1999.
Y. Bartal, H. Karloff and Y. Rabani. A better lower bound for on-line scheduling. [*Infomation Processing Letters*]{}, 50:113–116, 1994.
Y. Bartal, A. Fiat, H. Karloff and R. Vohra. New algorithms for an ancient scheduling problem. [*Journal of Computer and System Sciences*]{}, 51:359–366, 1995.
E. Cesáro. Sur la série harmonique. [*Nouvelles Annales de Mathématiques 3e Série*]{}, 4:295–296, 1885.
B. Chen, A. van Vliet and G.J. Woeginger. A lower bound for randomized on-line scheduling algorithms. [*Information Processing Letters*]{}, 51:219–222, 1994.
B. Chen, A. van Vliet and G.J. Woeginger. A optimal algorithm for preemptive online scheduling. [*Operations Research Letters*]{}, 18:127–131, 1995.
M. Englert, D. Özmen and M. Westermann. The power of reordering for online minimum makespan scheduling. [*Proc. 49th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science*]{}, 603–612, 2008.
U. Faigle, W. Kern and G. Turan. On the performance of on-line algorithms for partition problems. [*Acta Cybernetica*]{}, 9:107–119, 1989.
R. Fleischer and M. Wahl. Online scheduling revisited. [*Journal of Scheduling*]{}, 3:343–353, 2000.
G. Galambos and G. Woeginger. An on-line scheduling heuristic with better worst case ratio than Graham’s list scheduling. [*SIAM Journal on Computing*]{}, 22:349–355, 1993.
R.L. Graham. Bounds for certain multi-processing anomalies. [*Bell System Technical Journal*]{}, 45:1563–1581, 1966.
R.L. Graham. Bounds on multiprocessing timing anomalies. [*SIAM Journal of Applied Mathematics*]{}, 17(2):416–429, 1969.
T. Gormley, N. Reingold, E. Torng and J. Westbrook. Generating adversaries for request-answer games. [*Proc. 11th ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms*]{}, 564–565, 2000.
D.S. Hochbaum and D.B. Shmoys. Using dual approximation algorithms for scheduling problems theoretical and practical results. [*Journal of the ACM*]{}, 34:144–162, 1987.
D.R. Karger, S.J. Phillips and E. Torng. A better algorithm for an ancient scheduling problem. [*Journal of Algorithms*]{}, 20:400–430, 1996.
X. Min, J. Liu and Y. Wang. Optimal semi-online algorithms for scheduling problems with reassignment on two identical machines. [*Information Processing Letters*]{}, 111(9):423–428, 2011.
J.F. Rudin III. Improved bounds for the on-line scheduling problem. Ph.D. Thesis. The University of Texas at Dallas, May 2001.
J.F. Rudin III and R. Chandrasekaran. Improved bounds for the online scheduling problem. [*SIAM Journal on Computing*]{}, 32:717–735, 2003.
P. Sanders, N. Sivadasan and M. Skutella. Online scheduling with bounded migration. [*Mathematics of Operations Reseach*]{}, 34(2):481–498, 2009.
J. Sgall. A lower bound for randomized on-line multiprocessor scheduling. [*Information Processing Letters*]{}, 63:51–55, 1997.
Z. Tan and S. Yu. Online scheduling with reassignment. [*Operations Research Letters*]{}, 36(2):250–254, 2008.
D.D. Sleator and R.E. Tarjan. Amortized efficiency of list update and paging rules. [*Communications of the ACM*]{}, 28:202–208, 1985.
Appendix {#appendix .unnumbered}
========
Fix $m\geq 2$. We first evaluate $f_m(2)$ and $f_m(1+1/(3m))$. For $\alpha=2$, we have $\lceil(1-1/\alpha)m\rceil \geq m/2$. Hence $\lceil(1-1/\alpha)m\rceil \alpha/m \geq 1$ and $f_m(2) \geq 1$. For $\alpha=1+ 1/(3m)$, there holds $\lceil(1-1/\alpha)m\rceil =1$. Thus $f_m(1+1/(3m)) = 1/(3m) H_{m-1}
+1/m + 1/(3m^2)< 1/3 + 1/2 + 1/12 < 1$. It remains to show that $f_m(\alpha)$ is continuous and strictly increasing. To this end we show that, for any $\alpha>1$ and small $\epsilon>0$, $f_m(\alpha+\epsilon) - f_m(\alpha)$ is strictly positive and converges to 0 as $\epsilon\rightarrow 0$.
First consider an $\alpha >1$ such that $(1-1/\alpha)m\notin \mathbb{N}$. In this case we choose $\epsilon > 0$ such that $\lceil(1-1/(\alpha+\epsilon))m\rceil= \lceil(1-1/\alpha)m\rceil$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
f_m(\alpha) &=& (\alpha-1)(H_{m-1}-H_{\lceil(1-1/\alpha)m\rceil-1}) + \lceil(1-1/\alpha)m\rceil \alpha/m\\
f_m(\alpha+\epsilon) &=& (\alpha+\epsilon-1)(H_{m-1}-H_{\lceil(1-1/\alpha)m\rceil-1}) + \lceil(1-1/\alpha)m\rceil (\alpha+\epsilon)/m.\end{aligned}$$ Thus $f_m(\alpha+\epsilon) - f_m(\alpha) = \epsilon (H_{m-1}-H_{\lceil(1-1/\alpha)m\rceil-1}) +
\lceil(1-1/\alpha)m\rceil \epsilon/m$. Since $\alpha >1$ there holds $\lceil(1-1/\alpha)m\rceil \geq 1$ and thus $f_m(\alpha+\epsilon) - f_m(\alpha) >0$. Moreover, $f_m(\alpha+\epsilon) - f_m(\alpha)$ tends to 0 as $\epsilon\rightarrow 0$.
Next let $\alpha >1$ such that $(1-1/\alpha)m\in \mathbb{N}$. In this case we choose $\epsilon > 0$ such that $\lceil(1-1/(\alpha+\epsilon))m\rceil= \lceil(1-1/\alpha)m\rceil +1$. There holds $$\begin{aligned}
f_m(\alpha) &=& (\alpha-1)(H_{m-1}-H_{\lceil(1-1/\alpha)m\rceil-1}) + \lceil(1-1/\alpha)m\rceil \alpha/m\\
f_m(\alpha+\epsilon) &=& (\alpha+\epsilon-1)(H_{m-1}-H_{\lceil(1-1/\alpha)m\rceil}) + (\lceil(1-1/\alpha)m\rceil+1) (\alpha+\epsilon)/m.\end{aligned}$$ Taking into account that $(1-1/\alpha)m\in \mathbb{N}$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
f_m(\alpha+\epsilon) - f_m(\alpha) &=& -(\alpha-1)\cdot 1/((1-1/\alpha)m) +
\epsilon (H_{m-1}-H_{\lceil(1-1/\alpha)m\rceil})\\
& & + (\lceil(1-1/\alpha)m\rceil+1) \epsilon/m + \alpha/m\\
&= &\epsilon (H_{m-1}-H_{\lceil(1-1/\alpha)m\rceil}) + (\lceil(1-1/\alpha)m\rceil+1) \epsilon/m.\end{aligned}$$ Again, $f_m(\alpha+\epsilon) - f_m(\alpha)$ is strictly positive and tends to 0 as $\epsilon\rightarrow 0$.
We first prove that $(\alpha_m)_{m\geq 2}$ is non-decreasing. A first observation is that $\alpha_m \leq m$ because $f_m(m)\geq 1$. We will show that, for any $m\geq 3$ and $1<\alpha\leq m$, there holds $f_{m-1}(\alpha) \geq f_m(\alpha)$. This implies $1= f_{m-1}(\alpha_{m-1}) \geq f_m(\alpha_{m-1})$. By Lemma \[lem:l1\], $f_m$ is strictly increasing and thus $\alpha_m\geq \alpha_{m-1}$. Consider a fixed $\alpha$ with $1<\alpha\leq m$. We study two cases depending on whether or not $\lceil(1-1/\alpha)(m-1)\rceil = \lceil(1-1/\alpha)m\rceil$.
If $\lceil(1-1/\alpha)(m-1)\rceil = \lceil(1-1/\alpha)m\rceil$, then $$\begin{aligned}
f_m(\alpha) &=& (\alpha-1)(H_{m-1}-H_{\lceil(1-1/\alpha)m\rceil-1}) + \lceil(1-1/\alpha)m\rceil \alpha/m\\
f_{m-1}(\alpha) &=& (\alpha-1)(H_{m-2}-H_{\lceil(1-1/\alpha)m\rceil-1}) + \lceil(1-1/\alpha)m\rceil \alpha/(m-1).\end{aligned}$$ We obtain $f_{m-1}(\alpha) - f_m(\alpha) = -(\alpha-1)/(m-1) + \lceil(1-1/\alpha)m\rceil \alpha/(m(m-1))
\geq -(\alpha-1)/(m-1) + (\alpha-1)/(m-1) =0$ and thus $f_{m-1}(\alpha) \geq f_m(\alpha)$.
If $\lceil(1-1/\alpha)(m-1)\rceil < \lceil(1-1/\alpha)m\rceil$, then $\lceil(1-1/\alpha)(m-1)\rceil = \lceil(1-1/\alpha)m\rceil-1$ and $$\begin{aligned}
f_m(\alpha) &=& (\alpha-1)(H_{m-1}-H_{\lceil(1-1/\alpha)m\rceil-1}) + \lceil(1-1/\alpha)m\rceil \alpha/m\\
f_{m-1}(\alpha) &=& (\alpha-1)(H_{m-2}-H_{\lceil(1-1/\alpha)m\rceil-2}) + (\lceil(1-1/\alpha)m\rceil-1) \alpha/(m-1).\end{aligned}$$ Since $\alpha >1$ there holds $\lceil(1-1/\alpha)(m-1)\rceil \geq 1$. Hence in our case $\lceil(1-1/\alpha)m\rceil \geq 2$ and $\lceil(1-1/\alpha)m\rceil -1 >0$. We obtain $$\textstyle{f_{m-1}(\alpha) - f_m(\alpha) = -{\alpha-1\over m-1} + {\alpha-1\over \lceil(1-1/\alpha)m\rceil -1}
+ \lceil(1-1/\alpha)m\rceil {\alpha\over m(m-1)} - {\alpha\over m-1}.}$$ Choose $x$, with $0\leq x <1$, such that $\lceil(1-1/\alpha)m\rceil = (1-1/\alpha)m +x$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\textstyle{f_{m-1}(\alpha) - f_m(\alpha)} &=& \textstyle{ -{\alpha-1\over m-1} + {\alpha-1\over (1-1/\alpha)m +x-1}
+ (1-1/\alpha)m {\alpha\over m(m-1)} + {\alpha x\over m(m-1)}- {\alpha\over m-1}}\\
&=& \textstyle{{\alpha-1\over (1-1/\alpha)m +x-1} + {\alpha x\over m(m-1)}- {\alpha\over m-1}}\end{aligned}$$ In order to establish $f_{m-1}(\alpha) - f_m(\alpha)\geq 0$ is suffices to show $$\textstyle{{\alpha-1\over (1-1/\alpha)m +x-1} \geq {\alpha(m-x)\over m(m-1)}.}$$ This is equivalent to $(\alpha-1)m(m-1) \geq (m-x)((\alpha-1)m +\alpha x-\alpha)$. Standard algebraic manipulation yield that this is equivalent to $m \geq mx - \alpha x^2+\alpha x$. Let $g(x) = mx - \alpha x^2+\alpha x$, for any real number $x$. This function is increasing for any $x < (m+\alpha)/(2\alpha)$. Since $\alpha \leq m$, the function is increasing for any $x <1$. As $g(0) = 0$ and $g(1) = m$, it follows that $m \geq mx - \alpha x^2+\alpha x$ holds for all $0\leq x <1$. We conclude $f_{m-1}(\alpha) - f_m(\alpha)\geq 0$.
It is easy to verify that $f_2(4/3)=1$. We show that $\lim_{m\rightarrow \infty} \alpha_m$ is upper bounded by $W_{-1}(-1/e^2)/(1+ W_{-1}(-1/e^2))$. Cesáro [@C] proved $$0 < H_m - \frac{1}{2} \ln \left (m(m+1) \right) -\gamma < \frac{1}{6m(m+1)}, \label{lbCesaro}$$ where $\gamma \approx 0.577$ is the Euler-Mascheroni constant. Using this inequality we find, for any $c$ with $0< c\leq 1$ and $\lceil cm\rceil -2 >0$, $$\begin{aligned}
H_{m-1} - H_{\lceil cm \rceil -2 } & >& \frac{1}{2} \ln ((m-1)m) + \gamma - \frac{1}{2} \ln ((\lceil cm \rceil-2)(\lceil cm\rceil-1)) -\gamma - \frac{1}{6(\lceil cm \rceil -2)(\lceil cm \rceil-1)}\\
& \geq &\frac{1}{2} \left ( \ln (m-1)+ \ln m - \ln (cm -1) - \ln( cm) \right) - \frac{1}{2(\lceil cm \rceil-1)} \\
& = &\frac{1}{2} \left ( \ln (m-1)+ \ln m - \ln (c(m-1/c)) - \ln(cm) \right) - \frac{1}{2(\lceil cm \rceil-1)} \\
& = &\frac{1}{2} \left ( \ln (m-1) - \ln(m-1/c) -2 \ln (c) \right) - \frac{1}{2(\lceil cm \rceil-1)} \\
& \geq & \frac{1}{2} \left( 2 \ln (1/c) \right) - \frac{1}{2(\lceil cm \rceil-1)} \\
& \geq & \ln (1/c) - \frac{1}{2(cm-1)}, $$ where the second to last inequality holds since $\ln (m-1/c) \leq \ln(m-1)$. for $0<c\leq1$ and sufficiently large $m$. We obtain $$\begin{aligned}
f_m(\alpha)&=&(\alpha-1)(H_{m-1}-H_{\lceil (1-1/\alpha)m \rceil-1}) + \left( \lceil (1-1/\alpha)m \rceil \right) \frac{\alpha}{m} \\
& > &(\alpha-1)\left( \ln (\frac{\alpha}{\alpha-1}) - \frac{1}{2((1-1/\alpha)m -1)} - \frac{1}{\lceil (1-1/\alpha)m \rceil-1} \right) + \left( \lceil (1-1/\alpha)m \rceil \right) \frac{\alpha}{m} \\
& \geq & (\alpha-1)\left( \ln (\frac{\alpha}{\alpha-1}) - \frac{1}{(1-1/\alpha)m -1} \right ) + \alpha-1 =: F(m).\end{aligned}$$ Obviously, $\lim_{m\to \infty} F(m) = (\alpha-1) \ln (\frac{\alpha}{\alpha-1}) +\alpha-1$. We show that $(\alpha-1) \ln (\frac{\alpha}{\alpha-1}) +\alpha-1 = 1$, for $\alpha=\frac{1}{1-\delta}$, where $\delta = -1/W_{-1}(-1/e^2)$.
Equation $(\alpha-1) \ln (\frac{\alpha}{\alpha-1}) + \alpha-1 = 1$ is equivalent to $\ln (\frac{\alpha}{\alpha-1})+1 = \frac{1}{\alpha-1}$, which in turn is equivalent to $$\frac{\alpha}{\alpha-1} \cdot e = e^\frac{1}{\alpha-1}.$$ Substituting $x=1/(\alpha-1)$, which is equivalent to $\alpha=1/x+1$, we find that the above is equivalent to $xe+e = e^x$. Applying the Lambert $W$ function we find that $x=-W_{-1}(-1/e^2)-1$ is a solution of the former equality. Substituting we conclude that in fact $\alpha= W_{-1}(-1/e^2)/(1+ W_{-1}(-1/e^2))$ satisfies the equality. Using the same techniques we can show that $\lim_{m\rightarrow \infty} \alpha_m$ is lower bounded by $W_{-1}(-1/e^2)/(1+ W_{-1}(-1/e^2))$. In the calculations, (\[lbCesaro\]) yields that $H_{m-1} - H_{\lceil cm \rceil} < \ln(1/c) + 1/(2m)$.
[^1]: Department of Computer Science, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Unter den Linden 6, 10099 Berlin. [[email protected]]{}
[^2]: Department of Computer Science, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Unter den Linden 6, 10099 Berlin. [[email protected]]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A geometric reformulation of the martingale problem associated with a set of diffusion processes is proposed. This formulation, based on second order geometry and Itô integration on manifolds, allows us to give a natural and effective definition of Lie symmetries for diffusion processes.'
author:
- 'Francesco C. De Vecchi[^1] , Paola Morando[^2] and Stefania Ugolini[^3]'
bibliography:
- 'SymmDiff(2).bib'
title: A note on symmetries of diffusions within a martingale problem approach
---
Introduction
============
The theory of infinitesimal symmetries of ordinary and partial differential equations (ODEs and PDEs respectively) is a classical research topic in applied mathematics, providing powerful tools both for investigating the qualitative behaviour of differential equations and for obtaining some explicit expression for their solutions (see, e.g., [@Olver1993; @Stephani1989]). The theory of symmetries of stochastic differential equations (SDEs) is, in comparison, less developed. There are two main approaches to this problem in the case of Brownian-motion-driven SDEs. The first approach, based on the Markovian property of solutions to a SDE, looks for the classical Lie symmetries of the Markov generator, which is an analytical object (see [@DeLara1995; @Glover1990; @Liao1992]). The second method, directly inspired by Lie ideas, consists in seeking for some semimartingale transformations leaving invariant the set of solutions to the considered SDE (see, e.g. [@Fredericks2007; @Gaeta1999; @Kozlov2010; @Zambrini2004; @Srihirun2007; @Unal2004]). Both approaches have their own strong and weak points: for example, the first method permits to treat a larger class of transformations and processes, while the second one results more convenient in order to generalize the deterministic notions of reduction and reconstruction by quadratures (see [@DMU2; @Cami2009]).\
In [@DMU1] we propose a partial reconciliation of these two programs: in fact, despite working in the second method perspective, we introduce a larger class of SDEs transformations which permits both to include all the transformations of the first approach and to obtain all the applications of the second one.\
In this article we make a synthesis of the above two approaches from a new prospective. In particular, starting from the martingale problem characterization of the solutions to a SDE, typical of the Markovian setting, we introduce, in the stochastic framework, a geometric formulation of the symmetry problem.\
The main idea is to generalize the well known identification of an ODE on a manifold $M$ with a one-dimensional module $K$ on the tangent bundle of the zero-jet space $N=J^0(\mathbb{R},M)=\mathbb{R} \times M$ (or, equivalently, a module $K'$ of codimension one on the cotangent bundle $T^*N$). Thanks to this correspondence, the symmetries of an ODE can be identified as the family of diffeomorphisms $\overline{\Phi}:N
\rightarrow N$ transforming the module $K$ (or, equivalently, the module $K'$) into itself.\
In order to generalize the previous (deterministic) geometric approach to the stochastic framework we need two main ingredients (both introduced by P.A. Meyer and L. Schwartz [@Meyer1981; @Schwartz1982] and thereafter studied by Emery [@Emery1989]): second order geometry and Itô integration on manifolds. In particular, second order geometry allows us to introduce diffusors (a generalization of vector fields) and codiffusors (a generalization of differential forms), while Itô integration on manifolds permits to integrate any codiffusor $\lambda$ along a semimartingale $X$ defined on $M$.\
In this framework the usual martingale problem associated with a second order operator $L$ can be reformulated in the following way: a semimartingale $X$ is a solution to the martingale problem associated with $L$ if and only if, for any $\lambda \in \Lambda_L$, the integral of $\lambda$ with respect to $X$ is a local martingale, where $\Lambda_L$ is the module of codiffusors annihilating $L$ (see Section \[section\_martingale\]). In this way we reinterpret the martingale problem in terms of a natural geometric object: the module of codiffusors $\Lambda_L$.\
Therefore, we prove that a diffeomorphism $\overline{\Phi}$ is a symmetry for the martingale problem associated with $L$, which means that $\overline{\Phi}$ transforms solutions to the martingale problem into other solutions to the same martingale problem, if and only if the natural action of the pull-back $\overline{\Phi}^*$ transforms $\Lambda_L$ into itself. The last condition is purely geometrical and permits to explicitly compute the set of symmetries of the martingale problem associated with $L$ (see Section \[section\_symmetries\]).
The paper is organized as follows: in Section \[section\_preliminaries\] we briefly introduce second order geometry and Itô integration on manifolds and in Section \[section\_transformations\] we study the behaviour of the geometric and probabilistic objects introduced in the previous section with respect to spatial diffeomorphisms and deterministic time changes. With this background, in Section \[section\_martingale\], we propose a geometric reformulation of the martingale problem for diffusion processes and in Section \[section\_symmetries\] we exploit it in order to provide a suitable notion of symmetry and to explicitly compute the corresponding determining equations. Finally we compare the class of Lie symmetries arising from our approach with other ones appearing in the literature.
Preliminaries: second order geometry and Itô integration on manifold {#section_preliminaries}
====================================================================
In this section, also in order to fix notations, we briefly recall some basic facts about second order geometry and Itô integration on manifolds. The interested reader is referred to [@Emery1989; @Meyer1981; @Schwartz1982] for proofs and further details.
Second order geometry
---------------------
Given a smooth manifold $M$, we denote by $ {C^{\infty}}(M) $ the set of real-valued smooth functions defined on $ M $. If $ F $ is a bundle with base manifold $ B $, we denote by $ S(F) $ the set of smooth sections of $ F $. Finally, if $ M '$ is a manifold and $ n \in \mathbb{N} $, we denote by $ J^n(M, M') $ the bundle of $ n $ jets of $ n $ times differentiable functions defined on $ M $ and taking values in $ M
'$.
Let $ M $ be a smooth manifold and $u$ be a global coordinate defined on $\mathbb{R}$. The subset $ u^{- 1} (0) \subset J ^ 2
(M, \mathbb {R}) $ is a submanifold of $ J^2 (M, \mathbb{R})$ and actually a vector subbundle of $ J^2 (M, \mathbb{R})$.
The submanifold $ u^{- 1} (0) \subset J ^ 2 (M, \mathbb {R}) $ is called the *bundle of codiffusors* of the manifold $ M $ and is denoted by $ \tau^* M $.
Given a coordinate system $ x ^ i$ on $ M $, let $(x ^ i, u, u_ {x^i}, u_
{x ^ ix ^ j}) $ be the associated coordinate system on $ J ^ 2
(M, \mathbb {R}) $. Denoting by $ \pi^2: J ^ 2 (M, \mathbb {R}) \rightarrow M $ the projection of $ J ^ 2 (M, \mathbb{R}) $ into $ M $, we define the smooth function $\Pi:J^2(M,\mathbb{R}) \rightarrow \tau^*M $ as $$\Pi (x ^ i, u, u_{ x^ {i}}, u_{x ^ ix ^ j}) = (x ^ i, 0, u_ {x ^ i}, u_ {x ^ ix ^ j} ).$$ The projection $ \pi ^ 2 | _ {\tau ^ * M} $ makes the submanifold $ \tau ^ * M $ a vector subbundle of $ J ^ 2 (M, \mathbb {R}) $ with base $ M $. The function $ \Pi $ is well defined and is a morphism of vector bundles on $ M $.\
From now on we call *codiffusor* on $M$ a smooth section of the vector bundle $
\tau ^ * M $.\
Given a smooth function $ f \in {C^{\infty}}(M)$, let $ D ^ 2f$ denote the natural lift of $ f $ to $ J ^ 2 (M, \mathbb {R}) $ given in coordinates by $$D^2f(x)=(x^i,f(x),\partial_{x^i}f(x),\partial_{x^ix^j}f(x)).$$
\[definition\_differential\] We call *second differential* of $f \in {C^{\infty}}(M)$ the codiffusor $$d^2f:=\Pi(D^2f).$$ Moreover, for $f,g \in {C^{\infty}}(M)$, we denote by $df \cdot dg$ the codiffusor $$df \cdot dg \ := \ \frac{1}{2}(d^2(fg)-gd^2f-fd^2g).$$
Since, from the previous definition, we have $$\begin{aligned}
d^2x^i&=&(x^i,0,u_{x^j}=\delta^i_j,u_{x^ix^j}=0) \ \\
dx^i \cdot dx^j&=&\left(x^i,0,u_{x^l}=0,u_{x^kx^l}=\frac{1}{2}(\delta_{ki}\delta_{lj}+\delta_{kj}\delta_{li})\right),\end{aligned}$$ we can give an explicit coordinate expression for $d^2f$: $$d ^ 2f = \partial_{x ^ i}fd ^ 2x ^ i + \partial_{x ^ ix ^ j} fdx ^ i \cdot dx ^ j.$$
\[remark\_codiffusor2\] If $ \lambda $ is a codiffusor on $ M $ and $ x ^ i $ is a coordinate system on $ M $, there exist unique functions $
\lambda_i, \lambda_ {ij} = \lambda_ {ji} \in {C^{\infty}}(M)$ such that locally $$\lambda=\lambda_i d^2x^i+\lambda_{ij} dx^i \cdot dx^j.$$
The following theorem provides a useful characterization of codiffusors on $M$.
\[theorem\_codiffusor1\] For any codiffusor $\lambda$ on $M$ there exist $g_i,f_i \in {C^{\infty}}(M)$, $i=1,...,m$, such that $\lambda=\sum_{i=1}^{m}g_id^2f_i$.
Using Theorem \[theorem\_codiffusor1\] it is possible to extend the product between the differentials of functions given in Definition \[definition\_differential\] to a product defined for any couple of differential one forms. In a coordinate system $x^i$ the product has the following representation $$\omega \cdot \gamma =\omega_i \gamma_j dx^i \cdot dx^j$$ where $\omega= \omega_i dx^i$ and $\gamma=\gamma_j dx^j$.
We denote by $ \tau M $ the dual bundle of $ \tau ^ * M $ on $M$, and we call it the *bundle of diffusors*. A section of $ \tau M$ is called a *diffusor*.
Given a system of coordinates $ x ^ i $ on $ M $, Remark \[remark\_codiffusor2\] ensures that $\{ d ^ 2x ^ i, dx ^ i \cdot dx ^ j \}$ form a local basis of the fibers of $ \tau ^ * M $. Hence, it is possible to introduce the local dual basis $\{ \partial_{x^ i}, \partial_{x^ ix ^ j}
\}$ so that $$\begin{aligned}
\langle d^2x^i,\partial_{x^j} \rangle &= &\delta^i_j\\
\langle dx^i \cdot dx^j, \partial_{x^k}\rangle &=& 0\\
\langle d^2x^i , \partial_{x^jx^k} \rangle &=&0\\
\langle dx^i \cdot dx^j, \partial_{x^kx^m} \rangle &=& \frac{1}{2}(\delta^i_k\delta^j_m+\delta^i_m \delta^j_k)\end{aligned}$$
We remark that the use of symbols $\partial_{x^i}$ and $\partial_{x^ix^j}$ for the basis of $\tau M$ is not misleading, since the diffusors $\partial_{x^i}$ and $\partial_{x^ix^j}$ are closely related to the partial derivatives. Given a diffusor $ L $ defined on $ M $, it is natural to associate with $L$ the differential operator $ L: {C^{\infty}}(M) \rightarrow {C^{\infty}}(M) $ defined by $$L (f): = \langle d ^ 2f, L \rangle.$$ The following result provides a characterization of diffusors through their associated differential operators.
\[theorem\_codiffusor2\] Given a diffusor $L$ on $M$, its associated operator $L: {C^{\infty}}(M) \rightarrow {C^{\infty}}(M) $ is a second order linear differential operator without multiplicative term. Conversely, if $\Lambda: {C^{\infty}}(M) \rightarrow {C^{\infty}}(M) $ is a second order linear differential operator without multiplicative term, there exists a unique diffusor $L$ on $M$ such that, $\forall f \in {C^{\infty}}(M)$, $$\Lambda(f)=L(f).$$
Given two vector fields $ X, Y $ on $ M $, we consider the second order operator $ L_{XY} $ defined by $$L_{XY}(f)=X(Y(f)).$$ By Theorem \[theorem\_codiffusor2\] there exists a diffusor $L_{XY} \in \tau M$ such that, if $ X = X ^ i \partial_ {x ^ i} $ and $ Y = Y ^ i \partial_ {x ^ i} $, $$L_{XY}=X^iY^j\partial_{x^ix^j}+X^i(\partial_{x^i}Y^j)\partial_{x^j}$$ and we have $$L_{XY}-L_{YX}=[X,Y].$$
Itô integration on manifolds
----------------------------
Given a filtered probability space $(\Omega, \mathcal F, (\mathcal {F} _t) _ {t \in [0, T]}, \mathbb {P})$, in the following we consider only stochastic processes (processes for short) adapted with respect to the filtration $ \mathcal {F} _t $. Moreover, all (local) martingales are always $ \mathcal {F} _t $ (local) martingales.
Given a process $ X $ and a stopping time $ \tau $, we denote by $ X ^{\tau} $ the process stopped at $ \tau $. Moreover, if $X$ and $Z$ are two real continuous semimartingales, their quadratic covariation is denoted by $[X,Z]$ (although this notation is the same as the above commutator of vectors fields, the different meaning will be clear from the contest).
An almost surely continuous process $X$ taking values in $ M $ is a *semimartingale* if, $ \forall f \in {C^{\infty}}(M) $, $ f
(X) $ is a real continuous semimartingale.
Semimartingales represent the largest class of processes for which Itô integration can be introduced.
\[theorem\_semimartingale3\] Given a semimartingale $ X $ on $ M $, there exists a unique linear functional from $ S (\tau ^ * M) $ into the space of real semimartingales, denoted by $$\lambda \longmapsto \int{\langle \lambda,dX_s\rangle}:=\int {\langle \lambda(X_s), dX_s \rangle },$$ such that, for $f \in {C^{\infty}}(M)$ and $\lambda \in S(\tau^*M)$,
- $\int{\langle d^2f(X_t),dX_t\rangle}=f(X)-f(X_0);$
- $\int{\langle f(X_t) \lambda(X_t),dX_t\rangle}=\int{f(X_t)d\left(\int{\langle \lambda(X_s),dX_s\rangle}\right)_t},$ where the latter integral is the Itô integral along the real semimartingale $ \int {\langle \lambda (X_s), dX_s \rangle} $.
\[remark\_s\] In Theorem \[theorem\_semimartingale3\] we define a stochastic integral satisfying $$\left(\int{\langle \lambda, dX_t \rangle} \right)_0=0.$$ However, it is easy to extend above definition so that $\left(\int{\langle \lambda, dX_t \rangle }\right)_s=0$ for some $s \in \mathbb{R}$.
Later on we adopt the notation $$\int_s^t{\langle \lambda(X_r), dX_r \rangle}=\left(\int{\langle \lambda(X_r), dX_r \rangle }\right)_t-\left(\int{\langle \lambda(X_r), dX_r \rangle} \right)_s.$$
Some useful properties of the Itô integral are collected in the following proposition.
\[proposition\_semimartingale2\] Let $X$ be a semimartingale on $M$, $f,g \in
{C^{\infty}}(M)$, $\lambda,\sigma \in S(\tau^* M)$ and let $\tau$ be a stopping time. Then
- $\left(\int\langle \lambda(X_t),dX_t\rangle\right)^{\tau}=\int{\langle \lambda(X_t^ {\tau}) ,dX_t^{\tau}\rangle}$;
- $\int{\langle (df \cdot dg)(X_t),dX_t\rangle}=\frac{1}{2}[f(X),g(X)]$.
Transformations of codiffusors and Itô integrals {#section_transformations}
================================================
In this section, in order to introduce a suitable notion of symmetry, we study the behaviour of codiffusors, diffusors and Itô integration under spatial transformations and deterministic time changes of the process $X$.\
Let us fix some preliminary notations: given a smooth manifold $M$, we denote by $ N = J ^ 0 (\mathbb
{R}, M) = \mathbb {R} \times M $ and we consider the time $ t $ as the first coordinate of $ N $.
Transformations of diffusors and codiffusors
--------------------------------------------
The definition of codiffusors as sections of a suitable subbundle of $J^2(M, \mathbb{R})$ suggests the possibility of generalizing in a natural way the pull-back of smooth functions and differential forms to diffusors and codiffusors. The construction is purely geometric and is based on the following theorem.
\[theorem\_codiffusor4\] Given two smooth manifolds $M$ and $M'$ and a smooth map $ \Phi: M \rightarrow M '$, there exists a unique map $ \Phi ^ *: S (\tau ^ * M') \rightarrow S (\tau ^ * M) $ such that , $ \forall f, g \in {C^{\infty}}(M ') $ and $\forall \lambda, \sigma \in S (\tau ^ * M') $,
$i)$
: $\Phi^*(d^2f)=d^2(\Phi^*(f))$,
$ii)$
: $\Phi^*(f\lambda+g\sigma)=\Phi^*(f)\Phi^*(\lambda)+\Phi^*(g)\Phi^*(\sigma).$
The uniqueness follows from Theorem \[theorem\_codiffusor1\].\
To prove the existence, we set an atlas $ \{U_j \}_{ j \in \mathbb
{N}}$ on $M'$, with local coordinates $ \{y ^ i_j \}$ in $U_j$ on $M'$, and a partition of the unity $ \{\phi_j \}$ subordinated to $ \{U_j \} $. If the support $K$ of $ \lambda \in S (\tau ^ * M') $ is contained in the support of $\phi_j $ and if $$\lambda=\lambda_i d^2y^i_j+\lambda_{ik} dy^i_j \cdot dy^k_j,$$ we define $$\Phi^*(\lambda)=\Phi^*(\lambda_i) d^2\Phi^i_j(x) +\Phi^*(\lambda_{ik}) d\Phi^i_j(x) \cdot d\Phi^k_j(x),$$ where $\Phi^i_j(x)=(y^i_j \circ \Phi)(x)$. Note that, if $ P \in M $ is not in $\Phi^{-1}(K)$, then $ \Phi^* (\lambda) (P) = 0 $. If $ \lambda $ is any codiffusor, then we define $$\Phi^*(\lambda):=\sum_j\Phi^*(\phi_j \lambda).$$ The above relation is well defined as $ \sum_j\Phi^*
(\phi_j \lambda) $ is pointwise a finite sum. Moreover, it is easy to verify that $ \Phi^* $ satisfies properties $i)$ and $ii)$. ${}\hfill$
Given a diffeomorphism $\Phi: M \to M'$, the map $ \Phi ^ * : S (\tau ^ * M') \rightarrow S (\tau ^ * M )$ is called the *pull-back* of codiffusors. The map $\Phi_*: (\tau ^ * M) \rightarrow S (\tau ^ * M ')$ defined as $\Phi _ *: = (\Phi ^ {- 1}) ^ *$ is called the *push-forward* of codiffusors.
\[theorem\_pullback\] Given a diffeomorphism $\Phi:M \rightarrow M'$, there exists a unique map $\Phi^*:S(\tau M') \rightarrow S(\tau M)$ such that, $\forall L \in S(\tau M')$ and $\forall \lambda \in S(\tau^* M)$, $$\langle \lambda, \Phi ^ * (L) \rangle = \Phi ^ * (\langle \Phi _ * (\lambda), L \rangle).$$
Given $L \in S(\tau M')$, we consider the second order differential operator $L'$ on ${C^{\infty}}(M)$ such that $\forall f \in {C^{\infty}}(M)$ $$L'(f)=\Phi^*L(\Phi_*(f))).$$ By Theorem \[theorem\_codiffusor2\] there exists a unique diffusor $L' \in S(\tau M)$ such that $$L'(f)=\langle d^2 f, L'\rangle.$$ Then, by Theorem \[theorem\_codiffusor1\], we have $L'=\Phi^*(L)$. ${}\hfill$
Given a diffeomorphism $\Phi: M \to M'$, we call $ \Phi^*:S(\tau M') \rightarrow S(\tau M)$ the *pull-back* of diffusors and $\Phi_*:S(\tau M) \rightarrow
S(\tau M')$ the *push-forward* of diffusors.
\[remark\_codiffusor4\] If $ \Phi: M \rightarrow M '$ is a smooth function, $\forall
\mu, \sigma \in S (T ^ * M') $ we have $$\Phi ^ * (\mu \cdot \sigma) = \Phi ^ * (\mu) \cdot \Phi ^ * (\sigma).$$ Moreover, if $ \Phi $ is invertible, $\forall X, Y \in S (TM ') $ $$\Phi^ * (L_{XY}) = L_{\Phi ^ * (X) \Phi ^ * (Y)}.$$ All the previous expressions hold when we replace $ \Phi ^ * $ with $ \Phi _ * $.
If we consider a one-parameter group of diffeomorphisms $\Phi_a$ describing the flow of a vector field $X$, we can give the following definition.
Given a vector field $ X $ on $ M $, with corresponding one-parameter flow $ \Phi_a $, the *Lie derivative* of a codiffusor (diffusor) $ \lambda $ along $X$ is $$\mathcal {L} _ {X} \lambda = \left[ \frac {d}{da} (\Phi_a ^ * \lambda ) \right]_ {a = 0}.$$
The following theorem permits to compute the Lie derivatives of many important objects.
\[theorem\_codiffusor5\] Let $X,X_1,X_2$ be three vector fields on $M$, $L$ a diffusor on $M$, $\lambda$ a codiffusor on $M$, $f$ a smooth function on $M$, $\mu,\sigma$ two differential forms and $\Phi:M \rightarrow M'$ a diffeomorphism from $M$ onto $M'$. Then
1. $\mathcal{L}_X(f\lambda)=\mathcal{L}_X(f) \lambda+f \mathcal{L}_X(\lambda)$,
2. $\mathcal{L}_X(fL)=\mathcal{L}_X(f) L+f \mathcal{L}_X(L)$,
3. $\mathcal{L}_X(\langle \lambda,L\rangle)=\langle \mathcal{L}_X(\lambda),L\rangle+\langle \lambda,\mathcal{L}_X(L)\rangle$,
4. $\mathcal{L}_X(d^2f)=d^2(\mathcal{L}_X(f))=d^2(X(f))$,
5. $\mathcal{L}_X(L)(f)=X(L(f))-L(X(f))$,
6. $\mathcal{L}_X(\mu \cdot \sigma)=\mathcal{L}_X(\mu) \cdot \sigma+\mu \cdot \mathcal{L}_X(\sigma)$,
7. $\mathcal{L}_X(L_{X_1X_2})=L_{[X,X_1]X_2}+L_{X_1[X,X_2]}$,
8. $\mathcal{L}_{\Phi_*X}(\Phi_* \lambda)=\Phi_*(\mathcal{L}_X(\lambda))$,
9. $\mathcal{L}_{\Phi_*X}(\Phi_*L)=\Phi_*(\mathcal{L}_X(L))$.
The proof is an easy application of the properties of the pull-back of diffusors and codiffusors and of the Leibniz rule for the derivative of a product.\
${}\hfill$
From Theorem \[theorem\_codiffusor5\] we obtain the explicit coordinate expression of the Lie derivative of diffusors and codiffusors along a vector field $X$. In particular, if $ X = \phi ^ i \partial_
{x ^ i} $, $L = A ^ {ij}
\partial_ {x^ ix ^ j} + b ^ i \partial_ {x ^ i} $ and $\lambda=\lambda_i d^2x^i+\lambda_{ij}dx^i\cdot dx^j$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_X(L)&=&(\phi^k\partial_{x^k}A^{ij}-A^{ik}\partial_{x^k}\phi^j-A^{kj}\partial_{x^k}\phi^i)\partial_{x^ix^j}\\
&&+(\phi^k\partial_{x^k}b^i-b^k\partial_{x^k}\phi^i-A^{jk}\partial_{x^jx^k}\phi^i)\partial_{x^i}.\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_X\lambda&=&(\phi^k\partial_{x^k}\lambda_{ij}+\lambda_{ik} \partial_{x^j}\phi^k+\lambda_{kj} \partial_{x^i}\phi^k+\lambda_k\partial_{x^ix^j}\phi^k)dx^i \cdot dx^j\\
&&+(\phi^k\partial_{x^k}\lambda_i+\lambda_k \partial_{x^i}\phi^k)d^2x^i.\end{aligned}$$ In order to generalize the geometric approach to symmetry problem from ODEs to diffusion processes, it is useful to give the following definition.
\[definition\_module\] A subset $\Gamma$ of $S(\tau M)$ (or $S(\tau^* M)$) is a *module of dimension $k$* if
1. $\forall L_1,L_2 \in \Gamma$ also $L_1+L_2 \in \Gamma$,
2. $\forall L \in \Gamma$ and $f \in {C^{\infty}}(M)$ we have $f L \in \Gamma$,
3. for each point $P$ there exist a neighborhood $U$ of $P$ and $k$ diffusors (codiffusors) $L_1,...,L_k \in \Gamma$ such that, $ \forall \, L \in \Gamma$, we have $L=\sum_{i=1}^k f_iL_i$ in $U$, where $f_1,...,f_k$ are suitable functions in ${C^{\infty}}(M)$. Furthermore, for any $Q \in U$, $L_1(Q),...,L_k(Q)$ are $k$ linearly independent elements of $\tau_QM$ (or $\tau^*_QM$).
In particular, given $ L \in S (\tau M) $ such that $ L (P) \not = 0 $ for all $P \in M$, we can consider the one-dimensional module $$\mathfrak{L}_L=\{ f L| f \in {C^{\infty}}(M)\}$$ and its annihilator, i.e. the set of codiffusors $$\Lambda_L=\{\lambda \in S(\tau^* M) | \langle \lambda,L\rangle=0\}$$ which is a module of rank $(m-1)$ , where $m= {\operatorname{rank}}(\tau ^ * M)$.
Let $\Gamma$ be a $k$-dimensional module on $M$. A diffeomorphism $\Phi:M \rightarrow M$ is a *symmetry* of $\Gamma$ if $\Phi_*(\Gamma)=\Gamma$. A complete vector field $X \in S(T M)$ is an *infinitesimal symmetry* of $\Gamma$ if the flow $\Phi_a$ of $X$ is a symmetry of $\Gamma$ for all $a \in \mathbb{R}$.
\[theorem\_codiffusor6\] A complete vector field $X$ is a symmetry of $\Gamma$ if and only if, $\forall L \in \Gamma$, we have $\mathcal{L}_X L \in
\Gamma$ (or simply $\mathcal{L}_X(\Gamma) \subseteq \Gamma$).
We give only a sketch of the proof; further details can be found in [@DMU1].\
If $\Phi_{a,*}(\Gamma)=\Gamma$, evaluating in zero the derivatives with respect to $a$, we get $\mathcal{L}_X(\Gamma) \subseteq \Gamma$.\
Conversely, suppose that $\mathcal{L}_X(\Gamma) \subseteq \Gamma$. Let $L_1,...,L_r$ be local generators for $\tau M$ and choose $L_i$ such that, for $i=1,...,k$, they are also local generators for the module $\Gamma$. Given a diffusor $L$, there exist some functions $\alpha_1,...,\alpha_k$ and $\beta_1,...,\beta_{r-k}$ (depending on $a$ and $x$) such that $\Phi_{a,*}(L)=\sum_{i=1}^k\alpha_i L_i+\sum_{i=1}^{r-k} \beta_i L_{i+k}$. Since $\mathcal{L}_X(\Gamma) \subseteq \Gamma$, the functions $\alpha_i,\beta_i$ satisfy the following system of first order PDEs $$\label{equation_geo1}
\left(\begin{array}{c}
\partial_a(\alpha)\\
\partial_a(\beta)
\end{array}\right)=
\left(\begin{array}{c}
X(\alpha)\\
X(\beta)
\end{array}\right)+\left( \begin{array}{cc}
A(x) & B(x) \\
0 & C(x)
\end{array}\right) \cdot \left( \begin{array}{c}
\alpha\\
\beta
\end{array}
\right),$$ where $\alpha=(\alpha_1,...,\alpha_k)$, $\beta=(\beta_1,...,\beta_{r-k})$ and $A(x),B(x),C(x)$ are suitable matrix-valued functions. Using the method of characteristics it is possible to prove that equation [(\[equation\_geo1\])]{} admits a unique solution for any smooth initial value $\alpha(0),\beta(0)$. Moreover, the form of equation [(\[equation\_geo1\])]{} ensures that, if $\beta(0)=0$, then $\beta(a)=0$ for any $a \in \mathbb{R}$. Hence, since $L \in \Gamma$, we have that $\beta(0)=0$ and $\Phi_{a,*}(L) \in \Gamma$ for any $a$. ${}\hfill$
Itô integral and space and time transformations {#subsection}
-----------------------------------------------
In the following we study the behaviour of a semimartingale under space and time transformations.
\[proposition\_seimaringale1\] Given two manifolds $M$ and $M'$, a semimartingale $ X $ on $ M $ and a smooth function $ \Phi:
M \rightarrow M '$, the process $ X '= \Phi (X) $, defined as $ X'_t = \Phi (X_t) $, is a semimartingale on $ M' $.
The proof is an easy consequence of the definition of semimartingale on a manifold.${}\hfill$
In order to introduce time transformations, we consider a strictly increasing function $ f \in {C^{\infty}}(\mathbb {R}) $, so that also $ f ^ {- 1} $ is a smooth strictly increasing function. If $ X $ is a semimartingale on $ M $, we denote by $ X '= H_f (X) $ the process $$X '_ {t'} = H_f (X) _ {t '}:= X_ {f ^ {- 1} (t')}.$$ Moreover, working towards a unified description of space and time transformations, we consider a smooth map $\Phi:M \rightarrow M'$, a deterministic time change $f$ and a semimartingale $X$ on $M$, and we define $$\Phi_f(X)=H_f(\Phi(X)).$$
\[theorem\_semimartingale5\] With the above notations, $\forall \lambda \in S(\tau^*M')$ $$\int{\langle \lambda(\Phi_f(X)_t),d\Phi_f(X)_t\rangle}=H_f\left(\int{\langle \Phi^*(\lambda)(X_t),dX_t\rangle}\right).$$
We define the linear operator $I$ from $S(\tau^*M')$ into the set of real semimartingales such that $$I(\lambda)=H_f\left(\int{\langle \Phi^*(\lambda)(X_t), dX_t \rangle} \right).$$ Using Theorem \[theorem\_codiffusor4\], Theorem \[theorem\_semimartingale3\] and the definition of $\Phi_f$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
I(d^2g)&=&H_f\left(\int{\langle \Phi^*(d^2g)(X_t), dX_t \rangle} \right)\\
&=&H_f\left(\int{\langle d^2\Phi^*(g)(X_t), dX_t \rangle} \right)\\
&=&H_f(g(\Phi(X))-g(\Phi(X)_0))=g(\Phi_f(X))-g(\Phi_f(X)_0),\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, the change rule of Itô integral with respect to absolutely continuous time changes (see, e.g., [@Williams1987 Proposition 30.10]) ensures that $$\begin{aligned}
I(g\lambda)&=&H_f\left(\int{\langle \Phi^*(g\lambda)(X_t), dX_t \rangle} \right)\\
&=&H_f\left(\int{\langle \Phi^*(g)(X_t)\Phi^*(\lambda)(X_t), dX_t \rangle} \right)\\
&=&H_f\left(\int{\Phi^*(g)(X_t) d\left(\int{\langle \Phi^*(\lambda), dX_s \rangle}\right)_t}\right)\\
&=&\int{g(\Phi_f(X)_t)dI(\lambda)_t}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, using the characterization of Itô integral given in Theorem \[theorem\_semimartingale3\], we have $I(\lambda)=\int{\langle \lambda,d\Phi_f(X) \rangle}$ and this completes the proof.${}\hfill$
Given a semimartingale $X$ on $M$, the semimartingale $$\overline {X} _t = (t, X_t) \in N$$ is called the *lifting* of $ X $ to $ N $. When $ \lambda \in S (\tau ^ * N) $, we use the following notation $$\int{\langle \lambda,dX_t\rangle}:=\int{\langle \lambda(\overline{X}_t),d\overline{X}_t\rangle}.$$
Given a transformation $ \overline {\Phi} : N \rightarrow N'$, we write $ \overline {\Phi}= (f, \Phi)$, where $ f$ is the component of $ \overline {\Phi} $ over $
\mathbb {R} $ and $ \Phi$ is the component of $ \overline {\Phi} $ over $ M $. If $ f $ depends only on $ t$ we say that $ \overline {\Phi}= (f, \Phi)$ is *projectable*. We call *semimartingale transformation* any diffeomorphism $ \overline {\Phi}$ which is projectable. We denote by $ X' = \Phi_f (\overline{X}) $ the transformed semimartingale given by $$X'_{t'}=\Phi_f(f^{-1}(t'),X_{f^{-1}(t')}).$$
\[remark\_codiffusor1\] The lifting $\overline{X}'$ of $ X' $ to $ N '$ satisfies $$\overline{X'}=H_f(\overline{\Phi}(\overline{X})).$$
\[theorem\_semimartingale6\] Let $ \overline {\Phi} = (f, \Phi): N \rightarrow N '$ be a semimartingale transformation, and $\lambda \in S (\tau ^
* N ') $; then $$\int{\langle \lambda, d\Phi_f(X)_t\rangle}=H_f\left(\int{\langle \overline{\Phi}^*(\lambda),dX_t\rangle}\right).$$
The proof is a simple application of Theorem \[theorem\_semimartingale5\] and Remark \[remark\_codiffusor1\]. ${}\hfill$
A novel formulation of the martingale problem via second order geometry {#section_martingale}
=======================================================================
It is well-known that the martingale problem approach, due to Stroock and Varadhan ([@Stroock1979]), represents a modern and fruitful way to introduce diffusion processes, alternative to the classical definition as SDEs solutions. For a complete exposition of the topic see [@Watanabe1981; @Stroock1979] ([@Elworthy1982; @Hsu2002] for the manifolds setting). In the following we call $X$ a semimartingale starting at time $s \in \mathbb{R}$ if $X_{s+t}$ is a semimartingale (starting at time 0).
A semimartingale $ D $ on $ M $ starting at time $s$ is a solution to the martingale problem associated with a diffusor $ L $ up to a stopping time $\tau>s$ if, $\forall g \in {C^{\infty}}(N) $, the real semimartingale $ D^g $ given by $$D^g_t=g(\overline{D}_{t \wedge \tau})-g(\overline{D}_s)-\int_s^{t \wedge \tau}{L(g)(\overline{D}_{r})dr},$$ is a local martingale (starting at s). A semimartingale solution to the martingale problem associated with a diffusor $ L $ is called a *diffusion process* (or simply a diffusion) of diffusor $L$.
When not strictly necessary, we omit the stopping time $\tau$ from the definition of solution to a martingale problem. Furthermore, unless otherwise stated, we consider the solution to the martingale problem starting at $0$.\
The diffusor $ L $ is *standard* if, whenever $ g \in {C^{\infty}}(N) $ depends only on $ t $, $${L}(g)(t)=\frac{dg}{dt}(t).$$
\[remark1\] If $ X $ is a continuous local martingale of bounded variation such that $ X_0 = 0 $, then, by martingale property, $X_t = 0 $ for every $ t \in \mathbb{R}_+ $ (see, e.g. [@Williams1987]).
The next result shows that our definition of standard diffusor is a natural requirement.
\[proposition\_symmetry1\] A diffusor $L$ is standard if there exists a diffusion $ D $ of diffusor $ L $.
If $ g \in {C^{\infty}}(N) $ depends only on $t$, considering $\overline{D}_t=(t, D_t)$, we have that $$D^g_t=g(\overline{D}_t)-g(\overline{D}_0)-\int_0^t{L(g)(\overline{D}_s)ds}
=g(t)-g(0)-\int_0^t{L(g)(\overline{D}_s)ds},$$ is a local martingale.\
Being $ g (t) -g (0) $ and $ \int {L (g) (\overline {D} _s) ds} $ bounded variation processes, $ D ^ g $ is a bounded variation local martingale and, by Remark \[remark1\], $ D ^ g_t = 0 $, which implies that $ g (t) -g (0) = \int {L (g) (\overline {D} _s) ds} $. By differentiating both sides of the latter equality with respect to $t$, we get $$\frac{dg}{dt}(t)=L(g)(\overline{D}_t),$$ which means that $L (g) = dg / dt $, i.e. $ L $ is standard. ${}\hfill$
In the following we associate with each martingale problem a well-defined module of codiffusors and we prove that this module is actually completely equivalent to the martingale problem. We start with a preliminary lemma.
\[lemma\_symmetry2\] Let $L$ be a standard diffusor and $ D $ be a diffusion of diffusor $L$. For any $\mu \in S (\tau ^ * N) $ we consider the codiffusor $ \lambda = \mu - \langle \mu, L \rangle d^2t $. Then $ \int {\langle \lambda , dD_t \rangle} $ is a local martingale.
If $\mu=d^2h$ with $ h \in {C^{\infty}}(N) $ the lemma reduces to the definition of a diffusion of diffusor $ L $.\
If $ \mu $ is a generic codiffusor, by Theorem \[theorem\_codiffusor1\] there exist $ f_i, g_i \in {C^{\infty}}(N) $ such that $$\mu=\sum_i g_i d^2f_i.$$ If we consider $ \lambda_i = d ^ 2f_i-L (f_i) d^2t$, we have that $ \int {\langle \lambda_i, dD_t \rangle} $ is a local martingale and, being $$\lambda=\mu-\langle \mu, L\rangle d^2t=\sum_i g_i\lambda_i,$$ we find $$\begin{aligned}
\int{\langle \lambda, dD_t\rangle}&=&\sum_i\int{\langle g_i \lambda_i,dD_t\rangle}
\ = \ \sum_i\int{g_i(\overline{D}_t)d\left(\int{\langle \lambda_i,dD_s\rangle}\right)_t}.\end{aligned}$$ The latter integral is a local martingale, being a sum of Itô integrals along the real local martingales $ \int {\langle \lambda_i, dD_s \rangle} $. ${}\hfill$
We recall that $ \Lambda_L \subset S (\tau ^ * N) $ denotes the *annihilator* of the one-dimensional module $\mathfrak{L}_L$ generated by the diffusor $ L \in S (\tau N) $.
\[theorem\_symmetry1\] The semimartingale $ D $ on $ M $ is a diffusion of standard diffusor $ L $, if and only if, for every $ \lambda \in \Lambda_L $, $$\int{\langle \lambda, dD_t\rangle}$$ is a local martingale.
By Lemma \[lemma\_symmetry2\], if $ D $ is a diffusion of standard diffusor $ L $ and $ \lambda \in \Lambda_L $, then $ \int {\langle \lambda, dD_t \rangle} $ is a local martingale. Indeed we know that $ \lambda -\langle \lambda, L \rangle d ^ 2t$ integrated along $ D $ is a local martingale and that $ \langle \lambda, L \rangle = 0 $ because $ \lambda \in \Lambda_L $.\
Conversely, suppose that the semimartingale $ D $ is such that, $\forall \lambda \in \Lambda_L $, $ \int {\langle \lambda, dD_t \rangle} $ is a local martingale. Given $ g \in {C^{\infty}}(N) $, we have $ \lambda = d ^ 2g-L (g) d ^ 2t \in \Lambda_L $, being $\langle d^2t, L \rangle =1$ and $\langle d^2g, L \rangle =L(g)$. Hence $$\int \langle (d^2 g-L(g)d^2t),dD_t \rangle = g(\overline{D})-g(\overline{D}_0)-\int L(g)(\overline{D}_t)dt$$ is a local martingale. Since $g$ is a generic function in ${C^{\infty}}(N)$, then $D$ is a diffusion of diffusor $L$.\
${}\hfill$
In Lemma \[lemma\_symmetry2\] and Theorem \[theorem\_symmetry1\] we have implicitly assumed that the stopping time $\tau$ of the diffusion $D$ is equal to $+ \infty$. The general case can be recovered by using Proposition \[proposition\_semimartingale2\].\
In order to prove a sort of converse of Theorem \[theorem\_symmetry1\], since we do not need the uniqueness of the solution to the martingale problem, instead of the well-posedness notion we introduce the following definition.\
\[defintion\_usual\] A diffusor $L$ is a *good* diffusor if, for any $t_0 \in \mathbb{R}$ and $x_0 \in M$, there exists at least one diffusion $D$, starting at $t_0$ and such that $D_{t_0}=x_0$ almost surely, solution to the martingale problem associated with $L$.
\[proposition\_symmetry2\] If $L$ is a good diffusor, then $$\Lambda^{\prime}:=\left\{ \lambda \in S(\tau^*N) \left| \int{\langle \lambda,dD_t\rangle} \text{ is a local martingale } \right. \right\}\subseteq \Lambda_L$$
Given $ \lambda \in \Lambda '$, by Lemma \[lemma\_symmetry2\], $ \lambda - \langle \lambda, L \rangle d^2t \in \Lambda '$ and, being $ \Lambda '$ closed with respect to the sum, we have $$\langle \lambda,L\rangle d^2t=\lambda-(\lambda-\langle \lambda,L\rangle d^2t) \in \Lambda'.$$ Let $D^{x_0,t_0}$ be a diffusion starting at $t_0$ such that $D^{x_0,t_0}_{t_0}=x_0$. The integral $$\int{\langle (\langle \lambda,L\rangle d^2t),dD^{x_0,t_0}_t\rangle}=\int{(\langle \lambda,L\rangle)(\overline{D}^{x_0,t_0}_t)dt}$$ is a bounded variation process and also a local martingale and, by Remark \[remark1\], $$\int_{t_0}^r{(\langle \lambda,L\rangle)(\overline{D}^{x_0,t_0}_t)dt}=0$$ for any $r > t_0$. Since $(\langle \lambda,L\rangle)(\overline{D}^{x_0,t_0}_t)$ is continuous with respect to $t$, we have that $(\langle \lambda,L\rangle)(\overline{D}^{x_0,t_0}_t)=0$ and, considering the limit for $t \rightarrow t_0$ in the previous expression, we get $(\langle \lambda,L\rangle)(t_0,x_0)=0$. Since $x_0 \in M$ and $t_0 \in \mathbb{R}$ are generic points the proposition is proved. ${}\hfill$
If $L$ is a good diffusor, then $$\Lambda_L=\left\{ \lambda \in S(\tau^*N) \left| \int{\langle \lambda,dD_t\rangle} \text{ is a local martingale } \right. \right\}.$$
In the following we always consider good diffusors $L$. This choice is not restrictive since, using the stopping time $\tau$ and our definition of solution to the martingale problem, we can exploit all existence results for diffusion processes in $\mathbb{R}^n$ (see [@Stroock1979]).
Symmetries of diffusions {#section_symmetries}
========================
Generalizing the natural idea of symmetries of ODEs as diffeomorphisms transforming solutions into solutions, we give the following definition.
Let $ \overline {\Phi}: N \rightarrow N $ be an invertible semimartingale transformation. The diffeomorphism $ \overline {\Phi} = (f, \Phi) $ is a symmetry of the diffusions associated with $ L $ (in short, a symmetry of $L$) if, for any diffusion $ D $ of diffusor $ L $, also $ \Phi_f (D) $ is a diffusion of diffusor $ L $.
The next result characterizes symmetries of diffusions associated with a diffusor $L$ in terms of a suitable invariance property of the module of codiffusors $\Lambda_L$.
\[theorem\_symmetry2\] An invertible semimartingale transformation $ \overline {\Phi}: N \rightarrow N $ is a symmetry of $ L $ if and only if $\overline{\Phi}$ is a symmetry of $\Lambda_L$.
Suppose that $ \overline {\Phi} $ is a symmetry of $ L $, and let $D$ be any diffusion of diffusor $L$. Obviously, by Theorem \[theorem\_symmetry1\] and by the definition of symmetry, $\forall \lambda \in \Lambda_L$ $$\int{\langle \lambda, d\Phi_f(D)_t\rangle}$$ is a local martingale. On the other hand, by Theorem \[theorem\_semimartingale6\] we have $$\int{\langle \lambda, d\Phi_f(D)_t\rangle}=H_f\left(\int{\langle \overline{\Phi}^*(\lambda), dD_t\rangle}\right).$$ Since the latter equality and Proposition \[proposition\_symmetry2\] ensure that $\overline{\Phi}^*(\lambda) \in \Lambda_L$, then $\overline{\Phi}^*(\Lambda_L) \subseteq \Lambda_L$. The equality follows from the invertibility of $\overline{\Phi}$.\
Conversely, suppose that $\overline{\Phi}^*(\Lambda_L)=\Lambda_L$ and let $D$ be any diffusion of diffusor $L$. Fixing $\lambda \in \Lambda_L$, from Theorem \[theorem\_semimartingale6\] we have $$\int{\langle \lambda, d\Phi_f(D)_t\rangle}=H_f\left(\int{\langle \overline{\Phi}^*(\lambda),dD_t\rangle}\right).$$ Since $\overline{\Phi}^*(\lambda) \in \Lambda_L$, the right-hand side of the last equality is a local martingale. Then, by Theorem \[theorem\_symmetry1\], $\Phi_f(D)$ is a diffusion of diffusor $L$. ${}\hfill$
In order to provide a simpler characterization of symmetries of $L$ we give the following lemma.
\[lemma\_symmetry3\] Let $ L $ be a standard diffusor. If there exists a diffusor $ L '$ such that, $\forall \lambda \in \Lambda_L $, $ \langle \lambda, L '\rangle = 0 $, then there exists $ \mu \in {C^{\infty}}(N) $ such that $ L '= \mu L $.
Let us consider $\widetilde{L}=L'-L'(t) L$: we show that $\widetilde{L}=0$ proving that, $\forall g \in {C^{\infty}}(N)$, $\widetilde L(g)=0$. Since $L$ is standard, $L(t)=\langle d^2t, L\rangle =1$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{L}(t)&=&\langle d^2t,L'\rangle- L'(t) \langle d^2t, L\rangle\\
&=&L'(t)-L'(t)L(t)=0.\end{aligned}$$ Obviously, if $\lambda \in \Lambda_L$, then $\langle \lambda , \widetilde{L}\rangle =0$. So, if $g \in {C^{\infty}}(M)$, then $\lambda = d^2g- L(g)d^2t \in \Lambda_L$. Therefore $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{L}(g)&=&\langle (\lambda+L(g)d^2t),\widetilde{L}\rangle\\
&=&\langle \lambda ,\widetilde{L}\rangle +L(g)\widetilde{L}(t)=0, \end{aligned}$$ and, by Theorem \[theorem\_codiffusor2\], the last statement is equivalent to $\widetilde{L}=0$. ${}\hfill$
With the notations and the hypothesis of Theorem \[theorem\_symmetry2\] , $ \overline {\Phi} $ is a symmetry of $L$ if and only if $ \overline {\Phi} ^ * (L) = \mu L $, for some $ \mu \in {C^{\infty}}(M) $ such that $ \mu \not = 0 $.
\[definition\_symmetry1\] Let $X$ be a complete vector field on $N$ with corresponding flow $\overline{\Phi}_a$.The vector field $X$ is an *infinitesimal symmetry* for the diffusions associated with a diffusor $L$ (in short an infinitesimal symmetry for $L$) if, $\forall a \in \mathbb{R}$, $\overline{\Phi}_a$ is a symmetry of the diffusor $L$.
\[remark\_symmetry1\] A necessary condition for $X$ to be an infinitesimal symmetry of a diffusor $L$ is that the flow $ \overline {\Phi} _a $ is a one-parameter group of invertible semimartingale transformations. This is equivalent to require that $X$ is *projectable*, i.e. the vector field $X$ is of the form $X=\phi^i \partial_{x^i}+\tau \partial_t$, where the function $\tau$ depends only on $t$.
\[theorem\_symmetry4\] A projectable complete vector field $X$ is an infinitesimal symmetry of a standard diffusor $ L $ if and only if $X$ is a symmetry of $\Lambda_L$, i.e. $$\label{equation_lambda}
\mathcal{L}_X(\Lambda_L) \subseteq \Lambda_L.$$
The necessity (and the sufficiency) of the existence of the flow and of the projectability of $X$ are explained in Remark \[remark\_symmetry1\].\
Besides, since $\Lambda_L$ is a $k$-dimensional module (with $k={\operatorname{rank}}(\tau^*N)-1$) the necessity and sufficiency of condition [(\[equation\_lambda\])]{} are simple consequences of Theorem \[theorem\_codiffusor6\] and Theorem \[theorem\_symmetry2\]. ${}\hfill$
The following proposition provides a very useful condition, ensuring that a complete vector field is a symmetry of a diffusion $L$.
\[proposition\_symmetry4\] Let $X$ be a projectable complete vector field and $L$ be a standard diffusor. Then $ \mathcal {L} _X (\Lambda_L) \subseteq \Lambda_L $ if and only if there exists $ \mu \in {C^{\infty}}(N) $ such that $$\label{equation_lambda2}
\mathcal {L} _X (L) = \mu L.$$
Suppose that $\mathcal{L}_X(\Lambda_L) \subseteq \Lambda_L$. For any codiffusor $\lambda \in \Lambda_L$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
0&=&\mathcal{L}_X(\langle \lambda, L\rangle)\\
&=&\langle \mathcal{L}_X(\lambda),L \rangle +\langle \lambda, \mathcal{L}_X(L)\rangle\\
&=&\langle \lambda, \mathcal{L}_X(L)\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, by Lemma \[lemma\_symmetry3\], there exists $\mu \in {C^{\infty}}(N)$ such that $\mathcal{L}_X(L)=\mu L$.\
Conversely, suppose that $\mathcal{L}_X(L)=\mu L$; then for any $\lambda \in \Lambda_L$, $$\begin{aligned}
0&=&\langle \mathcal{L}_X(\lambda), L\rangle+\langle \lambda, \mu L\rangle\\
&=&\langle \mathcal{L}_X(\lambda), L\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ Hence $\mathcal{L}_X(\lambda) \in \Lambda_L$, completing the proof. ${}\hfill$
In order to give a coordinate expression for condition [(\[equation\_lambda2\])]{} we consider a coordinate system $x^i$ on $M$ and a standard diffusor $L$ of the form $$L=A^{ij}\partial_{x^ix^j}+b^i\partial_{x^i}+A^{it}\partial_{x^it}+\partial_t.$$ It is easy to prove that, if $L$ is a good diffusor, then $A^{it}=0$ and the matrix $A^{ij}$ is semidefinite positive. Hence $L$ has the form $$\label{equation_symmetry1}
L=A^{ij}\partial_{x^ix^j}+b^i\partial_{x^i}+\partial_t.$$ Given a projectable vector field $X=\phi^i\partial_{x^i}+\tau \partial_t$, we can calculate $\mathcal{L}_X(L)$ and, inserting this expression in , we obtain $\mu=-\partial_t\tau$ and $$\begin{aligned}
&\phi^k\partial_{x^k}A^{ij}+\tau\partial_tA^{ij}-A^{ik}\partial_{x^k}\phi^j-A^{kj}\partial_{x^k}\phi^i+A^{ij}\partial_t\tau=0&\label{equation_symmetry2}\\
&\phi^k\partial_{x^k}b^i+\tau \partial_tb^i-b^k\partial_{x^k}\phi^i-A^{jk}\partial_{x^jx^k}\phi^i+b^i\partial_t\tau-\partial_t\phi^i=0,&\label{equation_symmetry3}\end{aligned}$$ for $i,j=1,...,\dim(M)$.
In the following we compare the symmetry approach proposed in this paper, and in particular the *determining equations* [(\[equation\_symmetry2\])]{} and [(\[equation\_symmetry3\])]{}, with other results on symmetries of stochastic processes appearing in the literature.\
Given a diffusor $L$, it is natural to consider the corresponding Kolmogorov equation $$\label{equation_Kolmogorov}
L(u)=A^{ij}\partial_{x^ix^j}(u)+b^i\partial_{x^i}(u)+\partial_t(u)=0$$ describing the behaviour of the mean value of regular functions of the solution process $X_t$. More precisely, a solution $u(x,t)$ to equation [(\[equation\_Kolmogorov\])]{} is of the form $\mathbb{E}[f(X_T)|X_t=x]=u(x,t)$, with $t\in [0,T]$. Since [(\[equation\_Kolmogorov\])]{} is a PDE, its Lie symmetries can be interpreted as vector fields on $J^0(N,\mathbb{R})$ of the form $$Z=\tau(x,t,u)\partial_{t}+\phi^i(x,t,u)\partial_{x^i}+\psi(x,t,u)\partial_u.$$ satisfying (in the non-degenerate case, i.e. when $A^{ij}$ has maximal rank) the following conditions (see e.g. [@Gaeta1999; @Olver1993]) $$\begin{aligned}
&\psi(x,t,u)=h(x,t)u&\\
&\partial_u(\phi^i)=0&\\
&\partial_u(\tau)=0&\\
&\partial_{x^i}(\tau)=0&\\
&\partial_t(h)+A^{ij}\partial_{x^ix^j}(h)+b^i\partial_{x^i}(h)=0&\\
&\phi^k\partial_{x^k}A^{ij}+\tau\partial_tA^{ij}-A^{ik}\partial_{x^k}\phi^j-A^{kj}\partial_{x^k}\phi^i+A^{ij}\partial_t\tau=0&\\
&\phi^k\partial_{x^k}b^i+\tau \partial_tb^i-b^k\partial_{x^k}\phi^i-A^{jk}\partial_{x^jx^k}\phi^i+b^i\partial_t\tau-\partial_t\phi^i+A^{ik}\partial_{x^k}(h)+A^{ki}\partial_{x^k}(h)=0.&\end{aligned}$$
It is interesting to note that these equations coincide with equations [(\[equation\_symmetry2\])]{} and [(\[equation\_symmetry3\])]{} when $h$ is constant. This is due to the fact that, in our approach, the main object is the process $X_t$ and a symmetry $Y$ on $M$ transforms the solution $X_t$ to the martingale problem into a (possibly different) solution $\Phi_f(X)_t$ to the same martingale problem. Hence $Y=Z$ (under the hypothesis $h=0$) transforms solutions to [(\[equation\_Kolmogorov\])]{} into other solutions to [(\[equation\_Kolmogorov\])]{}.\
Indeed a solution $u$ to the Kolmogorov equation such that $u(x,T)=g(x)$ is of the form $u(x,t)=\mathbb{E}[g(X_T)|X_t=x]$. This means that $$\begin{aligned}
u(\Phi_a^{-1}(x,t),f_a^{-1}(t))&=&\mathbb{E}[g(X_T)|X_{f_a^{-1}(t)}=\Phi_a^{-1}(x)]\\
&=&\mathbb{E}[g(X_T)|\Phi_a(H_{f_a}(\overline{X}))=x]\\
&=&\mathbb{E}[g \circ \Phi_a^{-1}(\Phi_{a,f_a}(X)_{f_a^{-1}(T)},f_a^{-1}(T)) \, |\Phi_{a,f_a}(X)_t=x]=v(x,t).\end{aligned}$$ Since $\Phi_f(X)$ is still a solution to the same martingale problem, we have that $v$ is the unique solution to $L(v)=0$ with final condition $v(x,f_a^{-1}(T))=g(\Phi_a^{-1}(x,f_a^{-1}(T)))$.\
The fact that only the transformations with $h=0$ turn out to be symmetries of both the diffusion process and the Kolmogorov equation follows from the fact that the transformations of the function $u$ do not have a natural meaning when the focus is on the process.\
Another natural comparison arising in this framework is the study of the relationship between the symmetries of a martingale problem as proposed in the present paper and the symmetries of the corresponding SDE as given in [@DMU1]. Since in [@DMU1] we consider only autonomous SDEs and stochastic time changes, in order to make the two approaches correctly comparable, we restrict our considerations to autonomous diffusions (i.e. $A^{ij},b^i$ not depending on $t$) and time changes of the form $\tau=a t$ for some $a \in \mathbb{R}$.\
Given $\mu:M \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^n$ and $\sigma:M \rightarrow Mat(n,m)$, in [@DMU1] we consider SDEs of the form $$dX_t=\mu^i(X_t) dt +\sigma^i_{\alpha}(X_t) dW^{\alpha}$$ where $(\mu,\sigma)=(\mu^i(x),\sigma^i_{\alpha}(x))$, and $m$ is the dimension of the Brownian motion driving the SDE. The relationship between $(\mu,\sigma)$ and $(b^i,A^{ij})$ is provided by Itô formula which ensures that $$\label{equation_coeffSDE}
b^i=\mu^i, \ \ A^{ij}=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\alpha=1}^m \sigma^i_{\alpha}\sigma^j_{\alpha}.$$ The infinitesimal stochastic transformation of a process $X$ and of a Brownian motion $W$ is given by a triple $(\tilde{Y},C,a)$ where $\tilde{Y}=\phi^i\partial_{x^i}$ is a vector field on $M$, describing the spatial change of $X$, $C:M \rightarrow \mathfrak{so}(m)$ is a function representing the random rotation of the Brownian motion $W$ and taking values in the group of antisymmetric matrices, and $a \in \mathbb{R}$ is the parameter of the time rescaling.\
The determining equations for $(\tilde{Y},C,a)$ are $$\begin{aligned}
&\phi^k\partial_{x^k}\mu^i-\mu^k\partial_{x^k}\phi^i-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\alpha}\sigma_{\alpha}^{j}\sigma_{\alpha}^k\partial_{x^jx^k}\phi^i+a \mu^i=0,&\label{equation_determining1}\\
&\phi^k\partial_{x^k}(\sigma^i_{\alpha})-\sigma_{\alpha}^k\partial_{x^k}(\phi^i)+C^{\beta}_{\alpha}\sigma^i_{\alpha}+\frac{1}{2}a \sigma^i_{\alpha}=0. &
\label{equation_determining2}\end{aligned}$$ It is easy to check, by using [(\[equation\_coeffSDE\])]{}, that equation [(\[equation\_determining1\])]{} coincides with equation [(\[equation\_symmetry3\])]{} with $Y=\tilde{Y}+at\partial_t$ and that, being $C$ antisymmetric, equation [(\[equation\_determining2\])]{} implies equation [(\[equation\_symmetry1\])]{}. Furthermore, it is possible to prove that, if $A^{ij}$ has constant rank, there exists a unique antisymmetric matrix $C(x)$ such that, if $Y=\tilde{Y}+at\partial_t$ solves equation [(\[equation\_symmetry2\])]{}, then $(\tilde{Y},C,a)$ solves equation [(\[equation\_determining2\])]{}. Therefore, providing $A$ is non-degenerate, the symmetries of a SDE with deterministic time change defined in [@DMU1] are in one-to-one correspondence with the symmetries of the related martingale problem introduced here. The presence of the matrix $C \not =0 $ is essential for the validity of this correspondence. Indeed, since in the martingale problem formulation the Brownian motion is not fixed, freezing the Brownian motion in the SDE formulation by choosing $C = 0$ may cause the loss of some Lie symmetries (see [@Gaeta2000] and [@DMU1] for further details).
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The authors would like to thank Prof. Gaeta for his useful comments and suggestions in the first part of the work. This work was supported by Gruppo Nazionale Fisica Matematica (GNFM-INdAM).
[^1]: Dip. di Matematica, Università degli Studi di Milano, via Saldini 50, Milano, *email: [email protected]*
[^2]: DISAA, Università degli Studi di Milano, via Celoria 2, Milano, *email: [email protected]*
[^3]: Dip. di Matematica, Università degli Studi di Milano, via Saldini 50, Milano, *email: [email protected]*
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Particle-$\gamma$ coincidence experiments were performed at the Oslo Cyclotron Laboratory with the $^{181}$Ta(d,X) and $^{181}$Ta($^{3}$He,X) reactions, to measure the nuclear level densities (NLDs) and $\gamma$-ray strength functions ($\gamma$SFs) of $^{180, 181, 182}$Ta using the Oslo method. The Back-shifted Fermi-Gas, Constant Temperature plus Fermi Gas, and Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov plus Combinatorial models where used for the absolute normalisations of the experimental NLDs at the neutron separation energies. The NLDs and $\gamma$SFs are used to calculate the corresponding $^{181}$Ta(n,$\gamma$) cross sections and these are compared to results from other techniques. The energy region of the scissors resonance strength is investigated and from the data and comparison to prior work it is concluded that the scissors strength splits into two distinct parts. This splitting may allow for the determination of triaxiality and a $\gamma$ deformation of $14.9^{\circ} \pm 1.8^{\circ}$ was determined for $^{181}$Ta.'
author:
- 'C.P. Brits'
- 'K.L. Malatji'
- 'M. Wiedeking'
- 'B.V. Kheswa'
- 'S. Goriely'
- 'F.L. Bello Garrote'
- 'D.L. Bleuel'
- 'F. Giacoppo'
- 'A. G[ö]{}rgen'
- 'M. Guttormsen'
- 'K. Hadynska-Klek'
- 'T.W. Hagen'
- 'S. Hilaire'
- 'V.W. Ingeberg'
- 'H. Jia'
- 'M. Klintefjord'
- 'A.C. Larsen'
- 'S.N.T. Majola'
- 'P. Papka'
- 'S. Péru'
- 'B. Qi'
- 'T. Renstr[ø]{}m'
- 'S.J. Rose'
- 'E. Sahin'
- 'S. Siem'
- 'G.M. Tveten'
- 'F. Zeiser'
bibliography:
- 'Reference.bib'
title: 'Nuclear level densities and gamma-ray strength functions of $^{180,181,182}$Ta'
---
\[sec:level1\]Introduction
==========================
The $\gamma$-ray strength function ($\gamma$SF) and nuclear level density (NLD) describe the nuclear structure in the region of the quasi-continuum where the level spacing is too small to resolve and study individual levels. The $\gamma$SF characterises the average electromagnetic properties and is related to radiative decay and photo-absorption processes [@Chadwick2011; @Bar1973]. From the NLD the evolution of the number of levels with excitation energy can be investigated [@Gut2015] and related to thermodynamic properties [@Mor2015].
The $\gamma$SF and NLD are important input parameters into reaction cross section calculations in the Hauser-Feshbach statistical framework [@Hauser1952]. The Hauser-Feshbach formalism is implemented in the TALYS v1.9 reaction code [@Koning2008] which can be used to calculate (n,$\gamma$) cross sections. Hence, NLD and $\gamma$SF are nuclear properties of significance to nucleosynthesis [@Arnould2007] and calculations have shown that relative small changes to the overall shape of the $\gamma$SF, such as a pygmy resonance, can have an order of magnitude effect on the rate of elemental formation [@Goriely1998]. It has been shown that measured statistical properties can reliably be used to reproduce capture cross sections that were measured using other techniques [@Guttormsen2017; @Kheswa2017; @Larsen2016], although further validations are needed across the nuclear chart. Additionally, NLD and $\gamma$SF can also be relevant to the design of existing and future nuclear power reactors, where simulations depend on such nuclear data [@Chadwick2011]. Their importance is highlighted by the efforts which are currently underway to generate a reference database for $\gamma$SFs [@Vivian2018].
A key feature of the $\gamma$SF in well-deformed nuclei is the scissors resonance (SR). The SR is a collective magnetic dipole (M1) excitation usually found at excitation energies $E_{x} \approx$ 2-4 MeV. The SR was predicted several decades ago [@Suz1977; @Iudice1978; @Iud1979; @Iac1981] and first observed in $^{156}$Gd a few years later [@Bohle1984]. A splitting of the SR in $^{164}$Dy and $^{174}$Yb was reported soon after [@Boh1984] and interpreted as a possible measure of nuclear triaxiality [@Iudice1985]. Besides observations in well-deformed even-even nuclei ([@Kris2010] and references therein), the SR has also been observed in less deformed nuclei, e.g. in vibrational even-mass $^{122-130}$Te [@Schwengner1997], transitional $^{190,192}$Os [@Fransen1999], and in $\gamma$-soft $^{134}$Ba and $^{196}$Pt [@Maser1996; @Brentano1996] nuclei. The SR has been investigated through nuclear resonance fluorescence (NRF) [@Kneissl1996], resonance neutron capture [@Bar2015], and through the Oslo Method in the rare-earth [@Schiller2000] and actinide [@Guttormsen2012; @Guttormsen2014; @Tornyi2014; @Laplace2016] regions. A review of the theoretical and experimental findings can be found in Ref. [@Kris2010].
In this paper we present results of the NLDs and $\gamma$SFs for $^{180,181,182}$Ta from six reactions. Three different level density models are used and compared for the normalisation at $S_{n}$. From the (d,p)$^{182}$Ta data the $^{181}$Ta(n,$\gamma$) cross section is calculated using TALYS and compared to previous results. The emergence of the SR in the transitional nucleus $^{181}$Ta is investigated and compared to other work. The paper is structured as follows: in Sec. II the experimental setup is presented and Sec. III provides a brief overview of the Oslo method and the different level density models that were used. Sec. IV presents the $^{181}$Ta(n,$\gamma$) cross section and a comparison to other work, while Sec. V investigates and discusses the presence of the SR in $^{181}$Ta. A brief summary is given in Sec. VI.
Experimental Setup {#sec:level3}
==================
Three experiments were performed at the Oslo Cyclotron Laboratory (OCL) at the University of Oslo using a self-supporting 0.8 mg/cm$^{2}$ thick natural tantalum target. A deuteron beam of 12.5 MeV was used for the $^{181}$Ta(d,p)$^{182}$Ta and $^{181}$Ta(d,d’)$^{181}$Ta reactions, while a deuteron beam of 15 MeV was used for the $^{181}$Ta(d,t)$^{180}$Ta reaction and a second $^{181}$Ta(d,d’)$^{181}$Ta reaction. A 34 MeV $^{3}$He beam was utilised for the $^{181}$Ta($^{3}$He,$^{3}$He’)$^{181}$Ta and $^{181}$Ta($^{3}$He,$\alpha$)$^{180}$Ta reaction. The SiRi particle telescope [@Guttormsen2010] and CACTUS scintillator [@Guttormsen1990] array were used to detect charged particles and $\gamma$-rays in coincidence within a 2$\mu$s hardware time window.
The $\Delta$E-E SiRi particle-telescope consists of eight 130 $\mu$m thin, segmented silicon $\Delta$E detectors and eight 1550 $\mu$m thick E silicon detectors. These detectors covered a polar angular range of $\theta_{lab} = 126^{\circ} - 140^{\circ}$ with respect to the beam axis. The energy resolutions, as determined from the elastic peaks, are $\approx$ 125 keV for the deuteron and 350 keV for the $^{3}$He beams. The CACTUS array consists of 26 NaI(Tl) detectors with $5" \times 5"$ crystals positioned 22 cm away from the target, covering a solid angle of 16.2$\%$ of $4\pi$ sr. CACTUS has a total efficiency of 14.1(1)$\%$ and an energy resolution of 6$\%$ FWHM for a 1332 keV $\gamma$-ray transition.
The E detectors provided the start signal and the delayed NaI(Tl) detectors provided the stop signal for the time-to-digital converters, enabling event-by-event sorting for the particle-$\gamma$ coincidence data. Calibrations of SiRi was accomplished using individual reactions on $^{181}$Ta. CACTUS detectors was calibrated with the $^{28}$Si(d,p) reaction which provided appropriate $\gamma$-ray energies. During offline analysis the prompt time gate was set to 40 ns for the data sets from $^{3}$He beams and to 30 ns for the data from deuteron beams. Equivalently wide non-prompt time gates were used to subtract and remove the uncorrelated events from the prompt particle-$\gamma$ events.
Analysis
========
Oslo Method
-----------
The $\gamma$SFs and NLDs are simultaneously extracted using the Oslo Method, which has been covered in the literature [@Schiller2000; @Larsen2011; @Guttormsen1996; @Guttormsen1987], and only a brief overview will be presented here. In the first step the $\gamma$-ray spectra is unfolded using the detector response function. The Compton background, effects from pair production and the single- and double-escape peaks are removed from the $\gamma$-ray spectrum leaving only full-energy deposit events that are corrected for efficiency. The primary $\gamma$-rays are extracted using an iterative subtraction method that separates the primary $\gamma$-rays from the total $\gamma$-ray cascade. The primary transitions are collected in the first-generation matrix $P(E_{x},E_{\gamma})$ with the assumption that the $\gamma$-ray distribution is the same for a state populated through $\gamma$-ray decay or the nuclear reaction. This assumption is valid at high-level densities where the nucleus is in a compound state prior to $\gamma$-ray emission.
The probability for a $\gamma$-ray, with energy $E_{\gamma}$, to decay from excitation energy $E_{x}$ to a final energy $E_{f}$, with energy $E_{f} = E_{x} - E_{\gamma}$, is proportional to the level density at the final energy, $\rho(E_{f})$ and the transmission coefficient $\mathcal{T}(E_{\gamma})$. $P(E_{x},E_{\gamma})$ is proportional to the decay probability and can be factorised as:
$$P(E_x,E_{\gamma}) \propto \mathcal{T}(E_{\gamma})\rho(E_{f}).$$
Brink’s hypothesis [@Bri1955] is assumed to be valid, which implies that the $\gamma$-ray transmission coefficient does not depend on the properties of the initial and final states but only on the $\gamma$-ray energy. A $\chi^{2}$ minimisation is used to extract $\mathcal{T}(E_{\gamma})$ and $\rho(E_{f})$ [@Schiller2000]:
$$\begin{split}
\chi^{2} = \frac{1}{N_{free}} \sum^{E^{max}}_{E_{x}=E^{min}} \sum^{E_{x}}_{E_{\gamma}=E^{min}_{\gamma}} \times \\
\left(\frac{P_{th}(E_{x},E_{\gamma}) - P(E_{x},E_{\gamma})}{\delta P(E_{x},E_{\gamma})}\right)^2,
\end{split}$$
where $N_{free}$ is the number of degrees of freedom and $\delta P(E_{x},E_{\gamma})$ is the uncertainty in the first-generation matrix. The experimental $P(E_{x},E_{\gamma})$ and fitted $P_{th}(E_{x},E_{\gamma})$ first-generation matrices for $^{182}$Ta are shown in Fig. \[rhosigchi\]
![(Color online) The experimental (a) and fitted (b) first-generation particle-$\gamma$ matrices from the $^{181}$Ta(d,p)$^{182}$Ta reaction with a deuteron energy of 12.5 MeV.[]{data-label="rhosigchi"}](final_pics/fg_final_final.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
. Their close similarity encourages an accurate fit. The $\chi^{2}$ minimisation was applied in the regions shown in Tab. \[one\_two\_three\].
-------------------------------- ------------ -------------------- --------------- ---------------
Reaction E$_{beam}$ E$_{\gamma}^{min}$ E$_{x}^{min}$ E$_{x}^{max}$
(MeV) (MeV) (MeV) (MeV)
($^{3}$He,$\alpha$)$^{180}$Ta 34 1.73 2.97 6.35
($^{3}$He,$^{3}$He’)$^{181}$Ta 34 1.63 2.57 7.38
(d,t)$^{180}$Ta 15 1.21 2.49 5.18
(d,d’)$^{181}$Ta 15 1.21 3.01 6.02
(d,d’)$^{181}$Ta 12.5 1.59 2.54 3.84
(d,p)$^{182}$Ta 12.5 1.54 2.54 5.94
-------------------------------- ------------ -------------------- --------------- ---------------
: The regions where the $\chi^{2}$ minimisation was applied to data from the different reactions populating $^{180,181,182}$Ta.
\[one\_two\_three\]
Within these limits an infinite number of solutions for $P(E,E_{\gamma})$ can be found of the form:
$$\label{level}
\tilde{\rho}(E_{f}) = Ae^{\alpha E_{f}}\rho(E_{f})$$
and $$\label{transmission}
\widetilde{\mathcal{T}}(E_{\gamma}) = Be^{\alpha E_{\gamma}}\mathcal{T}(E_{\gamma}),$$
where $A$ and $B$ are normalisation parameters and $\alpha$ is the slope of the NLD and $\gamma$-ray transmission coefficient.
Nuclear level density {#NLD_label}
---------------------
A normalisation is performed to determine the parameters $A$ and $B$ and the slope $\alpha$, corresponding to the physical solutions, from other experimental data as well as systematics. The NLD is normalised at low energies to experimentally measured levels by counting the levels from the evaluated nuclear data base [@nndc]. At high $E_{x}$ the NLD is normalised to the total level density at the neutron separation energy $\rho(S_{n})$.
The functional form of the NLD is uniquely defined from the $\chi^{2}$ fit of the primary $\gamma$-ray matrix. It is for the absolute normalisation at the neutron separation energy that different level density models, in particular the spin distribution, play a major role. For this work three different normalisation models are considered. The Back-shifted Fermi-Gas (BSFG) [@Gilbert1965], Constant Temperature+Fermi Gas (CT+FG) [@Koning2012], and Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov plus Combinatorial (HFB) [@Goriely2008].
The CT+FG normalisation is based on two different spin cut-off formulas. Firstly, using the energy-dependent spin cut-off parameter, the NLD can accurately be obtained from the widely used Constant Temperature model (CT) [@Gilbert1965], for 2$\Delta_{0}\leq E_{x}\leq$10 MeV, where $\Delta_{0}$ is the pair-gap parameter [@Bohr1969]. The total NLD $\rho(S_{n})$ is calculated according to [@Larsen2011]:
$$\label{NLD_rho}
\rho(S_{n}) = \frac{2\sigma^{2}}{D_{0}} \times \frac{1}{(I+1)\text{exp}(-\frac{(I+1)^{2}}{2\sigma^{2}}) + I\text{exp}(-\frac{I^{2}}{2\sigma^{2}})}.$$
$D_{0}$ is the $\ell = 0$ neutron resonance spacing data [@Capote; @Mughabghab2006], $I$ is the initial spin of the target nucleus, and the spin cut-off parameter $\sigma$ is determined from [@Egiby2009]:
$$\label{spin_cut_eqn}
\sigma^{2} = 0.391A^{0.675}(E_{x}-0.5Pa)^{0.312}$$
where $A$ is the number of nucleons and $Pa$ is the deuteron pairing energy. When using this spin distribution the model will be referred to as CT+FG1. Since the NLD can only be extracted up to $E_x-E_{\gamma}$ and does not reach $S_{n}$, the CT model [@Koning2008b] is used to interpolate between the experimental NLD and $\rho(S_{n})$. The experimentally extracted $^{181}$Ta NLD with CT+FG1 from all three reactions populating $^{181}$Ta are shown in Fig. \[NLD\_3\]
![(Color online) The NLDs of $^{181}$Ta from the 12.5 MeV $^{181}$Ta(d,d’) (green), 15 MeV $^{181}$Ta(d,d’) (black) and $^{181}$Ta($^{3}$He,$^{3}$He’) (red) reactions using the CT+FG1 model. The solid line represents the level density deduced from known levels. The dashed line from the CT model [@Koning2008b], interpolates between the experimental data and $\rho(S_{n})$ (black open square).[]{data-label="NLD_3"}](final_pics/181Ta_NLD_all_v2.pdf){width="53.00000%"}
and are in good agreement. Secondly, the CT+FG normalisation uses the spin cut-off parameter as implemented in TALYS [@Koning2008]. The $E_{x}$ is divided into two excitation energy regions: 0 $\leq$$E_{x}$ $\leq$ $E_{M}$, where the constant temperature approximation applies and $E_{x} > E_{M}$, where the Fermi-gas model applies [@Ericson1959]. $E_{M}$ is the matching excitation energy between the two models. When using the spin distribution from TALYS the model will be referred to as CT+FG2. The microscopic HFB model describes the energy-, spin- and parity-dependent NLD. This model takes into account the HFB single-particle level scheme to calculate incoherent intrinsic state densities which depends only on $E_{x}$, parity and the spin projection on the symmetry axis of the nucleus. The collective (rotational and vibrational) enhancement are accounted for, once the incoherent particle-hole states densities have been determined. The resulting microscopic approach reproduces well the experimental data at known discrete states and $S_{n}$. These NLDs are tabulated in the TALYS software package.
The BSFG model [@Gilbert1965; @Dilg1973] for the NLD is based on the Fermi-gas approximation and includes pairing energies and shell correction effects in its calculations. In this model the level density parameter and energy shift are free parameters to allow for a reasonable fit to experimental data.
In the case of $^{180}$Ta, neither $D_{0}$ nor the average radiative width, $\langle \mathit{\Gamma_{\gamma 0}} \rangle$ are known. The $\rho(S_{n})$ was estimated by normalising both $\rho(E_{x})$ and $\mathcal{T}(E_{\gamma})$ of $^{180}$Ta on the basis of these functions having the same slope as $\rho(E_{x})$ and $\mathcal{T}(E_{\gamma})$ of $^{181,182}$Ta using eqn. \[NLD\_rho\]. It has been shown that $\rho(E_{x})$ and $\mathcal{T}(E_\gamma)$ of neighbouring isotopes have the same slope [@Mor2015], independent of the normalisation method used. The spline fit function, as implemented in TALYS [@Koning2008], was used to estimate $\langle \mathit{\Gamma_{\gamma 0}} \rangle$. The NLDs of $^{180,181,182}$Ta using the three normalisations are shown in Fig. \[182Ta\_NLD\_Model\]
![(Color online) The NLD of $^{182}$Ta from the (d,p) reaction (a), $^{181}$Ta from the ($^{3}$He,$^{3}$He’) reaction (b), and $^{180}$Ta from the (d,t) reaction (c) are shown with CT+FG2, BSFG and HFB normalisations (see text for details).[]{data-label="182Ta_NLD_Model"}](final_pics/NLD.pdf){width="53.00000%"}
. The open squares are the $\rho(S_{n})$ and the solid lines are the level density calculated by the individual models. The experimental data are then normalised to these calculations and are superimposed for comparison. All the models reproduced the $D_{0}$ within experimental uncertainties. The different models will be used later to constrain the upper and lower uncertainties for the cross section calculations. The NLD of the odd-odd $^{180,182}$Ta are higher than that of the even-odd $^{181}$Ta, due to one extra unpaired neutron in $^{180,182}$Ta which increases the number of degrees of freedom.
$\gamma$-ray strength function
------------------------------
Assuming that the statistical $\gamma$-ray decays are dominated by dipole transitions the $\gamma$SF is given by [@Capote]:
$$f(E_{\gamma}) = \frac{\tilde{\mathcal{T}}(E_{\gamma})}{2\pi E_{\gamma}^{3}}.$$
The absolute normalisation parameter $B$ is obtained by constraining the data to $\langle \mathit{\Gamma_{\gamma 0}} \rangle$ for s-wave resonances by [@Kopecky1990]:
$$\begin{split}
&\langle\varGamma_{\gamma 0}(S_{n})\rangle=\frac{1}{2\pi\rho(S_{n},I_{T},\pi_{T})} \sum_{I_{f}}\int_{0}^{S_n} \times \\
&B\mathcal{T}(E_\gamma) \rho(S_{n}-E_{\gamma}, I_{f})dE_{\gamma},\\
\end{split}
\label{q9}$$
where $\pi$ is the parity, the subscripts $f$ and $T$ indicate the final levels and target nucleus, respectively.
The photo absorption cross section, $\sigma(E_{\gamma})$, can be converted to the $\gamma$SF by [@Bar1973]:
$$\label{eq11}
f(E_{\gamma}) = \frac{\sigma(E_{\gamma})}{3E_{\gamma}(\pi \hbar c)^{2}}.$$
The extracted $\gamma$SFs for $^{180, 181, 182}$Ta are shown for each reaction individually in Fig. \[PSF\_indiv\]
{width="104.00000%"}
. For $^{182}$Ta (Fig. \[PSF\_indiv\] (a)) the $\gamma$SF is relatively smooth in the measured range with a possible slight enhancement at $\sim$4.5 MeV which has been reported previously in [@Igashira1986]. The $\gamma$SFs for $^{181}$Ta exhibit some features which will be discussed in Sec. V. The $\gamma$SF from the $^{180}$Ta($^{3}$He,$\alpha$) reaction had low statistics resulting in larger binning and uncertainties. The uncertainties of the $\gamma$SF normalisation introduced by $D_{0}$ and $\langle \mathit{\Gamma_{\gamma 0}} \rangle$ from Refs. [@Capote; @Mughabghab2006] were considered by separately extracting upper and lower NLDs and $\gamma$SFs for the experimental data, using $D_{0} = D_{0} \mp \delta D_{0}$ and $ \langle \mathit{\Gamma_{\gamma 0}} \rangle \; =\; \langle \mathit{\Gamma_{\gamma 0}} \rangle \pm \langle \delta \mathit{\Gamma_{\gamma 0}} \rangle$ with the CT+FG1. This produces upper and lower error bands. The parameters used to normalise the $\gamma$SFs and NLDs are listed in Tab. \[spama\]. All $\gamma$SFs for each nucleus are plotted together, with data obtained from $^{181}$Ta($\gamma$,n) [@Utsunomiya2003], $^{181}$Ta($\gamma$,xn) [@Bergere1968] and $^{181}$Ta$(\gamma, \gamma)$ [@Makinaga2014], in Fig. \[GEDRx\]
![(Color online) The experimental $\gamma$SFs of $^{182}$Ta (a), $^{181}$Ta (b) and $^{180}$Ta (c) from present experiments, are compared to data obtained from $^{181}$Ta($\gamma$,n) [@Utsunomiya2003], $^{181}$Ta($\gamma$,xn) [@Bergere1968] and $^{181}$Ta$(\gamma, \gamma)$ [@Makinaga2014]. The upper and lower uncertainty bands (green lines) are the combination of statistical, systematic and experimental uncertainties due to D$_{0}$ and $\langle \mathit{\Gamma_{\gamma 0}} \rangle$. Here, they are shown only for the data with the largest uncertainties. []{data-label="GEDRx"}](final_pics/Ta_GDR_All_v2.pdf){width="52.00000%"}
. The $\gamma$SFs for the same nucleus obtained from different reactions are quite similar and agree within the uncertainties.
The experimental $\gamma$SF has contributions from E1 and M1 transitions, and therefore has to be disentangled. This is achieved by subtracting the $M1$ D1M-QRPA strength [@Goriely2016; @Goriely2018] (Quasi-Particle Random Phase Approximation based on the Gogny D1M interaction) from the experimental E1+M1 $\gamma$SF as shown in Fig. \[E1M1contributions\]
![(Color online) The experimental $\gamma$SFs have contributions from E1 and M1 transitions and need to be disentangled. The disentangled E1 and M1 contributions for $^{182}$Ta are compared to ARC data from Ref. [@Kopecky2017].[]{data-label="E1M1contributions"}](final_pics/182Ta_GDR_linear_fit.pdf){width="53.00000%"}
. The disentangled E1 and M1 contributions agree well with average reaction capture (ARC) data from Ref. [@Kopecky2017]. The same procedure was applied in the analysis of $^{91,92}$Zr isotopes [@Guttormsen2017]. This disentanglement was performed for the experimental strengths from each data set individually.
\[sec:level4.5\]$^{181}$T(,$\gamma$) cross sections
===================================================
The E1 and M1 strengths plus the $^{181}$Ta NLDs are used as input in TALYS. The experimental $\gamma$SF span the energy region $E_{\gamma}^{min}$ $\lesssim E_{\gamma}^{exp} \lesssim S_{n}$. The data was extrapolated for $E_{\gamma}^{min} \rightarrow 0$ and $E_{\gamma}^{exp} \rightarrow S_{n}$ to reproduce the experimental $\langle \mathit{\Gamma_{\gamma 0}} \rangle$ values within $<5\%$. Here $E_{\gamma}^{exp}$ is the present experimental data. A linear fit was used to extrapolate the data between the $\gamma$SF and the Giant Electric Dipole Resonance (GEDR) data. Whenever possible it is prudent to benchmark existing (n,$\gamma$) cross sections to those that can be obtained using experimental NLDs and $\gamma$SFs. The $^{181}$Ta(n,$\gamma$) cross sections were calculated using the nuclear reactions code TALYS. The key ingredients in the calculations of these (n,$\gamma$) cross sections using the Hauser Feshbach (HF) approach are: the nuclear structure properties (i.e., masses, deformation, $E_{x}$, $J^{\pi}$, etc), NLD, $\gamma$SF and optical model potentials. The global neutron optical potential of [@Koning2003] was used for all nuclei in discussion. The Hofmann-Richert-Tepel-Weidenmüller-model (HRTW) [@Hofmann1975] for width fluctuation corrections in the compound nucleus calculation was used.
Nucleus $D_{0}$ (eV) $\langle \mathit{\Gamma_{\gamma 0}} \rangle$ (meV) $\sigma (S_n) ^{b}$ $\rho (S_{n})^{c}$ (10$^{6}$ MeV$^{-1})$ $a$ (MeV$ ^{-1}$) $E_{1}$ (MeV) $S_{n}$ (MeV)
------------ ----------------------- ---------------------------------------------------- --------------------- ------------------------------------------ ------------------- --------------- ---------------
$^{180}$Ta 0.80 $\pm$ 0.24$^{d}$ 62.0 $\pm$ 5.8$^{d}$ 4.93 $\pm$ 0.49 10.67 $\pm$ 3.50 17.57 -1.09 6.65
$^{181}$Ta 1.11 $\pm$ 0.11$^{a}$ 51.0 $\pm$ 1.6$^{a}$ 4.96 $\pm$ 0.50 14.58 $\pm$ 2.80 17.53 -0.37 7.58
$^{182}$Ta 4.18 $\pm$ 0.15$^{a}$ 59.0 $\pm$ 1.8$^{a}$ 4.88 $\pm$ 0.49 2.02 $\pm$ 0.28 17.44 -1.04 6.06
\
$^{a}$ Average value from [@Capote] and [@Mughabghab2006].\
$^{b}$ Calculated using Eq. \[spin\_cut\_eqn\]\
$^{c}$ See text for details.\
$^{d}$ No experimental values of $^{180}$Ta are available. See text on how the normalisation parameters were obtained.\
\[spama\]
{width="84.00000%"}
![(Color online) $^{181}$Ta data from the 15 MeV $^{181}$Ta(d,d’)$^{181}$Ta, $^{181}$Ta($\gamma$,$\gamma'$) [@Makinaga2014], and $^{181}$Ta($\gamma,X$) [@Belyaev2001] reactions. Various resonances were identified (see text for details) and contribute to the total fit (red line) that best matches the experimental data. []{data-label="reson"}](final_pics/15MeV_total_fit_V2.pdf){width="53.00000%"}
The $^{181}$Ta(n,$\gamma$) cross sections have been extensively measured in time-of-flight [@Bokhovko1991; @Kononov1977] and activation [@Lindner1976] measurements. It is interesting to compared these cross sections with those obtained from this work. The $^{181}$Ta(n,$\gamma$)$^{182}$Ta cross sections, $\sigma(E_{n})$, as a function of incident neutron energies for 0.004 keV to 1 MeV, taking into account the uncertainties affecting the $\gamma$SFs and the NLDs, have been calculated and are shown in Fig. \[XS\_one\]. The cross sections obtained from the different normalizations yield very similar results. The $^{181}$Ta(n,$\gamma$)$^{182}$Ta cross sections exhibit a slight divergence below $10^{-2}$ MeV, but good agreement above $10^{-2}$ MeV with each other and with previous measurements. Similar results have been observed in Ref. [@Kheswa2017], where different normalisation models and spin distributions were explored in detail, yielding the same results. The agreement further validates that experimental NLDs and $\gamma$SFs can be used to obtain (n,$\gamma$) cross sections indirectly, and gives confidence in this technique to determine reliable (n,$\gamma$) cross sections for which direct measurement techniques are not currently viable e.g. Refs. [@Spyrou2014; @Kheswa2015].
\[sec:level4\]Scissors resonance
================================
The SR is a collective excitation mode dominated by single-particle events usually found at $E_{\gamma} = 66\delta A^{-1/3}$, where $\delta$ is the quadrupole deformation parameter and $A$ is the nuclear mass [@Richter1995]. On a macroscopic level the SR may be described by the oscillation of the proton and neutron distributions against each other, similar to scissor blades. On a microscopic level the SR originates from transitions between Nilsson orbits of $\Delta \Omega = \pm 1$ with the same spherical $j$ component. The quantum number $\Omega$ is the projection of the total angular momentum onto the symmetry axis of the nucleus.
A splitting of the SR may be interpreted by means of $\gamma$ deformation along the three axes [@Iudice1985]:
$$\label{SR_eqn}
\begin{split}
\omega_{1} = (\cos \gamma + \left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\right)\sin \gamma) \omega_{M1},\\
\omega_{2} = (\cos \gamma - \left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\right)\sin\gamma)\omega_{M1},\\
\omega_{3} = \omega_{M1}\frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}\sin\gamma,
\end{split}$$
where $\omega_1$, $\omega_2$, and $\omega_3$ are the centroid energies of the individual SR components and $\omega_{M1}$ is the energy resonance centroid. Along the third axis, $\omega_{3}$ is located at low energies which is typically not within experimental reach of the Oslo Method. The splitting of the SR of the two higher-lying components can be calculated by [@Iudice1985]:
$$\label{SR_split}
\Delta \omega = \omega_{1} - \omega_{2} = \omega_{M1}\frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}\sin\gamma.$$
For axially symmetric nuclei ($\gamma$=0) the $\omega_{3}$ component is absent and the $\omega_{1}$ and $\omega_{2}$ components are degenerate.
Cross sections from ($\gamma$,$\gamma'$) and ($\gamma,x$) reactions [@Makinaga2014; @Belyaev2001] were converted to $\gamma$SF data with Eq. \[eq11\]. The resonances of $^{181}$Ta for $E_{\gamma} <$ 9 MeV were fitted with standard Lorentzian functions, while for the components of the GEDR (purple dashed lines), the enhanced generalised Lorentzian functions were used, as shown in Fig. \[reson\]. The GEDR parameters were slightly modified from the average values of Refs. [@Capote; @Mughabghab2006] to better match the experimental data. From $(\gamma,\gamma')$ data the enhanced $\gamma$SF, for 6 MeV $<E_{\gamma}<$ 8 MeV (dark-blue dashed line in Fig. \[reson\]) was suggested to be due to the E1 pygmy resonance [@Makinaga2014]. A slight change in the gradient at around 4.5 MeV was noted for $^{182}$Ta in [@Igashira1986], and this feature is also visible in our data and assumed to be a resonance at $\sim$ 4.3 MeV (green dashed line in Fig. \[reson\]). An additional unknown resonance at 5.8 MeV (light-blue dashed line in Fig. \[reson\]) was added so that the total fit matches the experimental data. The resonance parameters used for the fits in Fig. \[reson\] are shown in table \[res\_par\].
$\omega$ (MeV) $\sigma$ (mb) $\Gamma$ (MeV)
---------------- --------------- ---------------- -- --
2.2 0.2 0.4
2.9 0.3 0.5
4.4 2.3 1.3
5.8 8.5 1.0
7.3 21.8 1.1
12.7 340 2.8
15.6 320 3.6
: The resonance centroid $\omega$, amplitude $\sigma$ and half width at half maximum $\Gamma$ used to fit the $\gamma$SF resonances. Enhanced generalised Lorentzian functions were used to fit the GEDR and standard Lorentzian functions were used for the other resonances.[]{data-label="res_par"}
\
The $\gamma$SF of $^{181}$Ta exhibits weak features at 2 MeV $<$ E$_{\gamma}$ $<$ 3.5 MeV (black dashed lines in Fig. \[reson\], which are found in the typical energy range for the SR [@Kris2010]. From this work the distinction between M1 and E1 is not possible but the assignment to the SR and its location in $^{181}$Ta is corroborated by previous measurements [@Wolpert1998; @Angell2016].
The SR splits into two peaks, at $E_{\gamma} =$ 2.16 $\pm$ 0.04 MeV and $E_{\gamma} =$ 2.91 $\pm$ 0.05 MeV, which is consistent with the fragmentation observed in Ref. [@Wolpert1998]. The average splitting of the SR peaks in $^{181}$Ta is $\Delta \omega =$ 0.75 $\pm$ 0.06 MeV. Using Eq. \[SR\_split\] a $\gamma$ deformation of 14.9$^{\circ}$ $\pm$ 1.8$^{\circ}$ is calculated. No additional strength is observed for $^{180}$Ta or $^{182}$Ta in the energy region of the SR.
Potential energy surface calculations for $^{181,182}$Ta were performed with the Cranking Nilsson model plus Shell correction method [@Frauendorf2000; @Dimitrov2000; @Xu2018] with pairing-gap values adopted from Ref. [@1997Moller] and are shown in Fig. \[gamma\_def\]. From these it is apparent that the ground-state configuration in $^{181}$Ta and $^{182}$Ta exhibit a $\gamma$-axis minimum, between 0$^{\circ}$-15$^{\circ}$ and a deformation parameter of $\epsilon_2 \approx$ 0.2. The deformation parameters $\delta$ and $\epsilon_{2}$ are the same to first order. From this, $^{181,182}$Ta exhibit some softness towards $\gamma$ in the form of $\gamma$-vibrations and collectively prolate which is in agreement with $\gamma = 14.9^{\circ}$ $\pm$ 1.8$^{\circ}$ extracted from the splitting of the SR. This $\gamma$ deformation is also in agreement with those predicted in Refs. [@Hilaire2007; @Delaroche2010].
The neutron capture $\gamma$-ray spectra [@Igashira1986] of the odd-odd nuclei $^{142}$Pr, $^{160}$Tb, $^{166}$Ho, $^{176}$Lu, $^{182}$Ta, and $^{198}$Au are particularly interesting and can shed light on the above results. The large deformation of $\epsilon_2 \sim$ 0.32 [@Hilaire2007] in $^{160}$Tb appears to produce a relatively localised strength at $E_{\gamma}$ = 2.5 MeV despite the two odd nucleons. Fragmentation increases for $^{166}$Ho and $^{176}$Lu as deformation is somewhat reduced to $\epsilon_2 \sim$ 0.30 [@Hilaire2007]. For $^{142}$Pr, $^{182}$Ta, and $^{198}$Au deformation is further reduced and may explain why the resonance is not identifiable. This is consistent with the proportionality of $B(M1)$ with the square of deformation [@Ziegler1990]. While higher detection sensitivity [@Wolpert1998] reveals the presence, albeit fragmented, of the SR in $^{181}$Ta, the additional odd neutron and a slightly reduced deformation is sufficient to fragment the SR strength to a level that it is not observable in $^{180}$Ta and $^{182}$Ta.
Low-lying excitations of $^{181}$Ta were investigated using NRF experiments [@Angell2016; @Wolpert1998]. It was suggested that the SR was rather weak and splits into two parts. From our work, it can be concluded that a weak SR is observed with split centroids located at 2.16 MeV $\pm$ 0.04 MeV and 2.91 MeV $\pm$ 0.05 MeV, in agreement with NRF measurements [@Angell2016; @Wolpert1998]. The case of $^{182}$Ta is similar to that of $^{197,198}$Au [@Giacoppo2015] where no SR is observed.
The current results support nuclear triaxiality as the likely mechanism of SR splitting in $^{181}$Ta however there are alternative explanations. The SR splitting was proposed from microscopic calculations [@Balbutsev2013], which were able to explain the observed splitting in the actinide region [@Tornyi2014; @Guttormsen2012; @Guttormsen2014; @Laplace2016], where the triaxiality argument does not hold due to a mismatch of $B(M1)_{\omega2}/B(M1)_{\omega1}$, from the $B(M1)$ values of the individual SR components, and from the extracted $\gamma$ deformation [@Guttormsen2012]. In these calculations the SR mode of protons oscillating against neutrons is accompanied by a lower-energy nuclear spin scissors mode where spin-up nucleons oscillate against spin-down nucleons.
![(Color online) Potential energy surface calculations with the Cranking Nilsson model plus Shell correction method for the ground states of $^{181,182}$Ta, see text for details.[]{data-label="gamma_def"}](final_pics/181182ta_PES.pdf){width="49.00000%"}
Despite systematic axially deformed QRPA calculations [@Goriely2016; @Goriely2018], the evolution of the SR across the nuclear chart is still not fully understood. For a complete understanding of the interplay of the SR with other nuclear structure properties, such as the coupling to unpaired nucleons and its dependence on nuclear shape, the persistence of the SR in transitional regions of the nuclear chart has to be investigated further.
Summary
=======
The NLDs and $\gamma$SFs of $^{180,181,182}$Ta were measured at the Oslo Cyclotron Laboratory. Six independent data sets from $^{181}$Ta(d,X) and $^{181}$Ta($^{3}$He,X) reactions were analysed with the Oslo Method. The total NLDs at the neutron separation energies and their uncertainties were calculated using three different models, the BSFG, CT+FG (1,2), and HFB plus Combinatorial models.
The comparison between the $^{181}$Ta(n,$\gamma$) cross-sections calculated with TALYS v1.9 using the measured NLD and $\gamma$SF and the results from direct measurements is satisfying and reinforces the appropriateness of using NLDs and $\gamma$SFs for the determination of neutron capture cross sections.
The $\gamma$ deformation of 14.9$^{\circ}$ $\pm$ 1.8$^{\circ}$ for $^{181}$Ta was calculated and this $\gamma$ softness, together with the unpaired nucleon, may be an explanation for a significant fragmentation of SR strength. Nuclear triaxiality may be considered as the likely mechanism of the observed SR splitting in $^{181}$Ta, but further experimental work and theoretical guidance on possible observables and specific experimental signatures for the spin-SR mode are desirable.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We would like to thank J. C. M[ü]{}ller, A. Semchenkov, and J.C. Wikne for providing quality beam. The authors thank A.O. Macchiavelli for insightful discussions. This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of South Africa under grant nos. 100465, 92600, and 92789 and the US Department of Energy under contract no. DE-AC52-07NA27344. A.C.L. acknowledges support from the ERC-STG-2014 under grant agreement No. 637686. The authors gratefully acknowledge funding from the Research Council of Norway, project grant no. 222287 (G.M.T.), 263030 (A.G., V.W.I., F.Z. and S.S.), 213442 and 263030. S.G. acknowledges the support of the FRS-FNRS. This work was performed within the IAEA CRP on “Updating the Photonuclear data Library and generating a Reference Database for Photon Strength Functions” (F410 32). M. W. and S. S. acknowledges the support from the IAEA under Research Contract 20454 and 20447, respectively.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider the category of smooth $W(k)[\GL_n(F)]$-modules, where $F$ is a $p$-adic field and $k$ is an algebraically closed field of characteristic $\ell$ different from $p$. We describe a factorization of this category into blocks, and show that the center of each such block is a reduced, $\ell$-torsion free, finite type $W(k)$-algebra. Moreover, the $k$-points of the center of a such a block are in bijection with the possible “supercuspidal supports” of the smooth $k[\GL_n(F)]$-modules that lie in the block. Finally, we describe a large explicit subalgebra of the center of each block and a description of the action of this algebra on the simple objects of the block, in terms of the description of the classical “characteristic zero” Bernstein center of [@BD].'
author:
- David Helm
date: '1-9-2012'
title: 'The Bernstein center of the category of smooth $W(k)[\GL_n(F)]$-modules'
---
Introduction
============
The [*center*]{} of an abelian category is $\CA$ the endomorphism ring of the identity functor of that category. It is a commutative ring that acts naturally on every object of $\CA$, a fact which often allows one to approach questions about $\CA$ from a module-theoretic point of view.
One spectacular success of this approach is due to Bernstein and Deligne [@BD], who computed the centers of categories of smooth complex representations of $p$-adic algebraic groups. The center of such a category is called the Bernstein center. Bernstein and Deligne give a factorization of this category into blocks, known as Bernstein components, as well as a simple and explicit description of the center of each block, which is a finite type $\CC$-algebra. In particular they showed that the $\CC$-points of the Bernstein center were in bijection with the supercuspidal supports of irreducible smooth complex representations.
The results of [@BD] made it possible to give purely algebraic proofs of theorems about smooth representations that previously could only be proven via deep results from Fourier theory; Bushnell-Henniart’s results about Whittaker models in [@BH-whittaker] are an example of this approach. In recent years there has been considerable interest in studying smooth representations over fields other than the complex numbers, or even over more general rings. To apply similar techniques in such a setting one needs to understand the centers of categories of smooth representations over $\FF_{\ell}$ or $\ZZ_{\ell}$ (or even over $\ZZ$). Some progress along these lines was made by Dat [@dat-integral]; in particular he was able to give an explicit description of the center of the category of smooth representations of a $p$-adic algebraic group $G$ over $\ZZ_{\ell}$, for $\ell$ a [*banal*]{} prime; that is, for $\ell$ prime to the order of $G(\FF_p)$.
More recently Paskunas [@paskunas] has studied the center of a category of representations of $\GL_2(\QQ_p)$ over $\FF_p$; his results allow him to characterize the image of the Colmez functor.
We fix our attention on the category $\Rep_{W(k)}(\GL_n(F))$ of smooth representations of $\GL_n(F)$, where $F$ is a $p$-adic field, over a ring of Witt vectors $W(k)$, for $k$ an algebraically closed field of characteristic $\ell$ different from $p$. We obtain a factorization of this category into blocks that parallels the Bernstein decomposition over $\CC$. This description is closely related to the decomposition due to Vigneras [@vig98] of the category of smooth representations of $\GL_n(F)$ over $k$; in both decompositions the blocks are parameterized by inertial equivalence classes of pairs $(L,\pi)$, where $L$ is a Levi subgroup of $\GL_n(F)$ and $\pi$ is an irreducible supercuspidal representation of $L$ over $k$.
Let $A_{[L,\pi]}$ be the center of the block of $\Rep_{W(k)}(\GL_n(F))$ corresponding to $(L,\pi)$. We obtain a description of $A_{[L,\pi]}$ as a concrete subalgebra of the endomorphism algebra of a certain projective object. When $\ell > n$ this yields a completely explicit description of $A_{[L,\pi]}$, but the description falls short of being totally explicit for small $\ell$. In spite of this, for all $\ell \neq p$ we are able to construct a subalgebra $C_{[L,\pi]}$ of $A_{[L,\pi]}$ such that $A_{[L,\pi]}$ is a finitely generated $C_{[L,\pi]}$-module, and give a simple, concrete description of $C_{[L,\pi]}$. Indeed, after making certain choices we obtain an isomorphism: $$C_{[L,\pi]} \cong W(k)[Z]^{W_L(\pi)},$$ where $Z$ is a certain finitely generated free abelian subgroup of the center of $L$, $W_L(\pi)$ is the subgroup of the Weyl group of $\GL_n(F)$ consisting of elements $w$ such that $w L w^{-1} = L$, and $\pi^w$ is inertially equivalent to $\pi$. In particular it follows that $A_{[L,\pi]}$ and $C_{[L,\pi]}$ are finite type $W(k)$-algebras.
The action of $C_{[L,\pi]}$ on irreducible representations of $\GL_n(F)$, both in characteristic zero and in characteristic $\ell$, can be made completely explicit in terms of a choice of certain “compatible systems of cuspidals”. (We refer the reader to Theorem \[thm:compatibility\] and the discussion preceding it for a description of these systems.) This allows us to show that the $k$-points of $A_{[L,\pi]}$ are in bijection with the supercuspidal supports of irreducible smooth representations of $\GL_n(F)$ over $k$ that lie in the block corresponding to $(L,\pi)$. This gives a “mod $\ell$” analogue of the corresponding result of Bernstein-Deligne for complex points of the classical Bernstein center. (See section \[sec:main\] for precise statements of these results.)
This is the first part of a three-part paper. The second part of this paper will be devoted to exploring the relationship between $A_{L,\pi}$ and the deformation theory of Galois representations, via the local Langlands correspondence. In particular we will give a conjectural description of the completion of $A_{[L,\pi]}$ at a point $x$ as a subalgebra of the universal framed deformation ring of the semisimple representation of $G_F$ attached to $x$ via local Langlands. Although our techniques fall short of proving this conjecture, we also give a conjectural description of $C_{[L,\pi]}$ in this manner, as the subalgebra generated by the coefficients of the characteristic polynomials of certain “Frobenius elements” of the universal framed deformation ring. This conjecture turns out to be more tractable, and we prove it in many cases. When $\ell$ is a “banal” prime (that is, when $1, \dots, q^n$ are distinct mod $\ell$, where $q$ is the order of the residue field of $F$,) then $C_{[L,\pi]} = A_{[L,\pi]}$ and we can prove both conjectures.
The third paper in this series will consider the implications of these conjectures for the “local Langlands correspondence in families” of [@emerton-helm]. In particular we will apply the structure theory of $A_{[L,\pi]}$ to to questions that arise from the theory of Whittaker models, that were first studied over the complex numbers in [@BH-whittaker]. We establish versions of several of these results that hold for smooth representations over $W(k)$, and use these results, together with our conjectural description of $A_{L,\pi}$, to prove a conjecture of [@emerton-helm] attaching families of admissible representations of $\GL_n(F)$ to families of Galois representations. Our approach to the Bernstein center is necessarily different from that of Bernstein and Deligne, who rely on properties of cuspidal representations that hold only over fields of characteristic zero. Instead, we proceed by constructing faithfully projective objects in certain direct factors of the category of smooth $W(k)[\GL_n(F)]$-modules. Central endomoprhisms of such objects then yield elements of the Bernstein center via standard arguments that we recall in section \[sec:faithful\].
Our construction of these projective $W(k)[\GL_n(F)]$-modules relies heavily on the theory of types. (This is why we must restrict our attention to the group $\GL_n$, where the theory of types is well-developed.) The construction occurs in several steps, but begins with a cuspidal type over $k$. Such a type has a projective envelope with a fairly explicit description; compactly inducing this projective envelope then yields a projective $\GL_n(F)$-module. We study the structure of such modules in sections \[sec:projectives\] and \[sec:endomorphisms\]. The general structure theory relies heavily on the characteristic zero notion of a “generic pseudo-type”; we introduce this notion in section \[sec:generic\], and compute the Hecke algebras attached to such types. These Hecke algebras turn out to be analogues, in some sense, of spherical Hecke algebras.
The projectives constructed in section \[sec:projectives\] are not the faithfully projective objects we need to consider, however. The latter are obtained by parabolic induction from modules we have already constructed. To show that the resulting modules are projective, we invoke a version of Bernstein’s second adjointness proved for smooth $W(k)[\GL_n(F)]$-modules by Dat [@dat-adjointness]. Although it would suffice to simply invoke this result for the main purposes of the paper, we also give an alternate proof of Bernstein’s second adjointness that uses the techniques of this paper in section \[sec:bernstein\]. The type theoretic approach we take is very different from that of Dat, and one might hope that it will apply in other contexts where the theory of types is sufficiently developed.
Once we have constructed the faithfully projective objects in question, and shown them to be faithfully projective, it remains to compute their central endomorphisms. This is done in section \[sec:hecke\]; our computation relies heavily on our a priori understanding of the Bernstein center over fields of characteristic zero. The result is Corollary \[cor:main\], which expresses the Bernstein center as a certain (explicitly defined) subalgebra of a multivariate Laurent polynomial ring over a certain finite rank $W(k)$-algebra. This finite rank $W(k)$-algebra arises from the representation theory of finite groups: it is a tensor product of endomorphism rings of projective envelopes of cuspidal representations of $\GL_r(\FF_{q^s})$ over $k$, for various $r$ and $s$. The structure of such endomorphism rings is currently under investigation by David Paige.
The author is grateful to Matthew Emerton, Richard Taylor, Sug-Woo Shin, Florian Herzig, David Paige and J.-F. Dat for helpful conversations and encouragement on the subject of this note.
Faithfully projective modules and the Bernstein center {#sec:faithful}
======================================================
Let $\CA$ be an abelian category. The [*center*]{} of $\CA$ is the ring of endomorphisms of the identity functor $\Id: \CA \rightarrow \CA$. More prosaically, an element of $\CA$ is a choice of element $f_{M} \in \End(M)$ for every object $M$ in $\CA$, satisfying the condition $f_M \circ \phi = \phi \circ f_N$ for every morphism $\phi: N \rightarrow M$ in $\CA$.
If $\CA$ is the category of right $R$-modules for some (not necessarily commutative) ring $R$, then it is easy to see that the center of $\CA$ is the center $Z(R)$ of the ring $R$. Indeed, $Z(R)$ acts on every object of $\CA$; this defines a map of $Z(R)$ into the center. Its inverse is constructed by considering the action of the Bernstein center on $R$, considered as a right $R$-module.
When $\CA$ is a more general abelian category, we can often describe its center by reducing to the case of a module category. We more or less follow the ideas of [@roche], section 1.1. The key is to find an object in $A$ that is faithfully projective, in the following sense:
Let $\CA$ be an abelian category with direct sums. An object $P$ in $\CA$ is [*faithfully projective*]{} if:
1. $P$ is a projective object of $\CA$.
2. The functor $M \mapsto \Hom(P,M)$ is faithful.
3. $P$ is [*small*]{}; that is, one has an isomorphism: $$\oplus_{i \in I} \Hom(P, M_i) \cong \Hom(P, \oplus_{i \in I} M_i)$$ for any family $M_i$ of objects of $\CA$ indexed by a set $I$.
One checks easily that the condition that $M \mapsto \Hom(P,M)$ is faithful is equivalent to the condition that $\Hom(P,M)$ is nonzero for every object $M$ of $\CA$. If $\CA$ has the property that every object of $\CA$ has a simple subquotient, then it suffices to check that $\Hom(P,M)$ is nonzero for every simple $M$.
If $P$ is a faithfully projective object of $\CA$, one has:
Let $P$ be faithfully projective. The functor $M \mapsto \Hom(P,M)$ is an equivalence of categories from $\CA$ to the category of right $\End(P)$-modules. In particular, the center of $\CA$ is isomorphic to the center of $\End(P)$.
Idempotents of the center correspond to factorizations of $\CA$ as a product of categories. In practice we can obtain these factorizations by constructing suitable injective objects of $\CA$.
\[prop:decompose\] Suppose that every object of $\CA$ has a simple subquotient, let $S$ be a subset of the simple objects of $\CA$, and let $I_1,I_2$ be a injective objects of $\CA$ such that, up to isomorphism:
1. every simple subquotient of $I_1$ is in $S$,
2. every object in $S$ is a subobject of $I_1$,
3. no simple subquotient of $I_2$ is in $S$, and
4. every simple object of $\CA$ that is not in $S$ is a subobject of $I_2$.
Then every object $M$ of $\CA$ splits canonically as a product $M_1 \times M_2$, where every simple subquotient of $M_1$ is in $S$, and and no simple subquotient of $M_2$ is in $S$. This gives a decomposition of $\CA$ as a product of the full subcategories $\CA_1$ and $\CA_2$ of $\CA$, where the objects of $\CA_1$ are those objects $M_1$ of $\CA$ such that every simple subquotient of $M_1$ is in $S$, and the objects of $\CA_2$ are those objects $M_2$ of $\CA$ such that no simple subquotient of $M_2$ is in $S$. Moreover, every object of $\CA_1$ has an injective resolution by direct sums of copies of $I_1$, and every object of $\CA_2$ has an injective resolution by direct sums of copies of $I_2$.
Let $M_1$ be the maximal quotient of $M$ such that every simple subquotient of $M_1$ is in $S$, and let $M_2$ be the kernel of the map $M \rightarrow M_1$. We first show $\Hom(M_2,I_1) = 0$. Suppose we have a nonzero map of $M_2$ into $I_1$, with kernel $N$. Then the injection of $M_2/N$ into $I_1$ would extend to an injection of $M/N$ into $I_1$, and thus $M/N$ would be a quotient of $M$, dominating $M_1$, all of whose simple subquotients were in $S$. It follows that no simple subquotient of $M_2$ lies in $S$, as such a subquotient would yield a nonzero map of $M_2$ to $I_1$.
If we let $M_3$ be the maximal quotient of $M$ such that no simple subquotient of $M_3$ is in $S$, then the same argument (with $I_1$ and $I_2$ reversed) shows that every simple subquotient of the kernel of the map $M \rightarrow M_3$ lies in $S$. In particular the projection of $M_2$ onto $M_3$ is injective. Suppose the image of $M_2$ were not all of $M_3$. Then (as $M$ surjects onto $M_3$), there is a simple subquotient of $M_3$ that is also a subquotient of $M/M_2$; such an object would have to be in both $S$ and its complement. Thus $M_2$ is isomorphic to $M_3$, and hence $M$ splits, canonically, as a product $M_1 \times M_2$. The decomposition of $\CA$ as the product $\CA' \times \CA''$ is now immediate, as is the claim about resolutions.
It is easy to make a dual argument with projective objects; we state the proposition in terms of injectives because that is the form of the proposition we will use.
The Bernstein center of $\Rep_{\overline{\CK}}(G)$
==================================================
Let $G = \GL_n(F)$ be a general linear group over a $p$-adic field $F$, and let $k$ be an alebraically closed field of characteristic $\ell$ not equal to $p$. Our goal is to study the Bernstein center of the category $\Rep_{W(k)}(G)$ of smooth $W(k)[G]$-modules. We assume throughout that $\ell$ is odd, so that $W(k)$ necessarily contains a square root of $q$, where $q$ is the order of the residue field of $F$. We begin by studying the category $\Rep_{\overline{\CK}}(G)$ of smooth $\overline{\CK}[G]$-modules, where $\CK$ is the field of fractions of $W(k)$. Most of the results of this section are standard. We limit ourselves to the case of $\GL_n(F)$, although the results of this section have analogues for a general reductive group.
The description of the center of $\Rep_{\overline{\CK}}(G)$ depends heavily on the theory of parabolic induction, and particularly the notions of cuspidal and supercuspidal support, which we now recall. Let $(M,\pi)$ be an ordered pair consisting of a Levi subgroup $M$ of $G$ and an absolutely irreducible cuspidal representation $\pi$ of $M$.
Let $P$ be a parabolic subgroup of $G$, with Levi subgroup $M$ and unipotent radical $U$, and let $\pi = \pi_1 \otimes ... \otimes \pi_r$ be a $W(k)[M]$-module. We let $i_P^G$ be the normalized parabolic induction functor of [@BZ]; that is, $i_P^G \pi$ is the $W(k)[G]$-module obtained by extending $\pi$ by a trivial $U$-action to a representation of $P$, twisting by a square root of the modulus character of $P$, and inducing to $G$. (This depends on a choice of square root of $q$ in $W(k)$; we fix such a choice once and for all.) Similarly, we denote by $r_G^P$ the parabolic restriction functor from $W(k)[G]$-modules to $W(k)[M]$-modules.
Let $M$ be a Levi subgroup of $G$, and let $\pi$ be a supercuspidal representation of $M$ over a field $L$. An absolutely irreducible representation $\Pi$ of $G$ over $L$ has [*supercuspidal support*]{} equal to $(M,\pi)$ if $\pi$ is supercuspidal, and there exists a parabolic subgroup $P$ of $G$, with Levi subgroup $M$, such that $\Pi$ is isomorphic to a Jordan–Hölder constituent of the normalized parabolic induction $i_P^G \pi.$
Let $M$ be a Levi subgroup of $G$, and let $\pi$ be a cuspidal representation of $M$ over a field $L$. An absolutely irreducible representation $\Pi$ of $G$ has [*cuspidal support*]{} equal to $(M,\pi)$ if there exists a parabolic subgroup $P$ of $G$, with Levi subgroup $M$, such that $\Pi$ is isomorphic to a [*quotient*]{} of $i_P^G \pi.$
Over a field $L$ of characteristic zero, the notions of cuspidal and supercuspidal support are equivalent, but the notions differ over fields of finite characteristic.
Two pairs $(M,\pi)$ and $(M',\pi')$ are conjugate in $G$ if there is an element $g$ of $G$ that conjugates $M$ to $M'$ and $\pi$ to $\pi'$. This determines an equivalence relation on the set of pairs $(M,\pi)$. Both the cuspidal and supercuspidal support of an absolutely irreducible representation $\Pi$ of $G$ are uniquely determined up to conjugacy.
We say that two representations $\pi$,$\pi'$ of $G$ that differ by a twist by $\chi \circ \det$, where $\chi$ is an unramified character of $F^{\times}$, are [*inertially equivalent*]{}. More generally, if $M$ is a Levi subgroup of $G$, two representations $\pi$ and $\pi'$ are inertially equivalent if they differ by a twist by an unramified character $\chi$ of $M$, that is, a character $\chi$ trivial on all compact open subgroups of $M$.
We are primarily interested in cuspidal and supercuspidal support up to inertial equivalence. Two pairs $(M,\pi)$ and $(M',\pi')$ are inertially equivalent if there is a representation $\pi''$ of $M$, inertially equivalent to $\pi$, such that $(M,\pi'')$ is conjugate to $(M',\pi')$. The [*inertial supercuspidal support*]{} (resp. [*inertial cuspidal support*]{}) of an absolutely irreducible representation $\Pi$ of $G$ is the inertial equivalence class of its supercuspidal support (resp. cuspidal support).
\[thm:B-D\] Let $M$ be a Levi subgroup of $G$, and let $\pi$ be an irreducible cuspidal representation of $M$. Let $\Rep_{\overline{\CK}}(G)_{M,\pi}$ be the full subcategory of $\Rep_{\overline{\CK}}(G)$ consisting of representations $\Pi$ such that every simple subquotient of $\Pi$ has inertial supercuspidal support $(M,\pi)$. Then $\Rep_{\overline{\CK}}(G)_{M,\pi}$ is a direct factor of $\Rep_{\overline{\CK}}(G)$.
There is thus an idempotent $e_{M,\pi,\overline{\CK}}$ of the Bernstein center of $\Rep_{\overline{\CK}}(G)$ that acts by the identity on all objects of $\Rep_{\overline{\CK}}(G)_{M,\pi}$ and annihilates all of the other Bernstein components.
Moreover, it is possible to give a complete description of the center $A_{M,\pi}$ of $\Rep_{\overline{\CK}}(G)_{M,\pi}$. Let $\Psi(M)$ denote the group of unramified characters of $M$. Then $\Psi(M)$ can be identified with the algebraic torus $\Spec \overline{\CK}[M/M_0]$, where $M_0$ is the subgroup of $M$ generated by all compact open subgroups of $M$. The group $\Psi(M)$ acts transitively (by twisting) on the space of representations of $M$ inertially equivalent to $\pi$, and the stabilizer of $\pi$ is a finite subgroup $H$ of $\Psi(M)$. Note that $H$ depends only on the inertial equivalence class of $\pi$, not $\pi$ itself. The group $\Psi(M)/H$ is a torus, isomorphic to $\Spec \overline{\CK}[M/M_0]^H$; a choice of $\pi$ identifies $\Psi(M)/H$ with the space of representations of $M$ inertially equivalent to $\pi$.
Let $W_M$ be the subgroup of the Weyl group $W(G)$ of $G$ (taken with respect to a maximal torus contained in $M$) consisting of elements $w$ of $W(G)$ such that $w M w^{-1} = M$. Define a subgroup $W_M(\pi)$ of $W_M$ consisting of all $w$ in $W_M$ such that $\pi^w$ is inertially equivalent to $\pi$ (this subgroup depends only on the inertial equivalence class of $\pi$.) Then $W_M(\pi)$ acts on the space of representations of $M$ inertially equivalent to $\pi$, and hence (via a choice of $\pi$) on the torus $\Spec \overline{\CK}[M/M_0]^H$. This action is in general a twist of the usual (permutation) action of $W_M$ on $M/M_0$, but if $\pi$ is [*invariant*]{} under the action of $W_M(\pi)$, then the action of $W_M(\pi)$ on $M/M_0$ is untwisted.
We have:
A choice of $\pi$ identifies $A_{M,\pi}$ with the ring $(\overline{\CK}[M/M_0]^H)^{W_M(\pi)}$. More canonically, the space of representations of $M$ inertially equivalent to $\pi$ is naturally a $\Psi/H$-torsor with an action of $W_M(\pi)$, and the center of $\Rep_{\overline{\CK}}(G)$ is the ring of $W_M(\pi)$-invariant regular functions on this torsor. Moreover, if $f$ is an element of $A_{M,\pi}$, and $\Pi$ is an object of $\Rep_{\overline{\CK}}(G)_{M,\pi}$ with supercuspidal support $(M,\pi')$, then $f$ acts on $\Pi$ by the scalar $f(\pi')$.
If $\pi$ is invariant under the action of $W_M(\pi)$, then the action of $W_M(\pi)$ on $M/M_0$ is the usual (untwisted) permutation action.
We conclude with a standard result describing the action of the Bernstein center on modules arising by parabolic induction. Let $(M_i,\pi_i)$ be pairs consisting of a Levi subgroup $M_i$ of $\GL_{n_i}(F)$, and an irreducible cuspidal representation $\pi_i$ of $M_i$ such that $\pi_i$ is invariant under the action of $W_{M_i}(\pi_i)$. Let $M$ be the product of the $M_i$, considered as a subgroup of $\GL_n(F)$, where $n$ is the sum of the $n_i$. Let $\pi$ be the tensor product of the $\pi_i$; it is an irreducible cuspidal representation of $M$. We then have an action of $W_M(\pi)$ on the inertial equivalence class of $(M,\pi)$; we assume that $\pi$ is invariant under this action.
In this setting, the group $(M/M_0)^H$ is the product of the groups $(M_i/(M_i)_0)^{H_i}$, where $H_i$ is the subgroup of characters fixing $\pi_i$ under twist. The isomorphism: $$\overline{\CK}[M/M_0]^H \cong \bigotimes_i \overline{\CK}[M_i/(M_i)_0]^{H_i}$$ then restricts to give an embedding: $$\Phi: (\overline{\CK}[M/M_0]^H)^{W_M(\pi)} \hookrightarrow \bigotimes_i (\overline{\CK}[M_i/(M_i)_0]^{H_i})^{W_{M_i}(\pi_i)}$$
\[prop:Bernstein induction\] Let $\Pi_i$ be a collection of representations of $\GL_{n_i}$ such that for each $i$, $\Pi_i$ lies in $\Rep_{\overline{\CK}}(\GL_{n_i}(F))_{M_i,\pi_i}$. Let $P = LU$ be a parabolic subgroup of $\GL_n(F)$, with $L$ isomorphic to the product of the $\GL_{n_i}(F)$, and let $\Pi$ be the tensor product of the $\Pi_i$, considered as a representation of $L$. Then $i_P^{\GL_n(F)} \Pi$ lies in $\Rep_{\overline{\CK}}(\GL_n(F))_{M,\pi}$.
Moreover, under the identifications $$A_{M,\pi} \cong
(\overline{\CK}[M/M_0]^H)^{W_M(\pi)},$$ $$A_{M_i,\pi_i} \cong (\overline{\CK}[M_i/(M_i)_0]^{H_i})^{W_{M_i}(\pi_i)}$$ induced by $(M,\pi)$ and $(M_i,\pi_i)$, if $x$ lies in $A_{M,\pi}$, then the endomorphism of $i_P^{\GL_n(F)} \Pi$ induced by $x$ coincides with the endomorphism of $i_P^{\GL_n(F)} \Pi$ arising from the action of $\Phi(x)$ on $\Pi$.
Construction of projectives {#sec:projectives}
===========================
Our goal is to apply the theory of section \[sec:faithful\] to the category $\Rep_{W(k)}(G)$ of smooth $W(k)[G]$-modules. In particular we will factor this category as a product of blocks, and construct an explicit faithfully projective module in each block. The first step is to obtain a supply of suitable projective $W(k)[G]$-modules, and study their properties.
Let $R$ be a $W(k)$-algebra. By an $R$-type of $G$, we mean a pair $(K,\tau)$, where $K$ is a compact open subgroup of $G$ and $\tau$ is an $R[K]$-module that is finitely generated as an $R$-module. The Hecke algebra $H(G,K,\tau)$ is the ring $\End_{R[G]}(\cInd_K^G \tau)$.
For the most part we will be concerned with $R$-types for $R=k$, or $R = \CK$, where $\CK$ is the fraction field of $W(k)$. Note that for any $R[G]$-module $\pi$, Frobenius reciprocity gives an isomorphism of $\Hom_{R[K]}(\tau,\pi)$ with $\Hom_{R[G]}(\cInd_K^G \tau, \pi)$, and hence an action of $H(G,K,\tau)$ on $\Hom_{R[K]}(\tau,\pi)$. Moreover, if $V$ is the underlying $R$-module of $\tau$, $H(G,K,\tau)$ can be identified with the convolution algebra of compactly supported smooth functions $f: G \rightarrow \End_R(V)$ that are left and right $K$-invariant, in the sense that $f(kgk') = \tau(k)f(g)\tau(k')$. If $g$ is in $G$, then we denote by $I_g(\tau)$ the space $\Hom_{K \cap gKg^{-1}}(\tau, \tau^g)$, where $\tau^g$ is the representation of $gKg^{-1}$ defined by $\tau^g(k) = \tau(g^{-1}kg)$. Then the map $f \mapsto f(g)$ is an isomorphism between the space $H(G,K,\tau)_{KgK}$ of functions in $H(G,K,\tau)$ supported on $KgK$ and $I_g(\tau)$.
In this section, we will primarily be concerned with a certain class of types which are called maximal distinguished cuspidal types in [@vig98], IV.3.1B. We omit the precise definition of these types here; for our purposes it suffices to know certain specific properties of a maximal distinguished cuspidal $R$-type $(K,\tau)$, where $R$ is a field.
Such a type arises from a simple stratum $[{\mathfrak A}, n , 0, \beta]$, together with a character $\theta$ in the set ${\mathcal C}({\mathfrak A}, 0, \beta)$ defined in [@BK], 3.2.1. Here ${\mathfrak A}$ is a maximal order in $M_n(F)$, and $\beta$ is an element of ${\mathfrak A}$ such that $E = F[\beta]$ is a field. This allows us to identify $E^{\times}$ with a subgroup of $\GL_n(F)$. Let $e$ and $f$ denote the ramification index and residue class degree of $E$ over $F$. One then has:
- $K$ is the group $J(\beta,{\mathfrak A})$ of [@BK]. In particular, $K$ contains a normal pro-$p$ subgroup $K^1$ (called $J^1(\beta,{\mathfrak A})$ in [@BK],) such that the quotient $K/K^1$ is isomorphic to $\GL_{\frac{n}{ef}}(\FF_{q^f})$, where $q$ is the order of the residue field of $F$.
- $\tau$ has the form $\kappa \otimes \sigma$, where $\sigma$ is a the inflation of a cuspidal representation of $K/K^1$ over $R$, and $\kappa$ is a representation of $K$ that is a $\beta$-extension of the unique irreducible representation of $K^1$ containing $\theta$.
Maximal distinguished cuspidal $R$-types have the following useful properties:
Let $R$ be a field, and let $(K,\tau)$ be a maximal distinguished cuspidal $R$-type arising from an extension $E/F$.
1. There is a unique embedding of $\GL_{\frac{n}{ef}}(E)$ into $G$ such that the center $E^{\times}$ of $\GL_{\frac{n}{ef}}(E)$ normalizes $K$ and $K^1$, and acts trivially on $K/K^1$. We identify $\GL_{\frac{n}{ef}}(E)$ and $E^{\times}$ with their images under this embedding. The intersection of $\GL_{\frac{n}{ef}}(E)$ with $K$ is $\GL_{\frac{n}{ef}}(\OO_E)$.
2. The subgroup $E^{\times}$ of $G$ normalizes $\tau$. In particular $\tau$ extends to a representation of $E^{\times}K$, and any two extensions of $\tau$ differ by a twist by a character of $E^{\times}K/K \cong \ZZ$.
3. The $G$-intertwining of $(K,\tau)$ is equal to $E^{\times}K$.
4. For any extension $\hat \tau$ of $\tau$ to a representation of $E^{\times}K$, there is an isomorphism of $H(G,K,\tau)$ with the polynomial ring $R[T,T^{-1}]$, that sends $T$ to the element $f_{\hat \tau}$ of $H(G,K,\tau)$ supported on $K\unif_E K$, where $\unif_E$ is a uniformizer of $E$, for which $f_{\hat tau}(k\unif_Ek') = \tau(k) {\hat \tau}(\unif_E) \tau(k')$.
5. For any extension $\hat \tau$ of $\tau$ to a representation of $E^{\times} K$, the representation $\cInd_{E^{\times}K}^G \hat \tau$ is an irreducible cuspidal representation of $G$ over $R$.
6. Every irreducible cuspidal representation of $G$ over $R$ arises in this fashion. Those irreducible cuspidal $\pi$ that arise from a given $(K,\tau)$ are precisely those $\pi$ whose restriction to $K$ contains $\tau$.
If $R$ is a field, and $\pi$ and $\pi'$ are two irreducible cuspidal $R$-representations containing a maximal distinguished cuspidal type $(K,\tau)$, then $\Hom_{R[K]}(\tau,\pi)$ and $\Hom_{R[K]}(\tau,\pi')$ are modules over $H(G,K,\tau) = R[T,T^{-1}]$ that are one-dimensional as $R$-vector spaces. In particular $T$ acts via scalars $c$ and $c'$ on $\Hom_{R[K]}(\tau,\pi)$ and $\Hom_{R[K]}(\tau,\pi')$, respectively. Let $\chi$ be an unramified $k$-valued character of $F^{\times}$ such that $\chi(\unif_F)^{\frac{n}{e}} = c'c^{-1}$. As $T$ is supported on $K\unif_E K$, and $\det \unif_E = \unif_F^{\frac{n}{e}}$, the $H(G,K,\tau)$-modules $\Hom_{R[K]}(\tau,\pi \otimes \chi \circ \det)$ and $\Hom_{R[K]}(\tau, \pi')$ are isomorphic, and so $\pi'$ is a twist of $\pi$ by an unramified character; that is, $\pi$ and $\pi'$ are inertially equivalent.
\[rem:canonical\] The isomorphism of $R[T,T^{-1}]$ with $H(G,K,\tau)$ depends on a choice of extension $\hat \tau$ of $\tau$, and also a uniformizer $\unif_E$. When $R$ is a field, this isomorphism may be reinterpreted in the language Bernstein and Deligne use to describe the Bernstein center, and made independent of $\unif_E$ (but not of $\hat \tau$). Let $\pi$ be the irreducible cuspidal representation of $G$ whose restriction to $E^{\times}K$ contains $\hat \tau$. Then every representation of $G$ inertially equivalent to $\pi$ has the form $\pi \otimes \chi$ for some unramified character $\chi$ of $G/G_0$, and we have $\pi = \pi \otimes \chi$ if, and only if, $\pi \otimes \chi$ contains $\hat \tau$. The latter holds precisely when $\hat \tau = \hat \tau \otimes \chi|_{E^{\times}K}$, which holds if and only if $\chi(\unif_E) = 1$. Let $Z$ be the subgroup of $G$ generated by $\unif_E$; our choice of $\unif_E$ identifies $R[T,T^{-1}]$ with $R[Z]$. The map $Z \rightarrow G/G_0$ is injective (but not in general surjective), and induces a map $\Hom({G/G_0},\GG_m) \rightarrow \Hom(Z,\GG_m)$ by restriction. Let $H$ be the kernel of this map; the induced map on rings of regular functions then identifies $R[Z]$ with the $H$-invariants $R[G/G_0]^H$. The identifications: $$H(G,K,\tau) \cong R[T,T^{-1}] \cong R[Z] \cong R[G/G_0]^H$$ give an identification of $H(G,K,\tau)$ with $R[G/G_0]^H$ that does not depend on $\unif_E$. The map $\chi \mapsto \pi \otimes \chi$ describes a bijection between $(\Spec R[G/G_0])/H$ and the set of representations of $G$ inertially equivalent to $\pi$. Under the above isomorphisms, the character of $H(G,K,\tau)$ that corresponds to a representation $\pi \otimes \chi$ of $G$ is the character of $R[G/G_0]^H$ obtained by treating $R[G/G_0]$ as the ring of regular functions on the space of unramified characters of $G$ and evaluating such functions at $\chi$.
Let $\CK'$ be a finite extension of the field of fractions $\CK$ of $W(k)$, and let $\OO$ be its ring of integers. If $\pi$ is an irreducible cuspidal integral representation of $G$ over $\CK'$, then $\pi$ contains a unique homothety class of $G$-stable $\OO$-lattices, and the reduction $r_{\ell} \pi$ of any such lattice modulo $\ell$ is an irreducible cuspidal representation of $G$ over $k$. In this situation we have the following compatibilities between the types attached to $\pi$ and $r_{\ell} \pi$, due to Vigneras:
Let $\pi$ be an irreducible cuspidal representation of $G$ over $\CK'$, containing a maximal distinguished cuspidal $\CK'$-type $(K,\tilde \tau)$.
1. There is an unramified character $\chi: F^{\times} \rightarrow (\CK')^{\times}$, such that $\pi \otimes (\chi \circ \det)$ is integral.
2. The $K$-representation $\tilde \tau$ is defined over $\CK$, and the mod $\ell$ reduction of $\tilde \tau$ is an irreducible $k$-representation $\tau$ of $K$, such that $(K,\tau)$ is a maximal distinguished cuspidal $k$-type contained in $r_{\ell} [\pi \otimes (\chi \circ \det)]$.
3. Every maximal distinguished cuspidal $k$-type arises from a maximal distinguished cuspidal $\CK'$-type via “reduction mod $\ell$”, for some finite extension $\CK'$ of $\CK$.
We can use this theory of reduction mod $\ell$ to turn inertial equivalence into an equivalence relation on simple cuspidal smooth $W(k)[G]$-modules $\pi$. Such $\pi$ fall into two classes: either $\ell$ annihilates $\pi$, in which case $\pi$ is an irreducible cuspidal $k$-representation of $G$, or $\ell$ is invertible on $\pi$, in which case $\pi$ is an irreducible cuspidal representation of $G$ over some finite extension $\CK'$ of $\CK$.
Let $\pi$ be a simple smooth $W(k)[G]$-module on which $\ell$ is invertible, and let $\CK'$ be a finite extension of $\CK$ such that every $\CK'[G]$-simple subquotient of $\pi \otimes_{\CK} \CK'$ is absolutely simple. Then $\pi \otimes_{\CK} \CK'$ is a direct sum of absolutely simple $\CK'[G]$-modules, and $\Gal(\overline{\CK}/\CK)$ acts transitively on these summands.
Let $\pi_0$ be an absolutely simple $\CK'[G]$-submodule of $\pi \otimes_{\CK} \CK'$. Then the sum of the submodules $\pi_0^g$ for $g$ in $\Gal(\overline{\CK}/\CK)$ is a Galois-stable $\CK'[G]$-submodule of $\pi \otimes_{\CK} \CK'$, and hence descends to a $\CK[G]$-submodule of $\pi$. This submodule must be all of $\pi$, and the result follows.
Let $(K,\tau)$ be a maximal distinguished cuspidal $k$-type, and let $\pi$ be a simple cuspidal smooth $W(k)[G]$-module. We say that $\pi$ [*belongs to the mod $\ell$ inertial equivalence class determined by $(K,\tau)$*]{} if either $\ell$ annihilates $\pi$ and $\pi$ contains $(K,\tau)$, or if $\ell$ is invertible on $\pi$ and there exists a finite extension $\CK'$ of $\CK$ such that one (equivalently, every) absolutely simple summand of $\pi \otimes_{\CK} \CK'$ is inertially equivalent to an integral representation of $G$ over $\CK'$ whose mod $\ell$ reduction contains $(K,\tau)$.
Fix a maximal distinguished cuspidal $k$-type $(K,\tau)$, with $\tau = \kappa \otimes \sigma$, and let $\CP_{\sigma} \rightarrow \sigma$ be the projective envelope of $\sigma$ in the category of $W(k)[GL_{\frac{n}{ef}}(\FF_{q^f})]$-modules. We then have:
The representation $\kappa$ lifts to a representation $\tkappa$ of $K$ over $W(k)$.
As $K_1$ is a pro-$p$-group, the restriction $\kappa_1$ of $\kappa$ to $K_1$ lifts uniquely to a representation $\tkappa_1$ of $K_1$ over $W(k)$, normalized by $K$. The obstruction to extending $\tkappa_1$ to $K$ is thus an element of $H^2(K,W(k)^{\times})$. The first two paragraphs of [@BK], Proposition 5.2.4, show that this element can be represented by a cocycle taking values in the $p$-power roots of unity, and is thus a $p$-power torsion element $\alpha$ of $H^2(K,W(k)^{\times})$. (In [@BK] the authors work over $\CC$ rather than $W(k)$, but their argument adapts without difficulty. Note that they denote by $\eta_M$ the representation we call $\tkappa_1$, by $J_M$ the group we call $K$, and $J^1_M$ the group we call $K_1$.)
Let $U$ be a $p$-sylow subgroup of $K$ containing $K_1$. The restriction of $\kappa$ to $U$ lifts uniquely to a representation over $W(k)$, extending $\tkappa_1$. It follows that the image of $\alpha$ in $H^2(U,W(k)^{\times})$ under restriction vanishes. But the corestriction of this image to $H^2(K,W(k)^{\times})$ is equal to $r\alpha$, where $r$ is the index of $U$ in $K$. Thus $\alpha$ is killed by a power of $p$ and an integer prime to $p$, and must therefore vanish.
The tensor product $\tkappa \otimes \CP_{\sigma}$ is a projective envelope of $\kappa \otimes \sigma$ in the category of $W(k)[K]$-modules.
The restriction of $\kappa$ to $K_1$ is irreducible, and the restriction of $\tkappa \otimes \CP_{\sigma}$ to $K_1$ is a direct sum of copies of $\tkappa_1$. We thus have isomorphisms of $W(k)[K/K_1]$-modules: $$\Hom_{K_1}(\tkappa,\tkappa \otimes \CP_{\sigma}) \cong \CP_{\sigma}.$$ (Here $g \in K/K_1$ acts on $\Hom_{K_1}(\tkappa, \tkappa \otimes \CP_{\sigma})$ by $f \mapsto f^{g}$, where $f^g(x) = gf(g^{-1}x)$; note that this action depends on $\tkappa$, not just its restriction to $K_1$.)
Now suppose we have a surjection: $$\theta' \rightarrow \theta$$ of $W(k)[K]$-modules. We need to show that any map $\tilde \kappa \otimes \CP_{\sigma} \rightarrow \theta$ lifts to a map to $\theta'$. As we have identified $\CP_{\sigma}$ with $\Hom_{K_1}(\tkappa,\tkappa \otimes \CP_{\sigma})$, such a map induces a map $\CP_{\sigma} \rightarrow \Hom_{K_1}(\tkappa, \theta)$. This latter map is $K/K_1$-equivariant.
As $K_1$ is a pro-$p$ group, the surjection of $\theta' \rightarrow \theta$ induces a surjection $$\Hom_{K_1}(\tkappa,\theta') \rightarrow \Hom_{K_1}(\tkappa,\theta)$$ of $W(k)[K/K_1]$-modules. As $\CP_{\sigma}$ is projective, the map $$\CP_{\sigma} \rightarrow \Hom_{K_1}(\tkappa,\theta)$$ lifts to a map $$\CP_{\sigma} \rightarrow \Hom_{K_1}(\tkappa,\theta').$$ Tensoring with $\tkappa$, we obtain the desired map $\tkappa \otimes \CP_{\sigma} \rightarrow \theta'$, so $\tkappa \otimes \CP_{\sigma}$ is projective.
On the other hand, $\tilde \kappa \otimes \CP_{\sigma}$ is indecomposable over $W(k)[K]$, and is therefore a projective envelope of $\kappa \otimes \sigma$ in the category of $W(k)[K]$-modules.
As the functor $\cInd_K^G$ is a left adjoint of an exact functor, it takes projectives to projectives. In particular the module $\CP_{K,\tau}$ defined by $\CP_{K,\tau} := \cInd_K^G
\tkappa \otimes \CP_{\sigma}$ is a projective object in $\Rep_{W(k)}(G)$.
\[prop:cuspidal quotient\] Let $\pi$ be a simple cuspidal smooth $W(k)[G]$-module in the mod $\ell$ inertial equivalence class determined by $(K,\tau)$. Then there exists a surjection $\CP_{K,\tau} \rightarrow \pi$.
First suppose that $\ell$ annihilates $\pi$. The surjection of $\CP_{\sigma}$ onto $\sigma$ gives rise to a surjection $\CP_{K,\tau} \rightarrow \cInd_K^G \tau$. As the restriction of $\pi$ to $K$ contains $\tau$, we have a nonzero (thus surjective) map $\cInd_K^G \tau \rightarrow \pi$ as claimed.
On the other hand, if $\ell$ is invertible in $\pi$, then fix an absolutely simple summand $\pi_0$ of $\pi \otimes_{\CK} \CK'$ for some finite extension $\CK'$ of $\CK$. As $\pi_0$ is in the mod $\ell$ inertial equivalence class determined by $(K,\tau)$, there is a maximal distinguished cuspidal $\CK'$-type $(K, \tilde \tau)$ contained in $\pi_0$; its mod $\ell$ reduction is $(K,\tau)$. If we regard $\tilde \tau$ as a representation of $K$ over the ring of integers $\OO'$ of $\CK'$, we have surjections $$\tilde \tau \rightarrow \tau$$ $$\tkappa \otimes \CP_{\sigma} \rightarrow \tau,$$ and thus obtain a map $\tkappa \otimes \CP_{\sigma} \rightarrow \tilde \tau$ by projectivity of $\tkappa \otimes \CP_{\sigma}$. This map is necessarily surjective, so by applying the functor $\cInd_K^G$, we obtain a surjection $$\CP_{K,\tau} \otimes_{W(k)} \OO' \rightarrow \cInd_K^G \tilde \tau.$$ Composing this surjection with the nonzero maps $$\cInd_K^G \tilde \tau \rightarrow \cInd_K^G (\tilde \tau) \otimes_{W(k)} \CK \rightarrow \pi_0$$ yields a nonzero map $\CP_{K,\tau} \otimes_{\CK} \CK' \rightarrow \pi_0$, and hence a nonzero map $$\CP_{K,\tau} \otimes_{\CK} \CK' \rightarrow \pi \otimes_{\CK} \CK'.$$ As $\Hom_{\CK'[G]}(\CP_{K,\tau} \otimes_{\CK} \CK', \pi \otimes_{\CK} \CK')$ is isomorphic to $\Hom_{\CK[G]}(\CP_{K,\tau}, \pi) \otimes \CK'$, there exists a nonzero map from $\CP_{K,\tau}$ to $\pi$, which must be surjective by simplicity of $\pi$.
It will follow from results in section \[sec:generic\] that not every simple quotient of $\CP_{K,\tau}$ has the above form.
Our next goal is to use the $\CP_{K,\tau}$ to construct projectives that admit surjections onto representations with given cuspidal support. We must first introduce some additional language. As a maximal distinguised cuspidal $k$-type determines an inertial equivalence class of cuspidal representations, we will sometimes say that the supercuspidal or cuspidal support of a representation $\Pi$ is given by a collection $\{(K_1,\tau_1), \dots, (K_r,\tau_r)\}$ of maximal distinguished cuspidal $k$-types; this means that $\Pi$ has supercuspidal (or cuspidal) support $(M,\pi)$, where $M$ is a “block diagonal” subgroup of the form $\GL_{n_1} \times \dots \times \GL_{n_r}$, and $\pi$ is a tensor product $\pi_1 \otimes \dots \otimes \pi_r$ where $\pi_i$ is in the inertial equivalence class determined by $(K_i,\tau_i)$ for all $i$.
Let $M$ be a Levi subgroup of $G$ and let $\pi$ be an irreducible cuspidal representation of $M$ over $k$. We say that a simple smooth $W(k)[G]$-module $\Pi$ has [*mod $\ell$ inertial cuspidal support*]{} equal to $(M,\pi)$ if either:
1. $\Pi$ is killed by $\ell$, and its cuspidal support is inertially equivalent to $(M,\pi)$, or
2. $\ell$ is invertible on $\Pi$, and there exists a finite extension $\CK'$ of $\CK$, with ring of integers $\OO'$, such that $\Pi \otimes_{\CK} \CK'$ is a direct sum of absolutely simple $\CK'[G]$-modules, and for some (equivalently every) absolutely simple summand $\Pi_0$ of $\Pi \otimes_{\CK} \CK'$, there exists a smooth $\OO'$-integral representation $\tpi$ of $M$ lifting $\pi$, such that the cuspidal support of $\Pi_0$ is inertially equivalent to $(M,\tpi)$.
In this language, Proposition \[prop:cuspidal quotient\] says that every simple $W(k)[G]$-module with mod $\ell$ cuspidal support given by $(K,\tau)$ is a quotient of $\CP_{K,\tau}$.
We will also need a notion of mod $\ell$ inertial supercuspidal support. We first recall a standard result about the behavior of supercuspidal support under reduction mod $\ell$:
\[prop:supercuspidal support reduction\] Let $\tPi$ be an absolutely irreducible smooth integral representation of $G$ over a finite extension $\CK'$ of $\CK$, with supercuspidal support $(M,\tpi)$. Then $\tpi$ is an integral representation of $M$. Moreover, let $\Pi$ and $\pi$ denote the mod $\ell$ reductions of $\tPi$ and $\tpi$, respectively. Then $\pi$ is irreducible and cuspidal (but not necessarily supercuspidal). Moreover, the supercuspidal support of any simple subquotient of $\Pi$ is equal to the supercuspidal support of $\pi$.
Let $M$ be a Levi subgroup of $G$ and let $\pi$ be an irreducible supercuspidal representation of $M$ over $k$. We say that a simple smooth $W(k)[G]$-module $\Pi$ has [*mod $\ell$ inertial supercuspidal support*]{} equal to $(M,\pi)$ if there exists a Levi subgroup $M'$ of $G$ containing $M$, and an irreducible cuspidal representation $\pi'$ of $M'$ over $k$, such that $\Pi$ has mod $\ell$ inertial cuspidal support $(M',\pi')$, and $\pi'$ has supercuspidal support $(M,\pi)$.
Let $\Pi$ be an irreducible smooth integral representation of $G$ over a finite extension $\CK'$ of $\CK$. The following are equivalent:
1. $\Pi$ has mod $\ell$ inertial supercuspidal support $(M,\pi)$.
2. Every simple subquotient of the mod $\ell$ reduction reduction of $\Pi$ has supercuspidal support inertially equivalent to $(M,\pi)$.
This is immediate from Proposition \[prop:supercuspidal support reduction\].
If $M$ is a Levi subgroup of $G$, and $\pi$ is an irreducible cuspidal representation of $M$ over $k$, define $\CP_{(M,\pi)}$ to be the normalized parabolic induction $$\CP_{(M,\pi)} := i_P^G [\CP_{K_1,\tau_1} \otimes \dots \otimes \CP_{K_r,\tau_r}],$$ where $P$ is a parabolic subgroup whose associate Levi subgroup is $M$, and the $(K_i,\tau_i)$, are a sequence of maximal distinguished cuspidal $k$-types whose associated mod $\ell$ inertial equivalence class is $(M,\pi)$.
Strictly speaking, $\CP_{(M,\pi)}$ may depend on the choice of $P$; we suppress this dependence from the notation. In fact, it seems likely that different choices of $P$ give rise to isomorphic modules $\CP_{(M,\pi)}$, but we will not need this and do not attempt to prove it.
Let $\Pi$ be an absolutely irreducible representation of $G$, and let $\pi_1, \dots, \pi_r$ be a sequence of absolutely irreducible cuspidal representations such that $\pi$ is a quotient of $i_P^G [\pi_1 \otimes \dots \otimes \pi_r]$. Let $s_i$ be the permutation of $1, \dots, r$ that interchanges $i$ and $i+1$ and fixes all other integers. Then either $\Pi$ is a quotient of $i_P^G [\pi_{s_i(1)} \otimes \dots \otimes \pi_{s_i(r)}]$, or $\pi_i$ and $\pi_{i+1}$ are inertially equivalent.
The parabolic induction $i_P^G [\pi_1 \otimes \dots \otimes \pi_r]$ is isomorphic to $i_P^G [\pi_{s_i(1)} \otimes \dots \otimes \pi_{s_i(r)}]$ unless $\pi_i = (\abs \circ \det)^{\pm 1} \pi_{i+1}$. If this is the case then $\pi_i$ is inertially equivalent to $\pi_{i+1}$.
\[prop:cuspidal support\] let $\Pi$ be a simple smooth $W(k)[G]$-module with mod $\ell$ cuspidal support given by the inertial equivalence class $(M,\pi)$. Then $\Pi$ is a quotient of $\CP_{(M,\pi)}$.
Either $\Pi$ is defined and absolutely irreducible over $k$, or $\ell$ is invertible on $\Pi$ and there exists a finite extension $\CK'$ of $\CK$ such that $\Pi \otimes_{\CK} \CK'$ is a direct sum of absolutely simple $\CK'[G]$-modules. Choose an absolutely irreducible cuspidal representation $\tpi$ of $M$, defined over the appropriate field ($k$ or $\CK'$) such that, over this field, $\Pi$ admits a nonzero map from $i_P^G \pi.$ Write $\pi = \pi_1 \otimes \dots \otimes \pi_r$, and choose $(K_i,\tau_i)$ maximal distinguished cuspidal types such that $\pi_i$ is in the inertial equivalence class determined by $(K_i,\tau_i)$ for all $i$. Then, for a suitable parabolic subgroup $P$, we have $$\CP_{M,\pi} = i_P^G [\CP_{(K_1,\tau_1)} \otimes \dots \otimes \CP_{(K_r,\tau_r)}].$$ Reorder the $\tpi_i$ such that for all $i$ $\tpi_i$ is in the mod $\ell$ inertial equivalence class determined by $(K_i,\tau_i)$. By the previous lemma, we may do this and still assume that there is a nonzero map from $i_P^G \tpi$ to $\Pi$. Now we have a nonzero map of $\CP_{K_i,\tau_i}$ into $\tpi_i$ for each $i$, that is surjective if $\tpi$ is defined over $k$ and that becomes surjective after inverting $\ell$ if $\tpi$ is defined over some $\CK'$. Hence, after induction, we obtain a nonzero map of $\CP_{(M,\pi)}$ to $\i_P^G \tpi$ that is surjective if $\Pi$ is defined over $k$, and becomes surjective after tensoring with $\CK'$ if $\ell$ is invertible on $\Pi$. If $\Pi$ is defined over $k$, then composing this surjection with the surjection of $i_P^G \tpi$ onto $\Pi$ yields a nonzero map of $\CP_{(M,\pi)}$ to $\Pi$; this map must be surjective as $\Pi$ is simple. On the other hand, if $\ell$ is invertible on $\Pi$, we have a nonzero map $$\CP_{(M,\pi)} \otimes_{W(k)} \CK' \rightarrow \Pi \otimes_{\CK} \CK'$$ obtained by composing the surjection of $\CP_{(M,\pi)} \otimes \CK'$ onto $i_P^G \tpi$ with the map $i_P^G \tpi \rightarrow \Pi \otimes_{\CK} \CK'$. We thus have a nonzero map of $\CP_{(M,\pi)}$ onto $\Pi$, and the result follows.
We will see later that in fact the $W(k)[G]$-modules $\CP_{(M,\pi)}$ are projective, and once we have established this they will form the basic building blocks of our theory.
Finite group theory {#sec:finite}
===================
Our first step in understanding the projectives $\CP_{(M,\pi)}$ and $\CP_{K,\tau}$ is to understand the projective envelope $\CP_{\sigma}$ of a representation $\sigma$ of $\GL_n(\FF_q)$. This mostly uses standard facts from the representation theory of $\GL_n(\FF_q)$ that we now recall. For conciseness, we let $\overline{G}$ denote the group $\GL_n(\FF_q)$, and fix an $\ell$ prime to $q$.
If $\overline{P} = \overline{M}\overline{U}$ is a split parabolic subgroup of $\overline{G}$, with Levi subgroup $\overline{M}$ and unipotent radical $\overline{U}$, we have parabolic induction and restriction functors: $$i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}}: \Rep_{W(k)}(\overline{M}) \rightarrow \Rep_{W(k)}(\overline{G})$$ $$r_{\overline{G}}^{\overline{P}}: \Rep_{W(k)}(\overline{G}) \rightarrow \Rep_{W(k)}(\overline{M}).$$ Here $i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}}$ takes a $W(k)[\overline{M}]$-module, considers it as a $W(k)[\overline{P}]$-module by letting $\overline{U}$ act trivially, and induces to $\overline{G}$. Its adjoint $r_{\overline{G}}^{\overline{P}}$ (which is both a left and right adjoint in the finite group case) takes the $\overline{U}$-invariants of a $W(k)[\overline{G}]$-module and considers the resulting space as a $W(k)[\overline{M}]$-module.
Just as in the representation theory of $\GL_n$ over a local field, we can then define:
A $W(k)[\overline{G}]$-module $\pi$ is [*cuspidal*]{} if $r_{\overline{G}}^{\overline{P}} \pi = 0$ for all proper split parabolics $\overline{P}$ of $\overline{G}$. An irreducible $k[\overline{G}]$ or $\overline{\CK}[\overline{G}]$-module $\pi$ is [*supercuspidal*]{} if it does not arise as a quotient of $i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}} \pi'$ for any proper split parabolic subgroup $\overline{P}=\overline{M}\overline{U}$ of $\overline{G}$ and any representation $\pi'$ of $\overline{M}$ (over $k$ or $\overline{\CK}$, as appropriate).
Over $\overline{\CK}$, an irreducible representation $\pi$ is cuspidal if and only if it is supercuspidal; over $k$ a supercuspidal representation is cuspidal but the converse need not hold. We also define:
Let $\overline{P} = \overline{M}\overline{U}$ be a split parabolic subgroup of $\overline{G}$, and let $\pi'$ be an irreducible representation of $\overline{M}$.
1. An irreducible $k[\overline{G}]$ or $\overline{\CK}[\overline{G}]$-module $\pi$ has [*cuspidal support*]{} $(\overline{M},\pi')$ if $\pi'$ is cuspidal and $\pi$ is a quotient of $i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}} \pi'$.
2. An irreducible $k[\overline{G}]$ or $\overline{\CK}[\overline{G}]$-module $\pi'$ has [*supercuspidal support*]{} $(\overline{M},\pi')$ if $\pi'$ is supercuspidal and $\pi$ is a subquotient of $i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}} \pi'$.
The cuspidal and supercuspidal support of an irreducible $\pi$ always exist, and are unique up to $\overline{G}$-conjugacy. Over $\overline{\CK}$ the two notions coincide, but this is not true over $k$ because of the existence of cuspidal representations that are not supercuspidal.
As the parabolic induction and restriction functors are defined on the level of $W(k)[\overline{G}]$-modules, it is clear that the reduction mod $\ell$ of a cuspidal representation is cuspidal. The notion of supercuspidal support is compatible with reduction mod $\ell$ in the following sense: if $\tpi$ is an irreducible representation of $\overline{G}$ over $\overline{\CK}$, and $\pi$ is any subquotient of its mod $\ell$ reduction, then the supercuspidal support of $\pi$ is equal to the supercuspidal support of the mod $\ell$ reduction of the supercuspidal support of $\tpi$.
Deligne-Lusztig theory provides a parameterization of the irreducible cuspidal representations of $\overline{G}$ over $\overline{\CK}$ in terms of semisimple elements $s$ of $\overline{G}$ whose characteristic polynomials are irreducible, up to conjugacy. To an arbitrary semisimple element $s$ (up to conjugacy), we associate a subset of the irreducible representations of $\overline{G}$ over $\overline{\CK}$ as follows: let $\overline{M}_s$ be the split Levi subgroup of $\overline{G}$ minimal among those split Levi subgroups containing $s$. Then $\overline{M}_s$ is a product of general linear groups $\overline{G}_{n_i}$, and the factors $s_i$ of $s$ under this decomposition all have irreducible characteristic polynomials. We call the $s_i$ the “irreducible factors” of $s$, and refer to an $s$ with only one irreducible factor as “irreducible.” Thus each $s_i$ yields a cuspidal representation of $\overline{G}_{n_i}$, and hence $s$ yields a cuspidal representation $\pi'$ of $\overline{M}_s$. Let $\CI(s)$ be the set of irreducible representations of $\overline{G}$ over $\overline{\CK}$ with cuspidal support $(\overline{M}_s,\pi')$. Note that if $s$ and $t$ are conjugate then the pair $(\overline{M}_t,\pi'')$ attached to $t$ is conjugate to the pair $(\overline{M}_s,\pi')$, so that $\CI(s) = \CI(t)$. More generally, if $\overline{M}$ is a Levi subgroup of $\overline{G}$, and $s$ is a semisimple conjugacy class in $\overline{M}$, we let $\CI_{\overline{M}}(s)$ be the set of irreducible representations of $\overline{M}$ over $\overline{\CK}$ whose cuspidal support is $\overline{M}$-conjugate to $(\overline{M}_s,\pi')$. We let $I_s$ denote the parabolic induction $i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}} \pi'$; this depends only on the conjugacy class of $s$, and its irreducible summands are precisely the elements of $\CI(s)$.
We now recall the concept of a generic representation of $\overline{G}$. Let $\overline{U}$ be the unipotent radical of a Borel subgroup of $\overline{G}$, and let $\Psi: \overline{U} \rightarrow W(k)^{\times}$ be a generic character. (For instance, if $U$ is the subgroup of upper triangular matrices with $1$’s on the diagonal, we can fix a nontrivial map $\psi$ of $\FF_{q}^{+}$ into $W(k)^{\times}$ and set $\Psi(u) = \psi(u_{12} + ... + u_{n-1,n})$.) We say an irreducible representation of $\overline{G}$ over $k$ (resp. $\overline{\CK}$) is [*generic*]{} if its restriction to $\overline{U}$ contains a copy of $\Psi \otimes_{W(k)} k$ (resp. $\Psi \otimes_{W(k)} \overline{\CK}$). By Frobenius reciprocity a representation is generic if and only if it admits a nontrivial map from $\cInd_{\overline{U}}^{\overline{G}} \Psi$.
We summarize the relevant facts about generic representations that we will need below:
1. If $\pi$ is an irreducible generic representation over $k$ (resp. $\overline{\CK}$) then its restriction to $\overline{U}$ contains exactly one copy of $\Psi \otimes_{W(k)} k$ (resp. $\Psi \otimes_{W(k)} \overline{\CK}$.) (Uniqueness of Whittaker models.)
2. Every cuspidal representation is generic.
3. If $\overline{P}$ is a split parabolic subgroup of $\overline{G}$, with Levi subgroup $\overline{M}$, and $\pi$ is an irreducible generic representation of $\overline{M}$, then $i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}} \pi$ has a unique irreducible generic subquotient. (In particular there is, up to isomorphism, a unique generic irreducible representation with given supercuspidal support.) On the other hand, if $\pi$ is irreducible but not generic, then $i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}} \pi$ has no generic subquotient.
In light of these facts, for any semisimple element $s$ of $\overline{G}$, we let $\St_s$ denote the unique irreducible generic representation of $\overline{G}$ over $\overline{\CK}$ that lies in $\CI(s)$. (Of course, $\St_s$ only depends on $s$ up to conjugacy.) Note that $\St_s$ is a direct summand of $I_s$. It will be necessary to understand the behavior of $I_s$ and $\St_s$ under parabolic restriction.
\[prop:steinberg restriction\] We have a decomposition: $$r_{\overline{G}}^{\overline{P}} \St_s \cong \bigoplus_{t} \St_{\overline{M},t},$$ where $t$ runs over a set of representatives for $\overline{M}$-conjugacy classes of semisimple elements of $\overline{M}$ that are $\overline{G}$-conjugate to $s$, and $\St_{\overline{M},t}$ is the unique irreducible generic representation of $\overline{M}$ over $\overline{\CK}$ that lies in $\CI_{\overline{M}}(t)$.
By Frobenius Reciprocity, for any irreducible representation $\sigma$ of $\overline{M}$, we have an isomorphism: $$\Hom_{\overline{M}}(\sigma, r_{\overline{G}}^{\overline{P}} \St_s) =
\Hom_{\overline{G}}(i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}} \sigma, \St_s).$$ As $\St_s$ is generic and irreducible, the right hand side is zero unless $i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}} \sigma$ has an irreducible generic summand; if this is the case then $\sigma$ is irreducible and generic, $i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}} \sigma$ has a unique irreducible generic summand, so the right hand side has dimension at most one. In particlar, every irreducible summand of $r_{\overline{G}}^{\overline{P}} \St_s$ is generic and occurs with multiplicity one. Moreover, if the right hand side is nonzero, then the cuspidal support of one (hence every) summand of $\sigma$ is given by $s$, so the $\overline{M}$-cuspidal support of $\sigma$ is given by a conjugacy class $t$ of $\overline{M}$ that is $\overline{G}$-conjugate to $s$.
We can rewrite this isomorphism as follows: Let $\overline{M}_s$ be the minimal split Levi subgroup of $\overline{G}$ containing $s$, so that $\St_{\overline{M}_s,s}$ is cuspidal. Fix a maximal torus of $\overline{M}$; then conjugating $s$ appropriately we may assume that it is also a maximal torus of $\overline{M}_s$. Consider the set $W(\overline{M}_s,\overline{M})$ of elements $w$ of $W(G)$ such that $w \overline{M}_s w^{-1}$ lies in $\overline{M}$. Then $W(\overline{M}_s,\overline{M})$ has a left action by $W(M)$ and a right action by the subgroup $W_{\overline{M}_s}(s)$ of $W(G)$ consisting of those $w$ in $W(G)$ such that $wM_s w^{-1} = M_s$ and $w s w^{-1}$ is $M_s$-conjugate to $s$. Moreover, the map $s \mapsto w s w^{-1}$ then yields a bijection between $W(M) \backslash W(\overline{M}_s,\overline{M}) / W_{\overline{M}}(s)$ and the set of $\overline{M}$-conjugacy classes $t$ of elements that are $\overline{G}$-conjugate to $s$. We thus obtain a decomposition:
\[prop:steinberg restriction 2\] We have a decomposition: $$r_{\overline{G}}^{\overline{P}} \St_s \cong \bigoplus_{w} \St_{\overline{M},wsw^{-1}},$$ where $w$ runs over a set of representatives for $W(M) \backslash W(\overline{M}_s,\overline{M}) / W_{\overline{M}}(s)$.
We will need to understand the compatibility of this decomposition with a decomposition of $r_{\overline{G}}^{\overline{P}} I_s$. We have:
\[prop:induction restriction\] There is a direct sum decomposition: $$r_{\overline{G}}^{\overline{P}} I_s \cong \bigoplus_w I_{\overline{M},w s w^{-1}},$$ where $w$ runs over a set of representatives for $W(M) \backslash W(\overline{M}_s,\overline{M})$, and $I_{\overline{M},w s w^{-1}}$ is the parabolic induction: $i_{w \overline{P}_s w^{-1} \cap \overline{M}}^{\overline{M}} \St_{\overline{M}_s,s}^w.$ Moreover, on a summand $\St_{\overline{M},w's(w')^{-1}}$ of $r_{\overline{G}}^{\overline{P}} \St_s$, the map $r_{\overline{G}}^{\overline{P}} \St_s \rightarrow r_{\overline{G}}^{\overline{P}} I_s$ induces an injective map $$\St_{\overline{M},w's(w')^{-1}} \rightarrow \bigoplus_w I_{\overline{M}, w s w^{-1}}.$$
This is a consequence of Mackey’s induction-restriction formula, together with Proposition \[prop:steinberg restriction\].
We now turn to considerations related to reduction modulo $\ell$. Given an irreducible cuspidal representation $\pi$ of $\overline{G}$ over $\overline{\CK}$, its mod $\ell$ reduction is irreducible and cuspidal. Every cuspidal representation of $\overline{G}$ over $k$ arises by mod $\ell$ reduction from some such $\pi$. If $\pi$ corresponds to a semisimple conjugacy class $s$, then the reduction mod $\ell$ of $\pi$ is supercuspidal if, and only if, the characteristic polynomial of the $\ell$-regular part $s^{\reg}$ of $s$ is irreducible. Moreover, if $\pi$ and $\pi'$ are irreducible cuspidal representations correspond to semisimple conjugacy classes $s$ and $s'$, then the mod $\ell$ reductions of $\pi$ and $\pi'$ coincide if, and only if, $s^{\reg} = (s')^{\reg}$. Thus the supercuspidal representations of $\overline{G}$ over $k$ are parameterized by $\ell$-regular semisimple conjugacy classes in $\overline{G}$ with irreducible characteristic polynomial, and the cuspidal representations of $\overline{G}$ over $k$ are parameterized by $\ell$-regular semisimple conjugacy classes $s'$ such that there exists a semisimple conjugacy class $s$, with irreducible characteristic polynomial, such that $s' = s^{\reg}$.
Let $\pi$ be a cuspidal but not supercuspidal representation of $\overline{G}$ over $k$, and let $s'$ be the corresponding semisimple element. Such an $s'$, factors into $m$ identical irreducible factors $s'_0$ for some $m$ dividing $n$. Moreover, the supercuspidal support of the $\pi$ that corresponds to $s'$ is the tensor product of $m$ copies of the supercuspidal representation of $\overline{G}_{\frac{n}{m}}$ corresponding to $s'_0$.
Fix an $\ell$-regular semisimple element $s'$ of $\overline{G}$, and let ${\mathcal E}(s')$ be the union of the sets $\CI(s)$ for those semisimple $s$ with $s^{\reg} = s'$. Let $e_{s'}$ be the idempotent in $\overline{\CK}[\overline{G}]$ that is the sum of the primitive idempotents $e_{\pi}$ for all $\pi$ in ${\mathcal E}(s')$. Then one has:
\[thm:integrality\] The element $e_{s'}$ lies in $W(k)[\overline{G}]$.
This is an immediate consequence of [@CE], Theorem 9.12.
Fix an irreducible cuspidal representation $\pi$ of $\overline{G}$ over $k$ that is not supercuspidal, corresponding to an $\ell$-regular semisimple element $s'$ (up to conjugacy). The representation $\pi$ arises as the mod $\ell$ reduction of an irreducible cuspidal representation $\tpi$ of $\pi$ over $\overline{\CK}$; there is thus a semisimple element $s$ of $\overline{G}$, with irreducible characteristic polynomial, such that $s' = s^{\reg}$. It is then easy to see that there exists an $m > 1$ dividing $n$ such that, up to conjugacy, $s'$ factors as a block matrix consisting of $m$ irreducible factors $s'_0$. Moreover, $m$ lies in the set $\{1,e_q,\ell e_q, \ell^2 e_q, \dots \}$, where $e_q$ is the order of $q$ modulo $\ell$. The supercuspidal support of $\pi$ is the tensor product of $m$ copies of the supercuspidal representation $\pi_0$ corresponding to $s'$.
Suppose we have an irreducible representation $\tpi$ of $\overline{G}$ over $\CK$ whose mod $\ell$ reduction contains $\pi$ as a subquotient. Let $s$ be the semisimple conjugacy class corresponding to the supercuspidal support of $\tpi$. Then $s^{\reg} = s'$.
The supercuspidal support of $\tpi$ is given by the irreducible factors of $s$. Its mod $\ell$ reduction has a block factorization into the $\ell$-regular parts of the irreducible factors of $s$; these are products of irreducible factors of $s^{\reg}$. So the supercuspidal support of the mod $\ell$ reduction of the supercuspidal support of $\tpi$ is given by the irreducible factorization of $s^{\reg}$. On the other hand, this coincides with the supercuspidal support of $\pi$, which is given by the irreducible factorization of $s'$.
Fix an irreducible cuspidal representation $\pi$ of $\overline{G}$ over $k$, and let $s'$ be a representative of the corresponding $\ell$-regular semisimple conjugacy class. Let $\CP_{\pi}$ be a projective envelope of $\pi$.
\[prop:endomorphisms\] The $W(k)[\overline{G}]$-module $e_{s'} \Ind_{\overline{U}}^{\overline{G}} \Psi$ is a projective envelope of $\pi$, and hence is isomorphic to $\CP_{\pi}$. In particular $\CP_{\pi} \otimes_{W(k)} \overline{\CK}$ is isomorphic to the direct sum $$\bigoplus_{s: s^{\reg} = s'} \St_s.$$ Moreover, the endomorphism ring $\End_{W(k)[\overline{G}]}(\CP_{\pi})$ is a reduced, commuative, free $W(k)$-module of finite rank.
The module $e_{s'} \Ind_{\overline{U}}^{\overline{G}} \Psi$ is projective, as induction takes projectives to projectives. Suppose $\pi'$ is an irreducible representation of $\overline{G}$ over $k$ that admits a nonzero map from $e_{s'} \Ind_{\overline{U}}^{\overline{G}} \Psi$. Then $\pi'$ is generic and has supercuspidal support given by $s'$, so $\pi' = \pi$. Thus $e_{s'} \Ind_{\overline{U}}^{\overline{G}} \Psi$ is a projective envelope of $\pi$.
As $\CP_{\pi}$ is free of finite rank over $W(k)$, so is $\End_{W(k)[\overline{G}]}(\CP_{\pi})$. Thus $\End_{W(k)[\overline{G}]}(\CP_{\pi})$ embeds into $\End_{W(k)[\overline{G}]}(\CP_{\pi}) \otimes_{W(k)} \overline{\CK}$. The latter is the endomorphism ring of $e_{s'} \Ind_{\overline{U}}^{\overline{G}} (\Psi \otimes_{W(k)} \overline{\CK})$. This module is a direct sum of the generic representations $\tpi$ of $\overline{G}$ over $\overline{\CK}$ whose mod $\ell$ reduction contains $\pi$, each with multiplicity one. In particular its endomorphism ring is reduced and commutative.
Let $\overline{P}$ be a parabolic subgroup of $\overline{G}$, let $\overline{U}$ be its unipotent radical, and let $\overline{M}$ be the corresponding Levi subgroup. We will need to understand the restriction $r_{\overline{G}}^{\overline{P}} \CP_{\pi}$. The following lemma is an immediate consequence of Proposition \[prop:steinberg restriction\]:
\[lemma:projective restriction\] We have an isomorphism: $$r_{\overline{G}}^{\overline{P}} \CP_{\pi} \otimes \overline{\CK} =
\bigoplus_{s: s^{\reg} = s'} \bigoplus_{t \sim s} \St_{\overline{M},t}.$$ In particular, the endomorphism ring $\End_{W(k)[\overline{M}]}(r_G^P \CP_{\pi})$ is reduced and commutative.
Suppose that each block of $\overline{M}$ has size divisible by $\frac{n}{m}$. Then $s'$ is conjugate to an element of $\overline{M}$, and this element is unique up to $\overline{M}$-conjugacy. Then $\St_{\overline{M},s'}$ is the unique generic representation of $\overline{M}$ determined by this conjugacy class in $\overline{M}$. Let $\CP_{\overline{M},s'}$ be a projective envelope of $\St_{\overline{M},s'}$.
\[prop:projective restriction\] The restriction $r_{\overline{G}}^{\overline{P}} \CP_{\pi}$ is zero unless each block of $\overline{M}$ has size divisible by $\frac{n}{m}$. When the latter occurs there is an isomorphism: $$r_{\overline{G}}^{\overline{P}} \CP_{\pi} \cong \CP_{\overline{M},s'}.$$
Every Jordan-Hölder constituent of $\CP_{\pi}$ has supercuspidal support corresponding to a tensor product of $m$ copies of the representation with supercuspidal support $s'_0$, and thus $r_{\overline{G}}^{\overline{P}} \CP_{\pi} = 0$ unless the condition on the block size of $M$ holds. When this condition does hold, $r_{\overline{G}}^{\overline{P}} \CP_{\pi}$ is projective, and hence a direct sum of indecomposable projectives. Moreover, $i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}} \St_{\overline{M},s'}$ contains a unique generic Jordan-Hölder constituent; this constituent is necessarily isomorphic to $\pi$, and thus yields a map $\CP_{\pi} \rightarrow i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}} \St_{\overline{M},s'}$. By Frobenius reciprocity we obtain a map: $$r_{\overline{G}}^{\overline{P}} \CP_{\pi} \rightarrow \St_{\overline{M},s'},$$ and therefore $r_{\overline{G}}^{\overline{P}} \CP_{\pi}$ has a summand isomorphic to $\CP_{\overline{M},s'}$. It is then easy to see that this is the only summand, by tensoring with $\overline{\CK}$ and applying Lemma \[lemma:projective restriction\].
\[cor:finite endomorphisms\] The map $$e_{s'} Z(W(k)[\overline{G}]) \rightarrow \End_{W(k)[\overline{G}]}(\CP_{\pi})$$ is an isomorphism, and thus identifies $\End_{W(k)[\overline{G}]}(\CP_{\pi})$ with the center of the block containing $\pi$.
The $W(k)[\overline{G}]$-module $e_{s'} W(k)[\overline{G}](\CP_{\pi})$ is a projective module, and is therefore a direct sum (with multiplicities) of projective envelopes of modules in the block containing $\pi$. Any such module $\pi'$ has supercuspidal support corresponding to $(s'_0)^m$, and hence cuspidal support of the form $(\overline{M},\pi_{\overline{M},s'})$ for some Levi $\overline{M}$ of $G$. It is easy to see that $i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}} \CP_{\overline{M},s'}$ is then a projective envelope of $\pi'$. Thus $e_{\pi} W(k)[\overline{G}](\CP_{\pi})$ is isomorphic to a direct sum of modules of the form $i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}} \CP_{\overline{M},s'}$ for various $\overline{M}$.
As $\CP_{\overline{M},s'}$ is isomorphic to a parabolic restriction of $\CP_{\pi}$, the endomorphisms of $\CP_{\pi}$ act naturally on $\CP_{\overline{M},s'}$, and hence on $i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}} \CP_{\overline{M},s'}$. This gives an action of $\End_{W(k)[\overline{G}]}(\CP_{\pi})$ on $e_{s'} W(k)[\overline{G}]$, whose image lies in the center of $e_{s'} W(k)[\overline{G}]$.
Conversely, we have an inverse map $$e_{\pi} Z(W(k)[\overline{G}]) \rightarrow \End_{W(k)[\overline{G}]}(\CP_{\pi}),$$ and the result follows.
We now obtain more precise results about $\CP_{\pi}$ under the additional hypothesis that $\ell > n$.
Let $\Phi_e(x)$ be the $e$th cyclotomic polynomial.
Let $r$ be the order of $q$ mod $\ell$, and suppose there exists an $e$ not equal to $r$ such that $\ell$ divides $\Phi_e(q)$. Then $\ell$ divides $e$.
As $q$ has exact order $r$ mod $\ell$, it is clear that $\ell$ divides $\Phi_r(q)$, and also that $r$ divides $e$. The polynomial $x^e - 1$ is divisible by $\Phi_r(x)\Phi_e(x)$; as $q$ is a root of both of these polynomials mod $\ell$ we see that $x^e - 1$ has a double root mod $\ell$, and so $\ell$ divides $e$ as required.
It follows that for $\ell > n$, there exists at most one $e$ dividing $n$ with $\Phi_e(q)$ divisible by $\ell$.
As a result, one has:
Let $s'$ be an $\ell$-regular semisimple element of $\GL_n(\FF_q)$, whose characteristic polynomial is reducible, and suppose that there exists a semisimple element $s$ of $\GL_n(\FF_q)$ with irreducible characteristic polynomial such that $s' = s^{\reg}$. Suppose also that $\ell > n$. Then for any $s$ such that $s' = s^{\reg}$, either $s = s'$ or the characteristic polynomial of $s$ is irreducible.
Fix a semisimple element $s$ with irreducible characteristic polynomial such that $s' = s^{\reg}$. Then $s$ is contained in a subgroup of $G_n$ isomorphic to $\FF_{q^n}^{\times}$, and (when considered as an element of $\FF_{q^n}^{\times}$), $s$ generates $\FF_{q^n}$ over $\FF_q$. We regard $s$ and $s'$ as elements of $\FF_{q^n}$. Write $s = s's_{\ell}$, where $s_{\ell}$ is $\ell$-power torsion. Then there are integers $e_{\ell}$ and $e'$ dividing $n$ such that $s'$ generates $\FF_{q^{e'}}$ over $\FF_q$ and $s_{\ell}$ generates $\FF_{q^{e_{\ell}}}$ over $\FF_q$. The least common multiple of $e'$ and $e_{\ell}$ is equal to $n$. Note that $e'$ is not equal to $n$, as this would imply that the characteristic polynomial of $s'$ was irreducible.
In particular, $e_{\ell}$ cannot be equal to $1$, so $e_{\ell}$ is a nontrivial root of unity. Thus $\ell$ divides $\Phi_{e_{\ell}}(q)$, and hence $e_{\ell}$ is the unique $m < n$ such that $\ell$ divides $\Phi_m(q)$.
Now if $s$ is an arbitrary element with $s^{\reg} = s$, we can write $s$ as $s's_{\ell}$ for some $\ell$-power root of unity $s_{\ell}$. Either $s_{\ell}$ is trivial or $s_{\ell}$ lies in $\FF_{q^{e_{\ell}}}$; as we know that the least common multiple of $e'$ and $e_{\ell}$ is $n$ the latter case implies that $s$ generates $\FF_{q^n}$ over $\FF_q$, as required.
In particular, if $\ell > n$, and $\sigma$ is a representation that is cuspidal but not supercuspidal, corresponding to a semisimple element $s'$, then every irreducible representation $\tsigma$ of $G_n$ over $\overline{\CK}$ whose mod $\ell$ reduction contains $\sigma$ is either a supercuspidal lift of $\sigma$, or has supercuspidal support given by $s'$. We thus have:
For $\ell > n$, and $\pi$ cuspidal but not supercuspidal, we have: $$\CP_{\sigma} \otimes \overline{\CK} \cong \St_{s'} \oplus \bigoplus_{\tsigma} \tsigma,$$ where $\tsigma$ runs over the supercuspidal representations lifting $\sigma$.
Generic pseudo-types {#sec:generic}
====================
The goal of the next two sections will be to apply the finite group theory of section \[sec:finite\] to understand the structure of $\CP_{K,\tau}$. Recall that, by definition, we have $$\CP_{K,\tau} = \cInd_K^G \tkappa \otimes \CP_{\sigma}.$$
The representation $\sigma$ is inflated from a cuspidal representation of $\GL_{\frac{n}{ef}}(\FF_{q^f})$; such a representation is of the form $\St_{s'}$ for some semisimple $\ell$-regular element $s'$ of $\GL_{\frac{n}{ef}}(\FF_{q^f})$. For conciseness we abbreviate $\GL_{\frac{n}{ef}}(\FF_{q^f})$ by $\overline{G}$ for this section.
The decomposition $$\CP_{\sigma} \otimes \overline{\CK} \cong \bigoplus_s \St_s$$ of Proposition \[prop:endomorphisms\] gives rise to a decomposition: $$\CP_{K,\tau} \otimes \overline{\CK} \cong \bigoplus_s \cInd_K^G \tkappa \otimes \St_s,$$ where $s$ runs over a set of representatives for the $\overline{G}$-conjugacy classes of semisimple elements $s$ whose $\ell$-regular part is conjugate to $s'$.
Let $(K,\kappa \otimes \sigma)$ be a maximal distinguished cuspidal $k$-type. A [*generic pseudo-type*]{} attached to $(K,\kappa \otimes \sigma)$ is a $\overline{\CK}$-type of the form $(K,\tkappa \otimes \St_s)$, where $\St_s$ is a generic representation of $\GL_{\frac{n}{ef}}(\FF_q^f)$ in the same block as $\sigma$.
If $\St_s$ is cuspidal, then the generic pseudo-type $(K,\tkappa \otimes \St_s)$ is a maximal distinguished $\overline{\CK}$-type, whose mod $\ell$ inertial cuspidal support is given by $(K,\kappa \otimes \sigma)$. In general a generic pseudo-type is not a type in the usual sense of the word; we will see that in some sense the Hecke algebras attached to generic pseudo-types are analogues of spherical Hecke algebras. (In particular, they are the centers of Hecke algebras attached to types.)
In this section we will prove several basic results about the structure of representations induced from generic pseudo-types, as well as certain natural $W(k)[G]$-submodules of these representations.
Our approach makes use of the theory of $G$-covers, which can be found in [@BK] for a field of characteristic zero, and [@vig98] over a general base ring. We largely follow the presentation of [@vig98], section II. Let $P = MU$ be a parabolic subgroup of $G$, with Levi subgroup $M$, unipotent radical $U$, and opposite parabolic subgroup $P^{\circ} = MU^{\circ}$. Let $(K,\tau)$ be an $R$-type of $G$, and let $K_M, K^+, K^-$ denote the intersections $K \cap M$, $K \cap U$; $K \cap U^{\circ}$, respectively. Let $\tau_M$ be the restriction of $\tau$ to $K_M$.
The pair $(K,\tau)$ is [*decomposed with respect to $P$*]{} if $K = K^- K_M K^+$, and $\tau$ is trivial on $K^+$ and $K^-$. If $\tau$ is the trivial representation we will sometimes say that $K$ is [*decomposed with respect to $P$*]{}.
Now suppose that $(K,\tau)$ is decomposed with respect to $P$, and let $\lambda$ be an element of $M$. Following [@vig98], II.4, we say that $\lambda$ is [*positive*]{} if $\lambda K^+ \lambda^{-1}$ is contained in $K^+$, and $\lambda^{-1} K^- \lambda$ is contained in $\lambda$. We say $\lambda$ is [*negative*]{} if $\lambda^{-1}$ is positive.
We say that $\lambda$ is [*strictly positive*]{} if the following two conditions hold:
- For any pair of open compact subgroups $U_1, U_2$ of $U$, there exists a positive $m$ such that $\lambda^m U_1 \lambda^{-m}$ is contained in $U_2$.
- For any pair of open compact subgroups $U^{\circ}_1, U^{\circ}_2$ of $U^{\circ}$, there exists a positive $m$ such that $\lambda^{-m} U^{\circ}_1 \lambda^{m}$ is contained in $U^{\circ}_2$.
The discussion of [@vig98], II.3 shows that when $(K,\tau)$ is decomposed with respect to $P$, there is a natural $R$-linear injection: $T': H(M,K_M,\tau_M) \rightarrow H(G,K,\tau)$, that takes every element of $H(M,K_M,\tau_M)$ supported on $K_M \lambda K_M$ to an element supported on $K\lambda K$. Moreover, let $H(M,K_M,\tau_M)^+$ be the subalgebra of $H(M,K_M,\tau_M)$ consisting of elements supported on double cosets $K_M \lambda K_M$ with $\lambda$ positive. Then the restriction $T^+$ of $T'$ to $H(M,K_M,\tau_M)^+$ is an algebra homomorphism.
We now have the following result:
\[prop:G-cover\] Suppose there exists a central, strictly positive element $\lambda$ of $M$ such that $T^+(1_{K_M \lambda K_M})$ is an invertible element of $H(G,K,\tau)$, where $1_{K_M \lambda K_M}$ is the characteristic function of $K_M \lambda K_M$, considered as an element of $H(M,K_M,\tau_M)$. Then $T^+$ extends uniquely to an algebra map: $$T: H(M,K_M,\tau_M) \rightarrow H(G,K,\tau).$$
If $(K,\tau)$ is decomposed with respect to $P$, and the hypothesis of Proposition \[prop:G-cover\] is satisfied, we say that $(K,\tau)$ is a $G$-cover of $(K_M,\tau_M)$. We then have:
\[thm:G-cover\] Suppose that $(K,\tau)$ is a $G$-cover of $(K_M,\tau_M)$. Then:
1. For any representation $\Pi$ of $G$, we have an isomorphism of $H(M,K_M,\tau_M)$-modules: $$\Hom_K(\tau,\Pi) \rightarrow \Hom_{K_M}(\tau_M, r_G^P \Pi),$$ where $H(M,K_M,\tau_M)$ acts on the left hand side via the map $T$ of Proposition \[prop:G-cover\].
2. For any representation $\Pi$ of $M$, we have an isomorphism of $H(G,K,\tau)$-modules: $$\Hom_K(\tau, i_P^G \Pi) \rightarrow \Hom_{K_M}(\tau_M, \Pi) \otimes_{H(M,K_M,\tau_M)} H(G,K,\tau).$$
We now return to the study of the $\overline{\CK}[G]$-module $\cInd_K^G \tkappa \otimes \St_s$. Fix a (split) Levi subgroup $\overline{M}$ of $\overline{G}$ minimal among those split Levi subgroups containing $s$ (such an $\overline{M}$ is uniquely determined by $s$.) We will make a choice of Levi subgroup $M$ of $G$ depending on $\overline{M}$, as follows: let $V$ be an $n$-dimensional $F$-vector space on which $G$ acts. The distinguished subgroup $\GL_{\frac{n}{ef}}(E)$ of $G$ coming from the type $(K,\tau)$ gives $V$ the structure of an $E$-vector space. Let $L$ be an $\OO_E$-lattice in $V$ stable under $\GL_{\frac{n}{ef}}(\OO_E)$; then we have a map: $\GL_{\frac{n}{ef}}(\OO_E) \rightarrow \overline{G}$ coming from the isomorphism: $\overline{G} \cong \GL_{\FF_{q^f}}(L/\unif_E L)$. The Levi subgroup $\overline{M}$ of $\overline{G}$ then gives a direct sum decomposition: $$L/\unif_E L = \oplus_i \overline{L}_i,$$ where the $\overline{L}_i$ are the minimal subspaces of $L/\unif_E L$ stable under $\overline{M}$. Choose a lift of this to a direct sum decomposition: $$L = \oplus_i L_i$$ of $\OO_E$-modules, and hence a decomposition: $$V = \oplus_i V_i$$ of $E$-vector spaces. Let $M$ be the corresponding Levi subgroup of $G$ consisting of matrices that preserve each of the $V_i$. Then $M$ is a product of linear groups $M_i = \Aut_F(V_i)$. Note that the image of $M \cap \GL_{\frac{n}{ef}}(\OO_E)$ in $\overline{G}$ is precisely $\overline{M}$.
Let $P$ be the parabolic subgroup of $G$ that preserves the subspaces $V_1$, $V_1 + V_2$, etc., and let $U$ be its unipotent radical. Let $\overline{P}$ and $\overline{U}$ be the images of $P \cap \GL_{\frac{n}{ef}}(\OO_E)$ and $U \cap \GL_{\frac{n}{ef}}(\OO_E)$ in $\overline{G}$. Then $\overline{P}$ is a parabolic subgroup of $\overline{G}$ with Levi $\overline{M}$ and unipotent radical $\overline{U}.$
We now come to the key construction of this section. The pair $(K,\tkappa \otimes \St_s)$ is not a type in the traditional sense (unless $\St_s$ is cuspidal). We will show, however, that this pair is closely related to a $G$-cover of a certain cuspidal $M$-type $(K_M,\tau_M)$. Our construction of the pair $(K_M,\tau_M)$ closely parallels sections 7.1 and 7.2 of [@BK], and is more or less the “reverse” of the construction of section 7 of [@BK-semisimple].
Recall that the maximal distinguished cuspidal type $(K,\tau)$ arises from a simple stratum $[{\mathfrak A},n,0,\beta]$, together with a character $\theta$ in ${\mathcal C}({\mathfrak A}, 0, \beta)$. Given this data, the group $K$ is the group $J(\beta,{\mathfrak A})$ in [@BK], and the representation $\tkappa$ of $K$ is a $\beta$-extension of the unique irreducible representation of $J^1(\beta,{\mathfrak A})$ whose restriction to the subgroup $H^1(\beta,{\mathfrak A})$ contains the character $\theta$.
Let ${\mathfrak A}_i$ be order in $\End_F(V_i)$ induced by ${\mathfrak A}$; that is, the image of the subring of ${\mathfrak A}$ that preserves $V_i$ in $\End_F(V_i)$. Then conjugation by $E^{\times}$ stabilizes ${\mathfrak A}_i$ and ${\mathfrak A}_i \cap \End_E(V_i) = \End_{\OO_E}(L_i)$. Given these orders, the procedure at the beginning of [@BK-semisimple], 7.2 constructs an order ${\mathfrak A}'$ in $\End_F(V)$ (this is the order denoted by ${\mathfrak A}$ in section 7 of [@BK-semisimple].) The order ${\mathfrak A}'$ is contained in the maximal order ${\mathfrak A}$. Set $K' = J(\beta,{\mathfrak A}')$.
Let $K_{\overline{P}}$ be the preimage of $\overline{P}$ in $K$, via our identification of $K/K_1$ with $\overline{G}$. Then by Theorem 5.2.3 (ii) of [@BK], there is a unique $W(k)[K']$-module $\tkappa'$ of $K'$ such that we have: $$\Ind_{K_{\overline{P}}}^{({\mathfrak A}')^{\times}} \tkappa|_{K_{\overline{P}}}
\cong \Ind_{K'}^{({\mathfrak A}')^{\times}} \tkappa'.$$ (Strictly speaking, this is proved in [@BK] over an algebraically closed field of characteristic zero, rather than over $W(k)$; in the proof of [@vigbook], III.4.21 Vigneras observes that the same result holds for the $W(k)$-representations we use here.) Over $\CK$, the representation $\tkappa'$ can alternatively be described, up to twist, in the following way: the character $\theta$ gives rise to an endo-class of ps-characters $(\Theta,0,\beta)$ in the sense of [@BK-semisimple], section 4. Then $(\Theta,0,\beta)$ in particular give rise to a character $\theta'$ in ${\mathcal C}({\mathfrak A}', 0, \beta)$. From this perspective $\tkappa'$ is a $\beta$-extension of the unique irreducible representation of $J^1(\beta,{\mathfrak A}')$ whose restriction to $H^1(\beta,{\mathfrak A}')$ contains the character $\theta'$.
We now apply the construction of [@BK], 7.2 to the representation $\tkappa'$. That is, let $K''$ be the subset $(J(\beta,{\mathfrak A}') \cap P)H^1(\beta,{\mathfrak A}')$; it is shown in [@BK], 7.1 and 7.2 that $K''$ is a group, and that the $K' \cap U$-fixed vectors in $\tkappa'$ are stable under $K''$. Thus these fixed vectors give a representation $\tkappa''$ of $K''$. Let $K_M$ be the intersection $K'' \cap M$, and let $\tkappa_M$ be the restriction of $\tkappa''$ to $K_M$. We then have the following:
The pair $(K'',\tkappa'')$ satisfies the conditions (7.2.1) of [@BK-semisimple]. Explicitly:
1. The restriction of $\tkappa''$ to $H^1(\beta,{\mathfrak A}')$ is a multiple of $\theta'$.
2. The representation $\tkappa''$ is trivial on $K'' \cap U$ and $K'' \cap U^{\circ}$.
3. The group $K_M$ is the product of the groups $K_i = K \cap M_i$, and the representation $\tkappa_M$ is a tensor product of irreducible representations $\tkappa_i$ of $K_i$ for each $i$. Moreover, the subgroup $K_i$ of $M_i$ is equal to $J(\beta,{\mathfrak A}_i)$, and each $\tkappa_i$ is a $\beta$-extension of the unique representation of $J^1(\beta,{\mathfrak A}_i)$ whose restriction to $H^1(\beta,{\mathfrak A}_i)$ contains the element $\theta_i$ of ${\mathcal C}({\mathfrak A}_i, 0, \beta)$ determined by the ps-character $(\Theta,0,\beta)$.
Moreover, the map: $$\Ind_{K''}^{K'} \tkappa'' \rightarrow \tkappa'$$ (obtained by Frobenius reciprocity from the realization of $\tkappa''$ as the $U \cap K''$-invariants of $\tkappa'$) is an isomorphism.
The first claim follows from [@BK], 5.1.1 and our description of $\tkappa''$ as a $\beta$-extension. The second is clear from the construction of $\tkappa''$. The decomposition of $\tkappa$ as a tensor product of $\tkappa_i$ is [@BK], 7.2.14, as is the fact that each $\tkappa_i$ is a $\beta$-extension (the necessary intertwining property on the $\tkappa_i$ is verified as part of [@BK], 7.2.15.) The fact that the characters $\theta_i$ are the ones claimed in the theorem follows from [@BK], 7.1.19. The isomorphism is [@BK], 7.2.15.
Let $s_i$ be the projection of $s$ to $\overline{M}_i$; then $s_i$ is a semisimple element of $\overline{M}_i$ with irreducible characteristic polynomial. As $K_i$ contains $J^1(\beta,{\mathfrak A}_i)$ as a normal subgroup, and the quotient is naturally isomorphic to $\overline{M}_i$, we may regard the cuspidal representation $\St_{s_i}$ of $\overline{M}_i$ as a representation of $K_i$. We set $\tau_i = \tkappa_i \otimes \St_{s_i}$; the pair $(K_i,\tau_i)$ is then a maximal distinguished cuspidal type in $M_i$. Let $\tau_M$ be the tensor product of the $\tau_i$; it is then a representation of $K_M$, and we have $\tau_M = \tkappa_M \otimes \St_{\overline{M},s}$, where $\St_{\overline{M},s}$ is the tensor product of the cuspidal representations $\St_{s_i}$. The pair $(K_M,\tau_M)$ is a maximal distinguished cuspidal $M$-type.
On the other hand, by construction, the quotient of $K''$ by $J^1(\beta,{\mathfrak A}')$ is naturally isomorphic to $\overline{M}$. We can thus regard $\St_{\overline{M},s}$ as a representation of $K''$, and form the representation $\tau'' = \tkappa'' \otimes \St_{\overline{M},s}.$ Consider also the representation $\tau_{\overline{P}} = \tkappa|_{K_{\overline{P}}} \otimes \St_{\overline{M},s},$ where we regard $\St_{M,s}$ as a representation of $K_{\overline{P}}$ via the surjection $$K_{\overline{P}} \rightarrow \overline{P} \rightarrow \overline{M}.$$ We then have:
\[thm:type cover\] The pair $(K'',\tau'')$ is a $G$-cover of $(K_M,\tau_M)$. Moreover, there are natural isomorphisms: $$\cInd_{K''}^{({\mathfrak A}')^{\times}} \tau'' \cong
\cInd_{K_{\overline{P}}}^{({\mathfrak A}')^{\times}} \tau_{\overline{P}}$$ $$\cInd_{K''}^{{\mathfrak A}^{\times}} \tau'' \cong
\cInd_{K}^{{\mathfrak A}^{\times}} \tkappa \otimes I_s.$$ where we regard $I_s$ as a representation of $K$ via the surjection of $K$ onto $\overline{G}$.
We have verified that $(K'',\tkappa'')$ satisfies the list of properties in [@BK-semisimple], 7.2.1. In particular, if one applies the procedure of [@BK-semisimple], section 7.2 to the type $(K_M,\tau_M)$, one arrives at the representation $(K'',\tau'')$. Thus $(K'',\tau'')$ is a $G$-cover of $(K_M,\tau_M)$ by Theorem 7.2 of [@BK-semisimple]. (Notice that the procedure given there in particular applies to the type $(K_M,\tau_M)$ because we have verified that each of the types $(K_i,\tau_i)$ arises from the same endo-class $(\Theta,0,\beta)$ of ps-character.)
Whenever we have $H'$ a subgroup of $H$, and representations $A$ of $H$ and $A'$ of $H'$, we have a general identity: $$\Ind_{H'}^H A|_{H'} \otimes B \cong A \otimes \Ind_H^{H'} B.$$ It follows from this and the isomorphism: $$\tkappa' \cong \Ind_{K''}^{K'} \tkappa'$$ that we have an isomorphism: $$\cInd_{K''}^{{\mathfrak A}^{\times}} \tau'' \cong
\cInd_{K'}^{{\mathfrak A}^{\times}} \tau',$$ where $\tau' = \tkappa' \otimes \St_{\overline{M},s}$. (Recall that the surjections of $K'$ and $K''$ onto $\overline{M}$ are compatible with the inclusion of $K''$ in $K'$, so we can regard $\St_{\overline{M},s}$ as a representation of $K'$ here.)
Next, the isomorphism: $$\Ind_{K'}^{({\mathfrak A}')^{\times}} \kappa' \cong
\Ind_{K_{\overline{P}}}^{({\mathfrak A}')^{\times}} \kappa|_{K_{\overline{P}}}$$ induces an isomorphism: $$\Ind_{K'}^{({\mathfrak A}')^{\times}} \tau' \cong
\Ind_{K_{\overline{P}}}^{({\mathfrak A}')^{\times}} \tau_{\overline{P}}$$
Finally, we have an isomorphism: $$\Ind_{K_{\overline{P}}}^{{\mathfrak A}^{\times}} \kappa|_{K_{\overline{P}}} \otimes \St_{\overline{M},s} \cong
\Ind_K^{{\mathfrak A}^{\times}} \kappa \otimes I_s$$ obtained by inducing the previous isomorphism from $({\mathfrak A}')^{\times}$ to ${\mathfrak A}^{\times}$ and applying the tensor product identity.
The maximal distinguished cuspidal type $(K_M,\tau_M)$ gives rise to a unique inertial equivalence class of cuspidal representations of $M$; let $\pi$ be an irreducible representation of $M$ over $\overline{\CK}$ that lies in this inertial equivalence class (or equivalently, that contains the type $(K_M,\tau_M)$.) We then have:
\[cor:steinberg Bernstein component\] The $\overline{\CK}[G]$-modules $\cInd_K^G \tkappa \otimes I_s$ and $\cInd_K^G \tkappa \otimes \St_s$ are objects of $\Rep_{\overline{\CK}}(G)_{(M,\pi)}$.
Theorem \[thm:type cover\] implies that we have an isomorphism: $$\cInd_K^G \tkappa \otimes I_s
\cong \cInd_{K''}^G \tau''.$$ As $(K'',\tau'')$ is a $G$-cover of the maximal distinguished cuspidal type $(K_M,\tau_M)$, it follows immediately from [@BK-types], Theorem 8.3 that $\cInd_{K''}^G \tau''$ lies in $\Rep_{\overline{\CK}}(G)_{(M,\pi)}$. As for $\cInd_K^G \tkappa \otimes \St_s$, note that, by definition, $\St_s$ is the (unique) generic summand of $I_s$, and so the this $\overline{\CK}[G]$-module is a direct summand of the first.
We now turn to the question of understanding the Hecke algebra $H(G,K,\tkappa \otimes \St_s)$, or equivalently the endomorphism ring $\End_{\overline{\CK}[G]}(\cInd_K^G \tkappa \otimes \St_s)$. The isomorphisms of Theorem \[thm:type cover\] induce isomorphisms: $$H(G,K'',\tau'') \cong H(G,({\mathfrak A}')^{\times}, \Ind_{K''}^{({\mathfrak A}')^{\times}} \tau'')$$ $$H(G,K_{\overline{P}},\tau_{\overline{P}}) \cong
H(G,({\mathfrak A}')^{\times}, \Ind_{K''}^{({\mathfrak A}')^{\times}} \tau'')$$ These isomorphisms are compatible with support in the sense that an element of one of the left hand Hecke algebras supported on a double coset $K'' g K''$ or $K_{\overline{P}} g K_{\overline{P}}$ gets set to an element of the right hand Hecke algebra supported on $({\mathfrak A}')^{\times} g ({\mathfrak A}')^{\times}$.
We would like to use this observation to compare the spaces $H(G,K'',\tau'')_{K''gK''}$ and $H(G,K_{\overline{P}},\tau_{\overline{P}})_{K_{\overline{P}}gK_{\overline{P}}}$ for various $g$ in $G$.
On the one hand, the space $H(G,K'',\tau'')$ is well-understood; the discussion in section 1 of [@BK-semisimple] shows that it is a tensor product of affine Hecke algebras. More precisely, recall that $M$ is the subgroup of $G$ consisting of endomorphisms of $V$ that preserve each summand $V_i$ of $V$, and let $Z$ be the subgroup of $M$ consisting of elements that act by a power of $\unif_E$ on each $V_i$.
Choose a maximal torus $T_E$ of $\GL_{\frac{n}{ef}}(E)$, and let $\overline{T}$ be its reduction mod $\unif_E$. Then $\overline{T}$ is a maximal torus of $\overline{G}$; we assume it is contained in $\overline{M}$. Let $W(\overline{G})$ be the Weyl group of $\overline{G}$ with respect to $\overline{T}$. The choices of $T_E$ and $\overline{T}$ give an isomorphism of $W(\overline{G})$ with the Weyl group of $\GL_{\frac{n}{ef}}(E)$.
Now choose a maximal torus $T_F$ of $G$. We will say that $T_F$ is [*compatible with $T_E$*]{} if every $T_E$ stable line in $F^n$ is a union of $T_F$-stable lines. A choice of $T_F$ compatible with $T_E$ identifies the Weyl group of $\GL_{\frac{n}{ef}}(E)$ with a subgroup of $W(G)$, and thus lets us consider $W(\overline{G})$ as a subgroup of $W(G)$. In what follows, whenever we have a trio of groups $G,\GL_{\frac{n}{ef}}(E),\overline{G}$, we will choose maximal tori of these groups related in the sense described above, and implicitly make the corresponding identifications on Weyl groups.
Let $W_{\overline{M}}$ be the subgroup of $W(\overline{G})$ normalizing $\overline{M}$, and let $W_{\overline{M}}(s)$ be the subgroup of $W_{\overline{M}}$ consisting of $w$ such that $w s w^{-1}$ is $M$-conjugate to $s$. If $W_M$ is the subgroup of $W(G)$ normalizing $M$, we can identify $W_{\overline{M}}$ with a subgroup of $W_M$. Then $H(G,K'',\tau'')$ is supported on the double cosets $K'' g K''$ for $g$ in $W_{\overline{M}}(s) Z$, and each $H(G,K'',\tau'')_{K'' g K''}$ is a one-dimensional $\overline{\CK}$-vector space. (Observe that if $w,w'$ are in $W_{\overline{M}}(s)$, and $z,z'$ lie in $Z$, then $K'' w z K'' = K'' w' z' K''$ if, and only if, $z = z'$ and $w^{-1}w'$ lies in $W(M)$.)
Moreover, if we write the characteristic polynomial of $s$ as a product of irreducible polynomials $f_1^{m_1} \dots f_r^{m_r}$, with $\deg f_j = d_j$, then the quotient of $W_{\overline{M}}(s)$ by the subgroup $W(M)$ of $W_{\overline{M}}(s)$ is a product of permutation groups $W_j \cong S_{m_j}$, where $W_j$ permutes the “blocks” of $s$ with characteristic polynomial $f_j$. If we let $Z_j$ be the subgroup of $Z$ consisting of elements that are the identity away from those blocks, then $Z_j$ is a subgroup of $Z$ invariant under the conjugation action of $W_{\overline{M}}(s)$, and the conjugation action of $W_{\overline{M}}(s)$ on $Z_j$ factors through $S_{m_j}$. Moreover, $W_j Z_j$ is a subgroup of $\GL_n$, and the subspace $H_j$ of $H(G,K'',\tau'')$ supported on cosets of the form $K g K$ for $g$ in $W_j Z_j$ is a subalgebra of $H(G,K'',\tau'')$ isomorphic to the affine Hecke algebra $H(q^{fd_j},m_j)$. (This isomorphism depends on certain choices and is therefore not canonical; we refer the reader to [@BK], 5.6, for its construction.)
The algebra $H(G,K'',\tau'')$ is then the tensor product of the $H_j$. Moreover, the map from $H(q^{fd_j},m_j)$ to $H_j$ is compatible with supports in a certain sense. Specifically, we have a natural isomorphism of $H(q^{fd_j},m_j)$ with $H(\GL_{m_j}(E'),I)$, where $E'$ is the unramified extension of $E$ of degree $d_j$, and $I$ is the standard Iwahori subgroup of $\GL_{m_j}(E')$. We may embed $\GL_{m_j}(E')$ in $M_j$ in such a way that the image of $\GL_{m_j}(\OO_{E'})$ is equal to the intersection of ${\mathfrak A}$ with the image of $\GL_{m_j}(E')$, and so that the maximal tori of $M_j$ and $M_j \cap \GL_{\frac{n}{ef}}(E)$ arising from $T_F$ and $T_E$ are compatible with the standard maximal torus of $\GL_{m_j}(E')$. Then the reduction mod $\unif_E$ of $\GL_{m_j}(\OO_{E'})$ is a subgroup of $\overline{M}_j$ isomorphic to $\GL_{m_j}(\FF_{q^{d_j}})$; we assume we have chosen our embedding so that the standard maximal torus of $\GL_{m_j}(\FF_{q^{d_j}})$ is contained in the Levi $M_{s_j}$. (This makes $M_{s_j}$ the minimal split Levi containing the standard maximal torus of $\GL_{m_j}(\FF_{q^{d_j}})$.)
This embedding allows us to identify $W_j$ with the (standard) Weyl group $W_j'$ of $\GL_{m_j}(E')$. Our choices identify $Z_j$ with a subgroup $Z'_j$ of the diagonal matrices in $\GL_{m_j}(E')$, and then $\GL_{m_j}(E')$ is a union of double cosets $I w' z' I$, with $w'$ in $W'_j$ and $z'$ in $Z'_j$. The identification of $H(q^{fd_j},m_j)$ with $H_j$ then takes the subspace $H(\GL_{m_j}(E'),I)_{I w' z' I}$ to $H(G,K'',\tau'')_{K w z K}$, where $w$ and $z$ are the elements of $W'_j$ and $Z'_j$ corresponding to $w$ and $z$.
For each $j$, the Hecke algebra $H(q^{fd_j},m_j)$ contains a subalgebra isomorphic to $\overline{\CK}[Z'_j]$, via the construction of section 3 of [@Lu]. By [@Lu], 3.11, this isomorphism identifies $\overline{\CK}[Z'_j]^{W'_j}$ with the center of $H(q^{f d_j},m_j)$. Taking the tensor product over all $j$, and composing with the isomorphisms of $H(q^{f d_j},m_j)$ with $H_j$ gives an isomorphism of $\overline{\CK}[Z]^{W_{\overline{M}}(s)}$ with the center of $H(G,K'',\tau'')$.
As $(K'',\tau'')$ is a $G$-cover of $(K_M,\tau_M)$, we have a map $$T: H(M,K_M,\tau_M) \rightarrow H(G,K'',\tau'')$$ that is not (in general) support preserving, but that fits nicely into the above picture. In particular, as $(K_M,\tau_M)$ is a maximal distinguished cuspidal $M$-type, our choice of irreducible representation $\pi$ of $M$ containing $\tau_M$ gives rise to an isomorphism: $$(\overline{\CK}[M/M_0])^H \cong H(M,K_M,\tau_M).$$ Here, as in Remark \[rem:canonical\], we view $\overline{\CK}[M/M_0]$ as the ring of regular functions on the torus $\Hom(M/M_0,\overline{\CK})$, and $H$ is the subgroup of this torus consisting of characters $\chi$ of $M/M_0$ such that $\pi \otimes \chi$ is isomorphic to $\pi$. The action of an element $f$ of $H(M,K_M,\tau_M)$ on an irreducible representation $\pi'$ inertially equivalent to $\pi$ is then given by choosing a character $\chi$ such that $\pi' = \pi \otimes \chi$, and evaluating the element of $\overline{\CK}[M/M_0]^H$ corresponding to $f$ at $\chi$. The inclusion of $Z$ in $M$ defines an isomorphism of $Z$ onto $(M/M_0)^H$, so we have an isomorphism of $H(M,K_M,\tau_M)$ with $\overline{\CK}[Z]$.
Conjugating by elements of $W_{\overline{M}}(s)$ permutes the space of representations of $M$ inertially equivalent to $\pi$, and thus defines an action of $W_{\overline{M}}(s)$ on $\overline{\CK}[Z]$. This action depends on the choice of $\pi$; we may choose $\pi$ so that $\pi$ is invariant under conjugation by $W_{\overline{M}}(s)$. For such a $\pi$, the action of $W_{\overline{M}}(s)$ on $\overline{\CK}[Z]$ is simply by permuting the factors $Z_i$.
A choice of such a $\pi$ yields an embedding of $\overline{\CK}[Z]$ into $H(G,K'',\tau'')$. Moreover, any such $\pi$ determines, for all $j$, a unique support-preserving isomorphism $H(q^{f d_j},m_j) \cong H_j$ of the type described above, such that the diagram: $$\begin{array}{ccc}
\overline{\CK}[Z] & = & \overline{\CK}[Z]\\
\downarrow & & \downarrow\\
\bigotimes_j H(q^{f d_j},m_j) & \rightarrow & H(G,K'',\tau'')
\end{array}$$ commutes. (Conversely, for any such collection of isomorphisms there is a corresponding $W_{\overline{M}}(s)$-invariant $\pi$.)
Our next step is to translate this detailed structure theory for $H(G,K'',\tau'')$ into a corresponding theory for $H(G,K_{\overline{P}},\tau_{\overline{P}})$, via the isomorphisms of Theorem \[thm:type cover\]. To do so we must study the intertwining of $\tau_{\overline{P}}$ and of $\tau$.
\[lemma:intertwining\] Let $\tP$ be the preimage of $\overline{P}$ under the map $$\GL_{\frac{n}{ef}}(\OO_E) \rightarrow \GL_{\frac{n}{ef}}(\FF_{q^f}).$$
1. Let $\xi$ be a $W(k)$-representation of $K$ trivial on $K_1$, and let $g$ be an element of $G$ that intertwines $\tkappa \otimes \xi$. Then $g$ lies in $K \GL_{\frac{n}{ef}}(E) K$. Moreover, if $g$ lies in $\GL_{\frac{n}{ef}}(E)$, then $g$ intertwines $\xi$ when $\xi$ is considered as a representation of $\GL_{\frac{n}{ef}}(\OO_E)$ inflated from $\GL_{\frac{n}{ef}}(\FF_{q^f})$, and there is a natural isomorphism: $$I_g(\tkappa \otimes \xi) \cong I_g(\tkappa) \otimes I_g(\xi).$$
2. Let $\xi$ be a $W(k)$-representation of $K_{\overline{P}}$ trivial on $K_1$, and let $g$ be an element of $G$ that intertwines $\tkappa|_{K_{\overline{P}}} \otimes \xi$. Then $g$ lies in $K_{\overline{P}} \GL_{\frac{n}{ef}}(E) K_{\overline{P}}$. Moreover, if $g$ lies in $\GL_{\frac{n}{ef}}(E)$, and then $g$ intertwines $\xi$ when $\xi$ is considered as a representation of $\tP$ inflated from $\overline{P}$, and there is a natural isomorpism: $$I_g(\tkappa|_{K_{\overline{P}}} \otimes \xi) \cong \I_g(\tkappa) \otimes I_g(\xi).$$
Case (1) is almost precisely [@BK], Proposition 5.3.2, except that the coefficient space here is $W(k)$ rather than $\CC$. In spite of this the argument of [@BK] adapts without difficulty, and the argument in case (2) is identical.
\[cor:P-intertwining\] Let $g$ be an element of $G$ that intertwines $\tau_{\overline{P}}$. Then $g$ lies in the double coset $K_{\overline{P}} \GL_n(E) K_{\overline{P}}$. Moreover, if $g$ lies in $K_{\overline{P}} W_{\overline{M}}(s) Z K_{\overline{P}}$, then $I_g(\tau_{\overline{P}})$ is one-dimensional.
The previous lemma shows that $g$ lies in $K_{\overline{P}} \GL_{\frac{n}{ef}}(E) K_{\overline{P}}$, so the first statement is clear. For the second statement, it suffices to consider $g$ in $W_{\overline{M}}(s) Z$. For such $g$, $I_g(\tau_{\overline{P}})$ is equal to $I_g(\St_{\overline{M},s})$, where $\St_{\overline{M},s}$ is considered as a representation of the parahoric subgroup $\tP$ of $\GL_{\frac{n}{ef}}(E)$ inflated from $\overline{M}$. We thus have $$I_g(\St_{\overline{M},s}) = \Hom_{\tP \cap g \tP g^{-1}}(\St_{\overline{M},s},\St_{\overline{M},s}^g).$$ It is easy to see that for $g$ in $W_{\overline{M}}(s) Z$, we have a surjection $$\tP \cap g \tP g^{-1} \rightarrow \overline{M}$$ induced by the surjection of $\tP$ onto $\overline{M}$, and that the representations $\St_{\overline{M},s}$ and $\St_{\overline{M},s}^g$, when considered as representations of $\tP \cap g \tP g^{-1}$, are both inflated from $\St_{\overline{M}}$ via this surjection. The result follows.
As a result we obtain:
The isomorphism: $$H(G,K'',\tau'') \cong H(G,K_{\overline{P}},\tau_{\overline{P}})$$ of Theorem \[thm:type cover\] is support-preserving, in the sense that for all $g$ in $\GL_{\frac{n}{ef}}(E)$, it induces an isomorphism: $$H(G,K'',\tau'')_{K''gK''} \cong H(G,K_{\overline{P}},\tau_{\overline{P}})_{K_{\overline{P}} g K_{\overline{P}}}.$$
For any $g$ in $G$, we have an isomorphism: $$\bigoplus_{g'} H(G,K'',\tau'')_{K'' g' K''} \cong
H(G,({\mathfrak A'})^{\times},\cInd_{K''}^{({\mathfrak A}')^{\times}} \tau'')_{({\mathfrak A}')^{\times} g ({\mathfrak A}')^{\times}}$$ where $g'$ lies in a set of representatives for the double cosets $K'' g' K''$ in $({\mathfrak A}')^{\times} g ({\mathfrak A}')^{\times}$. An easy calculation shows that if $g$ and $g'$ lie in $W_{\overline{M}}(s) Z$, and $$({\mathfrak A}')^{\times} g ({\mathfrak A}')^{\times} =
({\mathfrak A}')^{\times} g' ({\mathfrak A}')^{\times},$$ then $K'' g K'' = K'' g' K''$ and $K_{\overline{P}} g K_{\overline{P}} = K_{\overline{P}}g'K_{\overline{P}}.$ As $H(G,K'',\tau'')$ is supported on $K'' W_{\overline{M}}(s) Z K''$, it follows that $H(G,({\mathfrak A}')^{\times},\cInd_{K''}^{({\mathfrak A}')^{\times}} \tau'')$ is supported on the double cosets $({\mathfrak A}')^{\times} W_{\overline{M}}(s) Z ({\mathfrak A}')^{\times}$. Moreover, each $H(G,K'',\tau'')_{K'' g K''}$ is one-dimensional for $g$ in $W_{\overline{M}}(s) Z$. It follows that $H(G,({\mathfrak A}')^{\times},\cInd_{K''}^{({\mathfrak A}')^{\times}} \tau'')_{({\mathfrak A}')^{\times} g
({\mathfrak A}')^{\times}}$ is as well.
On the other hand, for $g$ in $G$ we also have an isomorphism $$\bigoplus_{g'} H(G,K_{\overline{P}},\tau_{\overline{P}})_{K_{\overline{P}} g' K_{\overline{P}}} \cong
H(G,({\mathfrak A'})^{\times},\cInd_{K_{\overline{P}}}^{({\mathfrak A}')^{\times}} \tau_{\overline{P}})_{({\mathfrak A}')^{\times} g ({\mathfrak A}')^{\times}},$$ where $g'$ runs over a set of representatives for the cosets $K_{\overline{P}} g' K_{\overline{P}}$ in $({\mathfrak A}')^{\times} g ({\mathfrak A}')^{\times}$. For $g$ in $W_{\overline{M}}(s) Z$, the right-hand side is one-dimensional, and the summand on the left corresponding to $g' = g$ is also one-dimensional. On the other hand, if $g$ doesn’t lie in $({\mathfrak A}')^{\times} W_{\overline{M}}(s) Z
({\mathfrak A}')^{\times}$ then the right hand side is zero, so all of the summands on the left vanish as well. It follows that $H(G,K_{\overline{P}},\tau_{\overline{P}})$ is supported on $K_{\overline{P}} W_{\overline{M}}(s) Z
K_{\overline{P}}$, and that for $g$ in $W_{\overline{M}}(s) Z$, the isomorphisms above identify $H(G,K_{\overline{P}},\tau_{\overline{P}})_{K_{\overline{P}} g K_{\overline{P}}}$ with $H(G,K'',\tau'')_{K'' g K''}$ as required.
Finally, we want to understand the relationship between $H(G,K_{\overline{P}},\tau_{\overline{P}})$ and $H(G,K,\tkappa \otimes \St_s)$. As $\St_s$ is a direct summand of $I_s$, $\cInd_K^G \tkappa \otimes \St_s$ is a direct summand of $\cInd_K^G \tkappa \otimes I_s.$ In particular any central endomorphism of the latter commutes with the projection onto $\cInd_K^G \tkappa \otimes \St_s$, and thus induces an element of $H(G,K,\tkappa \otimes \St_s)$. On the other hand, such central endomorphisms are central elements of $H(G,K_{\overline{P}},\tau_{\overline{P}})$, and hence of $H(G,K'',\tau'')$ via the isomorphisms of Theorem \[thm:type cover\]. Our description of the center of $H(G,K'',\tau'')$ as $\overline{\CK}[Z]^{W_{\overline{M}}(s)}$ thus yields a support-preserving map: $$\overline{\CK}[Z]^{W_{\overline{M}}(s)} \rightarrow H(G,K,\tkappa \otimes \St_s).$$ (Indeed, we know that $\overline{\CK}[Z]^{W_{\overline{M}}(s)}$ is the center of the category $\Rep_{\overline{\CK}}(G)_{M,\pi}$, so this map is simply the map that gives the action of the Bernstein center on the space $\cInd_K^G \tkappa \otimes \St_s$.) The support and intertwining calculations we have done, together with analogous calculations for $H(G,K,\tkappa \otimes \St_s)$, will allow us to show that this map is an isomorphism. Injectivity is straightforward:
The map $Z(H(G,K,\tkappa \otimes I_s)) \rightarrow H(G,K,\tkappa \otimes \St_s)$ is injective.
As $\cInd_K^G \tkappa \otimes \St_s$ is a direct summand of $\cInd_K^G \tkappa \otimes I_s$, any endomorphism of the former extends by zero to an endomorphism of the latter. This allows us to view $H(G,K,\tkappa \otimes \St_s)$ as a submodule of $H(G,K,\tkappa \otimes I_s)$; from this point of view the claim is that this submodule is not annihilated by any nonzero element of $Z(H(G,K,\tkappa \otimes I_s))$. But $H(G,K,\tkappa \otimes I_s)$ is a tensor product of affine Hecke algebras; in particular (for instance, by Bernstein’s presentation of $H(q,n)$ [@Lu]), it is free over its center and its center is a domain. Thus [*no*]{} element of $H(G,K,\tkappa \otimes I_s)$ is annihilated by any element of the center of $H(G,K,\tkappa \otimes I_s)$.
In light of this injectivity, we can prove that the center of $H(G,K,\tkappa \otimes I_s)$ is isomorphic to $H(G,K,\tkappa \otimes \St_s)$ by comparing the dimensions of $H(G,K,\tkappa \otimes \St_s)_{K g K}$ and $Z(H(G,K,\tkappa \otimes I_s))_{K g K}$ for a suitable set of $g$. Fix an element $g$ of $M \cap \GL_{\frac{n}{ef}}(E)$. For such a $g$, let $\overline{P}_g$ be the image of $g \GL_{\frac{n}{ef}}(\OO_E) g^{-1} \cap \GL_{\frac{n}{ef}}(\OO_E)$ in $\overline{G}$. Then $\overline{P}_g$ is a parabolic subgroup with unipotent radical $\overline{U}_g$, and Levi $\overline{M}_g$.
Let $\tP_g$ be the parahoric subgroup $g \GL_{\frac{n}{ef}}(\OO_E) g^{-1} \cap \GL_{\frac{n}{ef}}(\OO_E)$, and observe that $g^{-1} \tP_g g$ is the preimage of the opposite parablic $\overline{P}_g^{\circ}$ in $\GL_{\frac{n}{ef}}(\OO_E)$. Let $\tU_g$ be the preimage of $\overline{U}_g$ in $\tP_g$; then for any $u$ in $\tU_g$, the conjugate $g^{-1} u g$ reduces to the identity in $\overline{G}$. The conjugation map $\tP_g \rightarrow g^{-1} \tP_g g$ thus descends to a map $\overline{M}_g \rightarrow \overline{M}_g$; we say $g$ is $\overline{M}_g$-central if the resulting automorphism of $\overline{M}_g$ is trivial. It is clear that for any $g$, there exists a $k$ in $\GL_{\frac{n}{ef}}(\OO_E)$ such that $gk$ is $\overline{M}_g$-central. We then have:
\[lemma:xi-intertwining\] Let $g$ be an element of $M \cap \GL_{\frac{n}{ef}}(E)$, and let $\xi$ be a $W(k)[\overline{G}]$-module considered as a module over $W(k)[\GL_{\frac{n}{ef}}(\OO_E)]$ by inflation. Then $I_g(\xi)$ is free of rank one over $\End_{W(k)[\overline{G}]}(r_{\overline{G}}^{\overline{P}} \xi).$ Moreover, if $g$ is $\overline{M}_g$-central, we have a natural isomorphism: $$I_g(\xi) \cong \End_{W(k)[\overline{G}]}(r_{\overline{G}}^{\overline{P}} \xi).$$
By definition, $I_g(\xi) = \Hom_{W(k)[\tP_g]}(\xi,\xi^g)$. Note that for $u$ in $\tU_g$, the element $g^{-1} g u$ acts trivially on $\xi$. Thus $u$ acts trivially on $\xi^g$. In particular any element of $I_g(\xi)$ gives rise to a map: $$\Hom_{W(k)[\tP_g]}(r_{\overline{G}}^{\overline{P}_g} \xi, r_{\overline{G}}^{\overline{P}_g} \xi^g).$$ Conversely, any such map gives rise to an element of $I_g(\xi)$. (Here we are identifying the $\overline{U}_g$-invariants of $\xi$ with the $\overline{U}_g$-coinvariants via the natural map from invariants to coinvariants. Moreover, the representation $r_{\overline{G}}^{\overline{P}_g} \xi$ is a representation of $\overline{M}_g$ considered as a representation of $\tP_g$ by inflation.) As conjugation by $g$ descends to an inner automorphism of $\overline{M}_g$, $r_{\overline{G}}^{\overline{P}_g} \xi^g$ is isomorphic to $r_{\overline{G}}^{\overline{P}_g} \xi$, and we can take this isomorphism to be the identity when $g$ is $\overline{M}_g$-central. The result is then clear.
Let $z$ be an element of $Z$. Then our fixed maximal torus of $\overline{G}$ is a maximal torus of of $\overline{M}_g$. Recall from the previous section that we have defined $W(\overline{M},\overline{M}_z)$ as the set of $w$ in $W(\overline{G})$ such that $w \overline{M} w^{-1}$ is contained in $\overline{M}_z$.
\[prop:K-intertwining\] The spaces $H(G,K,\tkappa \otimes \St_s)$ and $H(G,K,\tkappa \otimes i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}} \St_{\overline{M},s})$ are supported on $K Z K$. Moreover, for $z$ in $Z$, we have: $$H(G,K,\tkappa \otimes I_s)_{K z K}
\cong I_z(\tkappa) \otimes \End_{\overline{\CK}[\overline{M}_z]}(\oplus_{w} I_{\overline{M}_z, w s w^{-1}})$$ $$H(G,K,\tkappa \otimes \St_s)_{K z K}
\cong I_z(\tkappa) \otimes \End_{\overline{\CK}[\overline{M}_z]}(\oplus_{w'} \St_{\overline{M}_z,w' s (w')^{-1}})$$ where $w$ runs over a set of representatives for $W(\overline{M}_z) \backslash W(\overline{M},\overline{M}_z)$, and $w'$ runs over a set of representatives for $W(\overline{M}_z) \backslash W(\overline{M},\overline{M}_z)/W_{\overline{M}}(s)$,
By Lemma \[lemma:intertwining\], it suffices to compute the spaces $I_z(I_s)$ and $I_z(\St_s)$. Note that for any $z$ in $Z$, it is clear that $z$ is $\overline{M}_z$-central. The result is thus immediate from Lemma \[lemma:xi-intertwining\], together with Propositions \[prop:steinberg restriction\] and \[prop:induction restriction\].
For $z \in Z$, the dimension of $H(G,K,\tkappa \otimes St_s)_{K z K}$ is equal to the cardinality of $W(\overline{M}_z) \backslash W(\overline{M},\overline{M}_z)/W_{\overline{M}}(s)$.
The modules $\St_{\overline{M}_z, w s w^{-1}}$ and $\St_{\overline{M}_z, (w') s (w')^{-1}}$ are isomorphic if, and only if, $w$ and $w'$ represent the same class in $W(\overline{M}_z) \backslash W(\overline{M},\overline{M}_z)/W_{\overline{M}}(s)$. It follows that $$\dim_{\overline{\CK}} \End_{\overline{\CK}[\overline{M}_z]}(\oplus_{w} \St_{\overline{M}_z, w s w^{-1}})
= \# W(\overline{M}_z) \backslash W(\overline{M},\overline{M}_z)/W_{\overline{M}}(s)$$ and the result follows by Proposition \[prop:K-intertwining\].
It remains to compute the dimension of the subspace of the center of $H(G,K,\tkappa \otimes I_s)$ supported on $K g K$. As this Hecke algebra is a tensor product of Iwahori Hecke algebras, we first observe:
\[lemma:Iwahori central support\] Let $H(m,q^{df})$ be the Iwahori Hecke algebra $H(\GL_m(E'),I)$, where $E'$ is an unramified extension of $E$ of degree $D$ and $I$ is an Iwahori subgroup of $\GL_m(E')$. Then for any $g \in \GL_m(E')$, the subspace of central elements of $H(m,q^{df})$ supported on the union of the double cosets $I w g w' I$, for $w,w'$ in the Weyl group of $\GL_m(E')$, is one-dimensional. Moreover, the sum of these spaces as $g$ varies is the entire center of $H(m,q^{df})$.
This is presumably well-known. Let $J$ be a maximal compact of $\GL_m(E)$ containing $I$. Then the induction $\cInd_I^J 1$ contains the trivial character of $J$, and so $\cInd_J^{\GL_m(E)} 1$ is a direct summand of $\cInd_I^{\GL_m(E)} 1 = \cInd_J^{\GL_m(E)} \cInd_I^J 1$. In particular the center of $H(\GL_m(E),I)$ preserves the summand $\cInd_J^{\GL_m(E)} 1$; this gives a support-preserving map from the center of $H(\GL_m(E),I)$ to the spherical Hecke algebra $H(\GL_m(E),J)$. (This map simply gives the action of the center of the unipotent block on $\cInd_J^{\GL_m(E)} 1$.) One verifies easily that the center of $H(\GL_m(E),I)$ acts faithfully on $\cInd_J^{\GL_m(E)} 1$ and that every endomorphism of $\cInd_J^{\GL_m(E)} 1$ arises from the action of the center. We thus have a support preserving isomorphism of this center with $H(\GL_m(E),1)$, and the result is immediate.
Fixing an isomorphism of $H(G,K_{\overline{P}},\tau_{\overline{P}})$ with a tensor product of Iwahori Hecke algebras (as in the discussion preceding lemma \[lemma:intertwining\],) we obtain:
\[cor:central support\] For any $z$ in $Z$, the space of central elements of $H(G,K_{\overline{P}},\tau_{\overline{P}})$ supported on the union of double cosets of the form $K_{\overline{P}} w z w' K_{\overline{P}}$ with $w,w'$ in $W_{\overline{M}}(s)$ is one-dimensional. Moreover, the sum of these spaces as $z$ varies is the entire center of $H(G,K_{\overline{P}},\tau_{\overline{P}})$.
\[thm:generic hecke\] The map: $$\overline{\CK}[Z]^{W_{\overline{M}}(s)} = Z(H(G,K_{\overline{P}},\tau_{\overline{P}})) \rightarrow
H(G,K,\tkappa \otimes \St_s)$$ is an isomorphism.
We have already shown that this map is injective; in light of the previous lemma it thus suffices to show that for $z$ in $Z$, the space of central elements of $H(G,K, \tkappa \otimes I_s)$ (or equivalently, $H(G,K_{\overline{P}},\tau_{\overline{P}})$) supported on a double coset $K z K$ has dimension equal to the cardinality of $W(\overline{M}_z) \backslash W(\overline{M},\overline{M}_z)/W_{\overline{M}}(s)$.
The support-preserving isomorphism of $H(G,K_{\overline{P}},\tau_{\overline{P}})$ with the tensor product of the spaces $H(m_j,q^f)$ shows that, for $z$ in $Z$, there is a one-dimensional subspace of $Z(H(G,K_{\overline{P}},\tau_{\overline{P}}))$ supported on double cosets $K_{\overline{P}} w z w' K_{\overline{P}}$, for $w,w'$ in $W_{\overline{M}}(s)$. If $z$ and $z'$ lie in $Z$, the collection of double cosets $\{ K_{\overline{P}} w z w' K_{\overline{P}} \}$ coincides with the collection $\{ K_{\overline{P}} w z' w' K_{\overline{P}} \}$ if, and only if, $z = w z' w^{-1}$ for some $w$ in $W_{\overline{M}}(s)$.
The central elements of $H(G,K_{\overline{P}},\tau_{\overline{P}})$ supported on $K z K$ are the (direct) sum of those supported on the collections $\{K_{\overline{P}} w z' w' K_{\overline{P}} \}$ for those $z'$ in $Z$ such that $K z K = K z' K$.
Let $z$ and $z'$ lie in $Z$, and suppose that $KzK = Kz'K$. Then there exists an element $w'$ of $W(\GL_{\frac{n}{ef}}(E)) = W(\overline{G})$ such that $z' = (w')^{-1}zw'$. As both $z$ and $z'$ lie in $Z$, the group $\overline{M}$ is contained in both $\overline{M}_z$ and $\overline{M}_{z'}$. We have $\overline{M}_{z'} = (w')^{-1} \overline{M}_z w'$, and thus it follows that $w' \overline{M} (w')^{-1}$ is contained in $\overline{M}_z$. In particular $w'$ lies in $W(\overline{M},\overline{M}_z)$. Note that $w'$ is determined by $z$ and $z'$ up to left multiplication by an element of $W(\overline{M}_z)$.
It follows that the distinct collections of cosets $\{K_{\overline{P}} w z' w' K_{\overline{P}} \}$ for $z'$ such that $K z K = K z' K$ are in bijection with $W(\overline{M}_z) \backslash W(\overline{M},\overline{M}_z) /W_{\overline{M}}(s),$ and each such collection contributes a one-dimensional space to the subspace of $Z(H(G,K_{\overline{P}},\tau_{\overline{P}}))$ supported on $K z K$. The result follows.
Structure of $\End_G(\CP_{K,\tau})$ {#sec:endomorphisms}
===================================
Our next step will be to understand the endomorphism ring $\End_{W(k)[G]}(\CP_{K,\tau}) = H(G,K,\CP_{\kappa \otimes \sigma})$.
To simplify notation, let $E_{\sigma}$ be the ring $\End_{W(k)[K]}(\CP_{\sigma})$, and let $E_{K,\tau}$ be the ring $\End_{W(k)[G]}(\CP_{K,\tau})$. By Proposition \[prop:endomorphisms\], $E_{\sigma}$ is a reduced commutative $W(k)$-algebra that is free of finite rank over $W(k)$.
Fix a finite extension $\CK'$ of $\CK$ sufficiently large that every map $E_{\sigma} \rightarrow \overline{\CK}$ factors through $\CK'$. We then have a decomposition $$\CP_{\sigma} \otimes \CK' \cong \bigoplus_{s: s^{\reg} = s'} \St_s,$$ where $s'$ is the $\ell$-regular semisimple element of $\overline{G}$ corresponding to the representation $\sigma$. This yields a decomposition: $$\CP_{K,\tau} \otimes \CK' = \bigoplus_{s: s^{\reg} = s'} \cInd_K^G \tkappa \otimes \St_s.$$
\[prop:P intertwining\] Let $g$ be an element of $G$ that intertwines $\CP_{K,\tau}$. Then $g$ lies in $K \GL_{\frac{n}{ef}}(E) K$, and we have a direct sum decomposition: $$I_g(\CP_{K,\tau}) \otimes \CK' = \bigoplus_{s: s^{\reg} = s'} I_g(\tkappa \otimes \St_s).$$ Moreover, if $g$ lies in $\GL_{\frac{n}{ef}}$ and is $\overline{M}_g$-central, then there is a natural isomorphism: $$I_g(\CP_{K,\tau}) \cong I_g(\tkappa) \otimes \End_{W(k)[\overline{M}_g]}(r_{\overline{G}}^{\overline{P}_g} \CP_{\sigma}).$$
Every statement other than the decomposition is a direct consequence of Lemma \[lemma:xi-intertwining\]. As for the direct sum decomposition, the decomposition: $$P_{\sigma} \otimes \CK' = \bigoplus_{s: s^{\reg} = s'} \St_s,$$ yields a decomposition $$r_{\overline{G}}^{\overline{P}} \CP_{\sigma} \otimes \CK' = \bigoplus_{s: s^{\reg} = s'} r_{\overline{G}}^{\overline{P}} \St_s.$$ From Proposition \[prop:steinberg restriction\] we see that no two irreducible summands of the right hand side are isomorphic to each other, so any endomorphism of the right hand side preserves each of the summands. We thus have a decomposition: $$\End_{W(k)[\overline{M}_g]}(r_{\overline{G}}^{\overline{P}_g} \CP_{\sigma}) = \bigoplus_{s: s^{\reg} = s'}
\End_{W(k)[\overline{M}_g]}(r_{\overline{G}}^{\overline{P}_g} \St_s).$$ Tensoring both sides with $I_g(\tkappa)$ yields the desired result.
\[cor:s decomposition\] The action of $E_{K,\tau} \otimes \CK'$ on the direct sum decomposition $$\CP_{K,\tau} \otimes \CK' = \bigoplus_{s: s^{\reg} = s'} \cInd_K^G \tkappa \otimes \St_s$$ preserves each summand, and thus yields an isomorphism: $$E_{K,\tau} \otimes \overline{\CK} \cong \prod_{s: s^{\reg} = s'} H(G,K,\tkappa \otimes \St_s).$$ In particular $E_{K,\tau}$ is reduced, commutative, and $\ell$-torsion free.
The direct sum decomposition follows immediately from Proposition \[prop:P intertwining\] by summing over the elements supported on $K g K$ for each $g$. The embedding follows from the absence of $\ell$-torsion in $E_{K,\tau}$ (which is immediate from the fact that $\CP_{K,\tau}$ is projective.) Reducedness and commutativity of $E_{K,\tau}$ then follow from the corresponding results for $H(G,K,\tkappa \otimes \St_s)$.
In what follows, it will be necessary to understand families of cuspidal representations of $\GL_i(F)$ for various $i$, all of which have supercuspidal support inertially equivalent to some power of a fixed supercuspidal representation over $k$. Fix an integer $n_1$, and let $(K_1,\tau_1)$ be a maximal distinguished [*supercuspidal*]{} $k$-type for $\GL_{n_1}(F)$. We have $\tau_1 = \kappa_1 \otimes \sigma_1$, where $\sigma_1$ is the supercuspidal representation of $\GL_{\frac{n_1}{ef}}(\FF_{q^f})$ attached to an $\ell$-regular element $s'_1$ of $\GL_{\frac{n_1}{ef}}(\FF_{q^f})$ with irreducible characteristic polynomial.
Recall that $e_{q^f}$ is the order of $q^f$ modulo $\ell$, and let $m$ lie in $\{1, e_{q^f}, \ell e_{q^f}, \ell^2 e_{q^f}, \dots \}$. For precisely such $m$, the generic representation $\sigma_m$ of $\GL_{\frac{n_0m}{ef}}(\FF_{q^f})$ corresponding to a block matrix consisting of $m$ copies of $s'_1$ is cuspidal.
For such $m$ we may also define a representation $\kappa_m$ of a suitable compact open subgroup of $\GL_{n_1m}(F)$. The data giving rise to the type $(K_1,\tau_1)$ consist of an extension $E$ of $F$ of ramification index $e$ and residue class degree $f$, a stratum $[{\mathfrak A_1}, n, 0, \beta]$, with $E = F[\beta]$, and a character $\theta$ in ${\mathcal C}({\mathfrak A_1}, 0, \beta)$. Then $\theta$ gives rise to an endo-equivalence class $(\Theta, 0, \beta)$. Let ${\mathfrak A}_m$ be the maximal order $M_m({\mathfrak A}_1)$ of $M_{n_1m}(F)$; then the endo-class $(\Theta, 0, \beta)$ gives rise to a compact open subgroup $K_m$ of $\GL_{n_1m}(F)$ and a representation $\kappa_m$ of $K_m$. Let $\tau_m = \kappa_m \otimes \sigma_m$; then $(K_m,\kappa_m)$ is a maximal distinguished cuspidal $k$-type in $\GL_{n_1m}(F)$. (Note that $\kappa_m$ is only well-defined up to certain twists; we will pin these twists down precisely later on.)
Moreover, if $\pi_1$ is an irreducible representation of $\GL_{n_1}(F)$ containing $(K_1,\tau_1)$, then for any $m$, and any irreducible representation $\pi$ of $\GL_{n_1m}(F)$ containing $(K_m,\tau_m)$, the inertial supercuspidal support of $\pi$ is given by $\pi_1^{\otimes m}$. Conversely, if $\pi$ is any irreducible cuspidal representation of $\GL_{n_1m}(F)$ with inertial supercuspidal support $\pi_1^{\otimes m}$, then $m$ lies in the set $\{1, e_{q^f}, \ell e_{q^f}, \dots \}$, and $\pi$ contains $(K_m,\tau_m)$. (This follows from the theory of Zelevinski parameters in [@vig98], section V).
We now define a partial order $\preceq$ on the collection of all irreducible cuspidal $k$-representations of $\GL_i(F)$ (for all $i$). Let $\pi$ be an irreducible cuspidal representation of $\GL_{ij}(F)$ over $k$, and let $\pi'$ be an irreducible cuspidal $k$-representation of $\GL_i(F)$. We say that $\pi' \preceq \pi$ if there exists a parabolic subgroup $P = MU$ of $GL_{ij}(F)$, and an irreducible cuspidal representation $\pi'_M$ of $M$ that is inertially equivalent to $(\pi')^{\otimes j}$, such that $\pi$ is isomorphic to a Jordan-Hölder constituent of $i_P^G \pi'_M$. Note that if $\pi' \preceq \pi$, then the inertial supercuspidal supports of $\pi'$ and $\pi$ are given by (different) tensor powers of the same supercuspidal representation. In particular, if $\pi$ contains $(K_m,\tau_m)$, and $\pi'$ is any cuspidal representation comparabile to $\pi$, then $\pi'$ contains $(K_{m'},\tau_{m'})$ for some $m'$. Moreover, it will follow from later work (particularly, Theorem \[thm:projective G cover\] below) that in this case $\pi' \preceq \pi$ if, and only if, $m' \leq m$. We will say that $\pi'$ (resp. $m'$) [*immediately precedes*]{} $\pi$ (resp. $m$) if $m' < m$, and there are no elements of $\{1, e_{q^f}, \ell e_{q^f}, \dots \}$ strictly between $m'$ and $m$.
For each $m$, let $G_m$ be the group $\GL_{n_1m}(F)$ and let $\overline{G}_m$ be the group $\GL_{\frac{n_1m}{ef}}(\FF_{q^f})$. Our next goal is to give a set of isomorphisms of $H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes \St_s)$ with appropriate rings of invariants that is normalized across all the types $(K_m,\tau_m)$ in a systematic way. For each semisimple conjugacy class $s$ in $\overline{G}_m$ with $\ell$-regular part $(s'_1)^m$, let $\overline{M}_s$ be the minimal split Levi subgroup of $\overline{G}_m$ containing $s$; let $M_s$ be the corresponding Levi of $G_m$, and let $Z_s$ be the subgroup of the center of $M_s \cap \GL_{\frac{n_1m}{ef}}(E)$ consisting of diagonal matrices whose entries are powers of $\unif_E$. For $i = 1, \dots, m$, we have elements $\theta_{i,s}$ of $W(k)[Z_s]^{W_{\overline{M}_s}(s)}$, defined by taking $\theta_{i,s}$ to be the sum of the elements of $Z_s$ whose characteristic polynomial (as an element of $\GL_{\frac{n_1m}{ef}}(E)$) has the form $(t - \unif_E)^{\frac{n_1i}{ef}}(t-1)^{\frac{n_1(m-i)}{ef}}$. Note that $\theta_{m,s}$ is invertible.
Of particular interest to us will be the subgroups corresponding to $s = (s'_1)^m$; we denote these by $\overline{M}_{0,m}$, $M_{0,m}$, and $Z_{0,m}$. For $i$ between $1$ and $m$, let $z_{i,m}$ be an element of $Z_{0,m}$ with characteristic polynomial $(t - \unif_E)^{\frac{n_1i}{ef}}(t-1)^{\frac{n_1(m-i)}{ef}}$.
Fix, once and for all, an absolutely irreducible integral supercuspidal representation $\pi_{s'_1}$ of $\GL_{n_1}(F)$ containing $(K_1, \tkappa_1 \otimes \St_{s'_1})$. Our first goal is to construct, for each $m \in \{1,e_{q^f},\ell e_{q^f}, \dots \}$, and each irreducible conjugacy class $s$ in $\overline{G}_m$ such that $s^{\reg} = (s'_1)^m$, an absolutely irreducible cuspidal representation $\pi_s$ of $\GL_{n_1m}(F)$ containing $(K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes \St_s)$.
We proceed as follows: note that $(K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes \St_s)$ is a maximal distinguished cuspidal $\overline{\CK}$-type. In particular $H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes \St_s)$ is isomorphic to $\overline{\CK}[\Theta^{\pm 1}]$, where $\Theta$ is an element of $H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes \St_s)$ supported on $K_m z_{m,m} K_m$. We have an isomorphism: $$H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes \St_s)_{K_m z_{m,m} K_m} \cong I_{z_{m,m}}(\tkappa_m) \otimes \End_{\overline{\CK}[\overline{G}_m]}(\St_s).$$
We also have an isomorphism: $$H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes \St_{(s'_1)^m})_{K_m z_{m,m} K_m} \cong I_{z_{m,m}}(\tkappa_m) \otimes \End_{\overline{\CK}[\overline{G}_m]}(\St_{(s'_1)^m}).$$ Let $\pi_{(s'_1)^m}$ be the cuspidal representation $\pi_{s'_1}^{\otimes m}$ of $M_{(s'_1)^m}$. Such a choice gives an isomorphism of $H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes \St_{(s'_1)^m})$ with $\overline{\CK}[Z_{0,m}]^{W_{\overline{M}_{0,m}}((s_1')^m)}$; the element $z_{m,m}$ of $\overline{\CK}[Z_{0,m}]$ maps to an element of $H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes \St_{(s'_1)^m})_{K_m z_{m,m} K_m}$. This element has the form $\phi \otimes 1$ for some $\phi \in I_{z_{m,m}}(\tkappa_m)$, where we regard $1$ as the identity endomorphism of $\St_{(s'_1)^m}$.
We may then consider the element $\phi \otimes 1$ of $I_{z_{m,m}}(\tkappa) \otimes \End_{\overline{\CK}[\overline{G}_m]}(\St_s)$. This gives us an element $\Theta$ of $H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa \otimes \St_s)_{K_m z_{m,m} K_m}$. There is then a unique irreducble cuspidal representation $\pi_s$ of $G_m$ over $\overline{\CK}$ that contains $(K_m,\tkappa \otimes \St_s)$, on which $\Theta$ acts via the identity. Note that $\pi_s$ is integral.
We will refer to the family of cuspidal representations $\pi_s$ as the [*compatible family of cuspidals*]{} attached to our choice of $\pi_{s'_1}$. The dependence on the choice of $\pi_{(s'_1)}$ is mild; indeed, replacing $\pi_{(s'_1)}$ by an unramified twist $\pi_{(s'_1)} \otimes (\chi \circ \det)$ simply twists each $\pi_s$ by $\chi \circ \det$ as well.
For each $m$, and each [reducible]{} conjugacy class $s$ in $\overline{G}_m$, we define an irreducible cuspidal representation $\pi_s$ of $M_s$, by taking $\pi_s$ to be the tensor product of the cuspidal representations $\pi_{s_i}$ defined above, where the $s_i$ are the irreducible factors of $s$.
Our next goal is to construct elements of $E_{K_m,\tau_m}$ whose action on each summand of $\CP_{K_m,\tau_m} \otimes \overline{\CK}$ can be understood explicitly. We will show:
\[thm:compatibility\] For each $m$, there exists a subalgebra $C_{K_m,\tau_m}$ of $E_{K_m,\tau_m}$, generated over $W(k)$ by elements $\Theta_{1,m}, \dots, \Theta_{m,m}$ and $(\Theta_{m,m})^{-1}$, such that for any $s$ with $s^{\reg} = (s'_1)^m$, the composed map: $$C_{K_m,\tau_m} \rightarrow A_{M_s,\pi_s} \cong \overline{\CK}[Z_s]^{W_{\overline{M}_s}(s)}$$ takes $\Theta_{i,m}$ to $\theta_{i,s}$. (Here the left-hand map is the map giving the action of $E_{K_m,\tau_m}$ on the summand $(\CP_{K_m,\tau_m} \otimes \overline{\CK})_{M_s,\pi_s}$ of $\CP_{K_m,\tau_m} \otimes \overline{\CK}$, and the right-hand isomorphism is normalized by the choice of pair $(M_s,\pi_s)$.)
Note that this property characterizes the $\Theta_{i,m}$ uniquely. We will construct the $\Theta_{i,m}$ via an inductive argument. The case $m=1$ is easy: we have an isomorphism $$H(G_1,K_1,\tkappa_1 \otimes \CP_{\sigma_1})_{K_1 z_{1,1} K_1} \cong I_{z_{1,1}}(\tkappa_1) \otimes \End_{W(k)[\overline{G}_1]}(\CP_{\sigma_1}).$$ We define $\Theta_{1,1}$ to be the unique element of the form $\phi \otimes 1$, for some $\phi$ in $I_{z_{1,1}}(\tkappa_1)$, that acts on the quotient $\pi_{(s'_1)}$ of $\CP_{K_1,\tau_1} \otimes \overline{\CK}$ via the identity. It is clear from our construction of the $\pi_s$ that this $\Theta_{1,1}$ has the desired property.
We now turn to the inductive part of the argument. This will proceed via a $G$-cover argument, along the lines of the construction in section \[sec:generic\]. Let $m'$ immediately precede $m$, and set $j = \frac{m}{m'}$. Let $V_{m'}$ be the $F$-vector space on which $G_{m'}$ acts, and identify $V_m$ with the direct sum of $j$ copies $V_{m',1}, \dots, V_{m',j}$ of $V_{m'}$. Let $M$ be the Levi subgroup of $G_m$ preserving this direct sum decomposition, and let $P$ be the parabolic preserving the flag $$V_{m',1} \subset V_{m',1} + V_{m',2} \subset \dots \subset V_{m',1} + \dots + V_{m',j}.$$ The groups $P = MU$ give rise to subgroups $\overline{P} = \overline{M}\overline{U}$ of $\overline{G}_m$ in the usual way.
We have maximal orders ${\mathfrak A}_m$ of $G_m$ and ${\mathfrak A}_{m'}$ of $G_{m'}$ attached to the types $(K_m,\tau_m)$ and $(K_{m'},\tau_{m'})$. The procedure of [@BK-semisimple], 7.2 also yields an order ${\mathfrak A}'_m$ contained in ${\mathfrak A}_m$ attached to the flag defined above. Set $K'_m = J(\beta,{\mathfrak A}'_m),$ let $K''_m$ be the subgroup $(J(\beta,{\mathfrak A}'_m) \cap P)H^1(\beta,{\mathfrak A}'_m)$ of $K'_m$, and let $K_{m,\overline{P}}$ be the preimage of $\overline{P}$ in $K_m$ under the map from $K_m$ to $\overline{G}_m$. Then, just as in section \[sec:generic\] we have representations $\tkappa'_m$ of $K'_m$, $\tkappa''_m$ of $K''_m$, and $\tkappa_{m,\overline{P}}$ of $K_{m,\overline{P}}$, satisfying: $$\tkappa'_{m,\overline{P}} = (\tkappa'_m)|_{K_{m,\overline{P}}}$$ $$\Ind_{K''_m}^{K'_m} \tkappa''_m \cong \tkappa'_m$$ $$\Ind_{K_{m,\overline{P}}}^{({\mathfrak A}')^{\times}} \tkappa'_{m,\overline{P}} \cong \Ind_{K'_m}^{({\mathfrak A}')^{\times}} \tkappa'_m.$$
Moreover, the intersection $K_M$ of $K''_m$ with $M$ is (under the identification of $M$ with a product of $j$ copies of $G_{m'}$) equal to the product of $j$ copies of $K_{m'}$. The restriction $\tkappa_M$ of $\tkappa''_m$ to $K_M$ factors as a product of $j$ copies of a representation $\tkappa'_{m'}$ containing a character attached to ${\mathfrak A}_m$ via the endo-class $(\Theta,0,\beta)$. Thus $\tkappa'_{m'}$ differs from $\tkappa_{m'}$ by a twist; since the $\tkappa_{m'}$ were only defined up to twist to begin with we can choose them such that all these twists are trivial. (This, finally, pins down $\tkappa_{m}$, for all $m$, up to a choice of $\tkappa_1$.)
Finally, let $\CP_{\overline{M}}$ denote the inflation of $\CP_{\sigma_{m'}}^{\otimes j}$ from $\overline{M}$ to a representation of $K_M$, and also (somewhat abusively) the inflation of $\CP_{\sigma_{m'}}^{\otimes j}$ to a representation of $K''_m$ (via the surjection of $K''_m$ onto $\overline{P}$.)
Exactly as in section \[sec:generic\], we obtain isomorphisms: $$\cInd_{K''_m}^{G_m} \tkappa''_m \otimes \CP_{\overline{M}} \cong \cInd_{K_{m,\overline{P}}}^{G_m} \tkappa_{m,\overline{P}} \otimes \CP_{\overline{M}}
\cong \cInd_{K_m}^{G_m} \tkappa_m \otimes i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}_m} \CP_{\overline{M}}$$ $$H(G,K''_m,\tkappa''_m \otimes \CP_{\overline{M}}) \cong H(G_m,K_{m,\overline{P}},\tkappa_{m,\overline{P}} \otimes \CP_{\overline{M}})
\cong H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}} \CP_{\overline{M}}).$$ Moreover, the discussion in section \[sec:generic\] following Theorem \[thm:type cover\] shows that these maps are compatible with supports.
\[thm:projective G cover\] The pair $(K''_m,\tkappa''_m \otimes \CP_{\overline{M}})$ is a $G$-cover of $(K_M,\tkappa_M \otimes \CP_{\overline{M}})$.
The only non-obvious condition that must be satisfied is the existence of a strictly positive central element $\lambda$ of $M$ such that the image of $1_{K_M \lambda K_M}$ under $T^+$ is invertible in $H(G_m,K''_m,\tkappa''_m \otimes \CP_{\overline{M}})$. In fact, a weaker condition suffices. Suppose we have an invertible element $x$ of $H(M,K_M,\tkappa_M \otimes \CP_{\overline{M}})$ that corresponds under the isomorphism: $$H(M,K_M,\tkappa_M \otimes \CP_{\overline{M}}) \cong E_{K_{m'},\tau_{m'}}^{\otimes j}$$ of the form $\otimes_i x_i$, where for each $i$, $x_i$ is an invertible element of $E_{K_{m'},\tau_{m'}}$ supported on $K_{m'} z_{m,m}^{r_i} K_{m'}$, and the $r_i$ form a decreasing sequence of integers. Then $x$ has strictly positive support. It is easy to see that if $T^+x$ is invertible, then so is $T^+ 1_{K_M \lambda K_M}$: for some $r$, $x^r 1_{K_M \lambda^{-1} K_M}$ has positive support, and then $$(T^+ 1_{K_M \lambda K_M}) (T^+ x^r 1_{K_M \lambda^{-1} K_M}) = T^+ x^r,$$ and the latter is invertible. We will show the existence of such an $x$ in several steps.
\[prop:projective G cover\] The pair $(K''_m,\tkappa''_m \otimes \CP_{\overline{M}} \otimes \CK)$ is a $G$-cover of $(K_M,\tkappa_M \otimes \CP_{\overline{M}} \otimes \CK)$.
It suffices to show this after tensoring with $\overline{\CK}$, since $\overline{\CK}$ is faithfully flat over $\CK$. To do this we will use the direct sum decomposition of $\CP_{\overline{M}}$. Let $s_1, \dots, s_j$ be a sequence such that for all $i$, $s_i^{\reg} = (s'_1)^{m'}$. Then $\St_{s_i}$ is a direct summand of $\CP_{\sigma_{m'}} \otimes \overline{\CK}$ for all $i$, and it suffices to show that for each such sequence, the pair $(K''_m,\tkappa''_m \otimes \bigotimes_i \St_{s_i})$ is a $G$-cover of $(K_M,\tkappa_M \otimes \bigotimes_i \St_{s_i})$. We will reduce this claim to results from section \[sec:generic\].
For each $s_j$, let $\overline{M}_{s_j}$ and $M_{s_j}$ be the Levi subgroups of $\overline{G}_{m'}$ and $G_{m'}$ attached to the type $(K_{m'},\tau_{m'})$ and the conjugacy class $s_j$ via the construction of section \[sec:generic\]. We then have a cuspidal distinguished $M_{s_j}$-type $(K_{M_{s_j}},\tkappa_{M_{s_j}} \otimes \St_{\overline{M}_{s_j},s_j})$, and the results of section \[sec:generic\] give rise to a map: $$T_{s_j}: H(M_{s_j},K_{M_{s_j}},\tkappa_{M_{s_j}} \otimes \St_{\overline{M}_{s_j},s_j}) \rightarrow
H(G_{m'},K_{m'},\tkappa_{m'} \otimes i_{\overline{P}_{s_j}}^{\overline{G}_m} \St_{\overline{M}_{s_j},s_j})$$ for each $j$.
Similarly, let $s$ represent the conjugacy class in $\overline{G}_m$ given by the block matrix with blocks $s_1, \dots, s_j$. Then the construction of section \[sec:generic\] yields a map: $$T_s: H(M_s,K_{M_s},\tkappa_{M_s} \otimes \St_{\overline{M}_s,s}) \rightarrow
H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes i_{\overline{P}_s}^{\overline{G}_m} \St_{\overline{M}_s,s}).$$ Note that we have a decomposition: $$H(M_s,K_{M_s},\tkappa_{M_s} \otimes \St_{\overline{M}_s,s}) \cong
\bigotimes_j H(M_{s_j},K_{M_{s_j}},\tkappa_{M_{s_j}} \otimes \St_{\overline{M}_{s_j},s_j}).$$
Let $r_1, \dots, r_j$ be a decreasing sequence of integers, and, for each $i$, let $x_i$ be an invertible element of $H(M_{s_i},K_{M_{s_i}},\tkappa_{M_{s_i}} \otimes \St_{\overline{M}_{s_i},s_i})$ supported on $K_{M_{s_i}} z_{m',m'}^{r_i} K_{M_{s_i}}$. The image of each $x_i$ in $H(G_{m'},K_{m'},\tkappa_{m'} \otimes i_{\overline{P}_{s_i}}^{\overline{G}_m} \St_{\overline{M}_{s_i},s_i})$ is central and thus yields an element of $H(G_{m'},K_{m'},\tkappa_{m'} \otimes \St_{s_i})$ via the map $$i_{\overline{P}_{s_i}}^{\overline{G}_m} \St_{\overline{M}_{s_i},s_i} \rightarrow \St_{s_i}.$$
Let $x$ be the tensor product, over $i$, of the elements $x_i$. The above maps allow us to consider $x$ as an element of the summand $\otimes_i H(G_{m'},K_{m'},\tkappa_{m'} \otimes \St_{s_i})$ of $E_{K_{m'},\tau_{m'}}^{\otimes j}$. When considered in this way $x$ has strictly positive support. It thus suffices to show that $T^+x$ is invertible in the summand the summand $H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes \St_s)$ of $E_{K_m,\tau_m} \otimes \overline{\CK}$.
On the other hand, $T_s x$ acts on $\cInd_{K_m}^{G_m} \tkappa_m \otimes i_{\overline{P}_s}^{\overline{G}_m} \St_{\overline{M}_s,s}$, and preserves the summand $\cInd_{K_m}^{G_m} \tkappa_m \otimes \St_s$. The action of $T_s x$ on this summand coincides with that of $T^+ x$. As $x$ is invertible and $T_s$ is an algebra homomorphism, it follows that $T^+ x$ is invertible as required.
As a consequence, we obtain an embedding: $$T: E_{K_{m'},\tau_{m'}}^{\otimes j} \hookrightarrow H(G_m,K''_m,\tkappa''_m \otimes \CP_{\overline{M}}) \otimes \CK.$$
Next, note that $\St_{\overline{M},(s'_1)^m}$ is a direct summand of $\CP_{\overline{M}} \otimes \CK$, so we obtain a projection map of $\CP_{\overline{M}} \otimes \CK$ onto $\St_{\overline{M},(s'_1)^m}$. Let $L'$ be the image of $\CP_{\overline{M}}$ in $\St_{\overline{M},(s'_1)^{m}}$.
\[prop:mod ell G cover\] The pair $(K''_m,\tkappa''_m \otimes L')$ is a $G$-cover of $(K_M,\tkappa_M \otimes L')$. In particular any central unit of $H(M,K_M,\tkappa_M \otimes L')$ with totally positive support lifts to an invertible element of $H(G,K''_m,\tkappa''_m \otimes L')$.
This argument follows a similar approach to that of Proposition \[prop:projective G cover\]. The representation $\St_{\overline{M}_{0,m}, (s'_1)^m}$ is absolutely irreducible and cuspidal; in particular its reduction mod $\ell$ is absolutely irreducible. There is thus a unique $\overline{M}_{0,m}$-stable lattice $L_0$ in $\St_{\overline{M}_{0,m}, (s'_1)^m}$ up to homothety.
The construction of section \[sec:generic\] gives a maximal distinguished cuspidal $M_{0,m}$-type $(K_{M_0}, \tau_{M_0})$, with $\tau_{M_0} = \kappa_{M_0} \otimes \St_{\overline{M}_0,(s'_1)^m}$, and an $M$-type $(K''_M,\tau''_M)$ with $\tau''_M = \tkappa''_M \otimes \St_{\overline{M}_0, (s'_1)^m}$, that is an $M$-cover of $(K_{M_0},\tau_{M_0})$. Vigneras [@vig98] shows that in this situation, the pair $(K''_M,\tkappa''_M \otimes L_0)$ is an $M$-cover of $(K_{M_0},\tkappa_{M_0} \otimes L_0)$. (This follows from [@vig98], IV.2.5 and IV.2.6).
Moreover, we have an isomorphism: $$H(M,K''_M,\tkappa''_M \otimes L_0) \cong H(M,K_M,\tkappa_M \otimes i_{\overline{P}_0}^{\overline{M}} L_0).$$ (Here $\overline{P}_0$ is a parabolic in $\overline{M}$ with Levi subgroup $\overline{M}_0$.) These Hecke algebras are each $j$-fold tensor products of (integral) Iwahori Hecke algebras $H(m',q^f)$.
Note that $r_{\overline{M}}^{\overline{P}_0} L'$ is a lattice in $\St_{\overline{M}_0,(s_1')^m}$ and is thus isomorphic to $L_0$. This isomorphism yields a map $$i_{\overline{P}_0}^{\overline{M}} L_0 \rightarrow L'$$ whose image is a sublattice $L$ of $L'$. After inverting $\ell$, $L$ becomes a direct summand of $i_{\overline{P}_0}^{\overline{M}} L_0$, and therefore any central element of $H(M,K_M,\tkappa_M \otimes i_{\overline{P}_0}^{\overline{M}} L_0)$ preserves the kernel of the surjection: $$\cInd_{K_M}^M \tkappa_M \otimes i_{\overline{P}_0}^{\overline{M}} L_0 \rightarrow \cInd_{K_M}^M \tkappa_m \otimes L,$$ and thus descends to an element of $H(M,K_M,\tkappa_M \otimes L)$.
We now compare $H(M,K_M,\tkappa_M \otimes L)$ and $H(M,K_M,\tkappa_M \otimes L')$. Note that for any $g \in M$ that intertwines $\tkappa_M$, both $\End_{W(k)[\overline{M}_g]}(r_{\overline{M}}^{\overline{P}_g} L)$ and $\End_{W(k)[\overline{M}_g]}(r_{\overline{M}}^{\overline{P}_g} L')$ are free of rank one over $W(k)$. It follows that any element of $I_g(\tkappa \otimes L')$ also intertwines $\tkappa \otimes L$, and vice versa. We thus have an isomorphism of $H(M,K_M,\tkappa_M \otimes L)$ and $H(M,K_M,\tkappa_M \otimes L')$ induced by the inclusion of $L$ in $L'$.
Let $g$ be an element of $M_{0,m}$ that is central in $M$ and strictly positive with respect to $P$. Fix a nonzero element $x$ of $H(M_{0,m},K_{M_0},\tkappa_{M_0} \otimes L_0)$ supported on $K_{M_0} g K_{M_0}$; then $x$ is invertible, and so are the images of $x$ in $H(M,K''_M,\tkappa''_M \otimes L_0)$ and $H(M,K_M,\tkappa_M \otimes L')$. It suffices to show that $x$ maps to an invertible element of $H(G_m,K''_m,\tkappa''_m \otimes L')$.
To do so we invoke Vigneras’ $G$-cover result again, this time relative to $G_m$ rather than $M$. Explicitly, there is a $G_m$-type $(K'''_m,\tau'''_m := \tkappa'''_m \otimes L_0)$ that is a $G_m$-cover of $(K_{M_0},\tkappa_{M_0} \otimes L_0)$, and $H(G_m,K'''_m,\tkappa'''_m \otimes L_0)$ is isomorphic to $H(m,q^f)$. Moreover, as $\tkappa'''_m$ and $\tkappa''_m$ arise from the same endo-class, we have an isomorphism: $$H(G_m,K'''_m,\tkappa'''_m \otimes L_0) \cong H(G_m,K''_m,\tkappa''_m \otimes i_{\overline{P}_{0,m}}^{\overline{M}} L_0).$$
The image of $x$ in $H(G_m,K''_m,\tkappa''_m \otimes i_{\overline{P}_{0,m}}^{\overline{M}} L_0)$ preserves $[\cInd_{K''_m}^{G_m} \tkappa''_m \otimes L] \otimes \CK$ as a summand of $[\cInd{K''_m}^{G_m} (\tkappa''_m \otimes i_{\overline{P}_{0,m}}^{\overline{M}} L_0)] \otimes \CK,$ and thus preserves the kernel of the surjection $$\cInd_{K''_m}^{G_m} \tkappa''_m \otimes (i_{\overline{P}_{0,m}}^{\overline{M}} L_0)\rightarrow
\cInd_{K''_m}^{G_m} \tkappa''_m \otimes L.$$ In particular the image of $x$ is a unit in the latter. On the other hand, as when we were working over $M$, there is an isomorphism of $H(G_m,K''_m,\tkappa''_m \otimes L)$ with $H(G_m,K''_m,\tkappa''_m \otimes L')$. It follows that the image of $x$ in $H(G_m,K''_,\tkappa''_m \otimes L')$ is a unit, but this coincides with $T^+$ applied to the image of $x$ in $H(M,K_M,\tkappa_M \otimes L')$.
We have an isomorphism of $H(G_m,K''_m,\tkappa''_m \otimes \CP_{\overline{M}})$ with $H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}_m} \CP_{\overline{M}})$, and the center of the block of $\Rep_{W(k)}(\overline{G}_m)$ containing $i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}_m} \CP_{\overline{M}}$ is isomorphic to $E_{\sigma_m}$. Thus $E_{\sigma_m}$ is naturally a central subalgebra of $H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}_m} \CP_{\overline{M}})$. Let $I$ be the annihilator of $i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}_m} L'$ in $E_{\sigma_m}$. Then we have an isomorphism: $$[i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}_m} \CP_{\overline{M}} ] \otimes_{E_{\sigma_m}} E_{\sigma_m}/I
\cong i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}_m} L'.$$ This gives rise to an isomorphism: $$H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}_m} \CP_{\overline{M}}) \otimes_{E_{\sigma_m}} E_{\sigma_m}/I
\cong H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}_m} L').$$
Theorem \[thm:projective G cover\] is now straightforward. Let $x$ be an invertible element of $E_{K_{m'},\tau_{m'}}^{\otimes j}$ with strictly positive support. Then $T^+ x$ is an element of $H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}_m} \CP_{\overline{M}})$ that is invertible after inverting $\ell$ by Proposition \[prop:projective G cover\], and is invertible modulo $I$ by Proposition \[prop:mod ell G cover\]. It suffices to show that $T^+x$ is a unit, and this follows from:
Let $E$ be a finite rank commutative local $W(k)$-algebra, with maximal ideal $m_E$, and let $R$ be a finitely generated non-commutative central $E$-algebra. Let $x$ be an element of $R$ such that $x$ is invertible in $R[\frac{1}{\ell}]$ and $R/m_E R$. Then $x$ is a unit.
The left ideal $R[\frac{1}{\ell}] x$ of $R[\frac{1}{\ell}]$ is the unit ideal, so the left ideal $R x$ contains $\ell^a$ for some $a$. On the other hand, $x$ is a unit in $R/m_E R$, so the ideal $R x$ contains an element congruent to $1$ modulo $m_E R$. But then $R x$ contains elements congruent to $1$ modulo $m_E^b R$ for all positive integers $b$. Since for $b$ sufficiently large, $m_E^b$ is contained in the ideal of $E$ generated by $\ell^a$, it follows that $R x$ contains an element of $1 + \ell^a R$, and hence that $R x$ is the unit ideal.
We have thus completed the proof of Theorem \[thm:projective G cover\]. The upshot is that we obtain a map: $$E_{K_{m'},\tau_{m'}}^{\otimes j} \rightarrow H(G_m,K''_m,\tkappa''_m \otimes \CP_{\overline{M}}) \cong
H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}} \CP_{\overline{M}}).$$ Our next step is to relate the latter to $H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes \CP_{\sigma_m})$. By Proposition \[prop:projective restriction\] we may fix an isomorphism of $r_{\overline{G}}^{\overline{P}} \CP_{\sigma_m}$ with $\CP_{\overline{M}}$. Frobenius reciprocity then gives us a map $$i_{\overline{G}}^{\overline{P}} \CP_{\overline{M}} \rightarrow \CP_{\sigma_m}.$$ Let $\CP'_{\sigma_m}$ be the image of this map in $\CP_{\sigma_m}$. We have:
The quotient $\CP_{\sigma_m}/\CP'_{\sigma_m}$ is cuspidal.
Note that the composition: $$\CP_{\overline{M}} \rightarrow r_{\overline{G}_m}^{\overline{P}} i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}_m} \CP_{\overline{M}} \rightarrow
r_{\overline{G}_m}^{\overline{P}} \CP_{\sigma_m}$$ is an isomorphism by construction. In particular the map $$r_{\overline{G}_m}^{\overline{P}} i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}_m} \CP_{\overline{M}} \rightarrow r_{\overline{G}_m}^{\overline{P}} \CP_{\sigma_m}$$ is surjective, and factors through $r_{\overline{G}_m}^{\overline{P}} \CP'_{\sigma_m}$. We thus have an isomorphism $$r_{\overline{G}_m}^{\overline{P}} \CP'_{\sigma_m} \cong r_{\overline{G}_m}^{\overline{P}} \CP_{\sigma_m}.$$
Now let $\pi$ be a Jordan-Hölder constituent of $\CP_{\sigma_m}/\CP'_{\sigma_m}$. Then $r_{\overline{G}_m}^{\overline{P}} \pi = 0$ by the above calculation. Suppose $\pi$ were not cuspidal. Then it would have cuspidal support $(\overline{M}',\pi')$ for some proper Levi subgroup $\overline{M}'$ of $\overline{G}_m$, with $\pi'$ a product of cuspidal representations $\sigma_{m''}$, with $m'' \preceq m$. In particular $\overline{M}'$ would then be conjugate to a subgroup of $\overline{M}$, and $r_{\overline{G}_m}^{\overline{P}} \pi$ could not be trivial.
Note that every endomorphism of $\CP_{\sigma_m}$ preserves the submodule $\CP'_{\sigma_m}$. (If not, this endomorphism yields a nonzero map from $\CP'_{\sigma_m}$ to $\CP_{\sigma_m}/\CP'_{\sigma_m}$, and hence a nonzero map of $i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}_m} \CP_{\overline{M}}$ to $\CP_{\sigma_m}/\CP'_{\sigma_m}$. This is impossible as every subquotient of the latter is cuspidal.) The kernel of the map $E_{\sigma_m} \rightarrow \End_{W(k)[\overline{G}_m]}(\CP'_{\sigma_m})$ is the ideal $I$ that annihilates $\St_s$ for all reducible $s$.
Let $I^{\cusp}$ be the ideal of $E_{K_m,\tau_m}$ generated by the image of $I$ under the map $E_{\sigma_m} \rightarrow E_{K_m,\tau_m}$. Note that for any proper parabolic subgroup $\overline{P}_g$ of $\overline{G}_m$, $I$ annilihates $r_{\overline{G}_m}^{\overline{P}_g} \CP_{\sigma_m}$; it follows that $I^{\cusp}$ is supported on double cosets of the form $K_m z_{m,m}^r K_m$.
\[prop:P and P’\] Every endomorphism of $\cInd_{K_m}^{G_m} \tkappa \otimes_m \CP_{\sigma_m}$ preserves the submodule $\cInd_{K_m}^{G_m} \tkappa_m \otimes \CP'_{\sigma_m}$. The resulting restriction map: $$E_{K_m,\tau_m}/I^{\cusp} \rightarrow H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes \CP'_{\sigma_m})$$ is injective. Moreover, for every $g$ such that $K_m g K_m$ is not a double coset of the form $K_m z_{m,m}^r K_m$, the resulting map: $$(E_{K_m,\tau_m})_{K_m g K_m} \rightarrow H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes \CP'_{\sigma_m})_{K_m g K_m}$$ is an isomorphism.
Fix an integer $r$. The subset of $E_{K_m,\tau_m}$ supported on $K_m z_{m,m}^r K_m$ is isomorphic to $I_{z_{m,m}^r}(\tkappa_m) \otimes E_{\sigma_m}$, whereas the subset of $H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes \CP'_{\sigma_m})$ supported on this double coset is $I_{z_{m,m}^r}(\tkappa_m) \otimes \End_{W(k)}[\overline{G_m}](\CP'_{\sigma_m})$. The former maps naturally into the latter, so every element of $E_{K_m,\tau_m}$ supported on $K_m z_{m,m}^r K_m$ preserves $\cInd_{K_m}^{G_m} \tkappa_m \otimes \CP'_{\sigma_m}$. Such an element annihilates this submodule if, and only if, it lies in $I_{z_{m,m}^r}(\tkappa_m) \otimes I$; note that this is exactly the subspace of $I^{\cusp}$ supported on $K_m z_{m,m}^r K_m$.
Next, note that for any parabolic subgroup $\overline{P}'$ of $\overline{G}_m$, the inclusion of $\CP'_{\sigma_m}$ into $\CP_{\sigma_m}$ has cuspidal cokernel, and thus induces an isomorphism: $$r_{\overline{G}_m}^{\overline{P}'} \CP'_{\sigma_m} \cong r_{\overline{G}}^{\overline{P}} \CP_{\sigma_m},$$ and hence by Proposition \[prop:P intertwining\], an isomorphism $$H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes \CP'_{\sigma_m})_{K_m g K_m} \cong H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes \CP_{\sigma_m})_{K_m g K_m}$$ for all double cosets $K_m g K_m$ that are not of the form $K_m z_{m,m}^r K_m$. Since Proposition \[prop:P intertwining\] identifies $I_g(\tkappa_m \otimes \CP_{\sigma_m})$ with $I_g(\tkappa_m) \otimes \End(r_{\overline{G_m}}^{\overline{P}_g} \CP_{\sigma})$, when $g$ is $\overline{M}_g$-central, and a similar statement holds for $I_g(\tkappa_m \otimes \CP'_{\sigma_m})$, we find that every element of $I_g(\tkappa_m \otimes \CP_{\sigma_m})$ also intertwines $\tkappa_m \otimes \CP'_{\sigma_m}$, and thus every element of $E_{K_m,\tau_m}$ supported on $K_m g K_m$ preserves $\cInd_{K_m}^{G_m} \tkappa_m \otimes \CP'_{\sigma_m}.$
Putting together the results for all double cosets, we find that $E_{K_m,\tau_m}/I^{\cusp}$ acts faithfully on $\cInd_{K_m}^{G_m} \tkappa_m \otimes \CP'_{\sigma_m}$ as claimed. The previous paragraph shows that the corresponding map $$(E_{K_m,\tau_m})_{K_m g K_m} \rightarrow H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes \CP'_{\sigma_m})_{K_m g K_m}$$ is an isomorphism except when $K_m g K_m$ has the form $K_m z_{m,m}^r K_m$.
This gives a relationship between $E_{K_m,\tau_m}$ and $H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes \CP'_{\sigma_m})$. The next step is to relate the latter to $H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}_m} \CP_{\overline{M}})$. The key point is:
\[lemma:G cover center\] Let $c$ be a central element of $H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}_m} \CP_{\overline{M}})$. Then $c$ preserves the kernel of the surjection: $$\cInd_{K_m}^{G_m} \tkappa_m \otimes i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}_m} \CP_{\overline{M}}
\rightarrow \cInd_{K_m}^{G_m} \tkappa_m \otimes \CP'_{\sigma_m},$$ and thus descends to an element of $H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes \CP'_{\sigma_m})$.
After inverting $\ell$, $\CP'_{\sigma_m}$ becomes a direct summand of $i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}_m} \CP_{\overline{M}}$, and so the module $\cInd_{K_m}^{G_m} \tkappa_m \otimes \CP'_{\sigma_m} \otimes \CK$ is a direct summand of $\cInd_{K_m}^{G_m} \tkappa_m \otimes i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}_m} \CP_{\overline{M}} \otimes \CK$. The element $c$ commutes with projection onto this summand, and so preserves the kernel of this projection. On the other hand, $\cInd_{K_m}^{G_m} \tkappa_m \otimes \CP'_{\sigma_m}$ is $\ell$-torsion free, and so the kernel of the map from $\cInd_{K_m}^{G_m} \tkappa_m \otimes i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}_m} \CP_{\overline{M}}$ onto $\cInd_{K_m}^{G_m} \tkappa_m \otimes \CP'_{\sigma_m}$ consists of those elements of the kernel of the projection that lie in $\cInd_{K_m}^{G_m} \tkappa_m \otimes i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}_m} \CP_{\overline{M}}$. If $x$ is such an element, it is clear that $cx$ is as well.
With these results in hand we return to the inductive construction. Fix $m'$ immediately preceding $m$, and suppose that we have constructed elements $\Theta_{i,m'}$ as in Theorem \[thm:compatibility\]. Suppose further that for $1 \leq i < m'$, the element $\Theta_{i,m'}$ is supported away from double cosets of the for $K_{m'} z_{m',m'}^r K_{m'}$, and that $\Theta_{m',m'}$ is an element of $E_{K_{m'},\tau_{m'}}$ supported on $K_{m'} z_{m',m'} K_{m'}$ of the form $\phi \otimes 1$, where $\phi$ lies in $I_{z_{m',m'}}(\tkappa_{m'})$. (These stipulations hold when $m' = 1$ by construction, and we will show that the inductive construction of the $\Theta_{i,m'}$ implies these conditions for each larger $m'$ as well.) We now turn to constructing elements the elements $\Theta_{i,m}$.
Note that Lemma \[lemma:G cover center\] allows us to construct elements of $H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes \CP'_{\sigma_m})$ from central elements of $H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}_m} \CP_{\overline{M}})$. One way to obtain central elements of the latter is to consider the action of the center of $\Rep_{\overline{\CK}}(G_m)$ on the tensor product $\overline{\CK} \otimes \cInd_{K_m}^{G_m} \tkappa_m \otimes i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}_m} \CP_{\overline{M}}$. An element of the center that preserves $\cInd_{K_m}^{G_m} \tkappa_m \otimes i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}_m} \CP_{\overline{M}}$ yields a central element of $H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}_m} \CP_{\overline{M}})$; we will call endomorphisms that arise in this way [*strongly central*]{}.
It is thus worthwhile to find a characterization of such strongly central endomorphisms. Fix elements $s_1, \dots, s_j$ in $\overline{G}_{m'}$ such that $s_i^{\reg} = (s'_1)^{m'}$. For each $i$, $\cInd_{K_{m'}}^{G_{m'}} \tkappa_{m'} \otimes \St_{s_i}$ is a summand of $\CP_{K_{m'},\tau_{m'}} \otimes \overline{\CK}$, and $E_{K_{m'},\tau_{m'}}$ acts on this summand via the isomorphisms: $$E_{K_{m'},\tau_{m'}} \otimes \overline{\CK} \cong H(G_{m'},K_{m'},\tkappa_{m'} \otimes \St_{s_i})
\cong \overline{\CK}[Z_{s_i}]^{W_{\overline{M}_{s_i}}(s_i)}.$$ (The last isomorphism is normalized by the pair $(M_{s_i},\pi_{s_i})$.)
As $\otimes_i \St_{s_i}$ is a summand of $\CP_{\overline{M}} \otimes \overline{\CK}$, the induction $\cInd_{K_m}^{G_m} \tkappa_m \otimes (i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}_m} \bigotimes_i \St_{s_i})$ is a summand of $\cInd_{K_m}^{G_m} (\tkappa_m \otimes i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}_m} \CP_{\overline{M}}) \otimes \overline{\CK}$. Moreover, we have isomorphisms: $$H(G_m,K_m, \tkappa_m \otimes (i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}_m} \bigotimes_i \St_{s_i}))
\cong H(G_m,K''_m,\tkappa''_m \otimes \bigotimes_i \St_{s_i}),$$ and the pair $(K''_m,\tkappa''_m \otimes \bigotimes_i \St_{s_i})$ is a $G$-cover of the pair $(K_M,\tkappa_M \otimes \bigotimes_i \St_{s_i})$. It follows that the action of $E_{K_{m'},\tau_{m'}}^{\otimes j}$ on $\cInd_{K_m}^{G_m} \tkappa_m \otimes (i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}_m} \bigotimes_i \St_{s_i})$ factors through the map: $$E_{K_{m'},\tau_{m'}}^{\otimes j} \rightarrow \bigotimes_{i=1}^j H(G_{m'},K_{m'},\tkappa_{m'} \otimes \St_{s_i}).$$ In particular we have a commutative diagram: $$\begin{array}{ccc}
E_{K_{m'},\tau_{m'}}^{\otimes j} & \rightarrow & \bigotimes_{i=1}^j H(G_{m'},K_{m'},\tkappa_{m'} \otimes \St_{s_i}) \\
\downarrow & & \downarrow \\
H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}_m} \CP_{\overline{M}}) & \rightarrow &
H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes \bigotimes_i \St_{s_i})
\end{array}$$ Moreover, we have:
\[prop:strongly central\] Let $s$ be the “block matrix” in $\overline{G}_m$ whose blocks are $s_1, \dots, s_j$. The representation $\cInd_{K_m}^{G_m} \tkappa_m \otimes i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G_m}} \otimes_i \St_{s_i}$ lies in $\Rep_{\overline{\CK}}(G_m)_{M_s,\pi_s}$. Moreover, if one identifies: $$A_{M_s,\pi_s} \cong \overline{\CK}[Z_s]^{W_{\overline{M}_s}(s)}$$ $$H(G_{m'},K_{M'},\tkappa_{m'} \otimes \St_{s_i}) \cong \overline{\CK}[Z_{s_i}]^{W_{\overline{M}_{s_i}}(s_i)}$$ via the pairs $(M_s,\pi_s)$ and $(M_{s_i},\pi_{s_i})$, then the action of an element $x$ of $\overline{\CK}[Z_s]^{W_{\overline{M}_s}(s)}$ on $\cInd_{K_m}^{G_m} \tkappa_m \otimes i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}_m} \otimes_i \St_{s_i}$ coincides with that of the image of $x$ under $$\overline{\CK}[Z_s]^{W_{\overline{M}_s}(s)} \rightarrow \bigotimes_i \overline{\CK}[Z_{s_i}]^{W_{\overline{M}_{s_i}}(s_i)}.$$ In particular $x$ acts via an element of $H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa \otimes i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}} \CP_{\overline{M}})$ that lies in the image of $E_{K_{m'},\tau_{m'}}^{\otimes j}$.
This is immediate from the discussion in the above paragraph, together with Proposition \[prop:Bernstein induction\].
For $1 \leq i \leq m$, we can define an element $\tTheta_{i,m}$ of $E_{K_{m'},\tau_{m'}}^{\otimes j}$ by the formula: $$\tTheta_{i,m} = \sum_{r_1, \dots, r_j} \Theta_{r_1,m'} \otimes \dots \otimes \Theta_{r_j,m'}$$ where the sum is over sequences $r_1, \dots, r_j$ that sum to $i$. Note that for all $s_1, \dots, s_j$, the image of $\tTheta_{i,m}$ under the map: $$E_{K_{m'},\tau_{m'}}^{\otimes j} \rightarrow \bigotimes_{i = 1}^j \overline{\CK}[Z_{s_i}]^{W_{\overline{M}_{s_i}}(s_i)}$$ coincides with the image of $\theta_{i,s}$ under the map: $$\overline{\CK}[Z_s]^{W_{\overline{M}_s}(s)} \rightarrow \bigotimes_i \overline{\CK}[Z_{s_i}]^{W_{\overline{M}_{s_i}}(s_i)}.$$ We therefore have:
The elements $\tTheta_{i,m}$ of $E_{K_{m'},\tau_{m'}}^{\otimes j}$ map to strongly central elements of $H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa \otimes i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}} \CP_{\overline{M}})$ under the map $$T: E_{K_{m'},\tau_{m'}}^{\otimes j} \rightarrow
H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa \otimes i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}} \CP_{\overline{M}}).$$ Moreover, for $i < n$, the image of $\tTheta_{i,m}$ is supported away from double cosets of the form $K_m z_{m,m}^r K_m$, whereas the image of $\tTheta_{m,m}$ is invertible, supported on $K_m z_{m,m} K_m$ and has the form $\phi \otimes 1$ for an element $\phi$ of $I_{z_{m,m}}(\tkappa)$.
It suffices to show this is true after inverting $\ell$, or even after tensoring with $\overline{\CK}$. Indeed, we will show that the action of $\tTheta_{i,m}$ on $\cInd_{K_m}^{G_m} \tkappa_m \otimes i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}_m} \CP_{\overline{M}}$ concides with that of an element $x$ of the center of $\Rep_{\overline{\CK}}(G_m)$. Specifying such an $x$ amounts to specifying, for each $s_1, \dots, s_j$, and corresponding $s$, an element $x_s$ of $A_{M_s,\pi_s}$, such that, whenever we have $(M_s,\pi_s)$ inertially equivalent to $(M_t,\pi_t)$, the elements $x_s$ and $x_t$ coincide.
For each $s$, let $x_s$ be the element of $A_{M_s,\pi_s}$ that corresponds to $\theta_{i,s}$ under the isomorphism of $A_{M_s,\pi_s}$ with $\overline{\CK}[Z_s]^{W_{\overline{M}_s}(s)}$. It is then clear that for all $s$, the action of $\tTheta_{i,m}$ on the summand $\cInd_{K_m}^{G_m} \tkappa_m \otimes (i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G_m}} \bigotimes_i \St_{s_i})$ of $(\cInd_{K_m}^{G_m} \tkappa_m \otimes i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}_m} \CP_{\overline{M}}) \otimes \overline{\CK}$ coincides with that of $x_s$. It thus suffices to show that $x_s$ coincides with $x_t$ whenever $(M_s,\pi_s)$ is inertially equivalent to $(M_t,\pi_t)$. For such a pair $s,t$, there exists a $w$ in $W(\overline{G}_m)$ such that $t = w s w^{-1}$; then $M_t = w M_s w^{-1}$, $Z_t = w Z_s w^{-1}$, and conjugation by $w$ induces an isomorphism of $\overline{\CK}[Z_t]$ with $\overline{\CK}[Z_s]$ that takes $\theta_{i,t}$ to $\theta_{i,s}$. It follows that the images of the $\tTheta_{i,m}$ are strongly central.
As for the support of the images of $\tTheta_{i,m}$ for $i < m$, note that when considered as an element of $H(M,K_M,\tkappa_M \otimes \CP_{\overline{M}})$, each $\tTheta_{i,m}$ with $i < m$ is supported away from double cosets of the form $K_m z_{m,m}^r K_m$. The map from $H(M,K_M,\tkappa_M \otimes \CP_{\overline{M}})$ to $H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}_m} \CP_{\overline{M}})$ is not support-preserving, but it suffices to show that it takes elements supported away from $K_M z_{m,m}^r K_M$ to elements supported away from $K_m z_{m,m}^r K_m$. This is an immediate consequence of the fact that the elements $z_{m,m}^r$ are positive and normalize $K_M$.
Finally, $\tTheta_{m,m}$ is the tensor product $\Theta_{m',m'}^{\otimes j}$; in particular, it has support on the positive element $z_{m,m}$ of $M$. By the inductive nature of our construction $\Theta_{m',m'}$ has the form $\phi' \otimes 1$; it follows that the image of $\Theta_{m',m'}^{\otimes j}$ in $H(G_m,K''_m,\tkappa''_m \otimes \CP_{\overline{M}})$ has the form $\psi \otimes 1$ for some $\psi$ intertwining $\tkappa''_m$. Applying the isomorphism of this Hecke algebra with $H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}_m} \CP_{\overline{M}})$ shows that the image of $\tTheta_{m,m}$ in this subalgebra has the form $\phi \otimes 1$ as claimed.
The construction of the elements $\Theta_{i,m}$ as in Theorem \[thm:compatibility\] is now straightforward. The elements $\tTheta_{i,m}$ are strongly central and we can thus consider their images $\overline{\Theta}_{i,m}$ in $H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes \CP'_m)$. Our results on the support of $\tTheta_{i,m}$ imply that each $\overline{\Theta}_{i,m}$ is in the image of $E_{K_m,\tau_m}/I^{\cusp}$ in $H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes \CP'_m)$. We can thus consider each $\overline{\Theta}_{i,m}$ as an element of $E_{K_m,\tau_m}/I^{\cusp}$. Also note that the elements $\overline{\Theta}_{i,m}$ have the property demanded by Theorem \[thm:compatibility\] for all [*reducible $s$*]{}, because the corresponding property holds for the elements $\tTheta_{i,m}$. We are thus reduced to finding suitable lifts of the $\overline{\Theta}_{i,m}$ to elements of $E_{K_m,\tau_m}$.
The element $\overline{\Theta}_{m,m}$ has the form $\phi \otimes 1$, for an intertwiner $\phi$ in $I_{z_{m,m}}(\tkappa)$, where $1$ is the identity endomorphism of $\CP'_m$; it lifts to the element $\phi \otimes 1$ of $I_{z_{m,m}}(\tkappa) \otimes \End_{W(k)[\overline{G}_m]}(\CP)$, and this is the unique lift satisfying the demands of Theorem \[thm:compatibility\].
For $i < m$, the element $\overline{\Theta}_{i,m}$ is supported away from $K_m z_{m,m}^r K_m$; as $I^{\cusp}$ is supported only on double cosets of this form, there is a unique $\Theta_{i,m}$ in $E_{K_m,\tau_m}$ supproted away from $K_m z_{m,m}^r K_m$ that lifts $\overline{\Theta}_{i,m}$. Then $\Theta_{i,m}$ maps to zero in $H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes \St_s)$ for any irreducible $s$, and so the commutative diagram of Theorem \[thm:compatibility\] holds for such $s$. The proof of Theorem \[thm:compatibility\] is thus complete.
We can also use the above construction to establish a relationship between $E_{K_m,\tau_m}$ and $E_{K_{m'},\tau_{m'}}$. In particular, we have the following:
\[thm:comparison\] Let $m' = \frac{m}{j}$ strictly precede $m$. Then there exists a unique map: $$f_m: E_{K_m,\tau_m}/I_m^{\cusp} \rightarrow E_{K_{m'},\tau_{m'}}^{\otimes j},$$ such that, for each sequence $s_1, \dots, s_j$ with $s_i^{\reg} = (s'_1)^{m'}$ for $1 \leq i \leq j$, the diagram: $$\begin{array}{ccc}
E_{K_m,\tau_m} & \rightarrow & E_{K_{m'},\tau_{m'}}^{\otimes j} \\
\downarrow & & \downarrow \\
\overline{\CK}[Z_s]^{W_{\overline{M}_s}(s)} & \rightarrow & \bigotimes_{i=1}^j \overline{\CK}[Z_{s_i}]^{W_{\overline{M}_{s_i}}(s_i)}
\end{array}$$ commutes. (As usual, $s$ is the conjugacy class in $\GL_{\frac{n_0m}{ef}}(\FF_{q^f})$ that decomposes into blocks $s_1, \dots, s_j$, the left hand vertical map is normalized by $(M_s,\pi_s)$, and the right hand vertical map is normalized by the collection of pairs $(M_{s_i},\pi_{s_i})$.) The bottom horizontal map is induced by the isomorphism of $Z_s$ with the product of the $Z_{s_i}$.
The proof of Theorem \[thm:comparison\] will proceed in several steps. We begin by establishing more precise results on strongly central elements of $H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}_m} \CP_{\overline{M}})$.
\[lemma:G cover saturation\] Let $x$ be an element of $H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}_m} \CP_{\overline{M}})$, and suppose that for some $a \geq 0$, $\ell^a x$ lies in the image of $$T: E_{K_{m'},\tau_{m'}}^{\otimes j} \rightarrow H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}} \CP_{\overline{M}}).$$ Then $x$ also lies in the image of $T$.
We consider $x$ and $\ell^a x$ as elements of $H(G_m,K''_m,\tkappa''_m \otimes \CP_{\overline{M}})$. If $\ell^a x = T(y)$, then, for some invertible $z$ in $E_{K_{m'},\tau_{m'}}^{\otimes j}$ with strictly positive support, we have $T(y) = (T^+z)^{-r} T^+(z^r y)$, for any $r$ such that $z^r y$ has strictly positive support. As $T^+(z)$ is a unit in $H(G_m,K''_m,\tkappa''_m \otimes \CP_{\overline{M}})$, the divisiblity of $T(y)$ by $\ell^a$ implies the divisibility of $T^+(z^r y)$ by $\ell^a$. But for any positive element $g$ of $M$, the map $T^+$ is an isomorphism of $H(M,K_M,\tkappa_M \otimes \CP_{\overline{M}})_{K_M g K_m}$ with $H(G_m,K''_m,\tkappa''_m \otimes \CP_{\overline{M}})_{K_M g K_M}$. In particular $z^r y$ is divisible by $\ell^a$ in $H(M,K_M,\tkappa_M \otimes \CP_{\overline{M}})$ (which is equal to $E_{K_{m'},\tau_{m'}}^{\otimes j})$. As $z$ is invertible, $y$ is also divisible by $\ell^a$.
Any strongly central element $x$ of $H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}} \CP_{\overline{M}})$ is contained in the image of $E_{K_{m'},\tau_{m'}}^{\otimes j}$.
By Lemma \[lemma:G cover saturation\] it suffices to prove this after inverting $\ell$, or even after tensoring with $\overline{\CK}$. After doing so, the claim is an immediate consequence of Proposition \[prop:strongly central\].
In light of this, it suffices to show that the map $$Z(H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}_m} \CP_{\overline{M}}))
\rightarrow H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes \CP'_{\sigma_m})$$ is injective on strongly central elements, and that image under this map of the strongly central elements contains the image of the map: $$E_{K_m,\tau_m}/I_m^{\cusp} \rightarrow H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes \CP'_{\sigma_m}).$$ Then the map $f_m$ simply takes an element of $E_{K_m,\tau_m}/I_m^{\cusp}$ to the corresponding element of $H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes \CP'_{\overline{M}})$, when the latter is considered as a strongly central element of $H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}_m} \CP_{\overline{M}}).$ Such an element can then by considered as an element of $E_{K_{m'},\tau_{m'}}^{\otimes j}$ by the above proposition.
Once we have constructed the map $f_m$ in this way, the commutativity of the diagram of Theorem \[thm:comparison\] is easy to verify: first observe that given an $x$ in $E_{K_m,\tau_m}$, there exists an element $x_s$ of $A_{M_s,\pi_s}$ such that the action of $x$ on the summand of $(\cInd_{K_m}^{G_m} \tkappa_m \otimes \CP'_{\sigma_m}) \otimes \overline{\CK}$ corresponding to $s$ coincides with that of $x_s$. Then $f_m(x)$ acts on the summand of $(\cInd_{K_m}^{G_m} \tkappa_m \otimes i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}_m} \CP_{\overline{M}}) \otimes \overline{\CK}$ corresponding to $x$ via $x_s$, since the map $$(\cInd_{K_m}^{G_m} \tkappa_m \otimes i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}_m} \CP_{\overline{M}}) \otimes \overline{\CK} \rightarrow
(\cInd_{K_m}^{G_m} \tkappa_m \otimes \CP_{\sigma_m}) \otimes \overline{\CK}$$ is equivariant for the action of the Bernstein center. It then follows from Proposition \[prop:strongly central\] that, when we consider $f_m(x)$ as an element of $E_{K_{m'},\tau_{m'}}^{\otimes j}$, the action of $f_m(x)$ on the summand $(\cInd_{K_M}^M \tkappa_M \otimes \CP_{\overline{M}}) \otimes \overline{\CK}$ corresponding to $s_1, \dots, s_j$ is given by the image of $x_s$ in $\otimes_i \overline{\CK}[Z_{s_i}]$. This is equivalent to the commutativity of the diagram.
The injectivity of the strongly central elements into $H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes \CP'_{\sigma_m})$ is straightforward. It suffices to check this after tensoring with $\overline{\CK}$. A strongly central element that annihilates $(\cInd_{K_m}^{G_m} \tkappa_m \otimes \CP'_{\sigma_m}) \otimes \overline{\CK}$ arises from a sum of elements of $A_{M_s,\pi_s}$ as $s$ runs over reducible conjugacy classes. But for all such $s$, the corresponding summand of $(\cInd_{K_m}^{G_m} \tkappa_m \otimes \CP'_{\sigma_m}) \otimes \overline{\CK}$ is a faithful $A_{M_s,\pi_s}$-module.
To understand the subalgebra of $H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes \CP'_{\sigma_m})$ generated by the images of the strongly central elements, we begin by recalling some results from section \[sec:generic\]. In particular, for each $s$, we have support-preserving isomorphisms: $$H(G_m,K_{m,\overline{P}_s}, \tkappa_{m,\overline{P}_s} \otimes \St_{\overline{M}_s,s}) \rightarrow
H(G_m,K_m, \tkappa_m \otimes i_{\overline{P}_s}^{G_m} \St_{\overline{M}_s,s}),$$ and an isomorphism of the former with a tensor product of Iwahori Hecke algebras that is also support preserving in a sense made precise in section \[sec:generic\] (see in particular the discussion preceding Lemma \[lemma:intertwining\]). We choose the isomorphism of $H(G_m,K_{m,\overline{P}_s}, \tkappa_{m,\overline{P}_s} \otimes \St_{\overline{M}_s,s})$ with a tensor product of affine Hecke algebras to be the one corresponding to the representation $\pi_s$ of $M_s$. By Corollary \[cor:central support\], for each $z$ in $Z_s$, the space $V_z$ of central elements of $H(G_m,K_{m,\overline{P}_s}, \tkappa_{m,\overline{P}_s} \otimes \St_{\overline{M}_s, s})$ supported on the union of the double cosets $K_{m,\overline{P}_s} w z w' K_{m,\overline{P}_s}$ is one-dimensional. The isomorphism of the center of $H(G_m,K_{m,\overline{P}_s},\tkappa_{m,\overline{P}_s} \otimes \St_{\overline{M}_s, s})$ with $\overline{\CK}[Z_s]^{W_{\overline{M}_s}(s)}$ allows us to identify $V_z$ with a subspace of the latter.
Now if $t$ is another element of $\overline{G}_m$ conjugate to $s$ by an element $w_{s,t}$ of $W(\overline{G}_m)$, then conjugation by $w_{s,t}$ induces an isomorphism of $\overline{\CK}[Z_s]$ with $\overline{\CK}[Z_t]$; under this isomorphism the subspace $V_z$ of $\overline{\CK}[Z_s]$ is identified with the subspace $V_{w_{s,t} z w_{s,t}^{-1}}$ of $\overline{\CK}[Z_t]$.
With these observations in hand, we are in a position to prove:
Let $x$ be a strongly central element of $H(G_m,K_m'',\tkappa_m'' \otimes \CP_{\overline{M}})$, and let $y$ be the part of $x$ supported on $K_m z K_m$, for some $z \in G_m$. Then $y$ is also strongly central.
It suffices to check this after tensoring with $\overline{\CK}$. For each $s$, the action of $x$ on the summand $\cInd_{K_m''}^{G_m} \tkappa_m'' \otimes \St_{\overline{M},s}$ of $(\cInd_{K''_m}^{G_m} \tkappa''_m \otimes \CP_{\overline{M}}) \otimes \overline{\CK}$ is via an element $x_s$, which we may consider as an element of $\overline{\CK}[Z_s]^{W_{\overline{M}_s}(s)}$.
Write $x_s$ as a sum of elements $x_{s,z_i}$ in $V_{z_i}$ for various $z_i$ in $Z_s$, and let $y_s$ be the sum of $x_{s,z_i}$ for those $i$ such that $z_i$ lies in $K_m z K_m$. It suffices to show that the action of $y$ on $\cInd_{K''_m}^{G_m} \tkappa_m'' \otimes \St_{\overline{M},s}$ agrees with that of $y_s$ for all $s$, and that conjugation by $w_{s,t}$ sends $y_s$ to $y_t$ for all conjugate pairs $s,t$. The latter is immediate from the fact that $w_{s,t}$ lies in $K_m$.
For the former, note that we have a surjection: $$\cInd_{K_m}^{G_m} \tkappa \otimes i_{\overline{P}_s}^{\overline{G}_m} \St_{\overline{M}_s,s}
\rightarrow \cInd_{K_m}^{G_m} \tkappa \otimes i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}_m} \St_{\overline{M},s}
\cong \cInd_{K''_m}^{G_m} \tkappa \otimes St_{\overline{M},s}.$$ This surjection is support-preserving and equivariant for the action of $\overline{\CK}[Z_s]^{W_{\overline{M}_s}(s)}$. Moreover, when considered as an endomorphism of the left-hand side, $y_s$ is the part of $x_s$ that is supported on $K_m z K_m$. Since the actions of $x_s$ and $x$ coincide on the right hand side, and $y_s$ is the part of $x_s$ supported on $K_m z K_m$, it follows that the actions of $y_s$ and $y$ on the right hand side coincide.
Our next step will be to define an action of a certain finite rank local $W(k)$-algebra on the subspace of $H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}_m} \CP_{\overline{M}})$ supported on a given double coset $K_m z K_m$. For any $z \in Z_0$, we have an isomorphism: $$H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}_m} \CP_{\overline{M}})_{K_m z K_m} \cong
I_z(\tkappa_m) \otimes \End_{W(k)[\overline{M}_z]}(r_{\overline{G}_m}^{\overline{P}_z} i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}_m} \CP_{\overline{M}}).$$
For each $z$, let $e_z$ be the primitive central idempotent of $W(k)[\overline{M}_z]$ corresponding to the block of $\Rep_{W(k)}(\overline{M}_z)$ containing $r_{\overline{G}_m}^{\overline{P}_z} \CP_{\sigma_m}$. Then $e_z$ acts via the identity on $r_{\overline{G}_m}^{\overline{P}_z} i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}_m} \CP_{\overline{M}}$, and this yields an action of the algebra $E_z$ defined by $E_z = e_z Z(W(k)[\overline{M}_z])$ on $r_{\overline{G}_m}^{\overline{P}_z} i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}_m} \CP_{\overline{M}}$. The isomorphism: $$H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}_m} \CP_{\overline{M}})_{K_m z K_m} \cong I_z(\tkappa_m) \otimes
\End_{W(k)[\overline{M}_z]}(r_{\overline{G}_m}^{\overline{P}_z} i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}_m} \CP_{\overline{M}})$$ then gives an action of $E_z$ on $H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}_mm} \CP_{\overline{M}})_{K_m z K_m}$.
We can reinterpret this action via the direct sum decomposition: $$H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}_m} \CP_{\overline{M}})_{K_m z K_m} \cong
\bigoplus_{w,w'} H(G_m,K''_m,\tkappa''_m \otimes \CP_{\overline{M}})_{K''_m w z w' K''_m}$$ (where $w,w'$ run over elements of $W(\overline{G}_m)$ such that the double cosets $K''_m w z w' K''_m$ partition $K_m z K_m$) as follows: for each such $w$, $w'$, we have an isomorphism: $$H(G_m,K''_m,\tkappa''_m \otimes \CP_{\overline{M}})_{K''_m w z w' K''_m} \cong
I_{w z w'}(\tkappa) \otimes I_{w z w'}(\CP_{\overline{M}}).$$ Moreover, $I_{w z w'}(\CP_{\overline{M}})$ is, by definition, the space $$\Hom_{\tP \cap (w z w')^{-1} \tP (w z w')}(\CP_{\overline{M}},\CP_{\overline{M}}^{w z w'}).$$ Note that $\CP_{\overline{M}}$ is inflated from a representation of $\overline{M}$. Let $u$ be an element of $(w')^{-1} \tU_z w'$, where $\tU_z$ is the preimage of the unipotent radical $\overline{U}_z$ of $\overline{P}_z$ under “reduction mod $\unif_E$”. Then $z w' u (z w')^{-1}$ reduces to the identity mod $\unif_E$, and therefore so does $(w z w') u (w z w')^{-1}$. It follows that any map from $\CP_{\overline{M}}$ to $\CP_{\overline{M}}^{w z w'}$ factors through the $(w')^{-1} \overline{U}_z w' \cap \overline{M}$-invariants of $\CP_{\overline{M}}$. This space of invariants may be considered as a representation of the Levi subgroup $\overline{M} \cap (w')^{-1} \overline{M}_z w'$ of $\overline{G}_m$.
We next observe:
Let $\overline{M}_1$ be a Levi subgroup of $\overline{G}_m$, and $\overline{P}_2 = \overline{M}_2\overline{U}_2$ be a parabolic subgroup of $\overline{M}_1$. There exists a unique map $Z(W(k)[\overline{M}_1]) \rightarrow Z(W(k)[\overline{M}_2])$ such that for all $W(k)[\overline{M}_1]$-modules $\Pi$, the diagram: $$\begin{array}{ccc}
Z(W(k)[\overline{M}_1]) & \rightarrow & Z(W(k)[\overline{M}_2]) \\
\downarrow & & \downarrow\\
\End_{W(k)[\overline{M}_1]}(\Pi) & \rightarrow & \End_{W(k)[\overline{M}_2]}(r_{\overline{M}_1}^{\overline{P}_2} \Pi)
\end{array}$$ commutes.
Note first that if $\Pi$ is faithfully projective over $\overline{M}_1$, then $r_{\overline{M}_1}^{\overline{P}_2} \Pi$ is faithfully projective over $\overline{M}_2$, and so the vertical maps in the above diagram are isomorphisms. We may thus define the map in question to be the unique map that makes this diagram commute for that particular choice of $\Pi$. We can then verify that the diagram commutes for an arbitrary $\Pi'$ by resolving $\Pi'$ by direct sums of copies of $\Pi$.
We then have a sequence of maps: $$e_z Z(W(k)[M_z]) \cong e_{(w')^{-1} z w'} Z(W(k)[(w')^{-1} M_z w']) \rightarrow
Z(W(k)[M \cap (w')^{-1} M_z w'])$$ where the first map is conjugation by $w'$ and the second is from the lemma. The right-hand group algebra acts on the $(w')^{-1} \overline{U}_z w' \cap \overline{M}$-invariants of $\CP_{\overline{M}}$, and thus on $I_{w z w'}(\tkappa''_m \otimes \CP_{\overline{M}})$. Moreover, this action makes the inclusion $$H(G_m,K''_m,\tkappa''_m \otimes \CP_{\overline{M}})_{K''_m w z w' K''_m} \rightarrow
H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}_m} \CP_{\overline{M}})_{K_m z K_m}$$ equivariant for $E_z$.
Let $x$ be strongly central in $H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}_m} \CP_{\overline{M}})_{K_m z K_m}$. Then so is $\alpha x$ for any $\alpha$ in $E_z$.
For all $s$, let $x_s$ be the element of $A_{M_s,\pi_s}$ whose action on the summand of $[\cInd_{K_m}^{G_m} \tkappa_m \otimes i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}_m} \CP_{\overline{M}}] \otimes \overline{\CK}$ corresponding to $s$ coincides with $x$. We may assume that $x_s$ lies in $V_z$, and that $x_t$ is zero for all $t$ not conjugate to $s$ in $\overline{G}_m$. (Any $x$ supported on $K_m z K_m$ is a sum of elements that have this property for various $s$ and $z'$ with $K_m z' K_m = K_m z K_m$.)
The element $x_s$ corresponds to an element of $H(G_m,K''_m,\tkappa''_m \otimes \St_{\overline{M},s})$ supported on double cosets of the form $K''_m w z w' K''_m$, where $w$ and $w'$ lie in $W_{\overline{M}_s}(s)$. For any such $w$, $w'$, the element $\alpha$ of $E_z$ acts on $H(G_m,K''_m,\tkappa''_m \otimes \St_{\overline{M},s})_{K''_m w z w' K''_m}$ via the scalar $c \in \overline{\CK}$ such that the element $(w')^{-1} \alpha (w')$ of $E_{(w') z (w')^{-1}}$ acts on $r_{\overline{M}}^{(w')^{-1} \overline{P}_z w' \cap M} \St_{\overline{M},s}$ via $c$.
Now if $t$ is conjugate to $s$, via $w_{s,t} \in W(\overline{G}_m)$, then $x_t$ lies in the subspace $V_{w_{s,t} z w^{-1}_{s,t}}$. For any $w$, $w'$ in $W_{\overline{M}_t}(t)$, the argument of the previous paragraph shows that $\alpha$ acts on $H(G_m,K''_m,\tkappa''_m \otimes \St_{\overline{M},t})_{K''_m w w_{s,t} z w^{-1}_{s,t} w' K''_m}$ via $c$. It follows that for $x$ satisfying our assumptions, $\alpha x = cx$ and is thus strongly central.
With this in hand it is straightforward to understand the image of the strongly central elements in $H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes \CP'_m)$. If we let $R_{K_m z K_m}$ be the space of strongly central elements of $H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}_m})$ supported on $K_m z K_m$, then the map: $$R_{K_m z K_m} \rightarrow H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes \CP'_m)_{K_m z K_m}$$ is $E_z$-equivariant. Moreover, the subspace of $H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes \CP'_m)_{K_m z K_m}$ consisting of elements in the image of $E_{K_m,\tau_m}$ is a cyclic $E_z$-module. (This image is all of $H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes \CP'_m)_{K_m z K_m}$, which is free of rank one over $E_z$, if $z$ is not a power of $z_{m,m}$; if $z$ does have the form $z_{m,m}^r$ then the image is generated over $E_z$ by $\Theta_{m,m}^r$.)
It is thus clear that when $z$ is a power of $z_{m,m}$, the image of $R_{K_m z K_m}$ contains the part of the image of $E_{K_m,\tau_m}$ supported on $K_m z K_m$. When $z$ is not such a power, it suffices to show that the image of $R_{K_m z K_m}$ contains an element of $H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes \CP'_m)_{K_m z K_m}$ that generates this space over $E_z$.
Let $L$ be the image of $\CP'_m$ in $\St_{(s')^m}$; the map from $\CP'$ to $L$ gives a map: $$H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes \CP'_m) \rightarrow H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes L).$$ The isomorphism of $L \otimes \CK$ with $\St_{(s')^m}$ gives us a map: $$H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes L) \rightarrow \CK[Z_0]^{W_{\overline{M}}((s')^m)},$$ and the image of this map contains the subalgebra $W(k)[Z_0]^{W_{\overline{M}}((s')^m)}$ generated by the $\Theta_{i,m}$. Conversely, we have:
The image of $H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes L)$ in $\CK[Z_0]^{W_{\overline{M}}((s')^m)}$ is contained in $W(k)[Z_0]^{W_{\overline{M}}((s')^m)}$.
Suppose there is an $\alpha$ in $H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes L)$ whose image does not lie in $W(k)[Z_0]^{W_{\overline{M}}((s')^m)}$. Then there exists a finite extension $\CK'$ of $\CK$, and a map $$\phi: W(k)[Z_0]^{W_{\overline{M}}((s')^m)} \rightarrow \OO'$$ whose tensor product with $\CK'$ takes $\alpha$ to an element of $\CK'$ that does not lie in $\OO'$. Such a map corresponds to a twist of $\pi_{(s')^m}$ by an integral unramified character.
Let $\Pi$ be an irreducible quotient of the representation $\cInd_{K_m}^{G_m} \tkappa_m \otimes \St_{(s')^m}$ on which $H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes \St_{(s')})$ acts via $\phi$. Then $\Pi$ is integral, as the cuspidal support of $\Pi$ is an integral twist of $\pi_{(s')^m}$. In particular there is an $\ell$-adically separated $G_m$-stable lattice $L_{\Pi}$ in $\Pi$, and this lattice is preserved by $H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes L)$. This contradicts the fact that $\alpha$ acts on $\Pi$ by a scalar that is not a unit.
Moreover, $H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes L)_{K_m z K_m}$ is free of rank one over $W(k)$. There is thus a polynomial in the $\Theta_{i,m}$ (with coefficients in $W(k)$) that is an element of $H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes \CP'_m)_{K_m z K_m}$ whose image in $H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes L)_{K_m z K_m}$ generates the latter over $W(k)$. It follows that the map: $$R_{K_m z K_m} \rightarrow H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes L)_{K_m z K_m}$$ is surjective. This map factors through $H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes \CP'_m)$. In particular (as $E_z$ is local with maximal ideal ${\mathfrak m}_z$), the image of $R_{K_m z K_m}$ in $H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes \CP'_m)$ cannot be contained in ${\mathfrak m}_z H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes \CP'_m)_{K_m z K_m}$, and must thus be all of $H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes \CP'_m)_{K_m z K_m}$ when $z$ is not a power of $z_{m,m}$.
We have thus shown that the subalgebra of $H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes \CP'_m)$ consisting of the images of strongly central elements contains the image of $E_{K_m,\tau_m}$, completing the proof of Theorem \[thm:comparison\].
The proof of Theorem \[thm:comparison\] yields the following further observation:
Let $y$ be a strongly central element of $E_{K_{m'},\tau_{m'}}^{\otimes j}$. There exist elements $x_1, x_2$ of $E_{K_m,\tau_m}$, and a nonnegative integer $a$, such that:
- $x_2$ is supported on double cosets of the form $K_m z_{m,m}^r K_m$, and
- we have $f_m(x_2) = \ell^a(y - f_m(x_1))$.
We may consider $y$ as an element of $H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes \CP'_m)$, since the proof of Theorem \[thm:comparison\] identifies the strongly central elements of $E_{K_{m'},\tau_{m'}}^{\otimes j}$ with a subalgebra of $H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes \CP'_m)$, in a manner compatible with the map $f_m$. Let $y_1$ be the part of $y$ supported away from double cosets of the form $K_m z_{m,m}^r K_m$, and let $y_2 = y - y_1$. Proposition \[prop:P and P’\] shows that $y_1 = f_m(x_1)$ for some $x_1$.
On the other hand, $y_2$ is supported on double cosets of the form $K_m z_{m,m} K_m$, and we have a support-preserving isomorphism: $$H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes \CP_m)/I^{\cusp} \otimes \CK \cong H(G_m,K_m,\tkappa_m \otimes \CP') \otimes \CK.$$ There is thus an $x_2$ such that, for some $a$, $f_m(x_2) = \ell^a y_2$, and the result follows.
We conclude this section by giving a complete description of $E_{K_m,\tau_m}$ for small $m$; that is, for $m < \ell$. There are two cases to consider; in the first, $m = 1$, and in the second $m = e_{q^f} > 1$.
When $m=1$, the element $\Theta_{1,1}^r$ of $E_{K_1,\tau_1}$ generates $(E_{K_1,\tau_1})_{K_1 z_{1,1}^r K_1}$ as an $E_{\sigma_1}$-module for all $r$, and hence we have $$E_{K_1,\tau_1} = E_{\sigma_1}[\Theta_{1,1}^{\pm 1}].$$ This case was already studied by Dat in [@dat]; in particular Dat shows that $E_{\sigma_1}$ is a universal deformation ring of $\sigma_1$, and that, after completing at any maximal ideal of characteristic $\ell$, $E_{K_1,\tau_1}$ becomes the universal deformation ring of the corresponding supercuspidal representation.
Whem $m > 1$ but $m < \ell$, then any $s \neq (s'_1)^m$ with $s^{\reg} = (s'_1)^m$ is irreducible. We have an ideal $I_0$ of $E_{\sigma_m}$ that is the kernel of the action of $E_{\sigma_m}$ on $\St_{(s'_1)^m}$.
When $1 < m < \ell$, we have an isomorphism: $$E_{K_m,\tau_m} \cong E_{\sigma_m}[\Theta_{1,m}, \dots, \Theta_{m,m}^{\pm 1}]/\<\Theta_{1,m}, \dots, \Theta_{m - 1,m}\>\cdot I^{\cusp}.$$
As $E_{\sigma}$ and the $\Theta_{i,m}$ are contained in $E_{K,\tau}$, we have an inclusion: $$E_{\sigma}[\Theta_{1,m}, \dots, \Theta_{m,m}^{\pm 1}] \hookrightarrow E_{K,\tau}.$$ It is easy to see that $\<\Theta_1, \dots, \theta_{m-1,m}\>$ map to zero in $H(G,K,\tkappa \otimes \St_s)$ for $s \neq (s'_1)^m$, so that $\<\Theta_{1,m} \dots, \Theta_{m-1,m}\>\cdot I^{\cusp}$ is in the kernel of the map to $E_{K,\tau}$. That this is precisely the kernel, and that the resulting map is surjective, follows by considering the elements supported on $K z K$ for each $z$ in $Z_{0,m}$.
When $\ell > n$, and $\sigma$ is not supercuspidal, Paige gives an explicit description of $E_{\sigma}$ as a $W(k)$-algebra in his forthcoming thesis [@paige]. The above proposition thus gives a complete description of $E_{K,\tau}$ in this case.
Finiteness results {#sec:fg}
==================
Our next goal is to establish fundamental finiteness results for $\CP_{K,\tau}$. In order to do so it will be necessary to work integrally with lattices inside a generic pseudo-type $(K,\tkappa \otimes \St_s)$. Choose a finite extension $\CK'$ of $\CK$ such that $\St_s$ is defined over $\CK'$, and let $\OO'$ be the ring of integers in $\CK'$. We can then consider $\OO'$-lattices $L_s$ inside $\St_s$, and consider the “integral generic pseudo-type” $(K,\tkappa \otimes L_s)$, and try to determine the structure of $\cInd_K^G \tkappa \otimes L$ as a module over $H(G,K,\tkappa \otimes L_s)$.
There will be two lattices in $\St_s$ of particular interest to us. We construct the first of these as follows: denote by $\overline{M}$ the Levi subgroup $\overline{M}_s$ of $\overline{G}$. The representation $\St_{\overline{M},s}$ is irreducible, cuspidal and defined over $\CK'$, and remains irreducible when reduced mod $\ell$. There is thus a $\overline{M}$-stable $\OO'$-lattice $L_{\overline{M}}$ in $\St_{\overline{M},s}$, and such an $L_{\overline{M}}$ is unique up to homothety. Then $i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}} L_{\overline{M},s}$ is an $\OO'$-lattice in $I_s$. Let $L_s$ be the image of this lattice in $\St_s$.
The second lattice we will make use of will be denoted $L'_s$, and is defined as follows: the representation $\St_s$ is a direct summand of $\CP_{\sigma} \otimes_{W(k)} \CK'$. Let $L'_s$ be the image of $\CP_{\sigma} \otimes_{W(k)} \OO'$ under the projection to $\St_s$; this defines $L'_s$ up to homothety. The lattice $L'_s$ is the one that is of interest to us in applications, but is more complicated; we will study it via its relationship with $L_s$. Note that there exist $a,b$ such that $\ell^a L_s \subset L'_s \subset \ell^b L_s$. Let $\tau_{L_s}$ and $\tau_{L'_s}$ denote the representations $\tkappa \otimes L_s$, and $\tkappa \otimes L'_s$.
The pair $(K,\tau_{L_s})$ is not difficult to understand; indeed, the arguments of section \[sec:generic\] apply. In particular, consider the pair $(K_M,\tkappa_M \otimes L_{\overline{M}})$, where $M$, $K_M$, and $\tkappa_M$ are as in section \[sec:generic\]. It follows from [@vig98], IV.2.5 and IV.2.6 that the pair $(K'',\tkappa'' \otimes L_{\overline{M}})$ is a $G$-cover (as an $\OO'$-module) of $(K_M,\tkappa_M \otimes L_{\overline{M}})$, and that the center of $H(G,K'',\tkappa'' \otimes L_{\overline{M}})$ is isomorphic to $\OO'[Z_s]^{W_{\overline{M}}(s)}$. (Indeed, a choice of a compatible family of cuspidals for the tower of types that contains $(K,\tau)$ gives rise to explicit isomorphisms: $$H(M,K_M,\tkappa_M \otimes L_{\overline{M}}) \cong \OO'[Z_s]$$ $$Z(H(G,K'',\tkappa'' \otimes L_{\overline{M}})) \cong \OO'[Z_s]^{W_{\overline{M}}(s)}.$$ Henceforth we fix such a choice.) The intertwining calculations of section \[sec:generic\] give rise to a support preserving isomorphism $H(G,K'',\tkappa'' \otimes L_{\overline{M}})$ with $H(G,K_{\overline{P}},\tkappa_{\overline{P}} \otimes L_{\overline{M}})$, and an isomorphism of the latter with $H(G,K,\tkappa \otimes i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}} L_{\overline{M}})$.
We now observe:
Let $x$ be a central element of $H(G,K,\tkappa \otimes i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}} L_{\overline{M}})$. Then $x$ descends to an endomorphism of $\cInd_K^G \tkappa \otimes L_s$ via the surjection of $i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}} L_{\overline{M}}$ onto $L_s$.
The results of section \[sec:generic\] show that this holds after inverting $\ell$. We have a surjection: $$\cInd_K^G \tkappa \otimes (i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}} L_{\overline{M}}) \rightarrow \cInd_K^G \tkappa \otimes L_s,$$ and it suffices to show that $x$ preserves the kernel of this surjection. But as this holds after inverting $\ell$, and both the left-hand and right-hand sides are $\ell$-torsion free, the result follows.
We next turn to questions of admissibility:
The module $\cInd_{K_M}^M \tkappa \otimes L_M$ is an admissible $H(M,K_M,\tkappa_M \otimes L_M)$-module.
Let $\pi$ be an $\OO'[M]$-module such that $\pi \otimes_{\OO'} \CK'$ is absolutely irreducible and such that the restriction of $\pi$ to $K_M$ admits a nonzero map from $\tkappa \otimes L_M$. Then $\Hom_{\OO'[K_M]}(\tkappa \otimes L_M, \pi)$ is a free $\OO'$-module of rank one. Consider the $\OO'[M]$-module $\pi \otimes_{\OO'} \OO'[M/M_0]$, on which $M$ acts on $\OO'[M/M_0]$ via the natural character $M \rightarrow \OO'[M/M_0]$. We have $$\Hom_{\OO'[K_M]}(\tkappa \otimes L_M,\pi) \cong \OO'[M/M_0],$$ and $H(M,K_M,\tau) = \OO'[Z]$ acts on the right hand side via the inclusion of $\OO'[Z]$ in $\OO'[M/M_0]$. This yields an isomorphism: $$(\cInd_{K_M}^M \tkappa \otimes L_M) \otimes_{\OO'[Z_s]} \OO'[M/M_0] \cong \pi \otimes_{\OO'} \OO'[M/M_0].$$ In particular the left hand side is admissible over $\OO'[M/M_0]$, and so $\cInd_{K_M}^M \tkappa \otimes L_M$ is admissible over $\OO'[Z_s]$.
\[lem:induction restriction admissibility\] Let $R$ be commutative $W(k)$-algebra, let $P = MU$ be a parabolic subgroup of $G$, and let $\pi$ be an admissible $R[M]$-module such that for any parabolic subgroup $P' = M'U'$ of $M$, $r_M^{P'} \pi$ is admissible as an $R[M']$-module. Then $i_P^G M$ is an admissible $R[G]$-module, and, for any parabolic subgroup $P'' = M''U''$ of $G$, $r_G^{P''} i_P^G \pi$ is an admissible $R[M'']$-module.
This is an immediate consequence of Bernstein-Zelevinski’s filtration of of the composite functor $r_G^{P''} i_P^G$ ([@BZ], 2.12) together with the fact that parabolic induction takes admissible representations to admissible representations.
With these results in hand, we can show:
The module $\cInd_K^G \tau_{L_s}$ is admissible over $H(G,K,\tau_{L_s})[G]$. More generally, for any parabolic $P' = M'U'$ in $G$, the module $r_G^{P'} \cInd_K^G \tau_{L_s}$ is admissible over $H(G,K,\tau_{L_s})[M']$.
The module $\cInd_K^G \tau_{L_s}$ is a quotient of $\cInd_K^G \tkappa \otimes i_{\overline{P}}^{\overline{G}} L_{\overline{M}}$, and the latter is isomorphic to $\cInd_{K''}^G \tkappa'' \otimes L_{\overline{M}}$. It thus suffices to show that $r_G^{P'} \cInd_{K''}^G \tkappa'' \otimes L_{\overline{M}}$ is admissible over the center $\OO'[Z]^{W_{\overline{M}}(s)}$ of $H(G,K'',\tkappa'' \otimes L_{\overline{M}})$.
As $\tkappa_M \otimes L_{\overline{M}}$ is a lattice in a maximal distinguished cuspidal $M$-type, the $W(k)[M]$-module $\cInd_{K_M}^{M} \tkappa_M \otimes L_{\overline{M}}$ is admissible and cuspidal over the Hecke algebra $H(M,K_M,\tkappa_M \otimes L_{\overline{M}})$, and the latter is isomorphic to $\OO'[Z]$. It follows that $i_P^G \cInd_{K_M}^{M} \tkappa_M \otimes L_{\overline{M}}$ is an admissible $\OO'[Z]$-module, as is $r_G^{P'} i_P^G \cInd_{K_M}^M \tkappa_M \otimes L_{\overline{M}}$ for any $P'$.
On the other hand, the relationship between $G$-covers and parabolic induction yields an isomorphism: $$(\cInd_K^G \tkappa'' \otimes L_{\overline{M}}) \otimes_{\OO'[Z]^{W_{\overline{M}}(s)}} \OO'[Z] \cong
i_P^G \cInd_{K_M}^M \tkappa_M \otimes L_{\overline{M}}.$$ As $\OO'[Z_s]$ is a finitely generated, free $\OO'[Z_s]^{W_{\overline{M}}(s)}$-module the result is now immediate.
\[prop:steinberg supercuspidal support\] Every irreducible representation in the block $\Rep_{\overline{\CK}}(G)_{M,\pi}$ has mod $\ell$ inertial supercuspidal support equal to that of a cuspidal representation of type $(K,\tau)$.
It follows directly from the definition of mod $\ell$ inertial supercuspidal support that every irreducible representation in the block $\Rep_{\overline{\CK}}(G)_{M,\pi}$ has the same mod $\ell$ inertial supercuspidal support. Choose an integral irreducible representation $\pi'$ in this block. Then we have a map $\cInd_K^G \tau_{L_s} \rightarrow \pi'$ whose image is an $\OO'$-lattice in $\pi'$. Tensoring with $k$, we find that every simple $W(k)$-subquotient of $\pi$ killed by $\ell$ is also a subquotient of $\cInd_K^G \kappa \otimes \overline{L}_s$, where $\overline{L}_s$ is $L_s \otimes_{\OO'} k$. In particular it suffices to show that every irreducible subquotient of $\cInd_K^G \kappa \otimes \overline{L}_s$ has supercuspidal support given by $(K,\tau)$. Note that, as $\tau$ is equal to $\kappa \otimes \sigma$, and $\sigma$ is a subquotient of $\overline{L}_s$, $\cInd_K^G \kappa \otimes \overline{L}_s$ has a subquotient isomorphic to $\cInd_K^G \tau$.
On the other hand, Vigneras has shown ([@vig98], IV.6.2) that the subcategory of $\Rep_k(G)$ consisting of all representations with supercuspidal support given by $(K,\tau)$ is a block of $\Rep_k(G)$. It thus suffices to show that $\cInd_K^G \kappa \otimes \overline{L}_s$ is contained in a single block of $\Rep_k(G)$. But the endomorphism ring of $\cInd_K^G \kappa \otimes \overline{L}_s$ is simply $H(G,K,\tau_{L_s}) \otimes_{\OO'} k$, and is therefore equal to $k[Z]^{W_{\overline{M}}(s)}$. In particular this endomorphism ring is a domain, so $\cInd_K^G \kappa \otimes \overline{L}_s$ is a domain and the result follows.
We now compare $\cInd_K^G \tau_{L_s}$ and $\cInd_K^G \tau_{L'_s}$. The inclusions $\ell^a L_s \subset L'_s \subset \ell^b L$ give rise to inclusions: $\ell^a \cInd_K^G \tau_{L_s} \subset \cInd_K^G \tau_{L'_s} \subset \ell^b \cInd_K^G \tau_{L_s}$.
The endomorphism ring $E_{K,\tau}$ of $\CP_{K,\tau}$ preserves the factor $\cInd_K^G \tkappa \otimes \St_s$ of $\CP_{K,\tau} \otimes \overline{\CK}$, and hence preserves the image of $\CP_{K,\tau} \otimes \OO'$ in $\cInd_K^G \tkappa \otimes \St_s$. This image is equal to $\cInd_K^G \tau_{L'_s}$. In particular we obtain a map of $E_{K,\tau} \otimes \OO'$ into $H(G,K,\tau_{L'_s})$.
For some $m$, we have $(K,\tau) = (K_m,\tau_m)$, where $K_m$ and $\tau_m$ are as in section \[sec:endomorphisms\]. Our choice of compatible family of cuspidals in section \[sec:endomorphisms\] identifies $H(G,K,\tkappa \otimes \St_s)$ with $\overline{\CK}[Z_s]^{W_{\overline{M}_s}(s)}$. Under this identification $H(G,K,\tau_{L_s})$ is the subalgebra $\OO'[Z_s]^{W_{\overline{M}_s}(s)}$, and $H(G,K,\tau_{L'_s})$ is another, yet-to-be-determined $\OO'$-subalgebra that contains $E_{K,\tau} \otimes \OO'$.
We observe that as a subalgebra of $\OO'[Z_s]$, $H(G,K,\tau_{L'_s})$ contains the images of the elements $\Theta_{i,m}$ of $C_{K,\tau}$, as well as the image of $\Theta_{m,m}^{-1}$. These map to elements $\theta_{i,s}$ of $W(k)[Z_s]^{W_{\overline{M}}(s)}$. We observe:
\[prop:scalar fg\] The algebra $W(k)[Z_s]^{W_{\overline{M}}(s)}$ is a finitely generated module over $W(k)[\theta_{1,s}, \dots, \theta_{m,s}, \theta^{-1}_{m,s}]$.
Let $s_1, \dots, s_r$ be the irreducible constituents of $s$, and let $z_1, \dots, z_r$ be the elements of $Z_s$ such that, when considered as an element of $\GL_{\frac{n}{ef}}(E)$, $z_i$ is scalar with entries $\unif_E$ on the block of $Z_s$ corresponding to $s_i$, and the identity on all other blocks. Let $d_i$ be the degree of $s_i$ over $\FF_{q^f}$, and let $d$ be the degree of $s'$ over $\FF_{q^f}$, where $s^{\reg} = (s')^m$. Then, by definition, we have: $$\theta_{i,s} = \sum_{S} \prod_{j \in S} z_j,$$ where $S$ runs over those subsets of ${1, \dots, r}$ such that $$\sum_{j \in S} d_j = di.$$
Now consider the polynomial $$P(t) = \prod_{i=1}^r (t^{\frac{d_i}{d}} + z_i).$$ For $1 \leq i \leq r$, the coefficient of $t^{r-i}$ in $P(t)$ is $\theta_{i,s}$. It follows that the elements $(-z_i)^{\frac{d}{d_i}}$ are integral over $W(k)[\theta_{1,s}, \dots, \theta_{m,s}]$, and so the elements $z_i$ themselves are. As $W(k)[Z_s]$ is generated by the $z_i$, together with $\theta^{-1}_{m,s}$, it follows that $W(k)[Z_s]$ is integral, and hence finitely generated as a module, over $W(k)[\theta_{1,s}, \dots, \theta_{m,s}, \theta^{-1}_{m,s}]$, and the result is immediate.
We now show:
\[prop:steinberg admissibility\] The module $\cInd_K^G \tau_{L'_s}$ is an admissible $E_{K,\tau}[G]$-module Moreover, for any $P' = M'U'$ in $G$, $r_G^{P'} \cInd_K^G \tau_{L'}$ is admissible as a $E_{K,\tau}[M']$-module.
The module $r_G^{P'} \cInd_K^G \tau_{L_s}$ is admissible over $H(G,K,\tau_{L_s})$, which we have identified with $W(k)[Z_s]^{W_{\overline{M}}(s)}$. It is thus also admissible over $\OO'[\theta_{1,s}, \dots, \theta_{m,s},\theta_{m,s}^{-1}]$, by Proposition \[prop:scalar fg\]. The $\theta_{i,s}$ preserve both $\cInd_K^G \tau_{L_s}$ and $\cInd_K^G \tau_{L'_s}$, and any embedding of the latter in the former is equivariant for the $\theta_{i,s}$. Fix such an embedding; this yields an embedding of $r_G^{P'} \cInd_K^G \tau_{L'_s}$ in $r_G^{P'} \cInd_K^G \tau_{L_s}$ that is compatible with the action of the elements $\theta_{i,s}$. As the former is admissbile over $\OO'[\theta_{1,s}, \dots, \theta_{m,s},\theta^{-1}_{m,s}]$, the latter must be as well, and the result follows.
We now return to the study of $\CP_{K,\tau}$. We choose $\CK'$ (and by extension $\OO'$ sufficiently large that every map from $E_{\sigma}$ to $\overline{\CK}$ has image contained in $\OO'$. Then $\St_s$ is defined over $\CK'$ for every $s$. Moreover, the embeddings: $$\CP_{K,\tau} \otimes \overline{\CK} \hookrightarrow \bigoplus_s \cInd_K^G \tkappa \otimes \St_s$$ $$E_{K,\tau} \otimes \overline{\CK} \hookrightarrow \prod_s H(G,K,\tkappa \otimes \St_s)$$ factor through embeddings: $$\CP_{K,\tau} \otimes \OO' \hookrightarrow \bigoplus_s \cInd_K^G \tau_{L'_s}$$ $$E_{K,\tau} \otimes \OO' \hookrightarrow \prod_s H(G,K,\tau_{L'_s}).$$
We thus have:
\[thm:P admissibility\] For any parabolic subgroup $P' = M'U'$ of $G$, $r_G^{P'} \CP_{K,\tau}$ is an admissible $C_{K,\tau}[M']$-module (and hence also an admissible $E_{K,\tau}[M']$-module.)
For each $s$, $r_G^{P'} \cInd_K^G \tau_{L'_s}$ is admissible over $C_{K,\tau} \otimes \OO'$, and hence also over $C_{K,\tau}$. The result is thus immediate from the above decomposition.
The $W(k)$-algebra $E_{K,\tau}$ is a finitely generated $C_{K,\tau}$-module.
Structure of $\CP_{(M,\pi)}$ {#sec:induced}
============================
We now turn to the study of the $W(k)[G]$-module $\CP_{(M,\pi)}$ for an inertial equivalence class $(M,\pi)$ of irreducible cuspidal representations of $M$ over $k$. Write $\pi$ as a tensor product of irreducible cuspidal representations $\pi_i$ of general linear groups $\GL_{n_i}(F)$, and for each $i$, let $(K_i,\tau_i)$ be a maximal distinguished cuspidal $k$-type contained in $\pi_i$.
\[thm:admissibility\] Suppose $\ell > n$, and let $R$ be the tensor product, over $W(k)$, of the rings $E_{K_i,\tau_i}$ for all $i$. Then $\CP_{(M,\pi)}$ is an admissible $R[G]$-module, and for any parabolic subgroup $P' = M'U'$ of $G$, $r_G^{P'} \CP_{(M,\pi)}$ is an admissible $R[M']$-module.
This is an immediate consequence of Theorem \[thm:P admissibility\] and Lemma \[lem:induction restriction admissibility\].
Let $(M',\pi')$ be the supercuspidal support of $(M,\pi)$; then $(M',\pi')$ is determined up to inertial equivalence.
\[prop:Bernstein idempotents\] Let $\Pi$ be an irreducible supercuspidal $\overline{\CK}$-representation of a Levi subgroup $M''$ of $G$, and suppose that the mod $\ell$ supercuspidal support of the inertial equivalence class $(M'',\Pi)$ is [*not*]{} equal to $(M',\pi')$. Then the idempotent $e_{M'',\Pi, \overline{\CK}}$ of the Bernstein center of $\Rep_{\overline{\CK}}(G)$ annihlates $\CP_{(M,\pi)} \otimes \overline{\CK}$. Equivalently, every simple subquotient of $\CP_{(M,\pi)} \otimes \overline{\CK}$ has mod $\ell$ inertial supercuspidal support $(M',\pi')$.
When the sequence $\{(K_i,\tau_i)\}$ consists of a single type $(K,\tau)$, this follows immediately from Corollary \[cor:steinberg Bernstein component\] and Proposition \[prop:steinberg supercuspidal support\]. The general case follows by the additivity of supercuspidal support under parabolic induction.
We now give more precise results about the block decomposition of $\CP_{(M,\pi)} \otimes \overline{\CK}$. We have $\CP_{M,\pi} = i_P^G [\CP_{K_1,\tau_1} \otimes \dots \otimes \CP_{K_r,\tau_r}]$. Let $\tau_i = \kappa_i \otimes \sigma_i$ and fix an $s_i$ such that $\sigma_i$ is the cuspidal representation corresponding to the $\ell$-regular part $s'_i$ of $s_i$. We then have a map $\phi_i: E_{\sigma_i} \rightarrow \overline{\CK}$, giving the action of $E_{\sigma_i}$ on $\St_{s_i}$. Let $M_{i,s_i}$ be the Levi subgroup corresponding to this choice of $s_i$. Choose, for each $(K_i,\tau_i)$ a corresponding compatible system of cuspidals in the sense of the discussion preceding Theorem \[thm:compatibility\], in such a way that if $(K_i,\tau_i)$ is equivalent to $(K_j,\tau_j)$, then we use the same compatible system for both. This yields in particular a cuspidal representation $\pi_{i,s_i}$ of $M_{i,s_i}$ for each pair $i,s_i$.
Let $\vec{s} = \{s_1, \dots, s_r\}$ be a collection in which each, for each $i$, the $\ell$-regular part of $s_i$ is equal to $s'_i$. Let $M_{\vec{s}}$ be the product of the $M_{s_i}$; it is a Levi subgroup of $G$. Let $\pi_{\vec{s}}$ be the tensor product of the $\pi_{s_i}$. Finally, consider the $\overline{\CK}[G]$-modules $$(\CP_{(M,\pi)})_{\vec{s}} = i_P^G (\bigotimes_i \cInd_{K_i}^{G_i} \tkappa_i \otimes \St_{s_i}),$$ where $P_{\vec{s}}$ is a parabolic of $G$ with Levi component $M_{\vec{s}}$. Then $(\CP_{(M,\pi)})_{\vec{s}}$ lies in $\Rep_{\overline{\CK}}(G)_{M_{\vec{s}},\pi_{\vec{s}}}.$ As parabolic induction commutes with tensor products, we have a direct sum decomposition: $$\CP_{(M,\pi)} \otimes \overline{\CK} = \bigoplus_{\vec{s}} i_P^G \cInd_{K_i}^{G_i} \tkappa_i \otimes \St_{s_i}.$$
For each $i$ we have maps: $$E_{K_i,\tau_i} \rightarrow H(G,K,\tkappa_i \otimes \St_{s_i}) \cong \overline{\CK}[Z_{i,s_i}]^{W_{\overline{M}_{i,s_i}}(s_i)}
\hookrightarrow \overline{\CK}[Z_{i,s_i}]$$ where the isomorphism is the one determined by the pair $(M_{s_i},\pi_{s_i})$. Taking the tensor product of all of these maps yields a map $$\phi_{\vec{s}}: \bigotimes_i E_{K_i,\tau_i} \rightarrow \overline{\CK}[Z_{\vec{s}}],$$ where $Z_{\vec{s}}$ is the subgroup of $M_{\vec{s}}$ given by the product of the $Z_{i,s_i}$.
The pair $(M_{\vec{s}},\pi_{\vec{s}})$ induces an isomorphism of $A_{M_{\vec{s}},\pi_{\vec{s}}}$ with $\overline{\CK}[Z_{\vec{s}}]^{W_{M_{\vec{s}}}(\pi_{\vec{s}})}$. We thus obtain a map from $A_{M_{\vec{s}},\pi_{\vec{s}}}$ to the tensor product of the $E_{K_i,\tau_i}$. As an immediate consequence of Proposition \[prop:Bernstein induction\], we then have:
\[prop:center action\] The center $A_{M_{\vec{s}},\pi_{\vec{s}}}$ of $\Rep_{\overline{\CK}}(G)_{M_{\vec{s}},\pi_{\vec{s}}}$ acts on $(\CP_{(M,\pi)})_{\vec{s}}$ via the map $$A_{M_{\vec{s}},\pi_{\vec{s}}} \rightarrow \bigotimes_i E_{K_i,\tau_i}$$ defined above. In particular each $(\CP_{(M,\pi)})_{\vec{s}}$ is a faithful module over $A_{M_{\vec{s}},\pi_{\vec{s}}}$.
The Bernstein decomposition and Bernstein’s second adjointness {#sec:bernstein}
==============================================================
Our next goal is to apply our results on the structure of $\CP_{K,\tau}$ to establish a Bernstein decomposition for the category of smooth $W(k)[G]$-modules. With the results of the previous section in hand, this is an easy consequence of Bernstein’s second adjointness for the category of smooth $W(k)[G]$-modules, which is due, in this generality, to Dat in [@dat-adjointness]. However, at this point it is not too much work to give an alternative proof of Bernstein’s second adjointness which is quite different in spirit from Dat’s approach. We thus detour for a moment to show how Bernstein’s second adjointness follows from the results so far.
For technical reasons (namely, the fact that parabolic induction is naturally a right adjoint, and therefore takes injectives to injectives), it will be useful for us to work with injective objects rather than the projectives $\CP_{K,\tau}$. To obtain a suitable supply of injectives, we define:
Let $\Pi$ be a smooth $W(k)[G]$-module. We denote by $\Pi^{\vee}$ the $W(k)[G]$-submodule of smooth vectors in $\Hom_{W(k)}(\Pi,\CK/W(k))$.
As $\CK/W(k)$ is an injective $W(k)$-module, and the functor that takes a $W(k)[G]$-module to the submodule consisting of its smooth vectors is exact, the functor $\Pi \mapsto \Pi^{\vee}$ is exact as well. Moreover, we have:
Let $\Pi$ and $\Pi'$ be smooth $W(k)[G]$-modules. Then there is a natural isomorphism: $$\Hom_{W(k)[G]}(\Pi, (\Pi')^{\vee}) \rightarrow \Hom_{W(k)[G]}(\Pi',\Pi^{\vee}).$$
Both $\Hom_{W(k)[G]}(\Pi, (\Pi')^{\vee})$ and $\Hom_{W(k)[G]}(\Pi',\Pi^{\vee})$ are in bijection with the set of $G$-equivariant pairings $\Pi \times \Pi' \rightarrow \CK/W(k)$ that are smooth with respect to the action of $G$.
If $\Pi$ is a projective $W(k)[G]$-module, then $\Pi^{\vee}$ is injective.
The functors $\Hom_{W(k)[G]}(-,\Pi^{\vee})$ and $\Hom_{W(k)[G]}(\Pi,(-)^{\vee})$ are naturally equivalent, and the latter is exact.
This duality is well-behaved with respect to normalized parabolic induction:
Let $P=MU$ be a Levi subgroup of $G$, and let $\pi$ be a smooth $W(k)[M]$-module. Then there is a natural isomorphism: $$(i_P^G \pi)^{\vee} \rightarrow i_P^G \pi^{\vee}.$$ In particular, if $\Pi$ is a simple $W(k)[G]$-module with cuspidal (resp. supercuspidal) support $(M,\pi),$, then $\Pi^{\vee}$ has cuspidal (resp. supercuspidal) support $(M,\pi^{\vee})$.
Integration over $G/P$ defines a $G$-equivariant bilinear map: $$[i_P^G \pi] \times [i_P^G \pi^{\vee}] \rightarrow \CK/W(k),$$ and hence a $G$-equivariant map: $$i_P^G \pi^{\vee} \rightarrow [i_p^G \pi]^{\vee}.$$ This map is easily seen to be an isomorphism by passing to $U$-invariants for a cofinal family of sufficiently small compact open subgroups $U$ of $G$.
Note that if $\Pi$ is an [*admissible*]{} $W(k)[G]$-module, (or, alternatively, an admissible $\CK[G]$-module), then $(\Pi^{\vee})^{\vee}$ is naturally isomorphic to $\Pi$. In particular this is true if $\Pi$ is simple.
If $(K,\tau)$ is a maximal distinguished cuspidal $k$-type, we define $I_{K,\tau}$ to be the injective $W(k)[G]$-module $\CP_{K,\tau^{\vee}}^{\vee}$. Similarly, if $(M,\pi)$ is a pair consisting of a Levi subgroup of $G$ and an irreducible cuspidal representation $\pi$ of $M$ over $k$, we set $I_{(M,\pi)}$ to be the $W(k)[G]$-module $\CP_{(M,\pi^{\vee})}^{\vee}$.
The $W(k)[G]$-module $I_{(M,\pi)}$ is injective. Moreover, every simple $W(k)[G]$-module $\Pi$ with mod $\ell$ inertial cuspidal support $(M,\pi)$ embeds in $I_{(M,\pi)}$.
For a suitable parabolic subgroup $P$, and suitable maximal distinguished cuspidal types $(K_i,\tau_i)$, we have: $$\CP_{(M,\pi^{\vee})}^{\vee} =
[i_P^G \CP_{K_1,\tau_1^{\vee}} \otimes \dots \otimes \CP_{K_r,\tau_r^{\vee}}]^{\vee}$$ $$= i_P^G I_{K_1,\tau_1} \otimes I_{K_r,\tau_r}.$$ As $i_P^G$ is a right adjoint of an exact functor (by Frobenius reciprocity), the latter module is clearly injective.
Now given $\Pi$, $\Pi^{\vee}$ has mod $\ell$ inertial cuspidal support $(M,\pi^{\vee})$; by Proposition \[prop:cuspidal support\] we have a surjection $\CP_{(M,\pi^{\vee})} \rightarrow \Pi^{\vee}$. Dualizing, and using the fact that $(\Pi^{\vee})^{\vee} = \Pi$, we obtain our desired result.
Let $(M,\pi)$ and $(M',\pi')$ be two pairs consisting of a Levi subgroup of $G$ and an irreducible cuspidal representation of that Levi subgroup over $k$. Let $I = I_{(M,\pi)}$; $I' = I_{(M',\pi')}$. If $\Hom_{W(k)[G]}(I,I')$ is nonzero, then the mod $\ell$ inertial supercuspidal supports of $(M,\pi)$ and $(M',\pi')$ coincide.
Set $\CP = \CP_{(M,\pi^{\vee})}$; $\CP' = \CP_{(M',(\pi')^{\vee})}$, so that $I = \CP^{\vee}$ and $I' = (\CP')^{\vee}$. We have an injection of $\Hom_{W(k)[G]}(I,I')$ into $\Hom_{W(k)[G]}((I')^{\vee},I^{\vee})$; the latter is equal to $\Hom_{W(k)[G]}(\CP^{\vee\vee},(\CP')^{\vee\vee})$. We also have an embedding: $$\Hom_{W(k)[G]}(\CP^{\vee\vee},(\CP')^{\vee\vee}) \rightarrow
\Hom_{W(k)[G]}(\CP^{\vee\vee} \otimes \overline{\CK}, (\CP')^{\vee\vee} \otimes \overline{\CK}),$$ so it suffices to show that the latter is zero unless the mod $\ell$ inertial supercuspidal supports of $(M,\pi)$ and $(M',\pi')$ coincide.
We have an embedding of $\CP^{\vee\vee} \otimes \overline{\CK}$ into $(\CP \otimes \overline{\CK})^{\vee\vee}$.
If $(L,\pi')$ is a pair consisting of a Levi subgroup of $G$ and an irreducible supercuspidal representation of $L$ over $\overline{\CK}$, and $\pi'$ has mod $\ell$ inertial supercuspidal support different from $(M,\pi)$, then the projection $(\CP \otimes \overline{\CK})_{L,\pi}$ of $\CP \otimes \overline{\CK}$ to $\Rep_{\overline{\CK}}(G)_{L,\pi}$ vanishes, and therefore so does $(\CP \otimes \overline{\CK})^{\vee\vee}_{L,\pi}$. It follows that $(\CP \otimes \overline{\CK})^{\vee\vee}$ has a direct sum decomposition in which each summand lies in some block of $\Rep_{\overline{\CK}}(G)$ corresponding to an inertial supercuspidal support whose mod $\ell$ reduction is $(M,\pi)$. Similarly, $(\CP' \otimes \overline{\CK})^{\vee\vee}$ has a direct summand decomposition in which each summand lies in some block of $\Rep_{\overline{\CK}}(G)$ corresponding to an inertial supercuspidal support whose mod $\ell$ reduction is $(M',\pi')$.
Thus, if the mod $\ell$ inertial supercuspidal supports of $(M,\pi)$ and $(M',\pi')\}$ differ, then no summand of $(\CP \otimes \overline{\CK})^{\vee\vee}$ lies in the same block as any summand of $(\CP' \otimes \overline{\CK})^{\vee\vee}$, and the result follows.
Every simple subquotient of $I_{(M,\pi)}$ has mod $\ell$ inertial supercuspidal support equal to that of $(M,\pi)$.
Let $\Pi$ be a simple subquotient of $I_{(M,\pi)}$, with mod $\ell$ inertial supercuspidal support $(M',\pi')$. Then $\Pi$ embeds in $I_{(M',\pi')}$; as the latter is injective we obtain a nonzero map $I_{(M,\pi)} \rightarrow
I_{(M',\pi')}$. The preceding proposition now implies that $(M',\pi')\}$ has the same mod $\ell$ inertial supercuspidal support as $(M,\pi)$.
An immediate corollary is the “Bernstein decomposition” for $\Rep_{W(k)}(G)$. Let $M$ be a Levi subgroup of $G$, and let $\pi$ be an irreducible supercuspidal representation of $M$ over $k$. If $\Pi$ is a simple smooth $W(k)[G]$-module with mod $\ell$ inertial supercuspidal support given by $(M,\pi)$, then the mod $\ell$ [*cuspidal*]{} support of $\Pi$ falls into one of finitely many possibile mod $\ell$ inertial equivalence classes. Choose representatives $(M_j,\pi_j)$ for these inertial equivalence classes, and let $I_{[M,\pi]} = I_{(M_1,\pi_1)} \oplus \dots \oplus I_{(M_r,\pi_r)}$. Then every simple subquotient of $I_{[M,\pi]}$ has mod $\ell$ inertial supercuspidal support $(M,\pi)$. On the other hand, any simple smooth $W(k)[G]$-module $\pi$ with mod $\ell$ inertial supercuspidal support $(M,\pi)$ has mod $\ell$ inertial cuspidal support $(M_j,\pi_j)$ for some $j$, and hence embeds in $I_{(M_j,\pi_j)}$ (and thus also in $I_{[M,\pi]}$.)
On the other hand, if $\Pi$ is a simple smooth $W(k)[G]$-module whose mod $\ell$ inertial supercuspidal support is not in the inertial equivalence class $(M,\pi)$, then there is an infinite collection of possible inertial equivalence classes into which the mod $\ell$ inertial cuspidal support of $\Pi$ could fall. If we let $I_{\overline{[M,\pi]}}$ denote the direct sum of $I_{(M',\pi')}$ as $(M',\pi')$ runs over a set of representatives for the inertial equivalence classes of pairs $(M',\pi')$ over $k$ whose supercuspidal support is [*not*]{} in the inertial equivalence class $(M,\pi)$, then no subquotient of $I_{\overline{[M,\pi]}}$ has mod $\ell$ inertial supercuspidal support equal to $(M,\pi)$, and every simple object of $\Rep_{W(k)}(G)$ whose mod $\ell$ inertial supercuspidal support is not equivalent to $(M,\pi)$ is a subobject of $I_{\overline{[M,\pi]}}$.
The full subcategory $\Rep_{W(k)}(G)_{[M,\pi]}$ of $\Rep_{W(k)}(G)$ consisting of smooth $W(k)[G]$-modules $\Pi$ such that every simple subquotient of $\Pi$ has mod $\ell$ inertial supercuspidal support given by $(M,\pi)$ is a block of $\Rep_{W(k)}(G)$. Moreover, every element of $\Rep_{W(k)}(G)_{[M,\pi]}$ has a resolution by direct sums of copies of $I_{[M,\pi]}$.
This is immediate from the above discussion and Proposition \[prop:decompose\].
Our first application of this Bernstein decomposition will be to establish Bernstein’s second adjointness for smooth $W(k)[G]$-modules. This will allow us, at last, to conclude that the modules $\CP_{(M,\pi)}$ are projective. We follow the argument in the lecture notes by Bernstein-Rumelhart [@BR], adapting it as necessary so that it will work in $\Rep_{W(k)}(G)$.
Let $P = MU$ be a parabolic subgroup of $G$, let $K$ be a compact open subgroup of $G$ that is decomposed with respect to $P$, and let $\lambda$ be a totally positive central element of $M$. Let $T_{\lambda}$ be the element of $H(G,K,1)$ given by $T^+(1_{K_M\lambda K_M})$. A smooth $W(k)[G]$-module $\Pi$ is $K,P$-stable, with constant $c_{K,P,\lambda}$, if there exists a positive integer $c_{K,P,\lambda}$ such that $\Pi^K$ splits as a direct sum: $$\Pi^K = \Pi^K[T_{\lambda}^{c_{K,P,\lambda}}] \oplus \Pi^K_{T_{\lambda}-{\rm invert}},$$ where $\Pi^K[T_{\lambda}^{c_{K,P,\lambda}}]$ is the $W(k)$-submodule of $\Pi^K$ consisting of elements killed by $T_{\lambda}^{c_{K,P,\lambda}}$, and $\Pi^K_{T_{\lambda}-{\rm invert}}$ is the maximal $W(k)$-submodule of $\Pi^K$ on which $[\lambda]$ is invertible.
The key to establishing Berstein’s second adjointness will be proving that for every pair $K,P$, and every supercuspidal inertial equivalence class $(L,\pi)$, all objects of $\Rep_{W(k)}(G)_{[L,\pi]}$ are $K,P$-stable. We first make a few observations:
Let $\Pi$ be a smooth $K,P$-stable $W(k)[G]$-module. Then $\Pi^{\vee}$ is also $K,P$-stable.
We have $$(\Pi^{\vee})^K \cong (\Pi^K)^{\vee} \cong \Pi^K[T_{\lambda}^{c_{K,P,\lambda}}]^{\vee}
\oplus [\Pi^K_{T_{\lambda}-{\rm invert}}]^{\vee};$$ the result follows immediately.
Finite direct sums of $K,P$-stable modules are $K,P$-stable. Infinite direct sums of modules which are $K,P$-stable with a uniform constant $c_{K,P,\lambda}$ are $K$-stable. Kernels and cokernels of maps of $K,P$-stable modules are $K,P$-stable.
\[lemma:jacquet\] Let $\Pi$ be a smooth $W(k)[G]$-module. Then the natural projection: $$\Pi^K \rightarrow (\Pi_U)^{K_M}$$ identifies $(\Pi_U)^{K_M}$ with $\Pi^K \otimes_{W(k)[T_{\lambda}]} W(k)[T_{\lambda},T_{\lambda}^{-1}]$. In particular, if $\Pi$ is $K,P$-stable, then the map $\Pi^K \rightarrow (\Pi_U)^{K_M}$ is surjective, and one has a direct sum decomposition: $$\Pi^K = \Pi^K[T_{\lambda}^{c_{K,P,\lambda}}] \oplus (\Pi_U)^{K_M}.$$ This decomposition is independent of $\lambda$.
We make $(\Pi_U)^{K_M}$ into a $W(k)[T_{\lambda}]$-module by letting $T_{\lambda}$ act on $(\Pi_U)^{K_M}$ via $\lambda$. It is then clear that the map $$\Pi^K \rightarrow (\Pi_U)^{K_M}$$ is $T_{\lambda}$-equivariant. It thus suffices to show that every element of the kernel of this map is killed by a power of $T_{\lambda}$, and that, for every element $x$ of $(\Pi_U)^{K_M}$, $\lambda^m x$ is in the image of this map for some sufficiently large $m$.
For the first claim, let $e_{K^+}$ be the idempotent projector onto the $K^+$ invariants of a $K$-module. As $K = K^- K_M K^+$, we have $e_K = e_{K^+} e_{K_M} e_{K^-}$. For each $m$, we have $$e_K \lambda^m e_K = e_{K^+} e_{K_M} e_{K^-} \lambda^m e_K$$ $$= e_{K^+} \lambda^m e_{K_M} e_{\lambda^{-m} K^- \lambda^m} e_K =
\lambda^m e_{\lambda^{-m} K^+ \lambda^m} e_K.$$ (Here we have used that $\lambda$ is positive.) Now if $\tx$ is an element of $\Pi^K$ that maps to zero in $\Pi_U$, then $e_K \tx = \tx$, and there exists a compact open subgroup $U_1$ of $U$ such that $e_{U_1} \tx = 0$. But as $\lambda$ is strictly positive, there exists an $m$ such that $\lambda^{-m} K^+ \lambda^m$ contains $U_1$. Thus $\tx$ is killed by $e_{\lambda^{-m} K^+ \lambda^m}$ and fixed by $e_K$. Then $\tx$ is killed by $e_K \lambda^m e_K$, as required.
As for the second claim, let $\tx$ be a lift of $x$ to $\Pi^{K_M}$. There is a compact open subgroup $K'$ of $G$ that fixes $\tx$; then $\tx$ is in particular invariant under $K' \cap U^{\circ}$. As $\lambda$ is strictly positive, there exists an $m$ such that $\lambda^m \tx$ is invariant under $K^-$. Thus $$e_{K^+} \lambda^m \tx = e_{K^+} e_{K_M} e_{K^-} \lambda^m \tx = e_K \lambda^m \tx,$$ so $e_{K^+} \lambda^m \tx$ lies in $\Pi^K$. As $e_{K^+}$ acts trivially on $\Pi_U$ (because $K^+$ is contained in $U$), $e_{K^+} \lambda^m \tx$ maps to $\lambda^m \tx$ under the map $$\Pi^K \rightarrow (\Pi_U)^{K_M},$$ as required.
Finally, if $\Pi$ is $K,P$-stable, then $\Pi^K$ surjects onto $\Pi^K \otimes_{W(k)[T_{\lambda}}
W(k)[T_{\lambda},T_{\lambda}^{-1}]$; this surjection identifies $(\Pi_U)^{K_M}$ with the maximal $T_{\lambda}$-divisible submodule of $\Pi^K$ and thus yields the asserted direct sum decomposition. To see that this decomposition is independent of $\lambda$, choose another strictly positive element $\lambda'$. Then the maximal $T_{\lambda\lambda'}$-divisible submodule of $\Pi^K$ is contained in both the maximal $T_{\lambda}$-divisible submodule and the maximal $T_{\lambda'}$-divisible submodule; since projection onto $(\Pi_U)^{\K_M}$ is an isomorphism on each of these submodules they must all coincide.
Let $R$ be a commutative Noetherian $W(k)$-algebra, and let $\Pi$ be an admissible $R[G]$-module. Suppose that $r_G^P \Pi$ is also admissible. Then $\Pi$ is $K,P$-stable.
As $r_G^P \Pi$ is a twist of $\Pi_U$, the hypotheses imply that $\Pi^K$ and $(\Pi_U)^{K_M}$ are finitely generated $R$-modules. On the other hand, we have an isomorphism $$(\Pi_U)^{K_M} \cong \Pi^K \otimes_{R[T_{\lambda}]} R[T_{\lambda},T^{-1}_{\lambda}].$$ The result is now an immediate consequence of [@BR], Lemma 33.
For any Levi subgroup $L$ of $G$, and any irreducible cuspidal representation $\pi$ of $L$ over $k$, the modules $\CP_{(M,\pi)}$ and $I_{(M,\pi)}$ are $K,P$-stable.
For $\CP_{(M,\pi)}$, the result follows from the previous lemma, together with Theorem \[thm:admissibility\]. We also have the result for $\CP_{[M,\pi]}$, as this is a finite direct sum of modules $\CP_{[M',\pi']}$. As $I_{(M,\pi)} = \CP_{(M,\pi^{\vee})}^{\vee}$, we also have the result for $I_{(M,\pi)}$, and hence also for $I_{[M,\pi]}$.
For any Levi subgroup $L$ of $G$, and any irreducible supercuspidal $k$-representation $\pi$ of $L$, every object of $\Rep_{W(k)}(G)_{[L,\pi]}$ is $K,P$-stable.
Any object of $\Rep_{W(k)}(G)_{[L,\pi]}$ has a resolution by direct sums of $I_{[L,\pi]}$. These are $K,P$-stable, so the result follows from the fact that kernels of maps of $K,P$-stable modules are $K,P$-stable.
It follows that for any object $\Pi$ of $\Rep_{W(k)}(G)_{[L,\pi]}$, the map $\Pi^K \rightarrow (\Pi_U)^{K_M}$ is surjective.
Let $\Pi$ be an object of $\Rep_{W(k)}(G)_{[L,\pi]}$. There is a canonical isomorphism: $$r_G^P \Pi^{\vee} \cong (r_G^{P^{\circ}} \Pi)^{\vee}.$$
We follow the proof of [@localization], Theorem 2. First note that $r_G^P \Pi^{\vee}$ is a twist of $(\Pi^{\vee})_U$ by our (fixed) square root of the modulus character of $P$, and $r_G^P \Pi$ is a twist of $\Pi_U$ by a square root of the modulus character of $P^{\circ}$. As these two modulus characters are inverses of each other, it suffices to construct an isomorphism $(\Pi_{U^{\circ}})^{\vee} \cong (\Pi^{\vee})_U$ of $W(k)[M]$-modules.
For each $K$ that is decomposed with respect to $P$, we have an isomorphism: $$(\Pi^K)^{\vee} \rightarrow (\Pi^{\vee})^K$$ coming from a perfect pairing $\Pi^K \times (\Pi^{\vee})^K \rightarrow \CK/W(k)$. Under this pairing, the adjoint of $T_{\lambda}$ is $T_{\lambda^{-1}}$. If we take $\lambda$ to be strictly positive with respect to $P$, then $\lambda^{-1}$ is strictly positive with respect to $P^{\circ}$. Moreover, $\Pi$ is both $(K,P)$-stable and $(K,P^{\circ})$-stable. In particular, $(\Pi_{U^{\circ}})^{K_M}$ is isomorphic to the maximal $T_{\lambda^{-1}}$-divisible submodule of $\Pi^K$, and $((\Pi^{\vee})_U)^{K_M}$ is isomorphic to the maximal $T_{\lambda}$-divisible submodule of $(\Pi^{\vee})^K$. Moreover, under these identifications $(\Pi_{U^{\circ}})^{K_M}$ and $((\Pi^{\vee})_U)^{K_M}$ are direct summands of $\Pi^K$ and $(\Pi^{\vee})^K$, respectively. The pairing on the latter thus descends to a perfect pairing: $$(\Pi_{U^{\circ}})^{K_M} \times ((\Pi^{\vee})_U)^{K_M} \rightarrow \CK/W(k).$$ By [@localization], Lemma 1, we can find a $K$ decomposed with respect to $P$ inside any compact open subgroup of $G$. Taking the limit over a cofinal system of such $K$ gives the desired perfect pairing $$\Pi_{U^{\circ}} \times (\Pi^{\vee})_U \rightarrow \CK/W(k),$$ and hence the desired identification of $(\Pi^{\vee})_U$ with $(\Pi_{U^{\circ}})^{\vee}$.
Let $\Pi_1$ and $\Pi_2$ be objects of $\Rep_{W(k)}(M)$ and $\Rep_{W(k)}(G)_{[L,\pi]}$, respectively. Then there is a canonical isomorphism: $$\Hom_{W(k)[G]}(i_P^G \Pi_1, \Pi_2) \cong \Hom_{W(k)[M]}(\Pi_1, r_G^{P^{\circ}} \Pi_2).$$
We follow the argument of the “claim” after Theorem 20 of [@BR]. We first establish the case in which $\Pi_2 = (\Pi_2')^{\vee}$ for some $\Pi_2'$ in $\Rep_{W(k)}(G)_{[L,\pi^{\vee}]}.$ We then have a sequence of functorial isomorphisms: $$\begin{aligned}
\Hom_{W(k)[M]}(\Pi_1, r_G^{P^{\circ}} \Pi_2) & \cong & \Hom_{W(k)[M]}(\Pi_1, (r_G^P \Pi_2')^{\vee}) \\
& \cong & \Hom_{W(k)[M]}(r_G^P \Pi_2', \Pi_1^{\vee})\\
& \cong & \Hom_{W(k)[G]}(\Pi_2', i_P^G \Pi_1^{\vee})\\
& \cong & \Hom_{W(k)[G]}(\Pi_2', (i_P^G \Pi_1)^{\vee})\\
& \cong & \Hom_{W(k)[G]}(i_P^G \Pi_1, \Pi_2)\end{aligned}$$ In particular the result holds for $\Pi_2 = I_{[L,\pi]}$. If $\Pi_1$ is finitely generated, then the functors $\Hom_{W(k)[G]}(i_P^G \Pi_1, -)$ and $\Hom_{W(k)[M]}(\Pi_1, r_G^{P^{\circ}} -)$ commute with arbitrary direct sums, so the result holds for $\Pi_1$ finitely generated and $\Pi_2$ an arbitrary direct sum of copies of $I_{[L,\pi]}$. As any $\Pi_1$ is the limit of its finitely generated submodules, the result holds for an arbitrary $\Pi_1$, when $\Pi_2$ is an arbitrary direct sum of copies of $I_{[L,\pi]}$. Finally, we can resolve an arbitrary $\Pi_2$ by direct sums of copies of $I_{[L,\pi]}$, and the result then follows for all $\Pi_1,\Pi_2$.
The representations $\CP_{[L,\pi]}$ are projective and small.
It suffices to show that each $\CP_{(M,\pi')}$, with $\pi'$ irreducible and cuspidal over $K$ is projective and small, as $\CP_{[L,\pi]}$ is a finite direct sum of representations of this form. For a suitable sequence of types $(K_i,\tau_i)$, we have $$\CP_{(M,\pi')} = i_P^G \CP_{K_1,\tau_1} \otimes \dots \otimes \CP_{K_r,\tau_r}.$$ For each $i$ the representation $\CP_{K_i,\tau_i}$ is projective and small (as $\CP_{K_i,\tau_i}$ is the compact induction of a finite-length $W(k)$-module). Thus the tensor product $\Pi$ of the $\CP_{K_i,\tau_i}$ is projective and small when considered as a $W(k)[M]$-module. We have shown that $\CP_{(M,\pi')}$ lies in $\Rep_{W(k)}(G)_{[L,\pi]}$.
Fix a smooth representation $\Pi'$ of $G$, and let $\Pi'_{[L,\pi]}$ be the direct summand of $\Pi'$ that lies in $\Rep_{W(k)}(G)_{[L,\pi]}$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\Hom_{W(k)[G]}(\CP_{(M,\pi')},\Pi') & \cong & \Hom_{W(k)[G]}(\CP_{(M,\pi')},\Pi'_{[L,\pi]})\\
& \cong & \Hom_{W(k)[M]}(\Pi, r_G^{P^{\circ}} \Pi'_{[L,\pi]})\end{aligned}$$ As $r_G^{P^{\circ}}$ commutes with direct sums it is easy to see this implies $\CP_{(M,\pi')}$ is small; projectivity of $\CP_{(M,\pi')}$ follows from exactness of $r_G^{P^{\circ}}$.
\[cor:center\] The Bernstein center $A_{[L,\pi]}$ of $\Rep_{W(k)}(G)_{[L,\pi]}$ is isomorphic to the center of $\End_{W(k)[G]}(\CP_{[L,\pi]}).$
Every simple object of $\Rep_{W(k)}(G)_{[L,\pi]}$ is a quotient of $\CP_{(M,\pi')}$ for some pair $(M,\pi')$ with inertial supercuspidal support $(L,\pi)$, and hence such an object is a quotient of $\CP_{[L,\pi]}$. It follows that $\CP_{[L,\pi]}$ is faithfully projective in $\Rep_{W(k)}(G)_{[L,\pi]}$, and the result follows immediately.
Computation of the Bernstein Center {#sec:hecke}
===================================
In this section we compute the center $A_{[L,\pi]}$ of $\End_{W(k)[G]}(\CP_{[L,\pi]})$.
\[prop:invert\] There is a natural isomorphism: $$A_{[L,\pi]} \otimes \overline{\CK} \cong \prod_{(M,\tpi)} A_{M,\tpi},$$ where $(M,\tpi)$ runs over inertial equivalence classes of pairs in which $M$ is a Levi subgroup of $G$ and $\tpi$ is a cuspidal representation of $M$ over $\overline{\CK}$ whose mod $\ell$ inertial supercuspidal support equals $(L,\pi)$. This isomorphism is uniquely characterised by the property that for any $\Pi$ in $\Rep_{\overline{\CK}}(G)$, and any $x$ in $A_{[L,\pi]}$, the action of $x$ on $\Pi$ coincides with that of its image in $\prod_{(M,\tpi)} A_{M,\tpi}$.
The module $\CP$ defined by $\CP = \cInd_{\{e\}}^G W(k)$, where $\{e\}$ is the trivial subgroup of $G$, is a faithfully projective module in $\Rep_{W(k)}(G)$. We have $\CP \otimes \overline{\CK} = \cInd_{\{e\}}^G \overline{\CK}$; in particular $\CP \otimes \overline{\CK}$ is faithfully projective in $\Rep_{\overline{\CK}}(G)$. As $\CP$ is $\ell$-torsion free, we have an injection: $$\End_{W(k)[G]}(\CP) \rightarrow \End_{W(k)[G]}(\CP) \otimes \overline{\CK} \cong
\End_{\overline{\CK}[G]}(\CP \otimes \overline{\CK}).$$ In particular we have an isomorphism: $$Z(\End_{W(k)[G]}(\CP)) \otimes \overline{\CK} \cong Z(\End_{\overline{\CK}[G]}(\CP \otimes \overline{\CK})).$$ Multiplying both sides by the central idempotent $e_{[L,\pi]}$ gives us the desired isomorphism. This isomorphism is equivariant for the actions of both sides on $\CP \otimes \overline{\CK}$, and hence for all objects of $\Rep_{\overline{\CK}}(G)$.
This isomorphism identifies $A_{[L,\pi]}$ with the $W(k)$-subalgebra of $\prod_{(M,\tpi)} A_{M,\tpi}$ consisting of tuples $(x_{M,\tpi})$ such that the action of $(x_{M,\tpi})$ on $\CP_{[L,\pi]} \otimes \overline{\CK}$ preserves $\CP_{[L,\pi]}$. As we have a direct sum decomposition: $$\CP_{[L,\pi]} = \bigoplus_{M',\pi'} \CP_{(M',\pi')}$$ where $(M',\pi')$ runs over the inertial equivalence classes of pairs in which $M'$ is a Levi subgroup of $G$, $\pi'$ is an irreducible cuspidal representation of $M'$ over $k$, and the supercuspidal support of $(M',\pi')$ is $(L,\pi)$. It is clear that any central endomorphism of $\CP_{[L,\pi]}$ preserves this direct sum decomposition. We thus have:
A tuple $(x_{M,\tpi})$ preserves $\CP_{[L,\pi]}$ inside $\CP_{[L,\pi]} \otimes \overline{\CK}$ if, and only if, it preserves $\CP_{(M',\pi')}$ inside $\CP_{(M',\pi')} \otimes \overline{\CK}$ for all $(M',\pi')$ with supercuspidal support $(L,\pi)$.
For a fixed $(M',\pi')$, let $B_{(M',\pi')}$ be the $W(k)$-subalgebra of $\prod_{(M,\tpi)} A_{M,\tpi}$ consisting of tuples $(x_{M,\tpi})$ that preserve $\CP_{(M',\pi')}$ in $\CP_{(M',\pi')} \otimes \overline{\CK}$.
\[lemma:saturation\] Let $P$ be a parabolic subgroup of $G$, with Levi subgroup $M$, and let $\Pi$ be a smooth $W(k)[M]$-module that is $\ell$-torsion free. Then the natural map: $$\End_{W(k)[M]}(\Pi) \rightarrow \End_{W(k)[M]}(i_P^G \Pi)$$ is injective. Moreover, if $f$ is an element of $\End_{W(k)[G]}(i_P^G \Pi)$ such that $\ell^a f$ is in the image of this map for some $a$, then $f$ is also in the image of this map.
Let $g$ be an element of $\End_{W(k)[M]}(\Pi)$. Then $g$ fits in a commutative diagram: $$\begin{array}{ccc}
r_G^P i_P^G \Pi & \rightarrow & \Pi\\
\downarrow & & \downarrow\\
r_G^P i_P^G \Pi & \rightarrow & \Pi
\end{array}$$ in which the horizontal arrows are the natural maps (and are therefore surjective), and the vertical arrows are $r_G^P i_P^G g$ and $g$, respectively. The surjectivity of the horizontal maps shows we can recover $g$ from $r_G^P i_P^G g$, proving the first claim. As for the second, suppose that $\ell^a f = i_P^G g$ for some $g$. Then the the image of $r_G^P i_P^G g$ is contained in $\ell^a r_G^P i_P^G \Pi$ and the above diagram shows that the image of $g$ is contained in $\ell^a \Pi$. As $\Pi$ is $\ell$-torsion free it follows that $g$ is (uniquely) divisible by $\ell^a$ in $\End_{W(k)[M]}(\Pi)$; that is, $g = \ell^a g'$. Then we have $f = i_P^G g'$.
Recall that by definition, $\CP_{(M',\pi')} = i_P^G \otimes_i \CP_{(K_i,\tau_i)}$ for a suitable sequence of maximal distinguished cuspidal types $(K_i,\tau_i)$.
Let $(x_{M,\tpi})$ be an element of $B_{(M',\pi')}$. Let $f$ be the induced endomorphism of $\CP_{M',\pi'}$. Then $f$ arises by applying $i_P^G$ to a (unique) endomorphism of $\otimes_i \CP_{(K_i,\tau_i)}$.
This is immediate from Lemma \[lemma:saturation\] and Proposition \[prop:center action\].
We denote by $E_{(M',\pi')}$ the tensor product $\bigotimes_i E_{K_i,\tau_i}$; the lemma above realizes $B_{(M',\pi')}$ as a subalgebra of $E_{(M',\pi')}$.
\[prop:subalgebra\] The image of $B_{(M',\pi')}$ in $\End_{W(k)[G]}(\CP_{(M',\pi')})$ is isomorphic to the subalgebra of $\bigotimes_i E_{K_i,\tau_i}$ consisting of endomorphisms $f$ such that:
1. For any sequence $\vec{s} = \{s_1, \dots, s_r\}$, such that for each $i$, $\sigma_i$ is the cuspidal representation attached to the $\ell$-regular part $s'_i$ of $s_i$, the action of $f$ on $(\CP_{M',\pi'})_{\vec{s}}$ is given by an element $x_{\vec{s}}$ of $A_{M_{\vec{s}},\pi_{\vec{s}}}$.
2. For any pair $\vec{s}_1,\vec{s}_2$, such that $(M_{\vec{s}_1},\pi_{\vec{s}_1})$ is inertially equivalent to $(M_{\vec{s}_2},\pi_{\vec{s}_2})$, we have $x_{\vec{s}_1} = x_{\vec{s}_2}$.
Fix $(x_{M,\tpi})$ in $B_{(M',\pi')}$; we have shown that any such element arises by parabolic induction from a unique element $f$ of $\bigotimes_i E_{K_i,\tau_i}$. The action of $i_P^G f$ on $\CP_{(M,\tpi)}$ coincides with that of $(x_{M,\tpi})$; in particular the action of $f$ on $(\CP_{M,\tpi})_{\vec{s}}$ coincides with $x_{M_{\vec{s}},\pi_{\vec{s}}}$. It is thus clear that (1) and (2) hold for $f$.
Conversely, given an $f$ satisfying (1) and (2), define an element $(x_{M,\tpi})$ of $B_{(M',\pi')}$ by setting $x_{M,\tpi} = x_{\vec{s}}$ for any $\vec{s}$ such that $(M_{\vec{s}},\pi_{\vec{s}})$ is inertially equivalent to $(M,\tpi)$. Such an endomorphism of $\CP_{M,\tpi} \otimes \overline{\CK}$ clearly preserves $\CP_{M,\tpi}$, as its action on $\CP_{M,\tpi} \overline{\CK}$ coincides with that of $i_P^G f$.
In principle this proposition gives a precise description of $A_{[L,\pi]}$, although one that is too cumbersome for practical applications. In order to produce a more useful description of $A_{[L,\pi]}$, we must be more explicit about the maps from $B_{(M',\pi')}$ to $A_{M_{\vec{s}},\pi_{\vec{s}}}$ for various $\vec{s}$. We will normalize these maps by making a choice of a compatible system of cuspidals as in the disscussion preceding Theorem \[thm:compatibility\] for each tower of maximal distinguished cuspidal $k$-types attached to a maximal distingushed cuspidal type as in section \[sec:endomorphisms\].
We can make these choices systematically for all $i$ as follows: for each $j$, and each inertial equivalence class of supercuspidal representations of $\GL_j(F)$ over $k$, we choose:
1. a representative $\Pi$ in this inertial equivalence class,
2. a maximal distinguished cuspidal $k$-type $(K_{1,\Pi},\tau_{1,\Pi})$ contained in $\Pi$, of the form $\kappa_{1,\Pi} \otimes \sigma_{1,\Pi}$
3. an $\ell$-regular element $s'_{1,\Pi}$ of a suitable $\overline{G}_{1,\Pi}$ that gives rise to the supercuspidal representation $\sigma_{1,\Pi}$
4. a lift $\pi_{1,\Pi}$ of $\Pi$ to an absolutely irreducible supercuspidal representation of $\GL_j(F)$ over $\CK$, containing the type $(K_{1,\Pi},\tkappa_{1,\Pi} \otimes \St_{s'_{1,\Pi}})$.
Attached to these choices we have the sequence of cuspidal $k$-types $(K_{m,\Pi},\tau_{m,\Pi})$, and a compatible system of cuspidals $\pi_{s,\Pi}$ for all $m$ and all $s$ such that $s^{\reg} = (s'_{1,\Pi})^m$. We may assume that for each $i$, the $k$-type $(K_i,\tau_i)$ is equal to the type $(K_{m_i,\Pi},\tau_{m_i,\Pi})$ for some $m_i$ and $\Pi_i$. For any $\vec{s}$, we take $\pi_{\vec{s}}$ to be the tensor product of the representations $\pi_{s_i,\Pi_i}$. By construction, $\pi_{\vec{s}}$ is invariant under the action of $W_{M_{\vec{s}}}(\pi_{\vec{s}})$.
Proposition \[prop:center action\] (together with the construction preceding it) then gives, for each $\vec{s}$, maps: $$\phi_{\vec{s}}: \bigotimes_i E_{K_i,\tau_i} \rightarrow \overline{\CK}[Z_{\vec{s}}]$$ $$A_{M_{\vec{s}},\pi_{\vec{s}}} \cong \overline{\CK}[Z_{\vec{s}}]^{W_{\overline{M}_{\vec{s}}}(\pi_{\vec{s}})}.$$ These maps have the property that an element $f$ in $\otimes_i E_{K_i,\tau_i}$ acts on $(\CP_{M,\pi})_{\vec{s}}$ by an element $x$ of the Bernstein center if, and only if, the image of $f$ and $x$ in $\overline{\CK}[Z_{\vec{s}}]$ agree.
From this point of view, an $f$ in $\otimes_i E_{K_i,\tau_i}$ satisfies condition (1) of Proposition \[prop:subalgebra\] if, and only if, for all sequences $\vec{s}$, $\phi_{\vec{s}}(f)$ lies in $\overline{\CK}[Z_{\vec{s}}]^{W_{\overline{M}_{\vec{s}}}(\pi_{\vec{s}})}$.
Condition (2) of Proposition \[prop:subalgebra\] can also be reformulated in this way, though it is more awkward to do so. We first observe that if we have $\vec{s}_1$ and $\vec{s}_2$ such that the pairs $(M_{\vec{s}_1},\pi_{\vec{s}_1})$ and $(M_{\vec{s}_2},\pi_{\vec{s}_2})$ are inertially equivalent, then exists a $w \in W(G)$ such that $w M_{\vec{s}_1} w^{-1} = M_{\vec{s}_2}$, and $\pi_{\vec{s}_1}^w = \pi_{\vec{s}_2}$.
Suppose we have $\vec{s}_1$, $\vec{s}_2$, and $w$ as in the lemma. Then $A_{M_{\vec{s}_1},\pi_{\vec{s}_1}}$ is canonically isomorphic to $A_{M_{\vec{s}_2},\pi_{\vec{s}_2}}$. Then conjugation by $w$ takes $Z_{\vec{s}_1}$ to $Z_{\vec{s}_2}$ and $W_{\overline{M}_{\vec{s}_1}}(\pi_{\vec{s}_1})$ to $W_{\overline{M}_{\vec{s}_2}}(\pi_{\vec{s}_2})$. We then have a commutative diagram: $$\begin{array}{ccc}
A_{M_{\vec{s}_1},\pi_{\vec{s}_1}} & \rightarrow & \overline{\CK}[Z_{\vec{s}_1}]^{W_{\overline{M}_{\vec{s}_1}}(\pi_{\vec{s}_1})} \\
\downarrow & & \downarrow \\
A_{M_{\vec{s}_2},\pi_{\vec{s}_2}} & \rightarrow & \overline{\CK}[Z_{\vec{s}_2}]^{W_{\overline{M}_{\vec{s}_2}}(\pi_{\vec{s}_1})} \\
\end{array}$$ where the left-hand vertical map is the natural isomorphism and the right-hand vertical map, which we denote by $\psi_w$, is induced by conjugation by $w$.
An $f$ in $\otimes_i E_{K_i,\tau_i}$ satisfies conditions (1) and (2) of Proposition \[prop:subalgebra\] if, and only if, for all triples $\vec{s}_1,\vec{s}_2,w$ as in the lemma, we have $\phi_{\vec{s}_1}(f) = \psi_w(\phi_{\vec{s}_2}(f))$. (Condition (1) follows from looking at those triples with $\vec{s}_1 = \vec{s}_2$, for example.)
This description allows us to obtain a natural tensor factorization of $B_{M',\pi'}$. For each representative $\Pi$ of a given inertial equivalence class of supercuspidal representations we have chosen, let $M'(\Pi)$ be the product of the blocks of $M'$ corresponding to those $i$ for which the type $(K_i,\tau_i) = (K_{m_i,\Pi_i},\tau_{m_i,\Pi_i})$ satisfies $\Pi_i = \Pi$. $\Pi$. Let $\pi'(\Pi)$ be the tensor product of those tensor factors of $\pi'$ corresponding to blocks of $M'(\Pi)$. Then we have $$M' = \prod_{\Pi} M'(\Pi),$$ $$\pi' = \bigotimes_{\Pi} \pi'(\Pi)$$ $$E_{M',\pi'} = \bigotimes_{\Pi} E_{M'(\Pi),\pi'(\Pi)}.$$ Moreover, if for each $\vec{s}$, we let $\vec{s}(\Pi)$ be the subsequence consisting of those $s_i$ for which $(K_i,\tau_i)$ has underlying supercuspidal representation $\Pi$, then we obtain factorizations: $$M_{\vec{s}} = \prod_{\Pi} M_{\vec{s}(\Pi)},$$ $$\pi_{\vec{s}} = \bigotimes_{\Pi} \pi_{\vec{s}(\Pi)},$$ and the map: $\phi_{\vec{s}}$ of $E_{M',\pi'}$ into $\overline{\CK}[Z_{\vec{s}}]$ then factors as a tensor product: $$\phi_{\vec{s}} = \bigotimes_{\Pi} \phi_{\vec{s}(\Pi)}: E_{M'(\Pi),\pi'(\Pi)} \rightarrow \overline{\CK}[Z_{\vec{s}(\Pi)}].$$ For each tuple $(\vec{s}_1,\vec{s}_2,w)$, the map $\psi_w$ takes the tensor factor $\overline{\CK}[Z_{\vec{s}_1(\Pi)}]$ of $\overline{\CK}[Z_{\vec{s}_1}]$ to the factor $\overline{\CK}[Z_{\vec{s}_2(\Pi)}]$ of $\overline{\CK}[Z_{\vec{s}_2}]$. It is then immediate that we have:
\[prop:B tensor\] The natural isomorphism: $$E_{M',\pi'} \cong \bigotimes_{\Pi} E_{M'(\Pi),\pi'(\Pi)}$$ restricts to an isomorphism: $$B_{M',\pi'} \cong \bigotimes_{\Pi} B_{M'(\Pi),\pi'(\Pi)}.$$
Note that for each $(K_i,\tau_i)$, we have a distinguished subalgebra $C_{K_i,\tau_i}$ of $E_{K_i,\tau_i}$. The tensor product of these subalgebras is a subalgebra of $E_{M',\pi'}$. Let $C_{M',\pi'}$ be the intersection in $E_{M',\pi'}$ of $B_{M',\pi'}$ with $\otimes_i C_{K_i,\tau_i}$. It is clear that each $C_{M',\pi'}$ factors as the tensor product over $\Pi$ of $C_{M'(\Pi),\pi'(\Pi)}$.
The algebra $C_{M'(\Pi),\pi'(\Pi)}$ can be made very explicit. Write $$E_{M'(\Pi),\pi'(\Pi)} = \bigotimes_i E_{K_{m_i,\Pi},\tau_{m_i,\Pi}}.$$ The subalgebra $C_{K_{m_i,\Pi},\tau_{m_i,\Pi}}$ of $E_{K_{m_i,\Pi},\tau_{m_i,\Pi}}$ is generated by $\Theta_{1,m_i},\dots,\Theta_{m_i,m_i}$, together with $\Theta_{m_i,m_i}^{-1}$. Let $m$ be the sum of the $m_i$, and define elements $\Theta_1, \dots, \Theta_m$ of $\bigotimes_i E_{K_{m_i,\Pi},\tau_{m_i,\Pi}}$ by setting $$\Theta_r = \sum_{\vec{j}} \bigotimes_i \Theta_{j_i,m_i},$$ where $\vec{j}$ runs over sequences $\{j_i\}$ such that $1 \leq j_i \leq m_i$ for all $i$ and the sum of the $j_i$ is equal to $m$.
\[prop:C generators\] The algebra $C_{M'(\Pi),\pi'(\Pi)}$ is generated by $\Theta_1, \dots, \Theta_m$, together with $\Theta_m^{-1}$.
We first verify that the elements $\Theta_1, \dots, \Theta_m$ lie in $B_{M'(\Pi),\pi'(\Pi)}$. For each $\vec{s}$, define $$\theta_{r,\vec{s}} \in \bigotimes_i \overline{\CK}[Z_{s_i}]^{W_{\overline{M}_{s_i}}(s_i)}$$ by the formula: $$\theta_{r,\vec{s}} = \sum_{\vec{j}} \bigotimes_i \theta_{j_i,s_i},$$ where $\vec{j}$ runs over sequences $\{j_i\}$ such that $1 \leq j_i \leq m_i$ for all $i$, and the sum of the $d_i j_i$ is equal to $m$, where $d_i$ is the degree of $\FF_q(s_i)$ over $\FF_q(s'_{1,\Pi})$. It is clear from Theorem \[thm:compatibility\] that the map $$\phi_{\vec{s}(\Pi)}: \bigotimes_i E_{K_{m_i,\Pi},\tau_{m_i,\Pi}} \rightarrow \overline{\CK}[Z_{\vec{s}}]$$ takes $\Theta_r$ to $\theta_{r,\vec{s}}$. Furthermore, $\theta_{r,\vec{s}}$ is invariant under $W_{\overline{M}_{\vec{s}(\Pi)}(\pi_{\vec{s}(\Pi)})}$. Finally, observe that if $w$ is an element of $W(G)$ that conjugates $(M_{\vec{s}_1(\Pi)},\pi_{\vec{s}_1}(\Pi))$ to $(M_{\vec{s}_2}(\Pi),\pi_{\vec{s}_2}(\Pi))$, then $\theta_{r,\vec{s}_1} = w \theta_{r,\vec{s}_2} w^{-1}$. It follows that the $\Theta_r$ lie in $C_{M'(\Pi),\pi'(\Pi)}$ as claimed.
Conversely, note that if we define $\vec{s}$ by setting $s_i = (s'_{1,\Pi})^{m_i}$, then the tensor product of the $C_{K_{m_i,\Pi},\tau_{m_i,\Pi}}$ injects into $\overline{\CK}[Z_{\vec{s}}]$, and the $W_{\overline{M}_{\vec{s}}}(\pi_{\vec{s}})$-invariant subalgebra of $\overline{\CK}[Z_{\vec{s}}]$ is generated by the images of the $\Theta_i$ and $\Theta_m^{-1}$. In particular, the only elements of the tensor product of the $C_{K_{m_i,\Pi},\tau_{m_i,\Pi}}$ that can lie in $B_{M'(\Pi),\pi'(\Pi)}$ are those in the subalgebra generated by the $\Theta_i$ and $\Theta_m^{-1}$.
We record the following by-product of the proof of the above proposition:
\[prop:minimal isomorphism\] Let $\vec{s}$ be the sequence obtained by setting $s_i = (s'_{1,\Pi})^{m_i}$. Then The map $$\psi_{\vec{s}}: B_{M',\pi'} \rightarrow \overline{\CK}[Z_{\vec{s}}]^{W_{\overline{M}_{\vec{s}}}(\vec{s})}$$ identifies $C_{M',\pi'}$ with $W(k)[Z_{\vec{s}}]^{W_{\overline{M}_{\vec{s}}}(\vec{s})}.$
The algebra $B_{M',\pi'}$ is a finitely generated $C_{M',\pi'}$-module.
It suffices to show this for each $B_{M'(\Pi),\pi'(\Pi)}$ over $C_{M'(\Pi),\pi'(\Pi)}$. Moreover, it is clear that the tensor product $\otimes_i C_{K_{m_i,\Pi},\tau_{m_i,\Pi}}$ is finitely generated over $C_{M'(\Pi),\pi'(\Pi)}$, and that $\otimes_i E_{K_{m_i,\Pi},\tau_{m_i,\Pi}}$ is finitely generated over this tensor product. It follows that $\otimes_i E_{K_{m_i,\Pi},\tau_{m_i,\Pi}}$ is finitely generated over $C_{M'(\Pi),\pi'(\Pi)}$; as $B_{M'(\Pi),\pi'(\Pi)}$ is a $C_{M'(\Pi),\pi'(\Pi)}$-submodule of $\otimes_i E_{K_{m_i,\Pi},\tau_{m_i,\Pi}}$, the result follows.
To go further, we must introduce a partial order on the inertial equivalence classes of pairs $(M',\pi')$ of irreducible cuspidal representations $\pi'$ of $M'$ over $k$ with inertial supercuspidal support $(L,\pi)$. We do this by extending the partial order defined in section \[sec:endomorphisms\]. Attached to $(M',\pi')$ we have a collection of types $(K_{m_i,\Pi_i},\tau_{m_i,\Pi_i})$. Define an “elementary operation” on such a collection to be the act of replacing a single type $(K_{m_i,\Pi_i},\tau_{m_i,\Pi_i})$ with $j = \frac{m_i}{m'_i}$ copies of the type $(K_{m'_i,\Pi_i},\tau_{m'_i,\Pi_i})$, where $m'_i$ immediately precedes $m_i$. This new collection gives rise to a new pair $(M'',\pi'')$, with $M''$ contained (up to conjugacy) in $M'$. We say that $(M'',\pi'') \preceq (M',\pi')$, if we can obtain $(M'',\pi'')$ from $(M',\pi')$ by a sequence of such “elementary operations.” Note that if $(M'',\pi'') \preceq (M',\pi')$, then $\pi'$ is inertially equivalent to the unique cuspidal Jordan-Hölder constituent of the parabolic induction of $\pi''$ to $M'$, and conversely; this gives an alternative characterization of the partial order.
There is thus, up to inertial equivalence, a unique maximal pair $(M'_{\max},\pi'_{\max})$ among the pairs $(M',\pi')$ with supercuspidal support $(L,\pi)$. Morally, $(M'_{\max},\pi'_{\max})$ is the inertial equivalence class that is “farthest from supercuspidal.”
\[prop:comparison\] Let $(x_{\vec{s}})$ be an element of $\prod_{\vec{s}} A_{M_{\vec{s}},\pi_{\vec{s}}}$ that preserves $\CP_{M_1,\pi_1'}$ in $\CP_{M_1,\pi_1'} \otimes \overline{\CK}.$ Then $(x_{M,\vec{s}})$ preserves $\CP_{M_2,\pi_2'}$ in $\CP_{M_2,\pi_2'} \otimes \overline{\CK}$ for all $(M_2,\pi_2') \preceq (M_1,\pi_1')$.
It suffices to establish this when one can obtain $(M_2',\pi_2')$ from $(M_1',\pi_1')$ by a single “elementary operation” of the kind described above. Our tensor factorization allows us to reduce to the case where the type attached to $(M_1',\pi_1')$ is a tensor product of $(K_{m_i,\Pi},\tau_{m_i,\Pi})$ for a single fixed $\Pi$, and $i = 1, \dots, r$, and the type attached to $(M_2',\pi_2')$ is obtained by replacing $(K_{m_r,\Pi},\tau_{m_r,\Pi})$ with a tensor product of $j$ copies of $(K_{m',\Pi},\tau_{m',\Pi})$, where $m'$ immediately precedes $m_r$.
Theorem \[thm:comparison\] then gives us a map: $$f_m: E_{K_{m_r,\Pi},\tau_{m_r,\Pi}} \rightarrow E_{K_{m',\Pi},\tau_{m',\Pi}}^{\otimes j}$$ and we extend this by taking tensor products to a map: $$E_{M_1,\pi'_1} \rightarrow E_{M_2,\pi'_2}.$$ The compatibility properties of $f_m$, together with our description of $B_{M_1,\pi'_1}$, shows that this map takes $B_{M_1,\pi'_1}$ to $B_{M_2,\pi'_2}$, and the result follows.
\[cor:main\] The map $A_{[L,\pi]} \rightarrow B_{M_{\max},\pi_{\max}}$ giving the action of $A_{[L,\pi]}$ on $\CP_{M_{\max},\pi_{\max}}$ is an isomorphism.
In particular the embedding of $C_{M_{\max},\pi_{\max}}$ in $B_{(M_{\max},\pi_{\max})}$ yields an embedding of $C_{M_{\max},\pi_{\max}}$ in $A_{[L,\pi]}$. When embedded in this way we write $C_{[L,\pi]}$ for the image of $C_{M_{\max},\pi_{\max}}$ in $A_{[L,\pi]}$. Note that $C_{[L,\pi]}$ is a subalgebra of $A_{[L,\pi]}$ isomorphic to a polynomial ring over $W(k)$, and that $A_{[L,\pi]}$ is a finitely generated $C_{[L,\pi]}$-module.
We make the following observations about the subalgebra $C_{[L,\pi]}$ of $A_{[L,\pi]}$:
The action of $C_{[L,\pi]}$ on $\CP_{M',\pi'}$ identifies $C_{[L,\pi]}$ with $C_{M',\pi'}$ for all pairs $(M',\pi')$ with supercuspidal support $(L,\pi)$.
The map $f_m$ of Theorem \[thm:comparison\] takes the subalgebra $C_{K_m,\tau_m}$ of $E_{K_m,\tau_m}$ to a subalgebra of $E_{K_{m'},\tau_{m'}}^{\otimes j}$. Thus, the map $B_{M_{\max},\pi_{\max}} \rightarrow B_{M',\pi'}$ from Proposition \[prop:comparison\] maps $C_{[L,\pi]}$ to $C_{M',\pi'}$. The resulting map from $C_{[L,\pi]}$ to $C_{M',\pi'}$ can be seen to be an isomorphism by invoking Proposition \[prop:minimal isomorphism\].
Proposition \[prop:minimal isomorphism\], together with our tensor factorization of $C_{[L,\pi]}$, gives an isomorphism of $C_{[L,\pi]}$ with $W(k)[Z_{\vec{s}}]^{W_{\overline{M}_{\vec{s}}}(\vec{s})},$ where $\vec{s}$ is obtained by setting $s_i = (s'_{1,\Pi_i})^{m_i}$.
For each $\vec{s}'$, we then have a map: $$C_{[L,\pi]} \hookrightarrow A_{[L,\pi]} \rightarrow A_{M_{\vec{s}'},\pi_{\vec{s}'}} \cong W(k)[Z_{\vec{s}'}]^{W_{\overline{M}_{\vec{s}'}}(\vec{s}')}.$$ We can describe the composed map explicitly on generators as follows: the algebra $C_{[L,\pi]}$ is generated by elements of the form $\Theta_{r_1,\Pi_1} \otimes \dots \otimes \Theta_{r_u,\Pi_u}$. The group $Z_{\vec{s}'}$ decomposes as a product of the groups $Z_{\vec{s}'(\Pi_i)}$ as $i$ varies.
The map $$C_{[L,\pi]} \rightarrow W(k)[Z_{\vec{s}'}]^{W_{\overline{M}_{\vec{s}'}}(\vec{s}')}$$ takes the element $\Theta_{r_1,\Pi_1} \otimes \dots \otimes \Theta_{r_u,\Pi_u}$ to the element: $\theta_{r_1,\vec{s}'(\Pi_1)} \otimes \dots \otimes \theta_{r_u,\vec{s}'(\Pi_u)}$ of $W(k)[Z_{\vec{s}'}]$, where the latter is considered as the tensor product of the rings $W(k)[Z_{\vec{s}'(\Pi_i)}]$.
This is immediate from the tensor factorization, together with the calculation in the proof of Proposition \[prop:C generators\].
The action of $C_{[L,\pi]}$ on representations over $k$ has a description similar to the description of action of the Bernstein center in characteristic zero. As in the characteristic zero theory, let $\Psi(L)$ be the group of unramified characters of $L$, considered as an algebraic group over $k$, and let $H$ be the subgroup of $\Psi(L)$ consisting of characters $\chi$ such that $\pi \otimes \chi$ is isomorphic to $\pi$. Let $W(L,\pi)$ be the subgroup of $w \in W(L)$ such that $\pi^w$ is inertially equivalent to $\pi$.
Note that an unramified character $\chi$ of $L$ over $k$ corresponds to a map $f_{\chi}: k[L/L_0] \rightarrow k$, and for any two such characters $\chi,\chi'$, we have $\pi \otimes \chi$ inertially equivalent to $\pi \otimes \chi'$ if, and only if the restrictions of $f_{\chi}$ and $f_{\chi'}$ to $\bigl(k[L/L_0]^H\bigr)^{W_L(\pi)}$ agree.
\[thm:c action\] There is a natural isomorphism: $$C_{L,\pi} \otimes_{W(k)} k \cong (k[L/L_0]^H)^{W_L(\pi)},$$ such that for any $\Pi$ over $k$ with supercuspidal support $(L,\pi \otimes \chi)$, $C_{L,\pi}$ acts on $\Pi$ via the map $f_{\chi}: k[L/L_0] \rightarrow k$. (In particular, one can recover the supercuspidal support of $\Pi$ from the action of $C_{L,\pi}$.)
Define $\vec{s}'$ by $s'_i = (s'_{\Pi_i})^{m_i}$ for all $i$, where $(K_{m_i,\Pi_i},\tau_{m_i,\Pi_i})$ are the types giving rise to $(M_{\max},\pi_{\max})$. Then $M_{\vec{s}'}$ is conjugate to $L$, and $\pi_{\vec{s}'}$ is conjugate to an unramified twist of a lift $\tpi$ of $\pi$. In particular this conjugation takes $W_{M_{\vec{s}'}}(\pi_{\vec{s}'})$ to $W_L(\pi)$, and so we have an isomorphism of $A_{M_{\vec{s}}',\pi_{\vec{s}'}}$ with $(\overline{\CK}[L/L_0]^H)^{W_L(\pi)}$. Proposition \[prop:minimal isomorphism\] then shows that the composed map: $$A_{L,\pi} \rightarrow A_{M_{\vec{s}'},\pi_{\vec{s}'}} \cong (\overline{\CK}[L/L_0]^H)^{W_L(\pi)}$$ identifies $C_{L,\pi}$ with $(W(k)[L/L_0]^H)^{W_L(\pi)}$. We normalize the second isomorphism via the pair $(L,\tpi)$, so that, under this isomorphism, the action of $C_{L,\pi}$ on a representation $\tPi = \tpi \otimes \tchi$ in the block corresponding to $(M_{\vec{s}'},\pi_{\vec{s}'})$ is via $f_{\tchi}: W(k)[L/L_0] \rightarrow \overline{\CK}$.
Let $\tPi$ be a lift of $\Pi$ to a representation over $\overline{\CK}$ in the inertial equivalence class corresponding to $(M_{\vec{s}'},\pi_{\vec{s}'})$; then there exists an unramified character $\tchi$ such that $\tPi = \tpi \otimes \tchi.$ Then $C_{L,\pi}$ acts on $\tPi$ via $f_{\tchi}$, so it acts on $\Pi$ via $f_{\chi}$.
Corollaries {#sec:main}
===========
Let $L$ be a Levi subgroup of $G$ and fix an irreducible supercuspidal representation $\pi$ of $L$ over $k$. We summarize several implications of section \[sec:hecke\] for $A_{[L,\pi]}$ below:
The ring $A_{[L,\pi]}$ is a finitely generated, reduced, $\ell$-torsion free $W(k)$-algebra.
As $A_{[L,\pi]}$ is a finitely generated $C_{[L,\pi]}$-module, and $C_{[L,\pi]}$ is a polynomial ring over $W(k)$, it is immediate that $A_{[L,\pi]}$ is a finitely generated $W(k)$-algebra. The fact that $A_{[L,\pi]}$ is $\ell$-torsion free follows from $A_{[L,\pi]} \subset \End_{W(k)[G]}(\CP_{[L,\pi]})$ and the fact that $\CP_{[L,\pi]}$ is $\ell$-torsion free. Reducedness follows from the fact that $A_{[L,\pi]}$ embeds in $A_{[L,\pi]} \otimes_{W(k)} \overline{\CK}$, and the latter is reduced by Proposition \[prop:invert\].
If $\Pi$ and $\Pi'$ are irreducible representations of $G$ over $k$ that lie in $\Rep_{W(k)}(G)_{[L,\pi]}$, and $f_{\Pi}, f_{\Pi'}$ are the maps $A_{[L,\pi]} \rightarrow k$ giving the action of $A_{L,\pi}$ on $\Pi$ and $\Pi'$ respectively, then $f_{\Pi} = f_{\Pi'}$ if, and only if, $\Pi$ and $\Pi'$ have the same supercuspidal supports.
Suppose first that $\Pi$ and $\Pi'$ both have supercuspidal support $(L,\pi')$ for some $\pi'$ inertially equivalent to $\pi$. Let $\tpi'$ be a lift of $\pi'$ to $\overline{\CK}$. Then both $\Pi$ and $\Pi'$ are subquotients of $i_P^G \tpi$. On the other hand the action of $A_{[L,\pi]}$ on $i_P^G \tpi$ factors through $A_{[L,\pi]} \otimes \overline{\CK}$, and the latter acts on $i_P^G \tpi$ by scalars. It follows that any element of $A_{[L,\pi]}$ acts on $\Pi$ and $\Pi'$ by the same scalar. (Note that this direction uses nothing of our explicit computations from the previous section.)
The converse is an immediate consequence of Theorem \[thm:c action\] of the previous section.
The faithfully projective module $\CP_{L,\pi}$ is an admissible $A_{L,\pi}[G]$-module.
The module $\CP_{L,\pi}$ is a direct sum of modules $\CP_{M',\pi'}$; each of the latter is an admissible $E_{M',\pi'}[G]$-module by Theorem \[thm:admissibility\]. As $E_{M',\pi'}$ is a finitely generated $C_{M',\pi'}$-module, $\CP_{M',\pi'}$ is also admissible over $C_{M',\pi'}$. Inside $A_{L,\pi}$ we have $C_{[L,\pi]}$, and the map $A_{[L,\pi]} \rightarrow \End_{W(k)[G]}(\CP_{M',\pi'})$ identifies $C_{[L,\pi]}$ with $C_{M',\pi'}$. Thus each $\CP_{M',\pi'}$ is admissible over $A_{[L,\pi]}$, and we are done.
Let $\Pi$ be an object of $\Rep_{W(k)}(G)_{[L,\pi]}$ that is finitely generated as a $W(k)[G]$-module. Then $\Pi$ is an admissible $A_{L,\pi}[G]$-module.
As $\CP_{[L,\pi]}$ is faithfully projective, there is a surjection of a direct sum of (possibly infinitely many) copies of $\CP_{[L,\pi]}$ onto $\Pi$. Any element $x$ of $\Pi$ is in the image of this surjection, and any element $\tx$ that maps to $x$ is nonzero only in finitely many copies of $\CP_{[L,\pi]}$. Thus if $\Pi$ is generated by finitely many elements, then there is a finite direct sum of copies of $\CP_{[L,\pi]}$ whose image in $\Pi$ contains all the generators, and this direct sum surjects onto $\Pi$.
J. Bernstein and P. Deligne, *Le “centre” de Bernstein*, in *Representations des groups redutifs sur un corps local, Traveaux en cours*, (P. Deligne ed.), Hermann, Paris, 1–32.
J. Bernstein and K. Rumelhart, *Representations of $p$-adic groups,* lecture notes, Harvard university, 1992.
J. Bernstein and A. Zelevinski, *Induced representations of $p$-adic groups I,* Ann. Sci. Ec. Norm. Sup. (4) 10 (1977), no. 4, 441–472.
C. Bushnell, *Representations of reductive $p$-adic groups: localization of Hecke algebras and applications,* J. London Math. Soc (2) 63 (2001), no. 2, 364–386.
C. Bushnell and G. Henniart, *Generalized Whittaker models and the Bernstein center,* Amer. J. Math. 125 (2003), no. 3, 513–547.
C. Bushnell and P. Kutzko, *The admissible dual of $\GL(N)$ via compact open subgroups,* Annals of Math. Studies 129, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1993.
C. Bushnell and P. Kutzko, *Smooth representations of reductive $p$-adic groups: structure theory via types,* Proc. London Math. Soc (3) 77 (1998) 582–634.
C. Bushnell and P. Kutzko, *Semisimple types in $\GL_n$,* Comp. Math. 119 (1999), 53–97.
M. Cabanes and M. Enguehard, *Representation theory of finite reductive groups,* New Mathematical Monographs 1, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004.
J.-F. Dat, *Integral structures in Bernstein’s center*, preprint, 2006.
J.-F. Dat, *Finitude pour les repr[é]{}sentations lisses de groupes $p$-adiques*, J. Inst. Math. Jussieu, 8 (2009), no. 2, 261–333.
J.-F. Dat, *Th[é]{}orie de Lubin-Tate non ab[é]{}lienne $\ell$-enti[è]{}re*, preprint, 2010.
P. Deligne and G. Lusztig, *Representations of reductive groups over finite fields*, Ann. Math. 103 (1976), 103–161.
M. Emerton and D. Helm, *The local Langlands correspondence for $\GL_n$ in families*, preprint, 2011, [**arXiv:1104.0321**]{}.
G. Lusztig, *Affine Hecke algebras and their graded version*, J. Amer. Math. Soc. 2 (1989), 599–635.
V. Paskunas, *The image of Colmez’s Montreal functor*, preprint, 2010.
D. Paige, Ph. D. Thesis, 2012, in preparation.
A. Roche, *Parabolic induction and the Bernstein decomposition*, Compositio Math. 134 (2002), no. 2, 113–133.
M.-F. Vigneras, *Representations $l$-modulaires d’un groupe r[é]{}ductif $p$-adique avec $l \neq p$*, Progress in Mathematics 137, Birkhauser, Boston, 1996.
M.-F. Vigneras, *Induced $R$-representations of $p$-adic reductive groups*, Selecta Math. 4 (1998), no. 4, 549–623.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
\#1[ ==]{}\#1\#2 \#3 \#4 \#5\]\#6[\#2 \#3 \#4 \#5 .\
]{}\#1\#1[=\#1 [=12 \#\#1[‘\#\#1=]{}‘ =10 to :.\
]{}]{}\#1[ = by- = by- =0 =0 == = = - = 2 >0 0 0$ because the rest are related
to the $n0$ ones by a field
redefinition. It can also be arranged, without loss of generality, for the
coupling constant
$$ to lie in the Cartan subalgebra of the group $G$. With
this choice for $$, we shall show that all vacua lie on a
maximal torus of the group $G$. We shall
first solve the Bogomol'nyi equations of $SO(2)$-models and show that
the $SO(2)$ solitons generalise the sine-Gordon solitons; the latter
are recovered in
the limit $=0$. We shall then give the soliton solutions of the
$SU(2)$ model for $n=1$ and $n=2$ without
posing any restriction on the coupling constant $$. In the
$n=1$ case, we shall find two classes of
solitons. The first one is a set of static solitons that lie on a
maximal torus of $SU(2)$
and are embeddings of the $SO(2)$ solitons. The second one is a set
of time-dependent solutions that, apart
from their asymptotic values, lie in the complement of the maximal
torus of $SU(2)$ and include the solution
given in [\gptb]. In the
$n=2$ case, we shall show that all solitons which lie on the maximal
torus are obtained from embedding
of $SO(2)$ solitons into the $SU(2)$ model.
In addition, we shall examine the qualitative properties of the Bogomol'nyi
equations for $SU(2)$ $n>2$ models and support our conclusions with a
numerical calculation for the $n=3, 4, 5$ cases (Fig [1,2,3]).
Finally, we shall show that the $G$-model for
$G$ any semisimple Lie group has static and time-dependent solutions.
The former lie on the maximal torus
of $G$ while the latter lie on the complement of the maximal torus.
Some of the $G$-model solitons
are obtained from embedding $SO(2)$ and $SU(2)$ solitons.
The organisation of the paper is as follows: In section two, we shall
introduce the Bogomol'nyi equations of
$G$-models and discuss their general properties. In section
three, we shall solve the Bogomol'nyi equations for $G=SO(2)$ and
compute the charge, mass and moduli space
metric of the solitons. In section four, we shall examine the general
properties of the $SU(2)$ model
and give all static solitons that lie on the maximal torus of $SU(2)$.
In section five, we shall investigate
the time-dependent solitons of the
$SU(2)$ $n=1$ model and give their charge, mass and moduli space
metric. In section six, we shall
examine the solitons of the $SU(2)$ $n=2$ model and find that all of
them are static and lie on the maximal
torus. In section seven, we shall study the qualitative properties of
the Bogomol'nyi equations for the
$SU(2)$ $n>2$ models. The solitons for
models with any semisimple group $G$ as target space will be
investigated in section eight, and in section nine we
shall give our conclusions and comment on the quantum mechanical
properties of the solitons of $G$-models.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\chapter { The Bogomol'nyi equations}
Let $[N]{}$ be a Riemannian manifold with metric $g$, a locally
defined two form $b$ and a Killing vector
$X$. The bosonic part of the action of (1,1)-supersymmetric massive
sigma models with torsion $H$ and scalar
potential
$V$ [\gptb] is
$$
I= \int d^2x \big[ (g+b)_{ij} \partial_+ \phi^i \partial_-
\phi^j-V(\phi)\big]\ ,
\eqn\onebb
$$
where $$ is a map from the two-dimensional Minkowski spacetime,
with light-cone co-ordinates
$(x\^+, x\^-)$, into $[N]{}$ and the two-form $b$ is the `gauge
potential' of the
torsion three-form $H$, $H\_[ijk]{}=[32]{}\_[\[i]{} b\_[jk\]]{}$.
Furthermore, the scalar potential is
$$
V={m^2\over4} g_{ij} \big( X^i X^j+ u^i u^j\big)\ ,
\eqn\potone
$$
where the one-form $u$ is orthogonal to the Killing vector $X$ ($X\^i u\_i=0$) and
$$
X^i H_{ijk}=\partial_{[j} u_{k]}\ .
\eqn\pottwo
$$
It is clear that the supersymmetric vacua of the theory are the points
of the target space $[N]{}$ where
both
$X$ and $u$ vanish. The action of the (1,1)-supersymmetric massive
sigma model is invariant under the
transformations
$$
\delta\phi^i=\eta X^i(\phi)
\eqn\ptthree
$$
with associated charge
$$
Q=\int \, dx\, \big(X_i\,\partial_t\phi^i+u_i\, \partial_x\phi^i\big)\ ,
\eqn\potfour
$$
where $$ is an infinitesimal parameter and $(t,x)$ are the
co-ordinates of two-dimensional Minkowski spacetime.
The charge $Q$ is the charge that appears as central charge in the
(1,1)-supersymmetry
algebra [\gptb]. The energy of the model is
$$
E={1\over2} \int\, dx\, \big(g_{ij}\, \partial_t\phi^i\,
\partial_t\phi^j+g_{ij}\, \partial_x\phi^i\,
\partial_x\phi^j+V(\phi)\big)\ ,
\eqn\fivebb
$$
and the bound of $E$ in terms of $Q$ is
$$
E\geq {m\over2} |Q|\ .
\eqn\sixbb
$$
We can split the charge $Q$ into a Noether charge $Q\_N$ and a
topological charge $Q\_T$, $Q=Q\_N+Q\_T$. Although
there is no natural way to split $Q$, we can use the Hodge decomposion
of $u$ as a sum of an exact form
$$, a co-exact form
$$ and a harmonic form
$$, ($u=++$), with respect to the metric $g$ to define
$$
Q_T=\int(\alpha+\gamma)_i\partial_x\phi^i\ .
\eqn\potsix
$$
and $Q\_NQ-Q\_T$; $Q\_N$ and $Q\_T$ are separately
conserved. Both the fundamental states and the solitons of the theory
are charged with respect to the Noether
charge $Q\_N$ but only the latter are charged with respect to the
topological charge $Q\_T$ as well.
In the special case of $G$-models with scalar potential \onea, we
choose the couplings as follows:
$g$ is the bi-invariant metric
$$
g_{ij}=\delta_{AB}L^A{}_i L^B{}_j=\delta_{AB}R^A{}_i R^B{}_j
\eqn\metrone
$$
on $G$,
$H$ is the bi-invariant closed three form
$$
H_{ijk}=-{1\over2}f_{ABC}L^A_iL^B_jL^C_k=-{1\over2} f_{ABC} R^A_iR^B_jR^C_k
\eqn\twobb
$$
on $G$, $X$ is the vector field
$$
X^i=\kappa^A (L-R)^i_A\ ,
\eqn\potseven
$$
and the one-form $u$ is
$$
u_i=\kappa_A (L+R)_i^A+\partial_ia\ ,
\eqn\poteight
$$
where $L$ is the left invariant frame of $G$, $R$ is the right
invariant frame of $G$, $f$ are the
structure constants of $[L]{}(G)$, $A,B,C=1,...,[dim]{}[L]{}(G)$ and
$i,j,k=1,...,[dim]{} G$, $$ is a vector in the Lie algebra
of $G$ as in \onea\ and $a$ is given
in \oneaa.
The supersymmetric classical vacua of the action \onebb\ are the
solutions of the algebraic equation
$$
2\kappa_A+{\rm tr}\big( k^n t_A\big)=0
\eqn\fourb
$$
for $kG$,
where ${t\_A; A=1,...,[dim]{}[L]{}(G)}$ is a basis of the Lie
algebra of the group $G$.
The charge $Q$ \potfour\ of $G$-models is
$$
Q=\int dx \big(\kappa_A (L-R)^A_i\partial_t\phi^i+\kappa_A
(L+R)^A_i\partial_x\phi^i +\partial_x a \big)\ .
\eqn\fourbb
$$
For $G$ abelian, $L=R$ and $\_A(L+R)\^A$ is a closed one-form, so
$Q\_N=0$ and
$$
Q_T=Q=\int \, dx\, \big(2\kappa_A L^A_i\partial_x\phi^i +\partial_x a \big)\ .
\eqn\potninea
$$
However, for $G$ semisimple, the one-form $u-da$ is co-exact and the
topological charge $Q\_T$ \potsix\ is
simply
$$
Q_T=\int dx \partial_x a\ .
\eqn\potnine
$$
To find the mass and charge of the bosonic fundamental states of
$G$-models, we use the background field method (see for example
[\hps]) to linearise the theory around a
classical supersymmetric vacuum $k\_0$. The mass-square and charge
matrices written in the left-invariant
frame basis are then
$$
{\cal M}_{AB}={m^2\over4}\big(\kappa^C \kappa^D f^E{}_{AC}\, f_{EBD}+
n^2 \sum_C{\rm tr}\,(t_{(A}\, t_{C)}
k_0^n)\,{\rm tr}(t_{(B}\, t_{C)} k_0^n)\big)\ ,
\eqn\potten
$$
and
$$
{\cal Q}_{AB}=-\kappa^C f_{ABC}\ ,
\eqn\poteleven
$$
respectively. The eigenvalues of $[M]{}$ are the square of the
masses of the fundamental
states and the eigenvalues of $[Q]{}$ are their charges. To do
this computation, we have used
\pottwo\ to show that
$du=0$ evaluated at any supersymmetric vacuum. The fundamental states
parallel to the zero modes of the charge-matrix
\poteleven\ have zero Noether charge. The zero modes of $[Q]{}$
are orthogonal to the tangent vectors of
the coadjoint orbit of $G$ determined by $$ and therefore
the directions that carry the charge are those
along the coadjoint orbit; in fact $[Q]{}$ is the symplectic form
of the coadjoint orbit. The mass of the
fundamental states need not saturate the bound \sixbb\ since
$$
{\cal M}\geq {m^2\over 4} {\cal Q} {\cal Q}^t
\eqn\potelevenb
$$
due to the presence of the second term in the mass-square-matrix
\potten. So the fundamental states obey the
bound as expected for supersymmetric theories but they are not
necessarily BPS states. Apart from the bosonic
fundamental states, the (1,1)-supersymmetric sigma models have also
fermionic ones which can be investigated
in a similar way; for the purpose of this paper we shall restrict our
attention to the bosonic fundamental states.
The classical configurations that saturate the bound \sixbb\ satisfy
the following Bogomol'nyi type equations:
$$
\eqalign{
\partial_t k(x,t)&=\mp {m\over2} (\kappa k-k \kappa)
\cr
\partial_x k(x,t)&=\mp {m\over2} \big(\kappa k+k \kappa +k \sum_A t_A
{\rm tr}(t_A k^n)\big)\ .}
\eqn\oneb
$$
The first of these equations can be easily solved by setting
$$
k(x,t)=\exp\big(\mp {m\over2} \kappa t\big) k(x) \exp\big(\pm
{m\over2} \kappa t\big)\ .
\eqn\twob
$$
Substituting this into the second equation of \oneb, it reduces to
$$
{d \over dx}k(x)=\mp {m\over2} \big(\kappa k(x)+k(x) \kappa +k(x)
\sum_A t_A {\rm tr}(t_A
k^n(x))\big)\ .
\eqn\threeb
$$
This is a non-linear but ordinary differential equation and the
investigation of its solutions for various
choices of $G$ and $n$ will be our task in the rest of the paper.
It is sufficient to investigate \threeb\ for
$n>0$ because the transformation
$$
k\rightarrow k^{-1}, \qquad x\rightarrow -x
\eqn\fiveba
$$
acting on a model with coupling constants $g, b,, m$ and
$a=[1n]{}[tr]{} k\^n$ transforms it to a
model with coupling constants $g, b,, m$ and
$a=-[1n]{}[tr]{} k\^[-n]{}$. Therefore the solitons of models
with $n<0$ can be obtained from
the solitons of models with $n>0$ by acting on the latter with \fiveba.
In addition, the Lagrangian \onebb, the field equations and the
Bogomol'nyi equations of the
(1,1)-supersymmetric sigma model are invariant under the sigma model symmetry
$$
k(x,t)\rightarrow h k(x,t) h^{-1} \qquad \kappa\rightarrow h \kappa h^{-1}\ ,
\eqn\fiveb
$$
where $hG$. Although sigma
model symmetries are not associated with conserved charges, we can use
\fiveb\ to choose, without loss of
generality, the coupling constant $$ in the Cartan subalgebra of
$[L]{} (G)$. This choice
of $$ simplifies both the Bogomol'nyi equations \oneb\ and the
equation for the vacua \fourb\ of the
model. In particular, we shall show in chapter eight that it can be
arranged for the vacua to lie in the
maximal torus of the group $G$.
The solutions of the Bogomol'nyi equations may depend on several
moduli parameters. In that case, as
for BPS monopoles [\manton], one can define a metric on the moduli
space of solutions as
follows:
$$
ds^2={1\over2}\int dx\, g_{ij} d\phi^i d\phi^j\ ,
\eqn\sevenb
$$
where the differential on $$ denotes variation with respect to the
moduli parameters. The soliton
solutions of the Bogomol'nyi equations \oneb\ preserve $1/2$ of the
supersymmetry and therefore their
effective theory is an $N=1$ supersymmetric one-dimensional sigma
model with target space the moduli space and
metric the moduli metric \sevenb.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%Chapter 2%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\chapter{The SO(2) model}
The simplest of the $G$-models is the one with the group $SO(2)$ as
target space.
Since the target space is one dimensional, the antisymmetric tensor
coupling $b$ is identically zero. A
parameterisation of the group manifold
$SO(2)$ is
$$
k=\pmatrix{\cos\theta & \quad -\sin\theta\cr \sin\theta & \quad \cos\theta}
\eqn\onec
$$
and a basis in $[L]{}(SO(2))$ is
$$
t_1=\pmatrix{0&\quad -1\cr 1&\quad 0}\ ,
\eqn\onecnew
$$
where $01$, the model does not have any supersymmetric vacua and
therefore supersymmetry is spontaneously
broken. For $01$, the supersymmetric vacua of the
$SO(2)$ model are
$$
\theta[\tilde \ell, \pm]={1\over n}\big(\pm\theta_0+ {1\mp 1\over 2}
\pi + 2\pi \tilde\ell\big) \ ,
\eqn\threec
$$
where $$ is an integer, $00 ]{} $$ interpolate between the vacua $\theta[\ell, -]$ and $\theta[ \ell+1, +]$, for $0\leq\ell<n-1$, and the vacua $\theta[n-1, -]$ and $\theta[0, +]$ for $\ell=n-1$. We remark that the solutions are continuous and differentiable at $x=0$. The solitons are those solutions in and in with the plus sign whereas the anti-solitons are those with the minus sign. We note that the $SO(2)$ solitons of and interpolate between all neighbouring pairs of vacua of the model. (ii) For $\kappa=0$, the equation becomes that of the sine-Gordon theory. The solutions are $$\theta=\zeta\, {2\over n}\bigg({\rm arc}\tan\big[\exp\big(\pm m n
(x-x_0)\big)\big]+\ell \pi\bigg)
\eqn\sixc$$ for $0\leq \ell< n$, $\ell\in \bZ$ and $\zeta=\pm$. (iii) For $\kappa=1$ and $n>1$ , the solutions that interpolate between the vacua $\theta[\ell]$ and $\theta[\ell+1]$, for $0\leq\ell<n-1$, and the vacua $\theta[n-1]$ and $\theta[0]$ for $\ell=n-1$, are $$\theta={2\over n}\bigg({\rm arc}\tan\big[\mp m n (x-x_0)\big]-
{\pi\over4}+\ell \pi\bigg)\ .
\eqn\sixcc$$ These are $2n$ solutions, $n$ solitons and $n$ anti-solitons, interpolating between all neighbouring pairs of vacua as in the previous two cases.
For $SO(2)$ models, the charge $Q$ is equal to the topological charge $Q_T$ . The value of $Q$ for the solitons is $$Q=\mp {4\over n} \bigg[\sqrt{1-\kappa^2}+\kappa\, {\rm arc}
\sin(\kappa)+\xi\, {\kappa\over2}\pi\bigg]
\ ,
\eqn\sevenc$$ where $\xi$ is either minus or plus, ($\xi=\mp$); $Q$ for $\xi=-$ is the charge of solutions and $Q$ for $\xi=+$ is the charge of solutions. From this, it is straightforward to compute the mass of the solitons to find $$E={2 m\over n}\bigg[\sqrt{1-\kappa^2}+\kappa\, {\rm
arc}\sin(\kappa)+\xi\, {\kappa\over2}\pi\bigg]\ .
\eqn\eightc$$ The $SO(2)$ solitons and have one moduli parameter $x_0$. Using , the metric on the moduli space is $$ds^2={ m\over n}\bigg[\sqrt{1-\kappa^2}+\kappa\, {\rm arc}
\sin(\kappa)+\xi\, {\kappa\over2}\pi\bigg]
dx_0^2={E\over 2} dx_0^2\ .
\eqn\ninec$$ The charge, the mass and the moduli metric of the solitons are derived by setting $\kappa=0$ in the above corresponding expressions.
Finally, the charge, the mass and the moduli metric of the solutions of models with $\kappa=1$ are $$Q=\mp {4\over n} \pi\ ,
\eqn\tenc$$ $$E={2 m\over n} \pi\ ,
\eqn\tencc$$ and $$ds^2={m\over n} \pi dx_0^2={E\over2} dx_0^2\ ,
\eqn\tenccc$$ respectively.
The $SU(2)$ model
=================
A parameterisation of $SU(2)$ in terms of $2\times2$ matrices is $$k=\pmatrix{M+iN &\quad -U+iW \cr U+iW &\quad M-iN}; \quad M^2+N^2+U^2+W^2=1\ ,
\eqn\oned$$ and a choice of basis in the Lie algebra ${\cal L}\big(SU(2)\big)$ of $SU(2)$ is $$t_1=i\pmatrix{1&\quad 0\cr 0&\quad -1}\ , \quad t_2=i
\pmatrix{0&\quad 1\cr 1&\quad 0}\ ,\quad
t_3=\pmatrix{0&\quad -1\cr 1&\quad 0}\ .
\eqn\twod$$ Using the observation in section 2 that the Bogomol’nyi equations are invariant under the adjoint action of $G$ on both the fields and the coupling constant $\kappa$, we can choose, without loss of generality, $\kappa$ in the Cartan subalgebra of ${\cal L}\big(SU(2)\big)$, [i.e.]{} $$\kappa=\kappa t_1\ .
\eqn\threed$$ We have denoted both the vector $\kappa$ and its component along $t_1$ with the same symbol. The distinction between the two will be clear from the context.
The vacua of the theory in the above parameterisation are the solutions of the equation $$k^n=\pmatrix{\mp \sqrt{1-\kappa^2}+i\kappa &\quad 0\cr 0&\quad \mp
\sqrt{1-\kappa^2}-i\kappa}\ ,
\eqn\fourdn$$ in terms of $k$, $n\in \bN$. It is clear that for $|\kappa|>1$, there are no supersymmetric vacua and so supersymmetry is spontaneously broken. For $|\kappa|<1$ there are $2n$ supersymmetric vacua, and for $|\kappa|=1$ there are $n$ supersymmetric vacua (without counting multiplicities in the latter case). We shall restrict our attention to $\kappa\geq0$ because it is straightforward to generalise the results below to $SU(2)$ models with $\kappa<0$. We remark that linearising the theory around the vacua , the mass-square-matrix and charge-matrix of the fundamental states of the $SU(2)$ model are $${\cal M}=m^2 \pmatrix{&1-\kappa^2\quad &0\quad &0\cr
&0\quad &1\quad &0\cr
&0\quad &0\quad &1}\ ,
\eqn\massmatone$$ and $${\cal Q}=\pmatrix{&0\quad &0\quad &0\cr
&0\quad &0\quad &-2\kappa\cr
&0\quad &2 \kappa\quad &0}\ ,
\eqn\chargematone$$ respectively. Clearly for $|\kappa|<1$, ${\cal M}>{m^2\over 4} {\cal Q} {\cal Q}^t$ and the fundamental states are not BPS states. However, for $|\kappa|=1$, ${\cal M}={m^2\over 4} {\cal Q} {\cal Q}^t$ and all the fundamental states become BPS with one of them massless.
The equations in this parameterisation for the $SU(2)$ model are $$\eqalign{
{d\over dx}M\pm m [-\kappa N+(1-M^2) \tilde M_n]&=0
\cr
{d\over dx}N\pm m[\kappa M-NM\tilde M_n]&=0
\cr
{d\over dx}U\mp m U M \tilde M_n&=0
\cr
{d\over dx}W\mp m W M \tilde M_n&=0\ ,}
\eqn\fivedn$$ where $$\tilde M_n=\sum^{[{n-1\over2}]}_{i=0}\pmatrix{n\cr 2i+1}
(-1)^{i} M^{n-2i-1} (1-M^2)^{i}\ .
\eqn\sixdn$$ There are three independent equations in since the fourth one is implied from the restriction that $M, N, U, W$ lie on a 3-sphere. Moreover from the last two equations of , it is easy to see that $$U=\lambda W\ ,
\eqn\sevendn$$ where $\lambda$ is a real constant. So we only need to determine $M,N$ from the first two equations in ; these equations will be studied in the next three chapters for various values of $n$.
It is convenient for reasons that will become apparent later to parameterise $SU(2)$ in angular coordinates as follows: $$\eqalign{
M&=\cos\theta
\cr
N&=\sin\theta \cos\phi
\cr
U&=\sin\theta \sin\phi \cos\psi
\cr
W&=\sin\theta \sin\phi \sin\psi\ ,}
\eqn\nineda$$ where $0\leq \theta, \phi<\pi$ and $0\leq \psi<2\pi$. In this parameterisation, the equation for the vacua can be written as $$\eqalign{
\sin(n\theta)&=\pm \kappa
\cr
\cos\phi&=\pm 1\ . }
\eqn\nfived$$ Note that the vacua of the theory lie in $\phi=0$ and $\phi=\pi$ semi-circle subspaces of $SU(2)$, which are joined at $(\theta, \phi)=(0,0)$ and $(\theta,
\phi)=(0,\pi)$, and at $(\theta,
\phi)=(\pi,0)$ and $(\theta, \phi)=(\pi,\pi)$ to a circle in $SU(2)$; in fact this circle is a maximal torus of $SU(2)$. Solving for $0\leq \kappa <1$, we find that the $2n$ vacua of the model are $$\big(\theta, \phi\big)=\cases{\bigg({1\over
n}(\pm\theta_0+{1\mp1\over2}\pi+2\pi \tilde \ell), 0\bigg)\ ,
\qquad\qquad 0\leq\tilde
\ell\leq \big[{n-1\over2}\big]
\cr
\bigg({1\over n}\big(\pm\theta_0+{1\mp1\over2}\pi+2\pi (\tilde
\ell+{1\over2})\big), \pi\bigg)\ ,\qquad 0\leq\tilde
\ell<\big[{n\over2}\big]\ ,}
\eqn\vacthree$$ where $0\leq \theta_0<{\pi\over2}$ and $\sin \theta_0=\kappa$. For $\kappa=0$, $\theta_0$ vanishes and the expression for the vacua becomes $$\eqalign{
(\theta, \phi)&=\big({\ell \over n}\pi, 0\big)
\cr
(\theta, \phi)&=\big({\ell+1 \over n}\pi, \pi\big)\ , }
\eqn\qnew$$ where $0\leq \ell<n$, $\ell \in \bN$. For $\kappa=1$, the $n$ vacua of the theory (without counting multiplicities) can be found by setting $\theta_0=\pi/2$ in .
The equations written in the angular parameterisation are $$\eqalign{
{d\over dx}\theta&=\pm m[-\kappa \cos \phi+\sin(n\theta)]
\cr
{d\over dx}\phi&=\pm m\kappa \cot\theta \sin\phi
\cr
{d\over dx}\psi&=0\ .}
\eqn\ninedaan$$ The third equation above implies that the angle $\psi$ is constant; $\psi$ is related to the ratio of $U, W$ as $\cot\psi=\lambda$. So it remains to solve the first two equations of for $\theta$ and $\phi$ for the various values of $n$ and $\kappa$.
To find a class of solutions for the equations above, we set $\phi$ to its vacuum values, [i.e.]{} $\phi=0,\pi$. This choice for $\phi$ solves the second of the equations , so it remains to solve the first for $\theta$. Since we have set $\phi=0,\pi$, the solutions lie on the maximal torus of $SU(2)$, and they are best described by extending the range of $\theta$ from $0\leq
\theta<\pi$ in to $0\leq \theta<2\pi$. Then, the first equation in is precisely the equation that we have encountered in the $SO(2)$ model. Moreover, the vacua of the $SU(2)$ model can be identified with the vacua of the $SO(2)$ model as follows: $$\theta[\ell,\pm]=\cases{\bigg({1\over
n}(\pm\theta_0+{1\mp1\over2}\pi+2\pi \ell),
0\bigg)\ , \qquad\qquad 0\leq \ell\leq \big[{n-1\over2}\big]
\cr
\bigg({1\over n}\big(\pm\theta_0+{1\mp1\over2}\pi+2\pi (\tilde
\ell+{1\over2})\big), \pi\bigg)\ ,\qquad \big[{n-1\over2}\big]<
\ell<n \ ,}
\eqn\vacthreenew$$ where $\tilde \ell=n-\ell-1$. Furthermore, as can be easily seen from , the solitons of the $SU(2)$ model that lie on the maximal torus are static. From this we conclude that the solitons of the $SU(2)$ model that lie on the maximal torus are embeddings of the solitons of the $SO(2)$ model found in the previous section with $$\theta\rightarrow \pmatrix{e^{i\theta}& \quad 0\cr 0& \quad e^{-i\theta}}\ ,
\eqn\fourteend$$ for the associated value of $n$. The class of solutions that we have described includes those for which $\kappa$ vanishes. This is because, if $\kappa=0$, the second equation in implies that $\phi$ is constant and the asymptotic behaviour of the solitons requires that it should be set to its vacuum values.
Note from and that the definition of the topological charge of the $G$-models with $G$ semisimple is different from the definition of the topological charge of the $SO(2)$ models. The value of the topological charge $Q_T$ of any soliton of the $SU(2)$ model, or any $G$-model with $G$ semisimple, interpolating between the two vacua $(\theta,\phi)$ and $(\theta', \phi')$ is $Q_T=a(\theta',
\phi')-a(\theta, \phi)$ while for the $SO(2)$ solitons $Q_T=Q$. Therefore the value of the topological charge of the $SO(2)$ solitons and the value of the topological charge of their embeddings as $SU(2)$ solitons are different. Apart from the $SU(2)$ solitons that lie on the maximal torus and we have examined above, the $SU(2)$ model has other solitons that interpolate between different vacua but otherwise lie entirely outside the maximal torus of $SU(2)$. We shall investigate these solitons in the following three sections.
The $SU(2)$ n=1 model
=====================
As we have seen in the previous section, there are static solitons that interpolate between the two vacua of $SU(2)$ $n=1$ model with $0\leq \kappa<1$ and lie entirely on the maximal torus of $SU(2)$. Here, we shall find another class of solitons for this model that interpolate between the two vacua but otherwise lie in the [*complement*]{} of the maximal torus of $SU(2)$. The equations for $M,N$ in the $n=1$ case are $$\eqalign{
{d\over dx}M\pm m [-\kappa N+(1-M^2)]&=0
\cr
{d\over dx}N\pm m[\kappa M-NM]&=0
\ .}
\eqn\fived$$ Following \[\], we can find a class of solitons by setting $N=\kappa$. These solutions are $$\eqalign{
M&=\sqrt{1-\kappa^2} \tanh\big(\mp m \sqrt{1-\kappa^2}(x-x_0)\big)
\cr
N&=\kappa
\cr
U&=\sqrt{1-\kappa^2} \cosh^{-1}\big( m \sqrt{1-\kappa^2}(x-x_0)\big) \cos\psi
\cr
W&=\sqrt{1-\kappa^2} \cosh^{-1}\big( m \sqrt{1-\kappa^2}(x-x_0)\big) \sin\psi
\ ,}
\eqn\eightd$$ where $x_0, \psi$ are the modular parameters of the solution, $\cot\psi=\lambda$. It is clear that these solitons lie in the complement of the maximal torus since $U$ and $W$ do not vanish for any value of $x$ unless $x$ goes to infinity. The topology of the moduli space is $S^1\times \bR$: The modular parameter $x_0$ is due to the translational invariance of the underlying theory while the modular angular parameter $\psi$ is due to the charge $Q$ given in . These are reminiscent to the modular parameters of BPS monopoles in four-dimensions (see for example \[\]).
However, there is a more general class of $SU(2)$ solutions for which $N\not=\kappa$. To find these new solitons, we use the angular parameterisation and the equations for $n=1$ become $$\eqalign{
{d\over dx}\theta&=\pm m[-\kappa \cos \phi+\sin(\theta)]
\cr
{d\over dx}\phi&=\pm m\kappa \cot\theta \sin\phi\ .}
\eqn\ninedaa$$ As it can been seen from , the $SU(2)$ $n=1$ model has two vacua $(\theta_0, 0)$ and $(\pi-\theta_0, 0)$. We remark that a linearisation of at these two vacua reveals that one of them is a source while the other is a sink. The differential equations is a Hamiltonian flow for the function $$\alpha(\theta, \phi)=-{1\over \sin\phi \sin\theta}+{1\over \kappa} \cot\phi
\eqn\hamone$$ with symplectic form $$\Omega=\pm {1\over (m \,\kappa )\, \sin^2\phi \sin\theta}\,
d\theta\wedge d\phi \ .
\eqn\hamtwo$$ Since $\alpha$ is preserved by the flow, we can rewrite as $$\sin\theta={\kappa\over \cos\phi-\alpha \kappa \sin\phi}\ ,
\eqn\moned$$ where $\alpha$ is a real constant. The solutions of in the $x$ parameterisation are $$\eqalign{
\cot\phi\equiv z&={\kappa\over 2 \sqrt{1-\kappa^2}}\exp{\big[\pm m
\sqrt{1-\kappa^2} (x-x_0)\big]}
\cr & \qquad\qquad
\bigg([\exp{\big[\mp m \sqrt{1-\kappa^2} (x-x_0)\big]}+{\alpha\over
\sqrt{1-\kappa^2}}]^2+1-\alpha^2\bigg)
\cr
\cos\theta&=\cases{{\sqrt{(z-\alpha\kappa)^2-\kappa^2(1+z^2)}\over
z-\alpha\kappa}\ , \qquad -\infty< x
<x_{min}
\cr
-{\sqrt{(z-\alpha\kappa)^2-\kappa^2(1+z^2)}\over z-\alpha\kappa}\ ,
\qquad x_{min}< x <+\infty\ ,}}
\eqn\mtwod$$ where at $x=x_{min}$, $z(x)$ takes its absolute minimum value. To verify that solves the equations , we differentiate $z$ with respect to $x$ and use the equation for $\phi$ to eliminate the derivative of $\phi$ from the expression. The $x$ dependence can also be eliminated by inverting $z$ to express the exponential of $x$ in terms of $z$. However this equation is quadratic and there are two possible solutions distinguished by a sign. To satisfy the equations , one has to choose for $-\infty< x <x_{min}$ the solution with the plus sign and for $x_{min}< x <+\infty$ the solution with the minus sign together with the corresponding expression for $\cos\theta$ in .
To find the solitons of the $SU(2)$ $n=1$ model, we substitute in and observe that they are [*time-dependent*]{}. For $\alpha=0$, reduces to the solution given above. Moreover, after the redefinition $x_0\rightarrow x_0\pm {1\over
m\sqrt{1-\kappa^2}}\rm{log}(|\alpha| {1-\sqrt{1-\kappa^2}
\over\sqrt{1-\kappa^2}})$, reduces in the limit $\alpha\rightarrow \pm \infty$ to the embedded SO(2) solitons found in the previous section. The charge and the mass of the solutions are $$Q=\mp 4 \sqrt{1-\kappa^2} e^\sigma \ ,
\eqn\mthreed$$ and $$E= 2 m \sqrt{1-\kappa^2} e^\sigma\ ,
\eqn\mfourd$$ respectively, where $$e^\sigma=1+{\alpha \kappa^2\over \sqrt{1-\kappa^2} \sqrt{1+\alpha^2
\kappa^2}}\bigg[- {\pi\over2}+{\rm
arc}\tan \big({\alpha \kappa^2\over \sqrt{1-\kappa^2} \sqrt{1+\alpha^2
\kappa^2}}\big)\bigg]\ .
\eqn\msixd$$ The constant $\alpha$ is not a modular parameter because the mass and the charge depend upon it. For example, the mass of the $\alpha=0$ solutions is $$E=2 m \sqrt{1-\kappa^2}\ .
\eqn\msixdd$$ Note that the mass of the solitons as a function of $\alpha$ has critical points at $\alpha\rightarrow\pm\infty$. It turns out that $E(+\infty)$ is the absolute minimum and is the value of the mass of the embedded static solution for $n=1$, while $E(-\infty)$ is the absolute maximum and is the value of the mass of the embedded static solution for $n=1$. This is in agreement with the corresponding limits of the solution mentioned above. The moduli space of the solutions is again a cylinder with co-ordinates $(x_0, \psi)$ and with metric $$ds^2=e^\sigma {\sqrt{1-\kappa^2}\over m
(1+\alpha^2 \kappa^2)}\bigg[m^2
(1-\kappa^2+\alpha^2\kappa^2) dx_0^2+ d\psi^2\bigg]\ .
\eqn\mfived$$ We remark that there is a transformation of the moduli co-ordinates $(x_0, \psi)\rightarrow (y, \chi)$ such that the moduli space metric above can be written in the form $ds^2={E\over2}(dy^2+d\chi^2)$.
The SU(2) n=2 model
===================
To show that all solitons of the $SU(2)$ $n=2$ model lie on the maximal torus of $SU(2)$, we begin from the equations for $M,N$ with $n=2$ $$\eqalign{
{d\over dx}M\pm m [-\kappa N+2(1-M^2)M]&=0
\cr
{d\over dx}N\pm m[\kappa M-2NM^2]&=0 \ .}
\eqn\fived$$ We then use the field redefinitions $$X={N\over M}, \qquad Y={N\over \sqrt {1-M^2}}
\eqn\tend$$ to simplify to $$\eqalign{
{d\over dx}X\pm m\big[ \kappa (1+X^2)-2X\big]&=0
\cr
{d\over dx}Y\pm m \kappa X^{-1} Y [1-Y^2]&=0\ .}
\eqn\elevend$$ The solutions in terms of $X,Y$ for $0<\kappa<1$ are $$\eqalign{
X&={1\over \kappa}\bigg(1+\sqrt{1-\kappa^2} \tanh\big(\pm m
\sqrt{1-\kappa^2}(x-x_0)\big) \bigg)
\cr
{Y^2\over 1-Y^2}&={\rho}^{-1} X^2 \exp\big(\mp 2m (x-x_0)\big)\cosh^2\big(
m\sqrt{1-\kappa^2} (x-x_0)\big)\ ,}
\eqn\twelved$$ and $$\eqalign{
X&={1\over \kappa}\bigg(1+\sqrt{1-\kappa^2} \coth \big(\pm m
\sqrt{1-\kappa^2} (x-x_0)\big) \bigg)
\cr
{Y^2\over 1-Y^2}&={\rho}^{-1} X^2 \exp\big(\mp 2m (x-x_0)\big) \sinh^2\big(
m\sqrt{1-\kappa^2} (x-x_0)\big)\ ,}
\eqn\twelved$$ where $\rho, x_0$ are real constants ($\rho\geq 0$). It remains to examine whether or not these solutions interpolate between the different vacua of the theory. As we have already mentioned in section four, the $SU(2)$ $n=2$ model has four vacua. It turns out that the solutions interpolate between two different vacua only for $\rho=0$, in which case $U=W=0$. This implies that all solitons of the $SU(2)$ $n=2$ model lie on the maximal torus. The same applies for all solitons of the $SU(2)$ $n=2$ model with $\kappa=1$.
To explain why there are no solitons of the $SU(2)$ $n=2$ model that lie in the complement of the maximal torus of $SU(2)$, let us study the vacuum structure of this model in more detail. A linearisation of the equations around the vacua reveals that $({\theta_0\over2}, 0)$ and $({-\theta_0+2\pi \over2}, \pi)$ are sources, and $({\theta_0+\pi
\over2},\pi)$ and $({-\theta_0+ \pi \over2}, 0)$ are saddles (for the Bogomol’nyi equations with the plus sign). Solving the equations with $n=2$ for $\theta$ and $\phi$ by setting $\phi=0,\pi$, we find precisely the solitons of the $SU(2)$ $n=2$ model that lie on the maximal torus of $SU(2)$ and therefore are embeddings of the $SO(2)$ solitons. These solitons interpolate between the source ($\phi=0$) and the saddle ($\phi=0$), the saddle ($\phi=0$) and the source ($\phi=\pi$), the source ($\phi=\pi$) and the saddle ($\phi=\pi$), and the saddle ($\phi=\pi$) and the source ($\phi=0$). Any additional solutions should interpolate either between the two saddles or between the saddles and the sources. But the only directions from the two saddles which are not connected to another vacuum are those that point outwards. Therefore no soliton can exist that starts from one saddle to go to the other or from a saddle to go to a source. In fact, the outward directions from the saddles and some of the directions from the sources are connected to a sink at $$(\theta, \phi)=({\pi\over 2}, {\pi\over2})\ ,
\eqn\fournew$$ which is a fixed point of the flow described by the equations , $n=2$, but [*not*]{} a vacuum of the theory. We shall conjecture in the next section that a similar behaviour occurs in all $SU(2)$ models with $n$ even.
The SU(2) $n>2$ models
======================
The equations or for $SU(2)$ models with $n>2$ and $\kappa\not= 0$ are rather involved and we have not been able to find the solitons that lie in the complement of the maximal torus of $SU(2)$. Another way to proceed is to investigate the qualitative properties of the solutions of these equations by linearising them about the vacua of the theory. This will allow us to find the pairs of vacua that are connected by solitons. The results of this analysis for $n=3,4,5$ have being confirmed with a numerical computation (see Figs. \[1,2,3\]).
It is sufficient to examine the linearisation properties of the equations in the interval $0\leq
\theta <{\pi\over2}$. This is because the equations are invariant under the discrete symmetries $$(\theta, \phi, x)\rightarrow (\pi-\theta, \pi-\phi, x)
\eqn\nthreed$$ for $n$ even, and $$(\theta, \phi, x)\rightarrow (\pi-\theta, \phi, -x)
\eqn\nfourd$$ for $n$ odd, which can be used to extend the analysis to the whole range of $\theta$, ($\theta\in [0,\pi)$). Another property of the equations for $n$ [*even*]{} is that, apart from the vacua of the theory, there is another fixed point at $(\theta, \phi)=({\pi\over2}, {\pi\over2})$.
Next we order the vacua $(\theta,\phi)$ in with respect to the value of $\theta$, and denote these values by $\theta_i$, $i=1,\dots,
2n$, [i.e.]{} $\theta_1<\dots
\theta_i<\theta_{i+1}\dots<\theta_{2n}$. For $\theta$ in $[0,\pi/2)$, a linearisation of with the plus sign reveals that the vacua $\theta_{4q+1}$ are sources, the vacua $\theta_{4q+3}$ are sinks and the rest are saddle points. Observe that the sources $\theta_{4q+1}$ and the saddles $\theta_{4q+2}$ lie at the $\phi=0$ semicircle, while the sinks $\theta_{4q+3}$ and the saddles $\theta_{4q+4}$ lie at the $\phi=\pi$ semicircle. First, we shall consider the solutions interpolating amongst vacua $\theta_i$ in the interval $[0,\pi/2)$. It is expected that there should be a one parameter family of solitons that interpolate between the source $\theta_{4q+1}$ and the sink $\theta_{4q+3}$, and the same source and the sink $\theta_{4q-1}$. There also should be a unique soliton interpolating between the source $\theta_{4q+1}$ and the saddle $\theta_{4q}$, and the sink $\theta_{4q+3}$ and the saddle $\theta_{4q+2}$. In addition to these solutions, we have the solitons that lie on the maximal torus. $$\vbox{
\beginlabels\refpos 71 481 {}
\put 190 423 {\nwarrow}
\put 326 423 {\nwarrow}
\put 215 354 {\downarrow}
\put 344 354 {\downarrow}
\put 190 286 {\nearrow}
\put 326 286 {\nearrow}
\put 134 262 {\theta_1}
\put 134 309 {\theta_2}
\put 134 401 {\theta_5}
\put 134 447 {\theta_6}
\put 419 331 {\theta_3}
\put 419 377 {\theta_4}
\put 130 462 {\pi}
\put 124 355 {\pi/2}
\put 146 239 {0}
\put 408 239 {\pi}
\put 271 235 {\pi/2}
\put 99 348 {\uparrow}
\put 268 218 {\rightarrow}
\put 100 364 {\theta}
\put 284 216 {\phi}
\endlabels
\epsfxsize=.65\hsize
\centerline{\epsfbox{Fig1.eps}}}$$ -
[**Fig. 1:**]{} The solutions of the ${\rm SU(2)}$ $n=3$ model
The solitons interpolating amongst the vacua in $[\pi/2, \pi)$ are similar to those for the vacua in $[0,
\pi/2)$ examined above. This follows immediately from the discrete symmetries and of the equations . These symmetries act on $(\theta, \phi)$ that lie on the disc constructed from the square $[0,\pi]\times[0,\pi]$ by identifying the points $(0,0)$ and $(0,\pi)$, and the points $(\pi,0)$ and $(\pi,\pi)$. For $n$ even, the discrete symmetry is just the antipodal map of the disc leaving the centre $(\pi/2,\pi/2)$ fixed, whereas for $n$ odd, it is a reflection at the hyperplane $\theta=\pi/2$ together with a reversal of the direction of the flow and an interchange sinks and sources. $$\vbox{
\beginlabels\refpos 71 725 {}
\put 219 690 {\searrow}
\put 223 649 {\swarrow}
\put 221 610 {\uparrow}
\put 223 567 {\searrow}
\put 219 528 {\nearrow}
\put 326 690 {\searrow}
\put 331 649 {\swarrow}
\put 328 610 {\uparrow}
\put 331 567 {\searrow}
\put 326 528 {\nearrow}
\put 132 512 {\theta_1}
\put 132 540 {\theta_2}
\put 419 554 {\theta_3}
\put 419 581 {\theta_4}
\put 132 595 {\theta_5}
\put 132 623 {\theta_6}
\put 419 637 {\theta_7}
\put 419 664 {\theta_8}
\put 132 678 {\theta_9}
\put 132 705 {\theta_{10}}
\put 128 716 {\pi}
\put 122 609 {\pi/2}
\put 146 493 {0}
\put 408 493 {\pi}
\put 271 489 {\pi/2}
\put 99 602 {\uparrow}
\put 268 472 {\rightarrow}
\put 100 618 {\theta}
\put 284 470 {\phi}
\endlabels
\epsfxsize=.65\hsize
\centerline{\epsfbox{Fig2.eps}}}$$ -
[**Fig. 2:**]{} The solutions of the ${\rm SU(2)}$ $n=5$ model
Let us consider the solutions amongst the vacua that lie near the boundary of $[0,\pi]$. The lowest vacuum $\theta_1$ (which is a source) connects only to the sink $\theta_3$ through solitons that lie in the complement of the maximal torus of $SU(2)$. Similarly the highest vacuum $\theta_{2n}$ (which is a sink) connects only to the source $\theta_{2n-2}$. It remains to examine the solutions interpolating amongst vacua that lie ‘near’ $\theta=\pi/2$. For $n=4\ell+1$, $\ell\in \bN$, the highest vacuum in $[0,\pi/2)$ is the source $\theta_n$ and this connects to the sink $\theta_{n-2}$ and to the saddle $\theta_{n-1}$ as it has been described above for the vacua that lie within $[0,\pi/2)$. In addition, $\theta_n$ connects with the lowest vacuum in $[\pi/2,\pi)$ which is the sink $\theta_{n+1}$ at the $\phi=0$ semicircle; the solutions are similar to the ones that we have found in the $SU(2)$ $n=1$ model in section five. The sink $\theta_{n+1}$ also connects to the source $\theta_{n+3}$ and the saddle $\theta_{n+2}$ as required by the reflection symmetry. It is straightforward to repeat this analysis for the $n=4\ell+3$ case. In figures 1 and 2, we confirm our results by a numerical computation for the solutions of equation of the $SU(2)$ $n=3, 5$ models that lie in the complement of the maximal torus of $SU(2)$. We remark that it is possible to interpolate amongst the vacua of $SU(2)$ model with $n\geq 5$ in a way different from the one proposed above. However, the numerical calculation for $n=5$ supports the case that has been presented. $$\vbox{
\beginlabels\refpos 71 698 {}
\put 220 648 {\swarrow}
\put 220 599 {\nwarrow}
\put 220 563 {\swarrow}
\put 220 535 {\searrow}
\put 220 498 {\nearrow}
\put 326 649 {\swarrow}
\put 326 616 {\nwarrow}
\put 326 586 {\nearrow}
\put 326 550 {\searrow}
\put 326 498 {\nearrow}
\put 265 586 {\leftarrow}
\put 283 569 {\rightarrow}
\put 134 479 {\theta_1}
\put 134 514 {\theta_2}
\put 419 531 {\theta_3}
\put 419 565 {\theta_4}
\put 131 588 {\theta_5}
\put 134 618 {\theta_6}
\put 419 635 {\theta_7}
\put 419 669 {\theta_8}
\put 275 576 {\times}
\put 130 682 {\pi}
\put 122 575 {\pi/2}
\put 146 459 {0}
\put 408 459 {\pi}
\put 271 455 {\pi/2}
\put 99 568 {\uparrow}
\put 268 438 {\rightarrow}
\put 100 584 {\theta}
\put 284 436 {\phi}
\endlabels
\epsfxsize=.65\hsize
\centerline{\epsfbox{Fig3.eps}}}$$ -
[**Fig. 3 :**]{} The solutions of the ${\rm SU(2)}$ $n=4$ model
Next we turn to examine the $n$ even case and observe that $({\pi\over2}, {\pi\over2})$ is a fixed point of but [*not*]{} a vacuum of the theory; $({\pi\over2}, {\pi\over2})$ is source for $n=4 \ell$ and a sink for $n=4\ell+2$. For $n=4\ell+2$, the sink $\theta_{n-1}$ connects to the saddle $\theta_{n-2}$ and to the source $\theta_{n-3}$ in the usual way. Both the sink $\theta_{n-1}$ and the saddle $\theta_n$ connect to the $({\pi\over2}, {\pi\over2})$ fixed point. Using the antipodal map, we can easily determine the behaviour of the solutions associated to the vacua $\theta_{n+1}$ and $\theta_{n+2}$ from the solutions associated to the vacua $\theta_n$ and $\theta_{n-1}$. We remark that for $n=2$, we recover the behaviour we have found in section six. It is straightforward to repeat this analysis for the $n=4\ell$ case. In figure 3, we confirm our results with a numerical computation for the solutions of of the $SU(2)$ $n=4$ model that lie in the complement of the maximal torus of $SU(2)$.
The $G$-models
==============
In the previous sections we have investigated the soliton solutions of sigma models with target space the groups $SO(2)$ and $SU(2)$. In this section, we shall explore some of the properties of the soliton solutions of $G$-models for $G$ any semisimple compact Lie group. The vacua of any $G$-model can be arranged to lie on a maximal torus of the group $G$. To show this, we first choose, without loss of generality, $\kappa$ in a Cartan subalgebra of $G$ as in section two, i.e. $$\kappa=\kappa^m t_m\ ,
\eqn\gone$$ where $t_m$ is an orthonormal basis of the Cartan subalgebra and $\kappa^m$ are the components of $\kappa$ ($\kappa^m\in \bR$). Now suppose that there is a vacuum $k_0$ that does not lie on this maximal torus of $G$, then there is a $h_0\in G$ such that $k'_0=h_0 k_0 h_0^{-1}$ and $k_0'$ is in the maximal torus. Using the invariance of the equation for the vacua under conjugation, can be written as $$2h^{-1}_0\kappa h_0+\sum _A t_A{\rm tr}\big(t_A(k'_0)^n\big)=0\ ,
\eqn\goneaa$$ where $\kappa$ is as in . Now, this equation has solutions if and only if $h_0\kappa h_0^{-1}$ is again in the Cartan subalgebra of $G$. It follows then that $h_0$ is an element of the Weyl group of $G$ in which case $k_0$ is in the maximal torus. Therefore all vacua of the $G$-models are on the maximal torus of $G$. This allows us to set $$k=\exp\big({\theta^m t_m}\big)
\eqn\gtwo$$ and rewrite the equation for the vacua as $$2\kappa_m+{\rm tr}\big(t_m \exp({n\theta^r t_r})\big)=0\ .
\eqn\gthree$$ Observe that the second term in the equation for the vacua is the derivative of the character $\chi(\theta)={\rm tr}\, k$ of $G$ with respect to the co-ordinates of the maximal torus.
As in the $SU(2)$ model, the $G$-model also has two classes of solitons. (i) The static solitons that lie on the maximal torus of $G$. (ii) The time-dependent solitons, apart from their asymptotic values, lie in the complement of the maximal torus of $G$. In the former case, the equations can be written as $${d \over dx}\theta^m(x)=\mp {m\over2} \bigg(2\kappa^m + {\rm tr}
\big(t^m \exp(n\theta^r t_r)\big)\bigg)\ .
\eqn\gfour$$ A class of solutions of these equations can be found by setting all but one angle, say $\theta^1$, to their vacuum values. The solitons obtained in this way are precisely those that are embeddings of the $SO(2)$ solitons along the direction of $\theta^1$. There are as many independent directions for embedding $SO(2)$ solitons in the $G$-model as the rank of the group $G$. Apart from these solitons, there are other static solitons particular to the $G$-model ($\rm{rank}\,{\cal
L}(G)>1$) for which more than one of the angles $\theta^m$ are not set to their vacuum values, and the equations do not separate to a sum of $SO(2)$ ones. To see this, let us consider the $SU(3)$ model. The maximal torus in this case is $T^2$ and the theory has four vacua for some choice of $\kappa$. The equations are similar to the standard Morse flow of the height function $f$ of $T^2$. Apart from the Morse flows of $f$ which one gets by embedding the Morse flows of $S^1$ along the two homology cycles of $T^2$ and which are similar to the embedding of $SO(2)$ solitons in the $SU(3)$ model, one obtains additional flows, for example an one-parameter family of flows from the absolute maximum to the absolute minimum of $f$.
The investigation of the time-dependent solitons that lie in the complement of the maximal torus of $G$ is more involved because, apart from the Bogomol’nyi equations along the maximal torus, we should also solve the Bogomol’nyi equations along the root directions of $G$. Despite this, some of them can be obtained from embedding the $SU(2)$ time-dependent solitons into the $G$-model up to a sigma model transformation of the $G$ model. This is done by embedding the $SU(2)$ group into the $G$ group up to a conjugation. This group theoretical problem has been investigated at the Lie algebra level in \[\] and it was found that there is at least one embedding of $SU(2)$ in $G$ for every positive root $\alpha$ of $G$. For such an embedding the coupling constant $\kappa$ of the $G$-model is $$\kappa^m=\tilde\kappa \alpha^m \ ,
\eqn\gtwo$$ where $\tilde\kappa$ is a real number and $|\tilde \kappa|
<1/|\alpha|^2$, [i.e.]{} $\kappa$ is along a direction in the Cartan subalgebra of $G$ labeled by the root $\alpha$. The generators of the $SU(2)$ subgroup of $G$ are $$i \tilde h_\alpha, \qquad i(\tilde E_\alpha+\tilde E_{-\alpha})\ ,
\qquad \tilde E_\alpha-\tilde E_{-\alpha} \ ,
\eqn\gthree$$ where $\{\tilde h_\alpha ,\tilde E_\alpha, \tilde E_{-\alpha}\}$ are the generators of ${\cal L}(G)$ in the Chevalley basis. It is clear from that all these embeddings do not describe the most general soliton solutions of the $G$-model. For this, one should solve the Bogomol’nyi equations of the $G$-model for $\kappa$ along a generic direction in the Cartan subalgebra of $G$.
We expect that apart from the one-soliton solutions that we have discussed so far, the $G$-models may have multi-soliton solutions as well. Indeed for $G$-models with $\kappa=0$, we can simply embed the multi-soliton solutions of the sine-Gordon theory (see for example \[\] and references within.). However, since the multi-soliton solutions of the sine-Gordon theory are not solutions of the Bogomol’nyi equations, the same applies for embedded multi-soliton solutions in the $G$-model.
Concluding remarks and summary
==============================
Quantum mechanically, some solitons may decay to other solitons that carry the same topological charge but different Noether charge by emitting radiation. This is because, for $G$-models for which $G$ is a semisimple group, the fundamental states of the theory as well as its solitons are charged with respect to the [*same*]{} Noether charge $Q_N$. Note that the solitons, in addition to the Noether charge $Q_N$, carry topological charge $Q_T$. From charge conservation it follows that a soliton with topological charge $Q_T$ and with Noether charge $Q_N$ may decay to an other soliton with the same topological charge but with Noether charge $Q_N'$ and $|Q_N'|<|Q_N|$, and some fundamental states with Noether charge $Q_N-Q'_N$. Energy conservation though seems to rule out such a process because the fundamental states do not saturate the bound ($\kappa\not=1$). However if for some unknown mechanism to us such a process is allowed the stable soliton configurations are those that have the least mass for given topological charge. An example of such a configuration is the soliton of the $SU(2)$ $n=1$ model. Moreover, as it is well known, the coupling constant of $G$-models, $G$ semisimple, is quantised due to the presence of the torsion term and therefore it may be more appropriate to develop a non-perturbative method, similar to that developed for the Wess-Zumino-Witten model \[\], to investigate the fundamental states of the theory instead of linearising the theory about a vacuum in the weak coupling limit. Another related issue is the quantisation of the charge $Q$ of the solitons. Since $Q$ is not purely topological, the quantisation of $Q$ does not follow from classical considerations; a quantisation of the moduli space suggests though that $Q$ should be quantised provided that the moduli coordinate $\psi$ is periodic which is the case whenever the orbits of the vector field $X$ in $G$ are periodic. We also remark that even if $Q$ is quantised the usual stability argument for BPS monopoles does not apply to this case because the bound for the energy is in terms of one charge rather than two, which are necessary to establish the stability for the solitons using the triangular inequality.
To summarise, we have investigated the soliton solutions of (1,1)-supersymmetric massive sigma models with torsion and target space a group $G$ for a class of scalar potentials characterised by a coupling constant $\kappa$ and an integer $n$. These solitons are solutions of Bogomol’nyi equations which arise from the saturation of a bound for the energy of these models in terms of a charge $Q$ that appears as a central charge in the (1,1)-supersymmetry algebra. The charge $Q$ is the sum of a Noether charge $Q_N$ and a topological charge $Q_T$. The $G=SO(2)$ model is the simplest of the $G$-models and its solitons can be easily computed; the $SO(2)$ model with $\kappa=0$ is the supersymmetric sine-Gordon theory. For $G$ a semisimple group there are two classes of solitons to consider, one is a set of static solitons that lie on a maximal torus of $G$ and the other is a set of time-dependent solitons that, apart from their asymptotic values, lie in the complement of a maximal torus of $G$. For $G=SU(2)$, we have found all static solitons as embeddings of the corresponding $SO(2)$ solitons. In addition, we have explicitly computed the time-dependent solitons of the $n=1$ model, and we have shown that all solitons of the $n=2$ model are static. We have also presented the qualitative properties of the time-dependent solitons of the $SU(2)$ $n>2$ models and confirmed our results with a numerical calculation for the $n=3,4,5$ ones. For sigma models with target space a semisimple group $G$, some of their solitons can be obtained from embedding the solitons of the $SO(2)$ model and the solitons of the $SU(2)$ model with the corresponding value of $n$.
0.5cm
[**Acknowledgments:**]{} G.P. is supported by a University Research Fellowship from the Royal Society. We would like to thank A. Sornborger and P.K. Townsend for helpful comments.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Due to the value of the isotope shift in sulfur hydrides, a phonon-mediated pairing scenario of superconductivity is generally accepted for these high-temperature superconductors which is consistent with the Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer (BCS) framework. Knowing that a large electronic density of states enhances $T_c$, generalized Fermi surface topologies are used to increase it. A multi-band model within the BCS framework is proposed in this work for the description of sulfur hydride superconductors. This model is used to describe some properties of the $H_3S$ superconductor. Strong coupling effects are taken into account with the effective McMillan approximation and the isotope coefficient is evaluated as function of the coupling parameter as well as other relevant parameters of the model.'
author:
- 'R. M. Méndez-Moreno'
title: 'A model for superconducting sulfur hydrides.'
---
Introduction
============
The research on the possibility of room temperature superconductivity has been invigorated by the discovery of superconducting sulfur hydrides at very high pressure, of about $155GPa$ [@Drozdov:2015; @Drozdov:2014]. As hydrogen has the smallest atomic mass, it was predicted that metallic hydrogen or hydrogen-rich compounds would be high-Tc superconductors [@Ashcroft:2004; @Ginzburg:1969; @Ashcroft:1968]. Light hydrogen atoms provide the high frequency phonon modes and a strong electron-phonon coupling. It has been shown that $H_2S$ is stable bellow $43 GPa$ and at elevated pressures it decomposes into $H_3S$ and $S$ [@Errea:2015; @Einaga:2015]. $H_3S$ has been found stable at least up to $300 GPa$ [@Duan:2015]. The superconducting temperature of $H_3S$ at pressures above $150 GPa$ is as high as $203K$. This superconductor has the highest transition temperature obtained in high pressure experiments reported until now [@Durajski:18].
The high value of the isotope exponent of this material evidences a phonon-mediated pairing mechanism, consistent with the BCS framework. The fact that the critical temperature varies with the isotopic mass was an evidence for the interaction between the electrons and the lattice vibrations [@Duan:2014; @Durajsky:2015; @Yinwei:2014]. These results are a proof that the electron-phonon interaction is an important pairing mechanism in the sulfur hydrides [@Gor'kov:2016; @Kudryashova:2017; @Durajsky:2016b]. The observation that the superconductivity in these superconductors shows a strong sensitivity to the crystal lattice suggest the possibility of unconventional electron-phonon coupling. Phonon properties in sulfur hydride systems are actually responsible for changes in their properties [@Durajsky:2016].
Understanding of the electronic structure at the Fermi level can give some useful clues to unravel the fundamental ingredients responsible for the high transition temperature. However, up to now the underlying physical process remains unknown. In this context, it seems crucial to study new ideas that use simplified schematic models to isolate the mechanism(s) that generate high transition temperatures. It had been known that a large value of the density of states at the Fermi level increases the critical temperature value. That is, $T_c$ can be enhanced when the Fermi level is at or close to the energy of a singularity in the density of states, as a van Hove one, which provides a peak in the density of states [@Sano:2016; @Szczesniaky:2018; @Quan:2016].
First principles calculations based on the supercell method have been reported, where the authors study the effect of dopping $H_3S$ on superconductivity [@Nakanishi:2018]. They show that superconductivity in $H_3S$ can be enhanced by hole doping. Hirsch and Scalapino signaled the possibility of enhancing the superconducting critical temperature with a two-dimensional structure when the Fermi level was near a singularity [@Hirsch:1986]. A schematic model with generalized Fermi surface topologies, via band overlapping, have also been proposed by us in the weak and intermediate coupling case as a way of increasing the density of states at the Fermi energy. This model is based on the idea that the $T_c$ is enhanced when the Fermi level lies at or close to the energy of a singularity in the density of states. When combined with the Cooper pair equation this model has been shown to account for the higher $T_c$ values obtained with cuprate superconductors [@Moreno:1996]. The schematic model model can be taken as a simple device to model the singular behaviour in the density of states.
Pairing symmetry is an important element toward understanding the mechanism of high-$T_c$ superconductivity. Calculations with two and three-dimensional models using the BCS formalism and order parameter with $s$-wave symmetry have been reported for superconducting $H_3S$ [@Souza:2016]. It was suggested that the search for better superconductors should be on three dimensional systems in order that the thermal fluctuations be less likely to reduce the observed $T_c$ [@Talantsev:2017].
The Eliashberg equations are extensions for strong coupling of the original BCS theory. Calculations with this theory can be found where they study the high-$T_c$ in sulfur hydride as a result of the variability in the density of states in the band [@Kudryashovb:2017]. Many theoretical calculations based on Eliashberg theory for $H_3S$, can be found in the literature among them in [@Capitani:2017], where the authors also provide an optical spectroscopy study for this material and found spectroscopy evidence that the superconducting mechanism in $H_3S$ is the electron-phonon interaction. It has been shown that $H_3S$ is a very highly optimized electron-phonon superconductor [@Nicol:2015]. As it is known, McMillan numerically solved the Eliashberg non-linear equations at finite temperature in order to obtain the critical temperature for strong coupled superconductors. McMillan got a parametrization which relates the critical temperature to a small number of parameters [@McMillan:1968]. This approach, which is valid for values of the electron-phonon coupling constant $\lambda < 1.5$, was later modified by Allen and Dynes to include values in the strong coupling region up to $\lambda \simeq 2$ [@Dynes:1972; @Allen:1975; @Carbotte:1990].
Based on electronic band structure obtained for this materials [@Duan:2014; @Bernstein:2015], generalized Fermi surface topologies modeled with band overlapping are used in this work as a model of study for sulfur hydrides. A multi-band model within the BCS framework is proposed, this proposal, which can be taken as a minimal singularity in the density of states and the BCS framework can lead to higher $T_c$ values, as the energy band overlapping increases the DOS near the Fermi level. We suppose the pairing mechanism is via boson exchange like phonons by example. For physical consistency, an important requirement of the proposed model is that the band overlapping parameter do not be larger than the phonon energy, $E_{ph}$. The model with generalized Fermi surface topologies is now extended to intermediate and strong coupling with the use of the McMillan effective approach to the Eliashberg equations. In this work we use a momentum independent pairing interaction supposing that the superconducting order parameter has s-wave symmetry. The model here proposed will be used to describe some properties of sulfur hydride superconductor $H_3S$, as the isotope mass exponent $\alpha_I$, in terms of the coupling constant and the parameters of the model.
The model
=========
We begin with the gap equation $$\label{eq:aa}
\Delta(k'))= {\sum_k} V(k,k') \Delta(k)\frac{\tanh( E_k/2 k_B T )}{2
E_k} ,$$ with $V(k,k')$ the pairing interaction, $k_B$ is the Boltzman constant, and $E^2_k =
\epsilon^2_k + \Delta^2_k$, where $\epsilon_k = \hbar^2 k^2/ 2 m$ are the self-consistent single-particle energies.
Then for the electron-phonon interaction, we have considered $V(k,k{\prime})= V_0 $, with $V_0$ a constant, when $|\epsilon_k|$ and $|\epsilon_{k^{\prime}}|~ \leq E_D ~=~k_B
T_D$ and $0$ elsewhere. As usual the attractive BCS interaction is nonzero only for unoccupied orbitals in the neighborhood of the Fermi level $E_F$. The superconducting order parameter, $\Delta(k) = \Delta(T)$ if $|\epsilon_k| \leq E_{ph}$ and $0$ elsewhere.
With these considerations we propose a model with two overlapping bands. The generalized Fermi sea proposed consists of concentric spheric shells separating occupied orbitals. As a particular distribution in momentum space the following form for has been considered $$\label{eq:ab}
n_k =\Theta(\gamma k_F - k) + \Theta(\gamma k_F
- k) \Theta(k - \beta k_F ),$$ with $k_F$ the Fermi momentum and $0 < \beta < \gamma < 1$. In order to keep the average number of electron states constant, the parameters are related in the system by the equation $ 2 \gamma^2 - \beta^2 = 1$, then only one of the relevant parameters is independent. The distribution in momentum induces one in energy, $E_{\beta} < E_{\gamma}$ where $E_{\beta} = \beta^2 E_F$ and $E_{\gamma} = \gamma^2 E_F$ . We consider a high frequency electron-phonon coupling $E_{ph}$, with optical phonons and require that the band overlapping be of the order or smaller than the cutoff energy ($E_{ph}$). That means $(1 - \gamma^2) E_F \leq E_{ph}$. The minimum $\gamma^2$ value consistent with our model is $\gamma^2_{ph}~ =~1 - E_{ph} / E_F$. The last equation can be written as $1 - \gamma^2 = 2 \nu \delta$, where $2 \nu = E_{ph} / E_F$ and $\delta $ is in the range $0< \delta < 1$. While $E_F - E_{\gamma} \leq E_{ph}$, implies that the energy difference between the anomalously occupied states must be provided by the material itself. The shallow second band in this model can account for the other experimentally detected bands.
In the last framework the summation in Eq.(\[eq:aa\]) is changed to an integration which is done over the ([*symmetric*]{}) generalized Fermi surface defined above. One gets
$$\label{eq:bb}
\begin{split}
1~ = ~ \frac{ V_0 D(E)}{2} ~\int_{E_\gamma-
E_{ph}}^{E_\gamma + E_{ph}}~ \tanh
\left(\frac {\sqrt{~\Xi_k}}{2 \it k_B T } \right)\frac{
d\epsilon_k} { \sqrt{ \Xi_k}}
+ \\
\frac{ V_0 D(E)}{2} ~\int_{E_\beta}^{ E_F} ~ \tanh
\left(\frac {\sqrt{~\Xi_k}}{2 \it
k_B T } \right) \frac{ d\epsilon_k}{ \sqrt { \Xi_k}}.
\end{split}$$
In this equation $\Xi_k = (\epsilon_k - E_F)^2 + \Delta(T)^2$, $V_0$ is the effective attractive interaction of the BCS model and $D(E)$ is the electronic density of states, which will be taken as a constant in the integration range.
The two integrals correspond to the bands proposed by Eq. (\[eq:ab\]). The integration over the surface at $E_{\gamma}$ in the first band, is restricted to states in the interval $E_{\gamma} - E_{ph} \leq E_k
\leq {E_{\gamma}+ E_{ph}}$. In the second band, in order to conserve the particle number, the integration is restricted to the interval $E_{\beta} \leq E_k \leq {E_F}$, if $E_{\gamma}+ E_{ph}>E_F$, with $E_{\beta} ~=~ (2~\gamma^2 ~-~1 ) E_F$, in terms of the parameter $\gamma$ in our model.
The critical temperature is introduced via the Eq. (\[eq:bb\]) at $T = T_c$, where the gap becomes $\Delta(T_c) = 0$. At this temperature Eq. (\[eq:bb\]) is reduced to $$\label{eq:cc}
\begin{split}
1~=~\frac{ V_0 D(E)}{2}~ \int_{E_\gamma - E_{ph}}^{E_\gamma +
E_{ph}} \tanh \left( \frac { \epsilon_k - E_F}{2 \it
k_B T_c} \right)\frac{ d \epsilon_k} { \epsilon_k - E_F}+ \\
\frac{ V_0 D(E)}{2}~\int_{E_\beta}^{E_F} \tanh \left(\frac {
\epsilon_k - E_F}{2 \it k_B T_c}\right)\frac{ d \epsilon_k} {
\epsilon_k - E_F},
\end{split}$$ which is to be numerically evaluated. $D(E)$ is the fermionic density of states and $V_0 $ is the effective attractive interaction of the BCS model. Taking into account that $V_0 D(E) = (\lambda - \mu*) / (1 + \lambda )$, where $\mu^*$ is the Coulomb pseudopotential, the last equation relates $T_c$ to the coupling constant $\lambda$ and to the anomalous occupancy parameter $\gamma^2$. This relationship determines the $\gamma^2$ values which reproduces the critical temperature of $H_3S$ in the intermediate and strong coupling region.
At $T = 0K$, Eq. (\[eq:bb\]) will be evaluated and $\lambda$ values consistent with the model which reproduce the values obtained for the zero temperature superconducting gap will be obtained: $$\label{eq:ee}
\begin{split}
1 = \frac{V_0 D(E)}{2} \sinh^{-1}~ \frac{E_D~+~(\gamma^2 - 1)E_F}{\Delta_0}\\
+ \frac{V_0 D(E)}{2} ~\sinh^{-1}~ \frac{E_D +~(1~-~\gamma^2)E_F} {\Delta_0}\\
+ \frac{V_0 D(E)}{2} ~ \sinh^{-1}~\frac{2~(1~-~\gamma^2)E_F} {\Delta_0}.
\end{split}$$
The Cooper pair equation and the two band model in this work, are used in order to obtain the isotope mass exponent. The McMillan approach which is valid for values of the coupling constant $\lambda < 1.5$ is used. because results in the literature are quite different [@Harshman:(2017); @Harshman:(2017b); @Hirsch:2015], the isotope exponent $\alpha$, in the harmonic approximation is also evaluated. The partial isotope coefficient in the harmonic approximation is given by $$\alpha_i = -\frac{d lnT_c}{d lnM_i}$$
The equation obtained is $$\alpha = 0.5 \left[ 1 + \delta \frac{2 Y - 1 + \frac{\delta + 2 Y - 1}{D}}
{\delta(1 - 2 Y) -1 - D} \right],$$ with $\delta = (1 - \gamma^2) E_{phonon}/E_F$. Where $$D = \sqrt{\delta^2 + 2 ( 2 Y - 1) \delta + 1},$$ and the $Y$ factor is given by $$Y = exp[\frac{1.04(1 + \lambda)}{\lambda - \mu^* (1 + 0.62 \lambda)}]$$ This equation allows to study the effect of intermediate and strong coupling up to $\lambda =1.5$ in the energy band overlapping model of this work.
The model presented in this section can be useful to describe sulfur hydride superconductors. Ranges for the coupling parameter $\lambda$ in the intermediate and strong coupling region, $0.5 < \lambda < 1.5$, are taken. Different values of $\mu*$ taken from the literature are used in the calculations. The overlapping parameter $\gamma^2$, values, consistent with the model, are obtained for the material. The relationship between the characteristic parameters will be obtained for $H_3S$ at several pressure (or $T_c$) values. The pairing in the superconducting state is taken as due principally by high-frequency optical modes.
Results and discussion
======================
Next the results of this model are shown, values of $\mu*$ found in references [@Duan:2014; @Errea:2015] are taken. The Fermi and Debye energy data from references [@Durajsky:2016b; @Kudryashova:2017] were assumed to hold.
{width=".4\linewidth"}
{width=".4\linewidth"}
In Figs. 1 the behavior of the coupling parameter $\lambda$ as a function of the band overlapping $\gamma^2$ are shown for the $H_3S$ at $150 Gpa$, where the critical temperature is about $203 K$. The range of $\lambda$ values obtained with our model are in the intermediate and strong coupling region. The values $\mu^* = 0.1,~ 0.16$ were taken in both figures, the full curves are for the small value of $\mu^*$. In Fig. (a) the Fermi energy is taken as 16 eV and the phonon energy is 0.214 eV as reported in references [@Durajsky:2016b; @Akashi:2015]. In Fig. (b) the phonon energy is half the value and $E_F$ is the same as in Fig. (a). In the last figure the required values of the coupling constant are larger than in Fig. (a) but in the region of the Mc-Millan approximation.
{width=".4\linewidth"}
{width=".4\linewidth"}
In Figs. 2 the zero temperature gap, $\Delta_0$, is shown as function of the coupling constant. The values taken for $E_F$ and $E_{phonon}$ in both Figs. 2 are the same as in Fig. 1(a). Two values of $\mu*$ were taken, the full curves are for $\mu* = 0.1$ and $\mu* = 0.16$ for the dashed ones. In Fig. (a) $\Delta_0 = 45$ while in Fig. (b) $\Delta_0 = 60$. The larger value of the gap in Fig. 2(b) requires bigger coupling constant values, but consistent with the values of Fig. 1(a).
{width=".4\linewidth"}
In Fig. 3 The isotope mass exponent is evaluated as function of the coupling constant for different values of the ratio $E_{phonon}/E_F$ found in the literature and the overlapping parameter $\gamma^2$, that is the parameter $\delta = (1 - \gamma^2) E_{phonon}/E_F$. The curves for $\delta = 0.01, 0.02. 0.04$ are shown from up to down, $\mu^* = 0.1$ in all the curves. With $\lambda > 1$ we get $0.3 < \alpha < 0.45$, this values are smaller but close to the BCS result $\alpha = 0.5$. The mass exponent is greater for greater values of the ratio $E_{phonon}/E_F$. Our results agree with those obtained using other models in the literature. The values obtained in this work are in the range of values obtained in reference [@Akashi:2015], at different pressures. The results and $\alpha = 0.25$ of reference [@Gorkov:2018] are also in the range of values we obtained for the mass exponent.
In order to increase the density of states at the Fermi level for high-temperature superconductors, we presented a model with generalized Fermi surface topologies obtained via band-overlapping. The order parameter is supposed to have s-wave symmetry. We use this model to describe sulfur hydride superconductors, within the BCS framework and the model is extended to include intermediate coupling with the McMillan approximation. The model we have used has two overlapping bands at the Fermi level The behavior of the coupling parameter $\lambda$ as function of the overlapping parameter $\gamma^2 $ is reported, for different samples. The $\lambda$ values consistent with the model are in the intermediate coupling region. A non-standard electron-phonon coupling is considered and the minimum band overlapping parameter is consistent with this value. The band overlapping allows the improvement of the results obtained with a s-wave mean-field approximation, in a scheme in which the electron-phonon interaction is the relevant one for high-$T_c$ mechanism [*i.e.*]{}, the energy scale of the band overlapping $(1 - \gamma^2)E_F$, is of the order of the phonons energy. This energy is then the overall scale that determines the highest $T_c$ and gives consistency to the model because it requires an energy scale accessible to the lattice. The $H_3S$ isotope exponent evaluated was compared with other calculations and with experimental values reported. We were not able to get a larger value of the isotope mass exponent with this generic model. That suggest that it is necessary to modify the model in order to take into account additional elements. However this schematic model can be a guide for a more detailed study of these materials with, for example, Eliashberg theory.
[00]{}
Drozdov, A. P., Eremets, M. I., Troyan, I. A., Ksenofontov, V., & Shylin, S. I. 2015, , 525, 73
Drozdov, A. P., Eremets, M. I., & Troyan, I. A. 2014, arXiv:1412.0460
Ashcroft, N. W. 2004, Physical Review Letters, 92, 187002
Ginzburg, V. L. 1969, Journal of Statistical Physics, 1, 3
Ashcroft, N. W. 1968, Physical Review Letters, 21, 1748
Errea, I., Calandra, M., Pickard, C. J., et al. 2015, Physical Review Letters, 114, 157004
Einaga, M., Sakata, M., Ishikawa, T., et al. 2016, Nature Physics, 12, 835
Duan, D., Huang, X., Tian, F., et al. 2015, , 91, 180502
Durajski, A. P., & Szcz[ȩ]{}[ś]{}niak, R., 2018, , 149, 074101
Duan, D., Liu, Y., Tian, F., et al. 2014, Scientific Reports, 4, 6968
Durajski, A. P., Szcz[ȩ]{}[ś]{}niak, R., & Li, Y. 2015, Physica C Superconductivity, 515, 1
Li, Y., Hao, J., Liu, H., Li, Y., & Ma, Y. 2014, , 140, 174712
Gor’kov, L. and Kresin, V. 2015 [*Nature Letter*]{} [**10**]{}, 14964.
Kudryashov, N. A., Kutukov, A. A., & Mazur, E. A. 2017, Physics of Metals and Metallography, 118, 113
Durajsky, A. P. and Szcz[ȩ]{}[ś]{}niak, R., 2016 [*arXiv:1609.06079v1 \[cond-mat.supr-com\]*]{}.
Durajski, A. P., Szcz[ȩ]{}[ś]{}niak, R., & Pietronero, L. 2016, Annalen der Physik, 528, 358
Sano, W., Koretsune, T., Tadano, T., Akashi, R., & Arita, R. 2016, , 93, 094525
Szcz[ȩ]{}[ś]{}niak, R. and Durajsky, A. P. 2018 [*Nature Scientific Reports*]{} [**8**]{}, 6037.
Quan, Y., & Pickett, W. E. 2016, , 93, 104526
Nakanishi, A., Ishikawa, T., & Shimizu, K. 2018, arXiv:1804.08224
Hirsch, J. E., & Scalapino, D. J. 1986, Physical Review Letters, 56, 2732
Moreno, M., M[é]{}ndez-Moreno, R. M., Ortiz, M. A., & Orozco, S. 1996, Modern Physics Letters B, 10, 1483
Souza, T. X. R., & Marsiglio, F. 2016, , 94, 184509
Talantsev, E. F., Crump, W. P., Storey, J. G., & Tallon, J. L. 2017, Annalen der Physik, 529, 1600390
Kudryashov, N. A., Kutukov, A. A., & Mazur, E. A. 2017, Novel Superconducting Materials, 3, 1
Capitani, F., Langerome, B., Brubach, J.-B., et al. 2017, Nature Physics, 13, 859
Nicol, E. J., & Carbotte, J. P. 2015, , 91, 220507
McMillan, W. L. 1968, Physical Review, 167, 331
Dynes, R. C. 1972, Solid State Communications, 10, 615
Allen, P. B., & Dynes, R. C. 1975, , 12, 905
Carbotte, J. P. 1990, Reviews of Modern Physics, 62, 1027
Bernstein, N., Hellberg, C. S., Johannes, M. D., Mazin, I. I., & Mehl, M. J. 2015, , 91, 060511
Harshman, D. R., & Fiory, A. T. 2017, Journal of Physics Condensed Matter, 29, 445702
Harshman, D. R., & Fiory, A. T. 2017, Superconductor Science Technology, 30, 045011
Hirsch, J. E., & Marsiglio, F. 2015, Physica C Superconductivity, 511, 45
Akashi, R., Kawamura, M., Tsuneyuki, S., Nomura, Y., & Arita, R. 2015, , 91, 224513
Gor’kov, L. P., & Kresin, V. Z. 2018, Reviews of Modern Physics, 90, 011001
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We analyze the errors arising from discrete readjustment of the hedging portfolio when hedging options in exponential Lévy models, and establish the rate at which the expected squared error goes to zero when the readjustment frequency increases. We compare the quadratic hedging strategy with the common market practice of delta hedging, and show that for discontinuous option pay-offs the latter strategy may suffer from very large discretization errors. For options with discontinuous pay-offs, the convergence rate depends on the underlying Lévy process, and we give an explicit relation between the rate and the Blumenthal-Getoor index of the process.'
author:
- |
Mats Brodén\
Centre for Mathematical Sciences\
Lund University, 22100 Lund Sweden\
E-mail: `[email protected]`
- |
Peter Tankov[^1]\
Centre de Mathématiques Appliquées,\
Ecole Polytechnique, 91128 Palaiseau Cedex France\
E-mail: `[email protected]`
title: 'Tracking errors from discrete hedging in exponential Lévy models.'
---
**Key words**exponential Lévy models, quadratic hedging, delta hedging, discretization error, $L^2$ convergence, digital options
**2000 Mathematics subject classification**60F25, 60G51, 91B28
Introduction
============
We study the problem of hedging an option with a discretely rebalanced portfolio in an exponential Lévy model. This setting corresponds to an incomplete market and therefore gives rise to two kinds of hedging errors. The market incompleteness error is the difference between the option’s pay-off and the theoretical hedging portfolio which assumes continuous rebalancing. This error and its minimization has been analyzed in several papers in the context of exponential Lévy models [@kallsen.hubalek.al.06; @cont.al.05]. In this study we therefore focus on the discretization error, denoted by $\varepsilon_T$, and defined as the difference between the theoretical continuously rebalanced portfolio and the discretely rebalanced one.
The error from discrete-time hedging and the related problem of approximating a stochastic integral with a Riemann sum has been analyzed by several authors in the context of diffusion models or continuous Itô processes. Bertsimas, Kogan and Lo [@bertsimas.kogan.lo.00] and later Hayashi and Mykland [@hayashi.mykland.05] gave the conditions under which the renormalized hedging error $\sqrt{n}\varepsilon_T$ converges weakly to a nondegenerate limiting distribution as the number of discretization dates $n$ goes to infinity. The rate of $L^2$ convergence of the discretization error to zero was analyzed by Zhang [@zhang.couverture], who showed that for European Call and Put options $n E[\varepsilon_T^2]$ converges to a nonzero finite limit as $n\to \infty$ and by Gobet and Temam [@gobet.temam.01], who studied irregular pay-offs and showed in particular that for digital options $\sqrt{n} E[\varepsilon_T^2]$ converges to a nondegenerate limit. Geiss [@geiss.02; @geiss.geiss.06], showed that for irregular pay-off functions the convergence rate of $n$ rather than $\sqrt{n}$ may be recovered by taking a non-equidistant (but deterministic) time net, where the rebalancing frequency increases as the option approaches expiry.
In the context of discontinuous processes, the limiting behavior of the discretization error was studied in [@tankov.voltchkova.09] from the point of view of weak convergence, and it was shown in particular that if the underlying process has no diffusion component, $\sqrt{n}\varepsilon_T\to 0$ in probability as $n\to \infty$. However, in financial applications the risk is more commonly measured by an $L^2$ criterion. In this paper we therefore concentrate on the rate of $L^2$ convergence of the discretization error to zero, and we show that for this criterion, the convergence rates are different both from the rates of weak convergence and from the rates found by various authors for continuous processes.
First, the limit $\lim_{n\to \infty} n E[\varepsilon_T^2]$ is positive in all cases and may be infinite. This means that for pure-jump Lévy processes, the rate of $L^2$ convergence is different from the rate of convergence in probability. This phenomenon is not encountered in diffusion models, and is explained by the fact that the big jumps do not contribute to the rate of convergence in probability, while they do contribute to the rate of $L^2$ convergence.
Second, the convergence rate of the discretization error may depend on the hedging strategy. In this paper, we analyze and compare two specific hedging strategies: the quadratic hedging, which is the optimal strategy for the $L^2$ criterion, and the delta hedging, which is known to be suboptimal in exponential Lévy models, but is commonly used in practice and has been shown to be relatively close to optimal in terms of hedging error [@denkl]. We find that although for options with regular pay-offs the two strategies have similar discretization errors, in the case of irregular pay-offs, the delta hedging strategy, because it involves differentiation of the option price function, suffers from much larger discretization errors than quadratic hedging.
Finally we show that for options with irregular pay-offs, such as digitals, the convergence rate of the discretization error depends on the fine properties of the Lévy measure near zero. We assume that the small jumps have stable-like behavior with index $\alpha$ (which is the case in many models used in practice) and characterize the convergence rates for the two strategies depending on $\alpha$.
In this paper, we suppose that the rebalancing dates are equidistant. Equidistant rebalancing is common market practice, especially for not-so-liquid underlyings which are not observed continuously. Although the convergence rates for options with irregular pay-offs may be improved by taking non-equidistant dates as in [@geiss.02], in many practical situations such non-equidistant time grids cannot be used (for example, when one needs to hedge a portfolio of options on the same underlying with different expiry dates).
The rest of the paper is structured as follows. After recalling the Fourier transform approach to option pricing in exponential Lévy models in section \[pricing.sec\], we establish, in section \[general.sec\], a general criterion for the $L^2$ convergence with a given rate of the error from discrete hedging. In section \[specific.sec\], we first study the case of options with regular (Lipschitz) pay-offs and show that in this case for both quadratic hedging and delta hedging maximum convergence rate is attained. Next we turn to options with discontinuous payoffs and compute the convergence rates for both strategies as function of the parameter $\alpha$ characterzing the small jumps. In this case, the convergence rate for delta hedging is found to be strictly lower than for quadratic hedging, which shows that the former strategy may suffer from much larger discretization errors and should therefore be avoided in practice.
Pricing and hedging in exp-Lévy models {#pricing.sec}
======================================
#### Standard notation and basic assumptions
We now introduce the common notation for the rest of the paper. Given a filtered probability space $(\Omega,\mathcal F, (\mathcal F_t)_{t\geq 0}, P)$, let the stock price be modeled by $S_t=e^{X_t}$ where $X$ is a Lévy process with characteristic triple $(a^2,\nu,\gamma)$. The assumption that $S_0=1$ is with no loss of generality. Since we study the $L^2$ hedging error, we will always suppose that $S$ is square integrable. The characteristic function of $X$ is denoted by $\phi_t$ and the characteristic exponent by $\psi$: $E[e^{iuX_t}] \equiv \phi_t(u)\equiv e^{t\psi(u)}$. The process $S$ can be written in the form $$\begin{aligned}
S_t = 1 + \int_0^t b S_u du + \int_0^t a S_u dW_u + \int_0^t S_{u-}\int_{\mathbb R}(e^z-1)\tilde J(du\times dz) \, ,\end{aligned}$$ where $W$ is a standard Brownian motion, $\tilde J$ a compensated Poisson random measure with intensity measure $dt \times \nu$ and $b:= \gamma + \frac{1}{2}a^2 + \int_{{\mathbb R}} (e^z-1-z 1_{|z| \leq 1}) \nu({\text d}z)$. Furthermore, we denote $A:= a^2 + \int_{\mathbb R}(e^z-1)^2 \nu(dz)$.
We assume that there exists a risk-neutral probability $Q\sim P$, such that the prices of all assets are martingales under $Q$ (the interest rate is assumed to be zero). Moreover, we assume that $X$ is a Lévy process under $Q$ with characteristic exponent $\bar\psi$, characteristic function $\bar\phi_t$ and Lévy measure $\bar\nu$.
#### Option pricing
Consider a European option with pay-off $G(S_T)$ at time $T$ and denote by $g$ its log-payoff function: $G(e^x)\equiv g(x)$. Prices of European options can be computed from the risk-neutral characteristic function $\bar\phi$.
\[optionfourier.prop\]${}$
- Suppose that there exists $R\in \mathbb R$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
&g(x)e^{-Rx} \quad \text{has finite variation on $\mathbb R$,}\label{condopt1}\\
&g(x)e^{-Rx}\in L^1(\mathbb R),\label{condopt3}\\
&E^Q[e^{RX_{T-t}}]<\infty \quad \text{and}\quad \int_{\mathbb R}\frac{|\bar\phi_{T-t}(u-iR)|}{1+|u|}du < \infty.\label{condopt4}\end{aligned}$$ Then $$\begin{aligned}
C(t,S_t):=E^Q[G(S_T)|\mathcal F_t] = \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\mathbb R+iR}\hat g(u)\bar\phi_{T-t}(-u)S_t^{-iu}du,\label{optionfourier}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\hat g(u) := \int_{\mathbb R} e^{iux}g(x)dx$$ and moreover $$\begin{aligned}
|\hat g(u+iR)|\leq \frac{C}{1+|u|},\quad u\in \mathbb R\label{digibound}\end{aligned}$$ for some $C>0$.
- Suppose that $g$ is differentiable and there exists $R\in \mathbb R$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
&g'(x)e^{-Rx} \quad \text{has finite variation on $\mathbb R$,}\label{europt1}\\
&g(x)e^{-Rx}\in L^1(\mathbb R)\quad \text{and}\quad g'(x)e^{-Rx}\in L^1(\mathbb R)\label{europt3}\\
&E^Q[e^{RX_{T-t}}]<\infty.\label{europt4}\end{aligned}$$ Then the representation holds and $$\begin{aligned}
|\hat g(u+iR)|\leq \frac{C}{1+|u|^2},\quad u\in \mathbb R\label{eurobound}\end{aligned}$$ for some $C>0$.
For the proof, see [@tankov.09].
For the digital option with pay-off $G(S_T) = 1_{S_T \geq K}$, conditions and are satisfied for all $R>0$ and $$\hat g(u+iR) = \frac{K^{iu-R}}{R-iu}.$$ For the European call option with pay-off $G(S_T) = (S_T-K)^+$, conditions and are satisfied for all $R>1$ and $$\hat g(u+iR) = \frac{K^{iu+1-R}}{(R-iu)(R-1-iu)}.$$ In any case, conditions and imply $|G(S)|\leq C S^R$ for some $C>0$ and all $S>0$.
In this paper, we study the behavior of the discretization error for the commonly used hedging strategies: the delta hedging strategy and the quadratic hedging strategy. Our method is based on the integral representation for the strategy $F$ of the form $$\begin{aligned}
F_t = F_0 + \int_0^t \mu_u du + \int_0^t \sigma_u dW_u + \int_0^t \int_{\mathbb R}\gamma_{u-}(z)\tilde J(du\times dz),\quad \forall t<T.\label{levyito}\end{aligned}$$ Below we show how this representation can be obtained for the strategies we are interested in.
#### Delta hedging
The delta hedging strategy is the classical hedging strategy inherited from the Black-Scholes model and given by $F_t = \frac{\partial C(t,S_t)}{\partial S}$. It is not optimal in exponential Lévy models but is nevertheless commonly used by market practitioners.
\[delta.prop\] Let the conditions , and for all $t<T$ be satisfied, and assume that $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\mathbb R+iR}|\hat g(u)\bar\phi_{T-t}(-u)(-iu)|du<\infty,\quad \forall t<T. \label{deltacond.eq}\end{aligned}$$ Then the delta hedging strategy is given by $$\begin{aligned}
F_t = \frac{\partial C(t,S_t)}{\partial S}= \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\mathbb R+iR}\hat g(u)\bar\phi_{T-t}(-u)(-iu)S_t^{-iu-1}du.\label{delta.eq}\end{aligned}$$ Assume in addition $$\begin{aligned}
&\int_{|x|>1}e^{2(R-1)x}\nu(dx)<\infty \, .\end{aligned}$$ Then the representation holds for $F$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_t &= \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{\mathbb R+iR}\hat g(u)\bar\phi_{T-t}(-u)(-iu)S_t^{-1-iu}(\psi(u+i)-\bar\psi(-u))du\label{deltarep1} \, , \\
\sigma_t &= \frac{a}{2\pi} \int_{\mathbb R+iR} \hat g(u)\bar\phi_{T-t}(-u)(-iu)(-1-iu)S_t^{-1-iu}du \, , \\
\gamma_t(z)&= \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{\mathbb R+iR} \hat g(u)\bar\phi_{T-t}(-u)(-iu) S_t^{-1-iu}(e^{(-1-iu)z}-1)du \, . \label{deltarep3}\end{aligned}$$
The expression is deduced directly from using the dominated convergence theorem and the condition . The martingale representation follows by applying Lemma \[martrep.prop\] with $f(u):=\frac{1}{2\pi}\hat g(u+iR)(R-iu)$ and $R'=R-1$.
#### Quadratic hedging under the martingale probability
Quadratic hedging in the literature comes in three different flavors: one can (i) minimize the global $L^2$ hedging error computed under the martingale probability (as in [@follmer.sondermann.86] and many subsequent papers); (ii) minimize the local variation of the hedging portfolio under the historical probability (as in e.g. [@follmer.schweizer.91]) or (iii) minimize the global $L^2$ hedging error under the historical probability (as in [@kallsen.hubalek.al.06; @cerny.kallsen.07]). In this paper we choose the martingale approach, that is, we minimize $$\begin{aligned}
E^Q\left[\left(G(S_T)-C(0,S_0)-\int_0^T F_{t}dS_t\right)^2\right]. \label{minrisk.eq}\end{aligned}$$ This approach is the simplest of the three and thus enables us to explain the main ideas and insights in a less technical setting. See [@cont.al.05] for some arguments towards using this strategy in practice rather than minimizing the quadratic hedging error under the historical measure. Our methodology can also be applied to the local risk minimization, and yields the same results, with more technicalities and under appropriately modified assumptions.
The solution to the minimization problem is given by the Kunita-Watanabe decomposition, and can be explicitly written as (see [@cerny.kallsen.07]) $$F_t = \frac{d\langle C,S \rangle^Q _t}{d \langle S, S\rangle_t^Q},$$ where we denote $C_t:=C(t,S_t)$.
\[martquad.prop\] Assume –; for all $t<T$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{|x|>1}e^{2(Rx\vee x)}\bar\nu(dx)<\infty.\label{squareint.eq}\end{aligned}$$ Then the quadratic hedging strategy under the martingale probability is given by $$\begin{aligned}
&F_t = \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\mathbb R+iR}\hat g(u)\bar\phi_{T-t}(-u)S_t^{-iu-1}\Upsilon(u)du \label{martquad.eq}\\
&\text{where}\quad \Upsilon(u) = \frac{\bar\psi(-u-i))-\bar\psi(-u)-\bar\psi(-i)}{\bar\psi(-2i)-2\bar\psi(-i)}.\end{aligned}$$ Assume in addition that $$\int_{|x|>1}e^{2(R-1)x}\nu(dx)<\infty.$$ Then the representation holds for $F$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_t &= \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{\mathbb R+iR}\hat g(u)\bar\phi_{T-t}(-u)\Upsilon(u)S_t^{-1-iu}(\psi(-u+i)-\bar\psi(-u))du \, , \label{muquad.eq}\\
\sigma_t &= \frac{a}{2\pi} \int_{\mathbb R+iR} \hat g(u)\bar\phi_{T-t}(-u)\Upsilon(u)(-1-iu)S_t^{-1-iu}du \, , \\
\gamma_t(z)&= \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{\mathbb R+iR} \hat g(u)\bar\phi_{T-t}(-u)\Upsilon(u) S_t^{-1-iu}(e^{(-1-iu)z}-1)du \, . \label{gammaquad.eq}\end{aligned}$$
The first part of this result (expression for the optimal strategy) is proved in [@tankov.09 Proposition 7]; under slightly different conditions this result also follows from the general theorem in [@kallsen.hubalek.al.06].
To obtain the martingale representation –, we apply, once again, Lemma \[martrep.prop\], with $R' = R-1$ and $f(u) = \frac{1}{2\pi} \hat g(u+iR)\Upsilon(u+iR)$. The validity of condition follows from Lemma \[lem:UVpsi\], assumption and assumption .
Errors from discrete hedging: general result {#general.sec}
============================================
Since continuously rebalancing one’s portfolio is unfeasible in practice, we assume that the hedging portfolio is rebalanced at equally spaced dates $T_i = iT/n$, $i=0,\dots,n-1$, and denote by $h$ the distance between the rebalancing dates: $h:=T/n$. For $t\in(0,T]$ we denote by $\underline{\eta}(t)$ the rebalancing date immediately before $t$ and by $\overline{\eta}(t)$ the rebalancing date immediately after $t$: $$\underline{\eta}(t) = \sup \{T_i,T_i< t\},\qquad \overline{\eta}(t) = \inf \{T_i,T_i\geq t\}.$$ The trading strategy is therefore piecewise constant and is assumed to be given by $F_{\underline{\eta}(t)}$, where $(F_t)$ is the ‘ideal’ continuous-time hedging strategy that the agent would use if continuous rebalancing were possible. The value of the hedging portfolio at time $t$ is $V_0+\int_0^t F_{s-} dS_s$ with continuous hedging and $V_0+\int_0^t F_{\eta(s)} dS_s$ with discrete hedging. $F^h_t$ denotes the left-continuous difference between the continuously rebalanced strategy and the discretely rebalanced one: $F^h_t:=F_{t-} - F_{\underline{\eta}(t)}$. We study the $L^2$ convergence to $0$, when $h \to 0$, of the difference between discrete and continuous hedging portfolio $$\int_0^T (F_{t-} -F_{\underline{\eta}(t)})dS_t\equiv \int_0^T F^h_{t} dS_t.$$
Choose a function $r(h):(0,\infty)\to(0,\infty)$ with $\lim_{h\downarrow 0} r(h) = 0$ (the rate of convergence to zero of the hedging error). We shall see that under suitable assumptions ${E}[(\int_0^T F^h_{t} dS_t)^2/r(h)]$ converges to a finite nonzero limit when $h \downarrow 0$.
\[levyerror\] Assume that the hedging strategy $F$ is of the form and $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{h\downarrow 0} \frac{h}{r(h)} E\left[\int_0^T S_t^2(\overline{\eta}(t)-t)\left(\mu_t^2 + \int_{\mathbb R} \gamma_t^2(z) \nu(dz)\right)dt\right]=0 \, . \label{ass1}\end{aligned}$$ Then $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{h\downarrow 0}\frac{1}{r(h)}E\left[\left(\int_0^T F^h_{t}dS_t\right)^2\right] = \lim_{h\downarrow 0} \frac{A}{r(h)} E\left[\int_0^T S_t^2(\overline{\eta}(t)-t)\left(\sigma_t^2 + \int_{\mathbb R} \gamma_t^2(z) e^{2z}\nu(dz)\right)dt\right] \, , \label{limit} \end{aligned}$$ whenever the limit on the right-hand side exists.
\[cor:levyerror\] Assume that is satisfied and $$\begin{aligned}
E\left[\int_0^T S_t^2\left(\sigma_t^2 + \int_{\mathbb R} \gamma_t^2(z) e^{2z}\nu(dz)\right)dt\right]<\infty. \label{cor:ass1}\end{aligned}$$ Then $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{h\downarrow 0}\frac{1}{h}E\left[\left(\int_0^T F^h_{t}dS_t\right)^2\right] = \frac{A}{2} E\left[\int_0^T S_t^2\left(\sigma_t^2 + \int_{\mathbb R} \gamma_t^2(z) e^{2z}\nu(dz)\right)dt\right] \, .\end{aligned}$$
If the condition is not satisfied, then clearly the limit in can only exist with a convergence rate worse than $r(h)=h$. Therefore the best possible convergence rate which can be obtained with Theorem \[levyerror\], and which is realized for regular strategies, is $r(h)=h$. However, worse rates may arise in the presence of irregular pay-offs. In the following, we will refer to the situation when is satisfied and $r(h)=h$ as *regular regime* and to the other situations as *irregular regime*.
The proof is very similar to that of the Riemann-Lebesgue lemma. Let $$g_h(t):=\frac{\bar\eta(t)-t}{h},\quad f(t):= E\left[ S_t^2\left(\sigma_t^2 + \int_{\mathbb R} \gamma_t^2(z) e^{2z}\nu(dz)\right)\right].$$ For any piecewise constant function $u:[0,T]\to \mathbb R$, we clearly have $$\lim_{h\downarrow 0} \int_0^T g_h(t) u(t)dt = \frac{1}{2}\int_0^T u(t)dt.$$ Let $(f_n)_{n\geq 1}$ be a sequence of piecewise constant functions satisfying $f_n(t)\leq f_{n+1}(t) \leq f(t)$ and $\lim_{n\to \infty} f_n(t) = f(t)$ for all $t\in [0,T]$. Then, by monotone convergence, since $|g_h|\leq 1$, $$\lim_{n\to \infty} \int_0^T (f(t)-f_n(t))g_h(t)dt = 0,$$ uniformly on $h$, which proves that $$\lim_{h \downarrow 0} \int_0^T f(t)g_h(t)dt =\frac{1}{2}\int_0^T f(t)dt.$$
We define auxiliary probability measures $P^1$ and $P^2$ by $$\frac{dP^k}{dP}\Big|_{\mathcal F_t} := \frac{e^{kX_t}}{e^{t\psi(-ik)}},\quad k=1,2.$$ Under $P^k$, the process $(W^{(k)}_t)$ defined by $W^{(k)}_t = W_t - akt$ is a standard Brownian motion and $$\tilde J^{(k)}(dt\times dz) = \tilde J(dt\times dz) - dt \times (e^{kz}-1)\nu(dz)$$ is a compensated Poisson random measure. Therefore, the drift of $F$ under $P^k$ is given, by $$\begin{aligned}
\mu^{(k)}_t &= \mu_t + ak\sigma_t + \int_{\mathbb R}\gamma_t(z)(e^{kz}-1)\nu(dz).\label{mu1}\end{aligned}$$
The hedging error satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{1}{r(h)}E\left[\left(\int_0^T F^h_{t}dS_t\right)^2\right] = \frac{1}{r(h)}E\left[\left(\int_0^T F^h_{t}dS^m_t\right)^2\right] \notag\\ &\qquad+\frac{b^2}{r(h)}E\left[\left(\int_0^T F^h_{t}S_t dt\right)^2\right]+ \frac{2b}{r(h)}E\left[\int_0^T F^h_{t}S_t dt\times \int_0^T F^h_{t}dS^m_t\right],\label{twoterms} \end{aligned}$$ where $S^m$ denotes the martingale part of $S$. The first term in the right-hand side satisfies $$E\left(\int_0^T F^h_{t}dS^m_t\right)^2 = A E\left[\int_0^T (F^h_{t})^2 S_t^2 dt\right] = A\int_0^T e^{t\psi(-2i)} E^{P^2}[(F^h_{t})^2] dt$$ if the expectations are finite. The expectation under the integral sign can be decomposed as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
&E^{P^2}[(F^h_t)^2] = E^{P^2}\left[\left(\int_{\underline{\eta}(t)}^t \mu_s^{(2)}ds\right)^2\right] \notag\\&\qquad + E^{P^2}\left[\left(\int_{\underline{\eta}(t)}^t \sigma_s dW^{(2)}_s + \int_{\underline{\eta}(t)}^t\int_{\mathbb R} \gamma_{s-}(z)\tilde J^{(2)}(ds\times dz)\right)^2\right]\notag \\ &\qquad + E^{P^2}\left[\left(\int_{\underline{\eta}(t)}^t \sigma_s dW^{(2)}_s + \int_{\underline{\eta}(t)}^t\int_{\mathbb R} \gamma_{s-}(z)\tilde J^{(2)}(ds\times dz)\right)\int_{\underline{\eta}(t)}^t \mu_s^{(2)}ds\right].\label{underint}\end{aligned}$$ The second term in the right-hand side above satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
E^{P^2}\left[\left(\int_{\underline{\eta}(t)}^t \sigma_s dW^{(2)}_s + \int_{\underline{\eta}(t)}^t\int_{\mathbb R} \gamma_{s-}(z)\tilde J^{(2)}(ds\times dz)\right)^2\right] = E^{P^2}\left[\int_{\underline{\eta}(t)}^t\left(\sigma_s^2 + \int_{\mathbb R}\gamma^2_s(z)e^{2z}\nu(dz)\right) \right]\end{aligned}$$ and its integral gives, using integration by parts and switching back to the probability $P$, $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{A}{r(h)}\int_0^T e^{t\psi(-2i)} E^{P^2}\left[\int_{\underline{\eta}(t)}^t\left(\sigma_s^2 + \int_{\mathbb R}\gamma^2_s(z)e^{2z}\nu(dz)\right)\right]dt\\
&\qquad = \frac{A}{r(h)} \int_0^T dt E^{P^2}\left[\sigma_t^2 + \int_{\mathbb R}\gamma^2_t(z)e^{2z}\nu(dz)\right]\int_t^{\overline{\eta}(t)}e^{s\psi(-2i)}ds\\
&= \frac{A(1+O(h))}{r(h)} E\left[\int_0^T S_t^2(\overline{\eta}(t)-t)\left(\sigma_t^2 + \int_{\mathbb R} \gamma_t^2(z) e^{2z}\nu(dz)\right)\right],\end{aligned}$$ which converges to the same limit as . In view of this result and of the fact that the cross terms in and can be estimated using the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality, to prove the theorem it remains to show that, under the assumptions and when the limit in the right-hand side of exists, $$\begin{aligned}
&\lim_{h\downarrow 0} \frac{1}{r(h)} \int_0^T e^{t\psi(-2i)}E^{P^2}\left[\left(\int_{\underline{\eta}(t)}^t \mu_s^{(2)}ds\right)^2\right]dt = 0\label{driftstrat}\\
\text{and}\quad &\lim_{h\downarrow 0} \frac{1}{r(h)}E\left[\left(\int_0^T F^h_{t}S_t dt\right)^2\right]=0.\label{driftasset}\end{aligned}$$
#### Proof of
The expression under the $\lim$ sign satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{1}{r(h)} \int_0^T e^{t\psi(-2i)}E^{P^2}\left(\int_{\underline{\eta}(t)}^t \mu_s^{(2)}ds\right)^2dt\leq \frac{h}{r(h)} \int_0^T e^{t\psi(-2i)}E^{P^2}\left[\int_{\underline{\eta}(t)}^t (\mu_s^{(2)})^2ds\right]dt\\
&\qquad = \frac{h(1+O(h))}{r(h)}\int_0^T (\overline{\eta}(t)-t)E\left[S_t^2 (\mu_t^{(2)})^2\right]dt \\
&\qquad \leq \frac{Ch}{r(h)}\int_0^T (\overline{\eta}(t)-t)E\left[S_t^2 \mu_t^2 + S_t^2 \sigma_t^2 + S_t^2 \left(\int_{\mathbb R}\gamma_t(z)(e^{2z}-1)\nu(dz)\right)^2\right]dt,\end{aligned}$$ for some constant $C<\infty$, where the last estimate follows from . By the Jensen inequality (for $|z|>1$) and the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality (for $|z|\leq 1$), $$\begin{aligned}
&\left(\int_{\mathbb R}\gamma_t(z)(e^{2z}-1)\nu(dz)\right)^2 \leq 2\int_{|z|\leq 1}(e^{2z}-1)^2 \nu(dz) \int_{|z|\leq 1}\gamma_t^2(z)\nu(dz)\\ &\qquad+ 2 \int_{|z|>1}|e^{2z}-1|\nu(dz)\int_{|z|>1}\gamma_t^2(z)|e^{2z}-1|\nu(dz)
\leq C \int_{\mathbb R}\gamma_t^2(z)(1+e^{2z})\nu(dz).\end{aligned}$$
The limit now follows from the assumptions of the theorem and the existence of the limit .
#### Proof of
The error term in can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{1}{r(h)}E\left[\left(\int_0^T F^h_{t}S_t dt\right)^2\right] = \frac{2}{r(h)}\sum_{i=1}^n \int_{T_{i-1}}^{T_i}dt \int_{t}^{T_i}ds E[(F_t-F_{T_{i-1}})(F_s-F_{T_{i-1}})S_tS_s] \\
&\qquad + \frac{2}{r(h)}\sum_{1\leq i<j \leq n} \int_{T_{i-1}}^{T_i}dt \int_{T_{j-1}}^{T_j}ds E[(F_t-F_{T_{i-1}})(F_s-F_{T_{j-1}})S_tS_s]\\
&= \frac{2}{r(h)}\sum_{i=1}^n \int_{T_{i-1}}^{T_i}dt \int_{t}^{T_i}ds e^{(s-t)\psi(-i)}E[(F_t-F_{T_{i-1}})^2 S_t^2]\\
&\qquad + \frac{2}{r(h)}\sum_{i=1}^n \int_{T_{i-1}}^{T_i}dt \int_{t}^{T_i}ds e^{s\psi(-i)}E^{P^1}[(F_t-F_{T_{i-1}})(F_s-F_t)S_t]\\
&\qquad + \frac{2}{r(h)}\sum_{1\leq i<j \leq n} \int_{T_{i-1}}^{T_i}dt \int_{T_{j-1}}^{T_j}ds e^{s\psi(-i)} E^{P^1}[(F_t-F_{T_{i-1}})(F_s-F_{T_{j-1}})S_t]\\
&= \frac{O(h)}{r(h)}\int_{0}^{T}dt E[(F_t-F_{\underline{\eta}(t)})^2 S_t^2]+\frac{2}{r(h)}\int_0^T dt \int_t^T ds e^{s\psi(-i)}E^{P^1}[(F_t-F_{\underline{\eta}(t)})(F_s-F_{\underline{\eta}(s)\vee t})S_t].\end{aligned}$$ The first term in the last line converges to zero by the first part of the proof. To compute the second term, we introduce the conditional expectation with respect to $\mathcal F_{\underline{\eta}(s)\vee t}$ inside the expectation $E^{P1}$. The fact that the local martingale part of $F$ has zero expectation can be justified using . Finally, we get $$\begin{aligned}
&\left|\frac{2}{r(h)}\int_0^T dt \int_t^T ds e^{s\psi(-i)}E^{P^1}[(F_t-F_{\underline{\eta}(t)})(F_s-F_{\underline{\eta}(s)\vee t})S_t]\right|\\
&= \left|\frac{2}{r(h)}\int_0^T dt \int_t^T ds e^{s\psi(-i)}E^{P^1}\left[(F_t-F_{\underline{\eta}(t)})S_t\int_{\underline{\eta}(s)\vee t}^s \mu^{(1)}_u du\right]\right|\\
&= \left|\frac{2}{r(h)}\int_0^T dt \int_t^T ds E[\mu^{(1)}_s (F_t - F_{\eta(t)})S_t S_s]\int_s^{\overline{\eta}(s)}e^{(u-s)\psi(-i)}du\right| \\
&\leq \frac{2}{r(h)} \int_0^T dt E[(F_t - F_{\eta(t)})^2S^2_t]^{\frac{1}{2}} \int_0^T ds E[(\mu^{(1)}_s)^2 S_s^2]^{\frac{1}{2}} \int_s^{\overline{\eta}(s)}e^{(u-s)\psi(-i)}du\\
&\leq C\left(\frac{1}{r(h)} \int_0^T dt E[(F_t - F_{\eta(t)})^2S^2_t]\right)^{\frac{1}{2}} \left(\frac{1}{r(h)} \int_0^T ds E[(\mu^{(1)}_s)^2 S_s^2] \left\{\int_s^{\overline{\eta}(s)}e^{(u-s)\psi(-i)}du\right\}^2 \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}, \end{aligned}$$ where the last implication follows from the Jensen inequality. The first factor in the in the right-hand side above was shown to be bounded in the beginning of the proof. As for the second factor, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{r(h)} \int_0^T ds E[(\mu^{(1)}_s)^2 S_s^2] \left\{\int_s^{\overline{\eta}(s)}e^{(u-s)\psi(-i)}du\right\}^2 = \frac{O(h)}{r(h)} \int_0^T ds (\overline{\eta}(s)-s) E[(\mu^{(1)}_s)^2 S_s^2], \end{aligned}$$ which can be shown to converge to zero in the same way as we did in the proof of .
Convergence rates of specific strategies {#specific.sec}
========================================
We start by introducing a set of assumptions on the Lévy measure $\nu$ of $X$, which will be used in different theorems later in this section. In theorems dealing with the delta-hedging strategy we require: $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{|x|>1}e^{Rx}\bar\nu(dx)<\infty,\quad \int_{|x|>1}e^{2(Rx\vee x)}\nu(dx)<\infty,\quad \text{and}\quad \int_{|x|>1}e^{2(R-1)x}\nu(dx)<\infty.\label{deltaint.eq}\end{aligned}$$ The first condition guarantees the integrability of the option payoff under $Q$ (recall that pay-off function satisfies $|G(S)|\leq C S^R$), the second ensures the square integrability of the option price and the stock price under $P$, and the last condition allows to construct a martingale-drift representation for the strategy.
For analyzing the quadratic hedging under the martingale probability we require the stock price and the option pay-off to be square integrable under $Q$ as well: $$\begin{aligned}
&\int_{|x|>1}e^{2(Rx\vee x)}\bar\nu(dx)<\infty,\quad \int_{|x|>1}e^{2(Rx\vee x)}\nu(dx)<\infty,\quad \text{and}\quad \int_{|x|>1}e^{2(R-1)x}\nu(dx)<\infty.\label{quadint.eq}\end{aligned}$$
The following alternative assumptions determine the decay properties of characteristic function of $X$ at infinity.
- The Lévy measure $\nu$ is of the form $\nu = \nu_0 + \nu_1$ where $\nu_0$ is a finite measure on $\mathbb R$ and $\nu_1$ has a positive density of the form $$\nu_1(x) = \frac{k(x)}{|x|},$$ where the function $k$ is right-continuous and increasing on $(-\infty,0)$ and left-continuous and decreasing on $(0,\infty)$.
- The Lévy measure $\nu$ satisfies $$\limsup_{r\to 0} r^{\alpha-2}\int_{[-r,r]}x^2 \nu(dx)>0.$$ \[H1\]
- The Lévy measure $\nu$ satisfies $$\int_{[-1,1]} |x|^{\alpha}\nu(dx)<\infty.$$
- The Lévy measure $\nu$ has a density satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
\nu(x) = \frac{f(x)}{|x|^{1+\alpha}}, \quad \lim_{x\to 0+}f(x) = f_+,\quad \lim_{x\to 0-}f(x) = f_-$$ for some constants $f_->0$ and $f_+>0$.
The assumption H1 guarantees at least power-law decay of the characteristic function at infinity (see Lemma \[cond.lm\] in the Appendix). It is satisfied by most parametric infinite intensity processes used in financial modeling: for the variance gamma [@madan98] and CGMY [@finestructure] processes this is immediately clear by looking at the Lévy measure while for the normal inverse Gaussian process [@bns_nig] and the generalized hyperbolic distribution [@eberlein] it follows from the self-decomposability of these distributions shown in [@halgreen] and the characterization of self-decomposable distributions in [@sato Chapter 3].
The assumptions H2-$\alpha$, H3-$\alpha$ and H4-$\alpha$ with $0<\alpha<2$ characterize different aspects of stable-like behavior of small jumps of the Lévy process. They are satisfied by the CGMY process (with $\alpha=Y$), the normal inverse Gaussian process (with $\alpha=1$) and the generalized hyperbolic distribution (with $\alpha=1$ in general; see [@levybook pages 125–126]). They are not satisfied by the variance gamma process. It is clear that the assumption H4-$\alpha$ implies H2-$\alpha$ and H3-$\alpha$.
We start our analysis with regular pay-offs, in which case the convergence takes place in the regular regime with the rate $r(h)=h$. In the following theorem and its proof, we use the notation of Propositions \[delta.prop\] and \[martquad.prop\].
\[thm:euro\_delta\] Let the pay-off function and the Lévy process satisfy the conditions – for some $R\in \mathbb R$ and assume that one of the three alternative conditions holds:
- $\nu$ satisfies the assumption H1 and $a=0$;
- $\nu$ satisfies the assumption H2-$\alpha$ with $\alpha\in (0,2)$ and $a=0$;
- $a>0$.
Let the hedging strategy be given by Proposition \[delta.prop\] and assume that holds or let the hedging strategy be given by Proposition \[martquad.prop\] and assume that holds. Then $$\lim_{h \downarrow 0} \frac{1}{h} {E}\left[ \left( \int_0^T F_t^h {\text d}S_t \right)^2 \right] = \frac{A}{2} {E}\Biggl[ \int_0^T S_t^2 \left(\sigma_t^2 + \int_{{\mathbb R}} \gamma_t(z) e^{2z} \nu({\text d}z)\right) {\text d}t \Biggr] \, .\label{result.eq}$$
As will become clear from the proof, for example, for delta hedging, the limiting renormalized discretization error can be evaluated via a two-dimensional integral. $$\begin{aligned}
&\lim_{h \downarrow 0} \frac{1}{h} {E}\left[ \left( \int_0^T F_t^h {\text d}S_t \right)^2 \right]\\ &\qquad = \frac{A}{8\pi^4} \int_{\mathbb R +iR} \int_{\mathbb R +iR} du_1\,du_2 (\phi_T(-u_1-u_2)-\bar \phi_{T}(-u_1)\bar \phi_{T}(-u_2)) \hat g(u_1) \hat g(u_2)f(u_1,u_2) , \\
&\text{where}\, \, f(u_1,u_2) = -u_1 u_2 \frac{\psi(-u_1-u_2) - \psi(-u_1-i) - \psi(-u_2-i) + \psi(-2i)}{\psi(-u_1-u_2)-\bar \psi(-u_1)-\bar \psi(-u_2)}.\end{aligned}$$ In any case, our goal in this paper is not to compute the hedging error explicitly but rather to gain an understanding of its behavior as the rebalancing step tends to zero.
*Step 1.* From Lemma \[cond.lm\] or, under the condition $a>0$, directly from the form of the characteristic function, and from Lemma \[lem:PQUVpsi\] it follows that $$\int_{\mathbb R} \frac{|\bar \phi_{T-t}(u-iR)|}{1+|u|}du <\infty,\quad \forall t<T,$$ and therefore Proposition \[delta.prop\] holds.
With $\mu$, $\sigma$ and $\gamma$ as in – for the delta hedging strategy or as in – for the quadratic hedging strategy, define $$\begin{aligned}
& I_1(t) := {E}[S_t^2 \mu_t^2] \, , && I_2(t) := {E}[S_t^2 \sigma_t^2] \, , \label{i1i2}\\
& I_3(t) := {E}[S_t^2 \int_{{\mathbb R}} \gamma_t^2(z) \nu({\text d}z)] \, , && I_4(t) := {E}[S_t^2 \int_{{\mathbb R}} \gamma_t^2(z) e^{2 z} \nu({\text d}z)] \, .\label{i3i4}\end{aligned}$$ Suppose that we can show that $\int_0^T I_i(t) {\text d}t < \infty$ for $i \in\{1,2,3,4\}$. Then assumption of Corollary \[cor:levyerror\] is satisfied and assumption of Theorem \[levyerror\] is satisfied as well ($r(h)=h$). Therefore, by an application of Corollary \[cor:levyerror\] the proof is complete.
*Step 2.* For the delta hedging strategy (proposition \[delta.prop\], ) from equations – and the bound , $$\begin{aligned}
&I_i(t) \leq C\int_{{\mathbb R}+iR} \int_{{\mathbb R}+iR} \frac{|f_i(u_1,u_2)\bar\phi_{T-t}(-u_1)\bar\phi_{T-t}(-u_2)\phi_t(-u_1-u_2)|}{(|u_1|+1)(|u_2|+1)}du_1 du_2\end{aligned}$$ for some $C>0$, where $$\begin{aligned}
f_1(u_1,u_2) &= (\psi(-u_1+i)-\bar\psi(-u_1))(\psi(-u_2+i)-\bar\psi(-u_2)), \\
f_2(u_1,u_2) &= a^2 (-1-iu_1)(-1-iu_2) , \\
f_3(u_1,u_2) &= \int_{{\mathbb R}} (e^{(-1-iu_1)z} - 1)(e^{(-1-iu_2)z} - 1) \nu({\text d}z) \\
& = \psi(-u_1-u_2+2i) - \psi(-u_1+i) - \psi(-u_2+i)) - f_2(u_1,u_2)
\intertext{and}
f_4(u_1,u_2) &= \int_{{\mathbb R}} e^{2z} (e^{(-1-iu_1)z} - 1)(e^{(-1-iu_2)z} - 1) \nu({\text d}z)\\
&= \psi(-u_1-u_2) - \psi(-u_1-i) - \psi(-u_2-i)+ \psi(-2i) - f_2(u_1,u_2)\end{aligned}$$ From Lemmas \[lem:PQUVpsi\] and \[lem:UVpsi\], $$\begin{aligned}
|f_i(u_1+iR,u_2+iR)| \leq C(1+ \sqrt{|\Re \psi(u_1)|}) (1+ \sqrt{|\Re \psi(u_2)|})\label{fi.bound}\end{aligned}$$ for some $C<\infty$ and $i \in \{1,2,3,4 \}$. Corollary \[repsi.bound\] and Lemma \[lem:PQUVpsi\] then imply that $I_i(t) \leq J(t)$, where the function $J$ is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
J(t) & = C\int_{{\mathbb R}^2} \frac{(1+ \sqrt{|\Re \psi(u_1)}|)(1+ \sqrt{|\Re \psi(u_2)|})}{(1+|u_1|)(1+|u_2|)} e^{c(\Re \psi(u_1+u_2)t + \Re {\psi}(u_1) (T-t) + \Re {\psi}(u_2) (T-t))} {\text d}u_1 {\text d}u_2\label{jbound}\end{aligned}$$ for some constants $C>0$ and $c>0$ (which will later change from line to line).
For the quadratic hedging strategy (proposition \[martquad.prop\]), by the same arguments, we get that $$\begin{aligned}
I_i(t) & \leq C\int_{{\mathbb R}^2} \frac{(1+ \sqrt{|\Re \psi(u_1)}|)(1+ \sqrt{|\Re \psi(u_2)|})|\Upsilon(u_1+iR)\Upsilon(u_2+iR)|}{(1+|u_1|^2)|(1+|u_2|^2)} \\
& \quad \times e^{c(\Re \psi(u_1+u_2)t + \Re {\psi}(u_1) (T-t) + \Re {\psi}(u_2) (T-t))} {\text d}u_1 {\text d}u_2\end{aligned}$$ From Lemma \[lem:UVpsi\] we now get that $$|\Upsilon(u+iR)|\leq C(1+\sqrt{|\psi(u)|}) \leq C(1+|u|),$$ which implies $I_i(t)\leq J(t)$.
It remains to show that $\int_0^T J(t) {\text d}t < \infty$, and the theorem will be proved.
*Step 3.* Assume first that $\nu$ satisfies H1. The change of variables $u_1+u_2=v_1$ and $u_1-u_2=v_2$ together with and Lemma \[lem:growth\_imp\] yields $$\begin{aligned}
J(t) \leq & C\int_{{\mathbb R}^2} \frac{(1+\sqrt{|\Re \psi ( (v_1+v_2)/2 )|})(1+ \sqrt{|\Re \psi ( (v_1-v_2)/2 )|})}{(1+|v_1+v_2|)(1+|v_1-v_2|)} e^{c(\Re \psi( v_1)T+\Re {\psi}(v_2) (T-t))} {\text d}v_1 {\text d}v_2 \, .\end{aligned}$$ Now by $$J(t) \leq C\int_{{\mathbb R}^2} \frac{1 + |\Re \psi(v_1/2))|+|\Re \psi(v_2/2)|}{(1+|v_1+v_2|)(1+|v_1-v_2|)} e^{c(\Re \psi(v_1)T+ \Re {\psi}(v_2) (T-t)} {\text d}v_1 {\text d}v_2 \, .$$
*Step 4.* In this last step we consider the integral of $J(t)$ over $[0,T]$. $$\begin{split}
\int_0^T J(t) {\text d}t &\leq C \int_{{\mathbb R}^2} \frac{(1 + |\Re \psi(v_1/2))|+|\Re \psi(v_2/2)|)e^{c \Re \psi(v_1)T}}{(1+|v_1+v_2|)(1+|v_1-v_2|)} \frac{1-e^{c \Re \psi(v_2) T}}{\Re \psi(v_2)} {\text d}v_1 {\text d}v_2 \\
& \leq C \int_{{\mathbb R}^2} \frac{(1+|\Re \psi(v_1/2))|+|\Re \psi(v_2/2)|)e^{c\Re \psi(v_1)T}}{(1+|v_1+v_2|)(1+|v_1-v_2|)} \frac{1}{1 + |\Re \psi(v_2)|} {\text d}v_1 {\text d}v_2 \\
& \leq C \int_{{\mathbb R}^2} \frac{(1+|\Re \psi(v_1)|) e^{c \Re \psi(v_1)T} }{(1+|v_1+v_2|)(1+|v_1-v_2|)} {\text d}v_1 {\text d}v_2 ,
\end{split}$$ where the last inequality follows from .
From Lemma \[doubleint\] we then get $$\int_0^T J(t) {\text d}t \leq C \int_{{\mathbb R}} \frac{(1+|\Re \psi(v_1)|)(1+\log (1 + |v_1|)) e^{c \Re \psi(v_1)} }{1+|v_1|} {\text d}v_1,$$ and also $$\int_0^T J(t) {\text d}t \leq C \int_{{\mathbb R}} \frac{(1+\log (1 + |v_1|)) e^{c \Re \psi(v_1)} }{1+|v_1|} {\text d}v_1,$$ for different constants $c$ and $C$. Lemma now \[cond.lm\] allows to conclude that this integral is finite, completing the proof of the theorem under the assumption H1.
Suppose now that one of the two alternative assumptions is satisfied. Then, from Lemma \[cond.lm\], or, if $a>0$, directly from the form of the characteristic function, we get $$J(t) \leq C\int_{{\mathbb R}^2} \frac{(1+|v_1+v_2|^{\alpha/2})(1+|v_1-v_2|^{\alpha/2})}{(1+|v_1+v_2|)(1+|v_1-v_2|)} e^{- cT|v_1|^{\alpha}-c(T-t)|v_2|^\alpha} {\text d}v_1 {\text d}v_2,$$ where we set $\alpha=2$ if $a>0$. To finish the proof in this case, it is now sufficient to repeat the arguments from the beginning of step 3 onwards, taking $\psi(u) = -|u|^\alpha$.
Next, we turn to options with irregular pay-offs. In this case the convergence rate of the discretization error to zero is not necessarily $r(h)=h$, but depends on the properties of the Lévy measure of $X$ near zero. Therefore, we need to make a precise assumption about these properties. For the same reason (to compute the precise convergence rate and the constant rather than just an upper bound) it is necessary to fix the pay-off profile.
\[thm:digit\_delta\] Let the pay-off function be given by $G(S_T) = 1_{S_T\geq K}$ and assume for some $R>0$. Let the hedging strategy be given by Proposition \[delta.prop\].
1. Assume that $a=0$ and $\nu$ satisfies the assumption H4-$\alpha$ with $\alpha\in (1,2)$. Then the hedging error satisfies $$\lim_{h\downarrow 0}\frac{1}{r(h)}E\left[\left(\int_0^T F^h_{t}dS_t\right)^2\right] = \frac{A D_\alpha}{2\pi(f_+ + f_-)^{1/\alpha}} p_T(\log K),$$ with $r(h) = h^{1-1/\alpha}$, where $D_\alpha$ is a constant depending only on $\alpha$ and given explicitly by $$D_\alpha := \frac{1}{(2\Gamma(-\alpha)\cos(\pi(2-\alpha)/2))^{1/\alpha}}\int_{\mathbb R}dv \frac{1-e^{-|v|^\alpha} - |v|^{\alpha}e^{-|v|^\alpha}}{|v|^\alpha (1-e^{-|v|^\alpha})}$$ and $p_T$ is the density of $X_T$, which can be computed from the characteristic function via $$p_T(\log K) = \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{\mathbb R} dv e^{-iv \log K} e^{T\psi(v)}.$$
2. Assume that $a>0$. Then the hedging error satisfies $$\lim_{h\downarrow 0}\frac{1}{\sqrt{h}}E\left[\left(\int_0^T F^h_{t}dS_t\right)^2\right] = \frac{A D}{2\pi a} p_T(\log K),$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
D := \int_{\mathbb R}dv \frac{1-e^{-v^2} - v^{2}e^{-v^2}}{v^2 (1-e^{-v^2})}.\label{D.eq}\end{aligned}$$
We use the notation introduced in the proof of Theorem \[thm:euro\_delta\]. The proof below covers both cases by setting $\alpha=2$ in the case $a>0$. As a preliminary remark, observe that by Lemma \[lem:PQUVpsi\], the risk-neutral characteristic exponent $\bar \psi$ also has the property of Lemma \[cond.lm\]. This shows that condition is satisfied and Proposition \[delta.prop\] holds.
*Step 1.* Let $$\begin{gathered}
e_i(u_1,u_2,t) := f_i(u_1+iR,u_2+iR)\bar\phi_{T-t}(-u_1-iR)\bar\phi_{T-t}(-u_2-iR) \\
\times \phi_t(-u_1-u_2-2iR)K^{iu_1 + iu_2 - 2R}.\end{gathered}$$ Then, with a change of variables, $$\begin{aligned}
I_i(t) = \frac{1}{4\pi^2} \int_{\mathbb R^2} e_i(u_1,u_2,t)du_1 du_2 = \frac{h^{-1/\alpha}}{8\pi^2} \int_{\mathbb R^2} e_i\left(\frac{v_1+v_2 h^{-1/\alpha}}{2},\frac{v_1-v_2 h^{-1/\alpha}}{2},t\right)dv_1 dv_2 \, .\end{aligned}$$ In this first step we would like to show that $$\int_0^T h^{-1}(\bar \eta(t)-t)e_i\left(\frac{v_1+v_2 h^{-1/\alpha}}{2},\frac{v_1-v_2 h^{-1/\alpha}}{2},t\right) dt \, ,$$ is bounded from above by a function which does not depend on $h$ and is integrable with respect to $v_1$ and $v_2$. This will on one hand prove the assumption (with $r(h) = h^{1-1/\alpha}$) and on the other hand will enable us to use the dominated convergence theorem for computing the limit in .
Using property , corollary \[repsi.bound\], and the estimate , $$|e_i(u_1,u_2,t)| \leq C e^{-c\{t|u_1+u_2|^\alpha +(T-t)|u_1|^\alpha + (T-t)|u_2|^\alpha \}}(1+ |u_1|^{\alpha/2})(1 + |u_2|^{\alpha/2})$$ for some constants $c,C>0$ which may change from line to line. By Lemma \[lem:growth\_imp\], we then get: $$\left|e_i\left(\frac{v_1+v_2}{2},\frac{v_1-v_2}{2},t\right)\right| \leq C e^{-c\{T|v_1|^\alpha +(T-t)|v_2|^\alpha\}}(1+|v_1|^\alpha +|v_2|^\alpha),$$ and finally, evaluating the time integral explicitly using the formula $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^T (\bar \eta(t)-t)e^{a(T-t)}dt = \sum_{i=1}^n e^{a(T-T_i)}\int_{0}^{h} te^{at}dt = \frac{(ah e^{ah} - e^{ah}+1)(1-e^{aT})}{a^2(1-e^{ah})},\label{explicit}\end{aligned}$$ we get $$\begin{aligned}
&\int_0^T h^{-1}(\bar \eta(t)-t)\left|e_i\left(\frac{v_1+v_2 h^{-1/\alpha}}{2},\frac{v_1-v_2 h^{-1/\alpha}}{2},t\right)\right| dt\\
&\leq Ch^{-2} (h(1+|v_1|^\alpha) + |v_2|^\alpha) e^{-cT|v_1|^\alpha } \int_0^T (\bar \eta(t)-t) e^{-c(T-t)h^{-1}|v_2 |^\alpha}dt\\
& \leq C(1+|v_1|^\alpha) e^{-cT|v_1|^\alpha }
\frac{-c|v_2|^\alpha e^{-c |v_2|^\alpha} - e^{-c |v_2|^\alpha}+1}{|v_2|^{\alpha}(1 - e^{-c |v_2|^{\alpha}})},\end{aligned}$$ where the last inequality follows from the bound $1-e^{-x}\leq x$, $x\geq 0$. Since the last expression is integrable with respect to $v_1$ and $v_2$ (it is bounded near zero and behaves like $\frac{1}{|v_2|^\alpha}$ at infinity), step 1 is completed.
*Step 2.* Let us now compute the renormalized limiting hedging error $$\begin{aligned}
&\varepsilon_0:=\lim_{h\to 0} A h^{1/\alpha-1}E \int_0^T S_t^2 (\bar\eta(t)-t)\left(\sigma_t^2 + \int_{\mathbb R}\gamma_t^2(z)e^{2z}\nu(dz)\right)dt\\
&= \lim_{h\to 0} \frac{A}{8\pi^2}\int_{\mathbb R^2}dv_1 \, dv_2 \int_0^T h^{-1}(\bar \eta(t)-t)\{e_2+e_4\}\left(\frac{v_1+v_2 h^{-1/\alpha}}{2},\frac{v_1-v_2 h^{-1/\alpha}}{2},t\right) dt \, .\end{aligned}$$ By the dominated convergence theorem, whose application is justified by Step 1, we can compute the limit inside the integral with respect to $v_1$ and $v_2$. $$\begin{aligned}
&\lim_{h\to 0} \int_0^T h^{-1}(\bar \eta(t)-t)\{e_2+e_4\}\left(\frac{v_1+v_2 h^{-1/\alpha}}{2},\frac{v_1-v_2 h^{-1/\alpha}}{2},t\right) dt = e^{T\psi(-v_1 - 2iR)}K^{iv_1 - 2R} L_1 L_2,\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
L_1 &= \lim_{h\to 0}h\Biggl\{\psi(-v_1 -2iR) - \psi\left(-\frac{v_1+v_2h^{-1/\alpha}}{2}-i(R+1)\right) \\&\qquad - \psi\left(-\frac{v_1-v_2h^{-1/\alpha}}{2}-i(R+1)\right) +\psi(-2i)\Biggr\},\\
L_2 &= \lim_{h\to 0} \int_0^T dt(\bar \eta(t)-t)h^{-2} e^{(T-t)\{-\psi(-v_1 -2iR) + \bar \psi(-\frac{v_1+v_2h^{-1/\alpha}}{2}-iR) + \bar\psi(-\frac{v_1-v_2h^{-1/\alpha}}{2}-iR)\}}, \end{aligned}$$ provided that both limits exist. Now, a direct computation using Lemma \[lem:PQUVpsi\] and equations of Lemma \[cond.lm\] yields $L_1 = 2^{-\alpha}(c_+ + c_-)|v_2|^\alpha$, $v_2 \neq 0$, where the constants $c_+$ and $c_-$ are defined in Lemma \[cond.lm\]. To compute $L_2$, we first observe that for all $v_2 \neq 0$ $$\begin{aligned}
&\lim_{h\to 0} \Biggl\{-\psi(-v_1 -2iR) + \bar \psi\left(-\frac{v_1+v_2h^{-1/\alpha}}{2}-iR\right) + \bar\psi\left(-\frac{v_1-v_2h^{-1/\alpha}}{2}-iR\right)\Biggr\} = -\infty,\\
& \lim_{h\to 0}h\Biggl\{-\psi(-v_1 -2iR) + \bar \psi\left(-\frac{v_1+v_2h^{-1/\alpha}}{2}-iR\right) \\&\hspace*{3cm}+ \bar\psi\left(-\frac{v_1-v_2h^{-1/\alpha}}{2}-iR\right)\Biggr\} = -2^{-\alpha}(c_++c_-)|v_2|^\alpha \neq 0.\end{aligned}$$ Combined with the explicit formula , these two limits allow to conclude that $$L_2 = \frac{\kappa(v_2)e^{\kappa(v_2)}-e^{\kappa(v_2)}+1}{\kappa(v_2)^2(1-e^{\kappa(v_2)})}, \quad \kappa(v_2) = -2^{-\alpha}(c_++c_-) |v_2|^\alpha.$$ Finally, assembling $L_1$ and $L_2$ together and performing the integration with respect to $v_1$ and $v_2$, the proof is completed.
The behavior of the quadratic hedging strategy for options with irregular pay-off is very different from that of delta hedging: the convergence rate improves rather than deteriorates when the Blumenthal-Getoor index $\alpha$ decreases, and in many cases the convergence takes place in the regular regime even for digital options.
\[thm:digit\_quad\] Let the pay-off function and the Lévy process satisfy the conditions – and for some $R\in \mathbb R$, and assume that one of the two alternative conditions holds:
- $a=0$ and $\nu$ satisfies the assumptions H1 and H3-$\alpha_+$ for some $\alpha_+\in(0,1]$.
- $a=0$ and $\nu$ satisfies the assumptions H2-$\alpha_-$ and H3-$\alpha_+$ with $0<\alpha_- \leq \alpha_+ < \frac{3}{2}$.
Let the hedging strategy be given by Proposition \[martquad.prop\]. Then $$\begin{split}
\lim_{h \downarrow 0} \frac{1}{h} {E}\left[ \left( \int_0^T F_t^h {\text d}S_t \right)^2 \right] & = \frac{A}{2} {E}\Biggl[ \int_0^T S_t^2 \left(\sigma_t^2 + \int_{{\mathbb R}} \gamma_t(z) e^{2z} \nu({\text d}z)\right) {\text d}t \Biggr] \, .
\end{split}$$
From the assumption H3-$\alpha_+$, for all $u\in \mathbb R$, $$\begin{aligned}
|\Upsilon(u+iR)| &= \frac{1}{\bar A} \left|\int_{\mathbb R}\nu(dx) (e^{Rx-iux}-1)(e^x-1)\right|\leq C + C \left|\int_{|x|\leq 1}\nu(dx) (e^{-iux}-1)e^{Rx}(e^x-1)\right| \notag \\
&\leq C \int_{|x|\leq 1}\nu(dx)|ux|^{\alpha_+-1} |e^{-iux}-1|^{2-\alpha_+}e^{Rx}|e^x-1| \leq C(1+|u|^{\alpha_+-1}).\label{upsilonbound}\end{aligned}$$ for some constant $C>0$ which changes from line to line. The same argument as in the proof of Theorem \[thm:euro\_delta\] then yields $$\begin{aligned}
I_i(t)\leq J(t) & := C\int_{{\mathbb R}^2} \frac{(1+ \sqrt{|\Re \psi(u_1)}|)(1+ \sqrt{|\Re \psi(u_2)|})}{(1+|u_1|^{(2-\alpha_+)\wedge 1})(1+|u_2|^{(2-\alpha_+)\wedge 1})} \\
& \quad \times e^{c(\Re \psi(u_1+u_2)t + \Re {\psi}(u_1) (T-t) + \Re {\psi}(u_2) (T-t))} {\text d}u_1 {\text d}u_2,\end{aligned}$$ which leads to $$\int_0^T J(t) {\text d}t \leq C \int_{{\mathbb R}^2} \frac{(1+|\Re \psi(v_1)|) e^{c \Re \psi(v_1)T} }{(1+|v_1+v_2|^{(2-\alpha_+)\wedge 1})(1+|v_1-v_2|^{(2-\alpha_+)\wedge 1})} {\text d}v_1 {\text d}v_2.\label{asin2}$$ If $\alpha_+\leq 1$, the above expression reduces to $$\int_0^T J(t) {\text d}t \leq C \int_{{\mathbb R}^2} \frac{(1+|\Re \psi(v_1)|) e^{c \Re \psi(v_1)T} }{(1+|v_1+v_2|)(1+|v_1-v_2|)} {\text d}v_1 {\text d}v_2,$$ which is exactly the same as in Theorem \[thm:euro\_delta\], and so the proof is completed.
Suppose $\alpha_+>1$. By assumptions of the theorem this means that H2-$\alpha_-$ is satisfied with $\alpha_->0$. By Lemmas \[cond.lm\] and \[doubleint\], the integral then reduces to $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^T J(t) {\text d}t \leq C \int_{{\mathbb R}} \frac{(1+|\Re \psi(v_1)|) e^{c \Re \psi(v_1)T} }{1+|v_1|^{2\alpha_+ - 3}} {\text d}v_1 \leq C \int_{{\mathbb R}} \frac{(1+|\Re \psi(v_1)|) e^{-c T |v_1|^{\alpha_-}} }{1+|v_1|^{2\alpha_+ - 3}} {\text d}v_1,\end{aligned}$$ which is clearly finite.
\[thm:quad\_irreg\] Let the pay-off function be given by $G(S_T)=1_{S_T\geq K}$ and assume for some $R>0$. Let the hedging strategy be given by Proposition \[martquad.prop\].
1. Let $a=0$ and let $\nu$ satisfy the assumption H4-$\alpha$ with $\alpha \in \left(\frac{3}{2},2\right)$. Then the hedging error satisfies $$\lim_{h\downarrow 0}\frac{1}{r(h)}E\left[\left(\int_0^T F^h_{t}dS_t\right)^2\right] = \frac{1}{2\pi}A Q_\alpha \frac{\gamma_+ \gamma_-}{\bar A^2} (f_+ + f_-)^{\frac{3}{\alpha}-2} p_T(\log K)$$ with $r(h) = h^{\frac{3}{\alpha}-1},$ where $Q_\alpha$ is a constant depending only on $\alpha$ and given by $$Q_\alpha := \left(2\Gamma(-\alpha)\cos\left(\frac{\pi(2-\alpha)}{2}\right)\right)^{\frac{3}{\alpha}-2}\int_{\mathbb R}dv \frac{1-e^{-|v|^\alpha} - |v|^{\alpha}e^{-|v|^{\alpha}}}{|v|^{4-\alpha} (1-e^{-|v|^\alpha})},$$ and the constants $\gamma_+,\gamma_-$ are defined in equations – in terms of $f_+$, $f_-$ and $\alpha$.
2. Let $a>0$. Then the hedging error satisfies $$\lim_{h\downarrow 0}\frac{1}{\sqrt{h}}E\left[\left(\int_0^T F^h_{t}dS_t\right)^2\right] = \frac{AD}{2\pi a} p_T(\log K) \frac{a^4}{\bar A^2}$$ with $D$ as in .
The limiting case when $a=0$ and $\nu$ satisfies H4-$\frac{3}{2}$ is not covered by Theorems \[thm:digit\_quad\] and \[thm:quad\_irreg\]. While it is easy to show that the convergence rate in this case will be better than $r(h)=h^{1-\varepsilon}$ for every $\varepsilon>0$, it may not necessarily be equal to $r(h)=h$ but include, for example, additional logarithmic factors.
When $a>0$ the convergence rate is $r(h)=\sqrt{h}$ both for delta hedging and the quadratic hedging, but the corresponding constant differs by a factor $\frac{a^4}{\bar A^2}$, which is strictly smaller than one whenever the underlying Lévy process has jumps. Therefore, also in this case the quadratic hedging strategy is superior to delta hedging.
As in the proof of Theorem \[thm:digit\_delta\], we establish the result in two steps: first, we find an upper bound and second, we will use the dominated convergence theorem to compute the limiting renormalized hedging error. If $a>0$, we set $\alpha=2$.
*Step 1.* Let $$\begin{gathered}
e_i(u_1,u_2,t):= f_i(u_1+iR,u_2+iR)\bar\phi_{T-t}(-u_1-iR)\bar\phi_{T-t}(-u_2-iR) \\ \times \phi_t(-u_1-u_2-2iR) K^{iu_1 + iu_2 - 2R} \frac{\Upsilon(u_1+iR)\Upsilon(u_2+iR)}{(R-iu_1)(R-iu_2)}.\end{gathered}$$ Then, with a change of variables, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{r(h)}\int_0^T(\bar \eta(t)-t) I_i(t)dt = \frac{1}{2}\int_0^T h^{1-\frac{4}{\alpha}} (\bar\eta(t)-t) \int_{\mathbb R^2} e_i\left(\frac{v_1+v_2 h^{-1/\alpha}}{2},\frac{v_1-v_2 h^{-1/\alpha}}{2},t\right)dv_1 dv_2 \end{aligned}$$ In this first step we would like to show that $$\int_0^T h^{1-\frac{4}{\alpha}}(\bar \eta(t)-t)e_i\left(\frac{v_1+v_2 h^{-1/\alpha}}{2},\frac{v_1-v_2 h^{-1/\alpha}}{2},t\right) dt$$ has an integrable bound.
First, we need to analyze the behavior of $\Upsilon(u)$ as $u\to \infty$. Suppose first that $a=0$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{u\to +\infty} \frac{\Upsilon(u+iR)}{u^{\alpha-1}} &= \lim_{u\to +\infty} \frac{1}{u^{\alpha-1}\bar A}\int_{\mathbb R}(e^{Rx-iux}-1)(e^x - 1)\nu(dx) \\
&= \lim_{u\to +\infty} \frac{1}{u^{\alpha-1}\bar A} \Biggl\{\int_{\mathbb R}(e^{-iux}-1)x\nu(dx) \\ &+ \int_{\mathbb R}e^{-iux}\{e^{(1+R)x}-e^{Rx}-x\}\nu(dx)+ \int_{\mathbb R}\{1+x-e^x\}\nu(dx)\Biggr\}.\end{aligned}$$ Since the two terms in the last line are bounded and $\alpha>1$, $$\begin{aligned}
&\lim_{u\to +\infty} \frac{\Upsilon(u+iR)}{u^{\alpha-1}} = \lim_{u\to +\infty} \frac{1}{u^{\alpha-1}\bar A} \int_{\mathbb R}(e^{-iux}-1)x\nu(dx)\\
& \qquad= \lim_{u\to +\infty} \frac{1}{u^{\alpha-1}\bar A} \left\{\int_0^\varepsilon (e^{-iux}-1)\frac{f(x)}{x^{\alpha}}dx - \int_0^\varepsilon (e^{iux}-1)\frac{f(-x)}{x^{\alpha}}dx\right\},\end{aligned}$$ where $\varepsilon$ is chosen such that $|f(x)|\leq N$ for all x with $|x|\leq \varepsilon$ and some $N<\infty$. By a change of variables and dominated convergence we then get $$\begin{aligned}
&\lim_{u\to +\infty} \frac{\Upsilon(u+iR)}{u^{\alpha-1}} = \lim_{u\to +\infty} \frac{1}{\bar A} \left\{\int_0^{\varepsilon u} (e^{-ix}-1)\frac{f(x/u)}{x^{\alpha}}dx - \int_0^{\varepsilon u} (e^{ix}-1)\frac{f(-x/u)}{x^{\alpha}}dx\right\}\\
&\qquad = \frac{f_+}{\bar A}\int_0^\infty \frac{(e^{-ix}-1)}{x^\alpha}dx - \frac{f_-}{\bar A}\int_0^\infty \frac{(e^{ix}-1)}{x^\alpha}dx.\end{aligned}$$ Evaluating the integrals (see [@sato lemma 14.11]) and treating the limit $u\to -\infty$ in a similar manner, we finally obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{u\to +\infty} \frac{\Upsilon(u+iR)}{|u|^{\alpha-1}}&= \frac{\Gamma(1-\alpha)}{\bar A} \{f_+ e^{-i\pi(1-\alpha)/2}-f_- e^{i\pi(1-\alpha)/2} \}:=\frac{\gamma_+}{\bar A} \, , \label{upslim1}\\
\lim_{u\to -\infty} \frac{\Upsilon(u+iR)}{|u|^{\alpha-1}}&= \frac{\Gamma(1-\alpha)}{\bar A} \{f_+ e^{i\pi(1-\alpha)/2}-f_- e^{-i\pi(1-\alpha)/2} \}:=\frac{\gamma_-}{\bar A} \, . \label{upslim2}\end{aligned}$$ If $a>0$, a similar computation which is omitted to save space yields $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{u\to \infty} \frac{\Upsilon(u+iR)}{u} = -i\frac{a^2}{\bar A}.\label{upslimgauss}\end{aligned}$$
Using property , corollary \[repsi.bound\], estimate and limits , and , $$\begin{aligned}
|e_i(u_1,u_2,t)| \leq C e^{-c\{t|u_1+u_2|^\alpha +(T-t)|u_1|^\alpha + (T-t)|u_2|^\alpha \}}(1+ |u_1|^{3\alpha/2 - 2})(1 + |u_2|^{3\alpha/2 - 2})\end{aligned}$$ for some constants $c,C>0$ which may change from line to line. By Lemma \[lem:growth\_imp\], we then get: $$\left|e_i\left(\frac{v_1+v_2}{2},\frac{v_1-v_2}{2},t\right)\right| \leq C e^{-c\{T|v_1|^\alpha +(T-t)|v_2|^\alpha\}}(1+|v_1|^{3\alpha-4} +|v_2|^{3\alpha-4}),$$ and finally, evaluating the time integral using the formula , $$\begin{aligned}
&\int_0^T h^{1-\frac{4}{\alpha}}(\bar \eta(t)-t)\left|e_i\left(\frac{v_1+v_2 h^{-1/\alpha}}{2},\frac{v_1-v_2 h^{-1/\alpha}}{2},t\right)\right| dt\\
&\leq C (h^{1-\frac{4}{\alpha}}(1+|v_1|^{3\alpha-4}) + h^{-2}|v_2|^{3\alpha-4}) e^{-cT|v_1|^\alpha } \int_0^T (\bar \eta(t)-t) e^{-c(T-t)h^{-1}|v_2 |^\alpha}dt\\
& \leq C(1+|v_1|^{3\alpha-4}) e^{-cT|v_1|^\alpha }
\frac{-c|v_2|^\alpha e^{-c |v_2|^\alpha} - e^{-c |v_2|^\alpha}+1 }{|v_2|^{4-\alpha}(1 - e^{-c |v_2|^{\alpha}})},\end{aligned}$$ where the last inequality follows from the bound $1-e^{-x}\leq x^{3-\frac{4}{\alpha}}$, $x\geq 0$, which holds because $3-\frac{4}{\alpha}\in(\frac{1}{3},1)$. Since the last expression is integrable with respect to $v_1$ and $v_2$ (it behaves like $\frac{1}{|v_2|^{4-2\alpha}}$ near zero and like $\frac{1}{|v_2|^{4-\alpha}}$ at infinity), step 1 is completed.
*Step 2.* Similarly to the proof of Theorem \[thm:digit\_delta\], we compute $$\begin{aligned}
&\lim_{h\to 0} \int_0^T h^{1-\frac{4}{\alpha}}(\bar \eta(t)-t)\{e_2+e_4\}\left(\frac{v_1+v_2 h^{-1/\alpha}}{2},\frac{v_1-v_2 h^{-1/\alpha}}{2},t\right) dt\\
& = e^{T\psi(-v_1 - 2iR)}K^{iv_1 - 2R} L_1 L_2 L_3,\end{aligned}$$ where $L_1$ and $L_2$ are the same as in the proof of Theorem \[thm:digit\_delta\], and $$L_3 = \lim_{h\to 0} h^{2-\frac{4}{\alpha}} \frac{\Upsilon\left(\frac{v_1 + v_2 h^{-1/\alpha}}{2}+iR\right)\Upsilon\left(\frac{v_1 - v_2 h^{-1/\alpha}}{2}+iR\right)}{\left(R-i\frac{v_1 + v_2 h^{-1/\alpha}}{2}+iR\right)\left(R-i\frac{v_1 - v_2 h^{-1/\alpha}}{2}\right)} =\gamma_+ \gamma_- \left(\frac{v_2}{2}\right)^{2\alpha-4}$$ if $a=0$ and $L_3 = \frac{a^4}{\bar A^2}$ if $a>0$. Assembling the three factors together, the proof is completed.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This research was supported by the Chair Financial Risks of the Risk Foundation sponsored by Société Générale, the Chair Derivatives of the Future sponsored by the Fédération Bancaire Française, the Chair Finance and Sustainable Development sponsored by EDF and Calyon, and the Royal Physiographic Society in Lund.
[10]{}
, [*Martingale-valued measures, [O]{}rnstein-[U]{}hlenbeck processes with jumps and operator self-decomposability in [H]{}ilbert space*]{}, in In Memoriam [P]{}aul-[A]{}ndré [Meyer]{}, Seminaire de Probabilités XXXIX, Springer, 2006, pp. 171–196.
, [*Processes of normal inverse [G]{}aussian type*]{}, Finance Stoch., 2 (1998), pp. 41–68.
, [*[L]{}évy Processes*]{}, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996.
, [*When is time continuous*]{}, Journal of Financial Economics, 55 (2000), pp. 173–204.
, [*The fine structure of asset returns: [A]{}n empirical investigation*]{}, Journal of Business, 75 (2002), pp. 305–332.
, [*On the structure of general mean-variance hedging strategies*]{}, The Annals of Probability, 35 (2007), pp. 1479–1531.
, [*Financial Modelling with Jump Processes*]{}, Chapman & Hall / CRC Press, 2004.
, [*Hedging with options in models with jumps*]{}, in Stochastic Analysis and Applications - the Abel Symposium 2005, Springer, 2007.
, [*On the performance of delta-hedging strategies in exponential Lévy models*]{}, Preprint (2009).
, [*Applications of generalized hyperbolic [L]{}évy motion to [F]{}inance*]{}, in [L]{}évy Processes — Theory and Applications, O. Barndorff-Nielsen, T. Mikosch, and S. Resnick, eds., Birkhäuser, Boston, 2001, pp. 319–336.
, [*Hedging of contingent claims under incomplete information*]{}, in Applied Stochastic Analysis, M. H. A. Davis and R. J. Elliott, eds., Gordon and Breach, 1991, pp. 389–414.
, [*Hedging of non-redundant contingent claims*]{}, in Contributions to Mathematical Economics, W. Hildenbrand and A. Mas-Colell, eds., North Holland, 1986, pp. 205–224.
, [*On an approximation problem for stochastic integrals where random time nets do not help*]{}, Stochastic Process. Appl., 116 (2006), pp. 407–422.
, [*Quantitative approximation of certain stochastic integrals*]{}, Stoch. Stoch. Rep., 73 (2002), pp. 241–270.
, [*Discrete time hedging errors for options with irregular pay-offs*]{}, Finance and Stochastics, 5 (2001), pp. 357–367.
, [*Self-decomposability of the generalized inverse [G]{}aussian and hyperbolic distributions*]{}, Z. Wahrsch. Verw. Gebiete, 47 (1979), pp. 13–18.
, [*Hedging errors: an asymptotic approach*]{}, Mathematical Finance, 15 (2005), pp. 309–343.
, [*Variance-optimal hedging for processes with stationary independent increments*]{}, The Annals of Applied Probability, 16 (2006), pp. 853–885.
, [*The variance gamma process and option pricing*]{}, European [F]{}inance Review, 2 (1998), pp. 79–105.
, [*Stochastic integration and differential equations*]{}, Springer, Berlin, second ed., 2004.
, [*[L]{}évy Processes and Infinitely Divisible Distributions*]{}, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1999.
, [*Pricing and hedging in exponential [L]{}évy models: review of recent results*]{}. preprint, available from `www.math.jussieu.fr/~tankov/`, 2009.
, [*Asymptotic analysis of hedging errors in models with jumps*]{}, Stochastic processes and their applications, 119 (2009), pp. 2004–2027.
, [*Couverture approchée des options [E]{}uropéennes.*]{}, PhD thesis, Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées, 1999.
Characteristic function estimates in exponential Lévy models and other useful results
=====================================================================================
Below we use the common notation introduced in the beginning of section \[pricing.sec\].
\[cond.lm\]${}$
1. Let the Lévy measure $\nu$ satisfy the assumption H1 on page . Then (i) for every $t>0$ there exist constants $C>0$ and $c>0$ such that $$|\phi_t(z)| \leq C|z|^{-c},\quad z\in \mathbb R$$ and (ii) there exists a constant $c$ such that $$u \geq v \quad \text{implies} \quad \Re \psi(u) \leq \Re \psi(v)+c \quad \text{for all} \quad u , v >0 \, . \label{growth.assum}$$
2. Let $\nu$ satisfy the assumption H2-$\alpha$ with $\alpha\in(0,2)$. Then there exist $c>0$ and $C>0$ such that $$|\phi_t(z)|\leq C e^{-ct|z|^\alpha}, \quad \forall t>0, \forall z.$$
3. Let $\nu$ satisfy the assumption H4-$\alpha$ with $\alpha\in(1,2)$ and let $a=0$. Then the characteristic exponent $\psi$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{u\to +\infty} \frac{\psi(u)}{|u|^{\alpha}}=-c_+ \quad \text{and}\quad \lim_{u\to -\infty} \frac{\psi(u)}{|u|^{\alpha}}= -c_-,\label{psilim}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
c_+= -\Gamma(-\alpha) \{f_+ e^{-i\pi\alpha/2}+f_- e^{i\pi\alpha/2} \},\qquad c_- = -\Gamma(-\alpha) \{f_+ e^{i\pi\alpha/2}+f_- e^{-i\pi\alpha/2} \}\end{aligned}$$ and there exist constants $c_1,c_3\in \mathbb R$ and $c_2,c_4 >0$ such that for all $u\in \mathbb R$, $$\begin{aligned}
c_1 - c_2 |u|^\alpha< \Re\psi(u)<c_3 - c_4 |u|^\alpha.\label{powerbelow}\end{aligned}$$ If $a>0$ then equations hold with $c_+=c_- = \frac{a^2}{2}$ and inequality holds with $\alpha=2$.
${}$
1. The property (i) is Lemma 28.5 in [@sato]; let us concentrate on property (ii). Since this property is linear in $\psi$ and clearly satisfied by a Lévy process with zero Lévy measure, we can suppose without loss of generality that $a=0$. Let $u \geq v$ and $u, v > 0$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\Re \psi(u)-\Re \psi(v) & = \left\{ \int_{{\mathbb R}} (\cos(ux)-1) \nu_0(d x)- \int_{{\mathbb R}} (\cos(vx)-1) \nu_0(d x) \right \} \notag \\
& + \left\{ \int_{{\mathbb R}} (\cos(ux)-1) \frac{k(x)}{|x|} d x - \int_{{\mathbb R}} (\cos(vx)-1) \frac{k(x)}{|x|} d x \right\} \, . \label{prop:proof:1}\end{aligned}$$ A change of variables ($y=ux$ and $y=vx$) yields for the second term $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{{\mathbb R}} (\cos(ux)-1) \frac{k(x)}{|x|} d x - \int_{{\mathbb R}} (\cos(vx)-1) \frac{k(x)}{|x|} d x
= \int_{{\mathbb R}} \frac{(\cos(y)-1)}{|y|} (k(y/u)-k(y/v)) d y \leq 0 .\end{aligned}$$ Thus, is satisfied with $c=2 \int_{{\mathbb R}} \nu_0(d x)$.
2. This follows from the proof of Proposition 28.3 in [@sato].
3. Choose $\varepsilon>0$ and $N<\infty$ such that $|f(x)|\leq N$ for all $x$ with $|x|\leq \varepsilon$. Since $\alpha>1$, $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{u\to+\infty} \frac{\psi(u)}{u^\alpha} &= \lim_{u\to +\infty} \frac{1}{u^\alpha} \int_{|x|\leq \varepsilon} (e^{iux}-iux-1)\nu(dx) \\ &= \lim_{u\to +\infty} \frac{1}{u^\alpha} \int_{|x|\leq \varepsilon} (e^{iux}-iux-1)\frac{f(x)}{|x|^{1+\alpha}}dx.\end{aligned}$$ By a change of variables and dominated convergence we then get $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{u\to+\infty} \frac{\psi(u)}{u^\alpha}& = \lim_{u\to +\infty} \int_{|x|\leq \varepsilon u} (e^{ix}-ix-1)\frac{f(x/u)}{|x|^{1+\alpha}}dx\\
&= f_- \int_{-\infty}^0 (e^{ix}-ix-1)\frac{dx}{|x|^{1+\alpha}} + f_+ \int_0^{+\infty} (e^{ix}-ix-1)\frac{dx}{|x|^{1+\alpha}}. \end{aligned}$$ These integrals are explicitly computed in [@sato page 84], and the case $u\to -\infty$ can be treated in a similar manner. The estimates follow directly from . For the case $a>0$ see [@bertoin page 16].
\[doubleint\] Let $\alpha >\frac{1}{2},\quad \alpha\neq 1$. Then there exists $C<\infty$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\mathbb R} \frac{dv}{(1+|u+v|^\alpha)(1+|u-v|^\alpha)} \leq C(1+|u|)^{1-2\alpha}.\end{aligned}$$ In the case $\alpha = 1$, there exits $C<\infty$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\mathbb R} \frac{dv}{(1+|u+v|)(1+|u-v|)} \leq C\frac{1+\log(1+|u|)}{1+|u|}.\end{aligned}$$
In the case $\alpha\neq 1$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\int_{\mathbb R} \frac{dv}{(1+|u+v|^\alpha)(1+|u-v|^\alpha)} = \int_{0}^\infty \frac{dv}{(1+||u|+v|^\alpha)(1+||u|-v|^\alpha)} \\
& \qquad \leq \frac{2}{1+|u|^\alpha}\int_0^{2|u|} \frac{du}{1+||u|-v|^\alpha} + 2 \int_{2|u|}^\infty \frac{dv}{(1+|v|^\alpha)(1+|\frac{v}{2}|^\alpha)}\\
& \qquad \leq \frac{C}{(1+|u|)^\alpha}\int_0^{|u|}\frac{dv}{(1+v)^\alpha} + C \int_{2|u|}^\infty \frac{dv}{(1+v)^{2\alpha}} \leq \frac{C}{(1+|u|)^{2\alpha-1}},\end{aligned}$$ where $C$ is a constant which may change from inequality to inequality. In the case $\alpha=1$ the proof is done in a similar manner (the logarithmic factor appears in the first integral of the last line).
\[lem:growth\_imp\]${}$
1. For any Lévy process $X$, $$\Re \psi(u) \leq \frac{1}{4} \Re \psi(2u),\quad u\in\mathbb R.\label{eqn:lem_growth_prop_2}$$
2. Assume that there exists a constant $C>0$ such that $$u \geq v \quad \Rightarrow \quad \Re\psi(u) \leq \Re\psi(v) + C \, , \quad u,v > 0 \, .
\label{eqn:lem_growth_prop_1}$$ Then $$\begin{aligned}
& \Re\psi((u+v)/2) + \Re\psi((u-v)/2) \leq (\Re\psi(u)+\Re\psi(v))/8 + C/4 \label{eqn:lem_H3}
\intertext{and}
& \sqrt{|\Re\psi((u+v)/2)||\Re\psi((u-v)/2)|} \leq 8 (|\Re\psi(u/2)|+|\Re\psi(v/2)|) + 2C \label{eqn:lem_H4}\end{aligned}$$ for all $u,v\in \mathbb R$.
By the Lévy-Khintchine formula $$\begin{aligned}
\Re \psi(2 u) & = -4 a^2 \frac{u^2}{2} + \int_{{\mathbb R}}(\cos(2 u x)-1) \nu({\text d}x) \\
& = -4 a^2 \frac{u^2}{2} + 2 \int_{{\mathbb R}} (\cos(u x)-1)^2 \nu({\text d}x) + 4 \int_{{\mathbb R}} (\cos(u x)-1) \nu({\text d}x) \\
& \geq -4 a^2 \frac{u^2}{2} + 4 \int_{{\mathbb R}} (\cos(u x)-1) \nu({\text d}x) \, ,\end{aligned}$$ which proves . Combined with , this immediately yields $$\begin{aligned}
\Re\psi((u+v)/2) \leq (\Re\psi(u) + \Re\psi(v))/8 + C/4 \, ,\quad u,v >0 \, , \label{eqn:lem_H1}\end{aligned}$$ and therefore, since $\Re\psi \leq 0$, for all $u,v \in \mathbb R$, $$\begin{gathered}
\Re\psi((u+v)/2) + \Re\psi((u-v)/2) = \Re\psi(|u+v|/2) + \Re\psi(|u-v|/2) \\
= \Re\psi((|u|+|v|)/2) + \Re\psi((|u|-|v|)/2) \leq (\Re\psi(|u|) + \Re\psi(|v|))/8 + C/4 \, .\end{gathered}$$ Finally, taking absolute values in the above inequality, we have $$\begin{aligned}
|\Re\psi((u+v)/2)| + |\Re\psi((u-v)/2)| \geq (|\Re\psi(|u|)| + |\Re\psi(|v|)|)/8 - C/4,\end{aligned}$$ and after a change of variables, $$|\Re\psi((u+v)/2)| + |\Re\psi((u-v)/2)| \leq 8 (|\Re\psi(u/2)|+|\Re\psi(v/2)|)+2C,$$ from which follows.
\[lem:UVpsi\] Let $R, R'\in \mathbb R$ with $R\leq R'$ and assume $$\int_{|x|>1}e^{-xR }\nu(dx)<\infty,\quad\text{and}\quad \int_{|x|>1}e^{-xR' }\nu(dx)<\infty.$$ Then there exists $C>0$ such that for all $u,v \in \mathbb C$ with $\Im u \in [R,R']$, $\Im v \in [R,R']$ and $\Im u + \Im v\in [R,R']$, $$|\psi(u+v)-\psi(u)-\psi(v)| \leq C(1+\sqrt{|\Re \psi(\Re u)|})(1 + \sqrt{|\Re \psi(\Re v)|}).$$
From the Lévy-Khintchine formula, $$\begin{aligned}
&|\psi(u+v)-\psi(u)-\psi(v)| = \left| -a^2uv + \int_{{\mathbb R}} (e^{{\text i}u x}-1) (e^{{\text i}v x}-1) \nu({\text d}x) \right| \notag\\
& \leq c_1 + c_2 a^2 (1+|\Re u|)(1+(|\Re v|) + \left( \int_{|x|\leq 1} |e^{{\text i}u x}-1|^2 \nu({\text d}x) \right)^{\frac{1}{2}} \left( \int_{|x|\leq 1} |e^{{\text i}v x}-1|^2 \nu({\text d}x) \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.\label{bound3psi}\end{aligned}$$ for some constants $c_1$ and $c_2$. Let $u=\alpha + i\beta$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\Re \psi(\Re u) = -\frac{a^2\alpha^2}{2} - \int_{\mathbb R}(\cos \alpha x -1)\nu(dx). \label{repsi}\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $$\begin{gathered}
\int_{|x|\leq 1} |e^{iux}-1|^2 \nu({\text d}x) \\
= \int_{|x|\leq 1} (e^{-\beta x}-1)^2 \nu({\text d}x) + 2 \int_{|x|\leq 1} e^{-\beta x} (1-\cos(\alpha x)) \nu( {\text d}x) \leq c_3 + 2 e^{|\beta|} |\Re \psi (\alpha)|\label{boundsquare}\end{gathered}$$ for some $c_3<\infty$. Combining , and , the proof is completed.
\[repsi.bound\] Let $R$ and $R'$ be as in Lemma \[lem:UVpsi\]. Then there exist constants $C_1\in \mathbb R$ and $C_2 >0$ for all $u\in \mathbb C$ with $\Im u \in [R,R']$, $$\Re \psi(u) \leq C_1 + C_2 \Re \psi(\Re u).$$
\[lem:PQUVpsi\] Let $R, R', \bar R, \bar R'\in \mathbb R$ with $R\leq R'$ and $\bar R\leq \bar R'$, such that $$\begin{aligned}
&\int_{|x|>1}(e^{-xR }+e^{-xR'})\nu(dx)<\infty,\quad\text{and}\quad &\int_{|x|>1}(e^{-x\bar R }+e^{-x\bar R' })\bar \nu(dx)<\infty.\end{aligned}$$ Then there exists $C>0$ such that for all $u,v\in \mathbb C$ with $\Re u = \Re v$, $\Im u \in[R,R']$ and $\Im v \in [\bar R,\bar R']$, $$|\psi(u)-\bar{\psi}(v)| \leq C(1+ \sqrt{|\Re \psi(\Re u)|}).$$
Let $z = \Re u = \Re v$. The difference in question can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
\psi(u)-\bar{\psi}(v) &= \psi(z)-\bar{\psi}(z) \notag\\ &+ \psi(u)-\psi(\Re u) - \psi (i \Im u) \notag\\ &+ \bar\psi(\Re v) + \bar\psi(i \Im v) - \bar\psi(v) \notag\\ &+ \psi(i \Im u) - \psi(i \Im v).\label{decompos}\end{aligned}$$ Let us start with the first line. From Theorem 33.1 in [@sato], $\gamma-\bar \gamma-\int_{-1}^{1} x (\nu-\bar{\nu}) ({\text d}x) = a^2\eta$ for some $\eta\in \mathbb R$. This relation yields $$|\psi(z)-\bar{\psi}(z)| = \left| a^2\eta z + \int_{{\mathbb R}} (e^{{\text i}z x}-1) (e^{\varphi(x)}-1) \nu({\text d}x) \right| \, ,$$ where $\varphi(x)$ is defined by $e^{\varphi(x)}=\nu({\text d}x)/\bar{\nu}({\text d}x)$. Equation shows that when $a>0$, the first term in the right-hand side satisfies the required bound; let us focus on the second term (the integral). In the following, $C$ denotes a constant which may change from line to line. $$\begin{aligned}
&\left|\int_{{\mathbb R}} (e^{{\text i}z x}-1) (e^{\varphi(x)}-1) \nu({\text d}x) \right| \leq C + \left|\int_{|x|\leq 1} (e^{{\text i}z x}-1) (e^{\varphi(x)}-1) \nu({\text d}x)\right| \\
&\leq C + \left|\int_{\{x:|x|\leq 1\}\cap \{x:|\varphi(x)|\leq 1\}} (e^{{\text i}z x}-1) (e^{\varphi(x)}-1) \nu({\text d}x)\right| \\
&\leq C + \left(\int_{\{x:|x|\leq 1\}} |e^{{\text i}z x}-1|^2 \nu({\text d}x)\right)^{1/2} \left(\int_{\{x:|\varphi(x)|\leq 1\}} (e^{\varphi(x)}-1)^2 \nu({\text d}x)\right)^{1/2}\\
&\leq C + C \left(\int_{\{x:|x|\leq 1\}} |e^{{\text i}z x}-1|^2 \nu({\text d}x)\right)^{1/2} \leq C(1+ \sqrt{|\Re \psi(z)|}), \end{aligned}$$ where the second and the fourth inequality follow from [@sato Remark 33.3 ] and the last one follows from . Finally, $$\begin{aligned}
|\psi(z)-\bar{\psi}(z)| \leq C(1+ \sqrt{|\Re \psi(z)|}).\label{diffequiv}\end{aligned}$$ Applying Lemma \[lem:UVpsi\] to the second and the third line in , and observing that the fourth line is bounded by a constant, we get $$|\psi(u)-\bar{\psi}(v)| \leq C\left(1+ \sqrt{|\Re \psi(z)|} + \sqrt{|\Re \bar\psi(z)|}\right).$$ Now, using for a second time, the proof is completed.
Martingale representations for Fourier integrals
================================================
\[martrep.prop\] Let the process $F$ be defined by $$\begin{aligned}
F_t = \int_{\mathbb R} f(u)\bar\phi_{T-t}(-u-iR)S_t^{R'-iu}du,\label{strategy.eq}\end{aligned}$$ where $f$ is a deterministic function satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\mathbb R}|f(u)\bar\phi_{T-t}(-u-iR)|du<\infty,\quad \forall t<T.\label{martcond.eq}\end{aligned}$$ Assume $$\begin{aligned}
&\int_{|x|>1}e^{2R'x}\nu(dx)<\infty\quad \text{and}\quad \int_{|x|>1}e^{Rx}\bar \nu(dx)<\infty.\label{histint.eq}$$ Then the representation holds for $F$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_t &= \int_{\mathbb R}f(u)\bar\phi_{T-t}(-u-iR)S_t^{R'-iu}(\psi(-u-iR')-\bar\psi(-u-iR))du,\\
\sigma_t &= {a} \int_{\mathbb R} f(u)\bar\phi_{T-t}(-u-iR)(R'-iu)S_t^{R'-iu}du,\\
\gamma_t(z)&= \int_{\mathbb R} f(u)\bar\phi_{T-t}(-u-iR) S_t^{R'-iu}(e^{(R'-iu)z}-1)du.\end{aligned}$$
Let $t<T$. Applying the Itô formula under the integral sign in , we find, under the condition , $$\begin{aligned}
F_t - F_0 &= \int_{\mathbb R} du f(u) \int_0^t \bar\phi_{T-s}(-u-iR) S_s^{R'-iu}(\psi(-u-iR')-\bar\psi(-u-iR))ds
\notag\\ &+ \int_{\mathbb R} du f(u) \int_0^t \bar\phi_{T-s}(-u-iR) (R'-iu) S_s^{R'-iu} a dW_s\notag\\
& + \int_{\mathbb R} du f(u) \int_0^t \bar\phi_{T-s}(-u-iR) S_{s-}^{R'-iu}\int_{\mathbb R}(e^{(R'-iu)z}-1)\tilde J_X(ds\times dz).\label{itoprice}\end{aligned}$$ To finish the proof, we apply a suitable Fubini-type theorem to each of the three terms. For the first term, we use the standard Fubini theorem (path by path), whose applicability condition is $$\begin{aligned}
&\int_{\mathbb R} du \int_0^t \left|f(u) \bar\phi_{T-s}(-u-iR) S_s^{R'-iu}(\psi(-u-iR')-\bar\psi(-u-iR))\right|ds\\
& \leq C\sup_{s\leq t}S_s^{R'} \int_{\mathbb R} du \int_0^t \left|f(u) e^{(T-s)\Re\bar\psi(-u-iR)}\right|\left(1+\sqrt{|\Re\bar\psi(u)|}\right)ds\\
& \leq C\sup_{s\leq t}S_s^{R'} \int_{\mathbb R} du \int_0^t \left|f(u) e^{(T-s)c\Re\bar\psi(u)}\right|\left(1+\sqrt{|\Re\bar\psi(u)|}\right)ds\\
&\leq C\sup_{s\leq t}S_s^{R'} \int_{\mathbb R} du \left|f(u) e^{(T-t)c\Re\bar\psi(u)}\right|<\infty \quad a.s.,\end{aligned}$$ where we used Lemma \[lem:PQUVpsi\] to pass from line 1 to line 2 and Corollary \[repsi.bound\] from line 2 to line 3, and the constants $c>0$ and $C>0$ may change from line to line. Note that $\sup_{s\leq t}S_s^{R'}<\infty$ a.s. because $S$ is càdlàg.
Let us now assume that $\sigma>0$ and study the second term in the right-hand side of , which can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\mathbb R} \mu(du) \int_0^t H^u_s dW_s,\label{fubini}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mu(du) = |f(u)\bar\phi_{T-t}(-u-iR)| du$ is a finite positive measure on $\mathbb R$ and $$H^u_s = \frac{a f(u) \bar\phi_{T-s}(-u-iR)}{2\pi |f(u)\phi_{T-t}(-u-iR)|}(R'-iu) S_s^{R'-iu}.$$ By the Fubini theorem for stochastic integrals (see [@protter2nd page 208]), we can interchange the two integrals in provided that $$\begin{aligned}
E\int_0^t \mu(du) |H^u_s|^2 ds < \infty.\label{fubinicond} \end{aligned}$$ From Corollary \[repsi.bound\] it follows that $$\frac{|\bar\phi_{T-s}(-u-iR)|}{|\bar\phi_{T-t}(-u-iR)|} \leq C,$$ for all $s\leq t\leq T$ for some constant $C>0$ which does not depend on $s$ and $t$. To prove it is then sufficient to check $$E \int_0^t \int_{\mathbb R}|f(u)\bar\phi_{T-t}(-u-iR)| | S_s^{2(R'-iu)}|^2 (R'-iu)^2 du dt<\infty.$$ After evaluating the expectation explicitly using , the finiteness of this integral follows from $$\begin{aligned}
|\bar\phi_{T-t}(-u-iR)|\leq Ce^{-(T-t)\frac{\sigma^2 u^2}{2}}.\label{gaussbound}\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the second term on the right-hand side of is equal to $\int_0^t \sigma_s dW_s$.
Let us now turn to the third term in the right-hand side of . Here we need to apply the Fubini theorem for stochastic integrals with respect to a compensated Poisson random measure [@appelbaum.06 Theorem 5] and the applicability condition boils down to $$\begin{aligned}
E\int_0^t \int_{\mathbb R}|f(u)\bar\phi_{T-t}(-u-iR)| | S_s^{2(R'-iu)}|^2 \int_{\mathbb R} |e^{(R'-iu)z}-1|^2\nu(dz) du dt<\infty.\label{integrgamma}\end{aligned}$$ If $\sigma>0$, this is once again guaranteed by , and when $\sigma=0$, $$\int_{\mathbb R} |e^{(R'-iu)z}-1|^2\nu(dz) = \psi(-2iR') - 2 \Re \psi(-u-iR').$$ Therefore, evaluating the expectation explicitly, and using Lemma \[lem:PQUVpsi\], the integrability condition reduces to $$\int_{\mathbb R}|f(u)\bar\phi_{T-t}(-u-iR)| (1+|\Re\bar\psi(u)|) du <\infty,$$ which holds by Corollary \[repsi.bound\] and assumption .
[^1]: Corresponding author
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'M subdwarfs are low-metallicity M dwarfs that typically inhabit the halo population of the Galaxy. Metallicity controls the opacity of stellar atmospheres; in metal poor stars, hydrostatic equilibrium is reached at a smaller radius, leading to smaller radii for a given effective temperature. We compile a sample of 88 stars that span spectral classes K7 to M6 and include stars with metallicity classes from solar-metallicity dwarf stars to the lowest metallicity ultra-subdwarfs to test how metallicity changes the stellar radius. We fit models to Palomar Double Spectrograph (DBSP) optical spectra to derive effective temperatures ($T_\mathrm{eff}$) and we measure bolometric luminosities ($L_\mathrm{bol}$) by combining broad wavelength-coverage photometry with Gaia parallaxes. Radii are then computed by combining the $T_\mathrm{eff}$ and $L_\mathrm{bol}$ using the Stefan-Boltzman law. We find that for a given temperature, ultra-subdwarfs can be as much as five times smaller than their solar-metallicity counterparts. We present color-radius and color-surface brightness relations that extend down to \[Fe/H\] of $-$2.0 dex, in order to aid the radius determination of M subdwarfs, which will be especially important for the *WFIRST* exoplanetary microlensing survey.'
author:
- 'Aurora Y. Kesseli'
- 'J. Davy Kirkpatrick'
- 'Sergio B. Fajardo-Acosta'
- 'Matthew T. Penny'
- 'B. Scott Gaudi'
- Mark Veyette
- 'Patricia C. Boeshaar'
- 'Calen B. Henderson'
- 'Michael C. Cushing'
- 'Sebastiano Calchi-Novati'
- 'Y. Shvartzvald'
- 'Philip S. Muirhead'
title: 'Radii of 88 M Subdwarfs and Updated Radius Relations for Low-Metallicity M Dwarf Stars'
---
Introduction {#s:intro}
============
M subdwarfs are low-metallicity M-dwarf stars and are identified by their position to the left of the main sequence on a color magnitude diagram [@sandage59]. Their metal-poor compositions are a characteristic of their old age, and therefore M subdwarfs make up a significant portion of the halo and bulge stellar populations [e.g., @gizis97; @lepine03; @burgasser03]. The very low metallicity of the subdwarfs is theorized to alter their radii since metallicity controls the opacity of the atmosphere, which modifies the equilibrium configuration [@burrows93]. In metal-poor stars the photosphere is expected to lie deeper in the star where the gas temperature is higher, leading to smaller radii for a given effective temperature ($T_\mathrm{eff}$).
Accurate stellar radii are extremely important for exoplanet characterization; improved radius measurements have enabled new discoveries of transiting exoplanets in the Kepler sample [e.g., @fulton17]. Although subdwarfs have not been targeted often by many transiting exoplanet surveys, their radii will be important for NASA’s Wide Field Infrared Survey Telescope’s ([*WFIRST*]{}) exoplanet microlensing survey. The survey is a wide-area microlensing study targeting source stars in the Galactic bulge. Bulge stars will be monitored via a wide near-infrared band for brightening indicative of lensing by an intervening foreground object. A planet in orbit around the lensing star can sometimes be detected as a secondary perturbation [@gaudi12]. By measuring many secondary events, [*WFIRST*]{} will perform a statistical census of the Galaxy’s planetary population in a way not possible with direct imaging or radial velocity techniques and in a way that samples a different parameter space than transit studies [@penny18].
Subdwarfs will represent a significant fraction of Galactic bulge sources observed during the exoplanetary microlensing survey. When these sources are brightened by foreground lensing systems containing one or more exoplanets, their accurate characterization is an important component in determining the properties of the lensing system itself. A large fraction of *WFIRST*’s exoplanet microlensing events will display finite source effects [@zhu14], where sharp features of the lens’ magnification pattern resolve the finite angular size of the source star [e.g., @witt94] and allow measurement of the ratio of the angular source radius to the angular Einstein radius. Knowledge of the angular source radius, e.g., from use of color-surface brightness relations [@yoo04; @kervella08; @boyajian12] allows the ratio to be converted into a measurement of the angular Einstein radius and a constraint on the mass of the lens [@gould94; @nemiroff94]. Yet, the sizes of subdwarfs are not well known, mainly because subdwarfs are rare in the solar neighborhood and have not seen the scrutiny that stars of higher metallicity have seen.
Previous studies have discovered and classified many M subdwarfs, but less has been done to determine their physical parameters (e.g., radii and effective temperatures). @gizis97 first introduced a classification scheme for M subdwarfs based on the molecular line strength ratios between the optical CaH ($\sim$6830 and 6975 Å) and TiO5 ($\sim$7130 Å) bands and separated M subdwarfs into three categories: the solar metallicity dwarfs (dM), the metal-poor subdwarfs (sdM), and the very metal-poor extreme subdwarfs (esdM). @lepine07 increased the sample of known metal poor M dwarfs to over 400 objects and expanded the classification to include a new even more metal-poor class, ultra subdwarfs (usdM).
Since then, @jao08 devised a separate classification scheme for subdwarfs, based on physical parameters (effective temperature, metallicity and surface gravity), by comparing spectra to stellar atmosphere models. Exact values of these physical parameters could not be determined until recently because model atmospheres still could not reproduce many of the molecular features present in the atmospheres of cool stars. However, @rajpurohit14 [@rajpurohit16] found that the recently updated PHOENIX stellar atmosphere models [@allard12] successfully reproduced many of the features in low metallicity stars and were therefore able to make estimates of the metallicity, surface gravity and temperature of a limited sample of M subdwarfs.
Recently, there has also been a significant effort to expand the sample of subdwarfs to the very lowest mass stars and brown dwarfs [e.g., @zhang17; @zhang18]. @zhang18 increased the known sample of L subdwarfs to about 66 objects that have been spectroscopically confirmed and classified. @gonzales18 determined fundamental parameters (e.g., temperature, bolometric luminosity) for 10 of these L subdwarfs. These studies are complementary to our work since they focus on stars of spectral type M7 through L, while our targets are spectral type K7 through M7. Together, a temperature sequence from K7 through L-type metal-poor stars and brown dwarfs can be created.
In this paper we present stellar radii for a greatly expanded sample of M subdwarf stars. In Section \[s:Sample\] we describe how we chose our representative sample of M subdwarf stars, and in Section \[s:Data\] we describe our Palomar DBSP observations and data reduction procedure. The radii are calculated by combining $T_\mathrm{eff}$ and $L_\mathrm{bol}$ using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. We detail our method for determining the metallicity in Section \[s:Metal\], the effective temperature in Section \[s:Teff\], and our method for determining the bolometric luminosity in Section \[s:Lbol\]. Finally, we present color and effective temperature relations that can be used to determine the radii of other M subdwarf stars in Section \[s:Results\].
Selecting the Sample {#s:Sample}
====================
The [*WFIRST*]{} microlensing survey will probe sources primarily in the 20 $<$ W149[^1] $<$ 24 mag (AB) range, corresponding roughly to early-G through mid-M spectral types at the 8 kpc distance of the Galactic bulge, assuming a total column extinction of A(W149) $\approx$ 1.0 mag toward $l=1{\fdg}0$, $b=-1{\fdg}5$ (@schlafly11). The metallicity range of stars in the Galactic bulge spans $-3.0 < [Fe/H] < 1.0$ dex (@ness16). The more metal-rich stars in this range are those that trace out the well-known boxy/peanut shape of the inner Galaxy. The more metal-poor stars belong either to a thick disk or an old spheroidal population (@dekany13 [@gran16]). Therefore, we wish to use observations of bright, nearby subdwarfs to construct a grid of spectra covering the spectral type and metallicity range present in the bulge that, when combined with photometry at other wavelengths, will allow us to fully characterize a broad subset of these objects. Knowledge learned from this nearby subset can then be used to deduce radii for more distant examples using color information alone.
Subdwarfs first become identifiable in broadband colors at mid-K types (see Figure 1 from @zhang17 and Figure 7 from @kirkpatrick16). The proposed *WFIRST* microlensing observations will probe bulge dwarfs as cold as roughly mid-M. Therefore, we restricted our spectral class range to $\sim$K7 through $\sim$M7. The [@lepine07] subdwarf subclasses – subdwarfs (sd), extreme subdwarfs (esd), and ultra subdwarfs (usd), roughly represent objects in the metallicity ranges log($[Fe/H]$) $\approx$ $-$0.5, $-$1.0, and $-$1.5, respectively. Most known late-K through late-M subdwarfs were classified before the Lepine et al. system was established, some of which were typed against the earlier [@gizis97] two-subclass system. Others pre-date both of these papers and are classified on a mixture of systems.
Rather than rely on published types, we combed the literature for objects classified as subdwarfs. We identified $\sim$250 in all, most of which are relatively bright, nearby sources found by various proper motion surveys. We then tabulated their optical, 2MASS, and [*WISE*]{} magnitudes. Using the $J-K_s$ vs. $J-$W2 diagram, we plotted these objects together with known dwarfs of solar metallicity, the subdwarf standards of [@lepine07], and the theoretical subdwarf tracks (see Figure 1 from @zhang17) to pseudo-categorize each as d, sd, esd or usd. This color-color diagram is shown in the top plot of Figure \[f:sampleSelect\]. After removing those that appeared to be solar-metallicity dwarfs and those too far south to be observed with the 200 inch telescope at Palomar, we were able to sort the distribution of candidates by $R$ magnitude and $J-$W2 color, the latter being a proxy for temperature or spectral type. Using this list, we created a target list having three objects in each integral spectral type bin. Three objects per bin were required to mitigate the effects of unresolved binarity on the $L_{bol}$ determination and to have a crude assessment of the cosmic scatter per bin. One object in each bin was chosen to be the [@lepine07] standard itself, and the other two were generally chosen to be the brightest (and therefore most easily observable) at $R$ band. This final observing list is shown in Table \[target\_grid\] as well as in Figure \[f:sampleSelect\].
![ **Top:** $J-K_s$ versus $J-$W2 diagram, used to separate the compiled $\sim$250 selected subdwarfs into the metallicity classes of d, sd, esd, and usd. The targets ultimately selected are colored circles, the [@lepine07] subdwarf standards are shown as colored stars, and the full original sample is shown as translucent squares. Note that one of the Lepine usd standards has dwarf-like colors; this star is LHS 1691 and we believe that its 2MASS $J$-band color is not correct. This star is also an outlier in later figures, such as Figure \[f:ColorR\]. **Middle:** $R$ magnitude versus $J-$W2 color diagram. **Bottom:** $R$-band magnitude versus spectral type diagram. A target without a known spectral type is shows as a ‘?’ on this plot. This plot illustrates how we tried to target two bright sds, esds, and usds for each spectral type estimate. []{data-label="f:sampleSelect"}](colorSelection_3panel.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
Prior to our spectroscopic observations, we created finder charts at the 2017.8 epoch of each source, using the source’s 2MASS position and its published proper motion. Any source confused with a bright background source at our epoch was replaced with the next brightest star in the spectral bin. One of the subdwarf standards, LSR J1918+1728 (esdM3), is contaminated at our epoch of observation and was therefore skipped.
In order to facilitate spectral classification comparisons and to provide checks of radius measurements for stars similar to those in [@mann13], we observed two to three solar metallicity dwarfs in each spectral subtype bin, as well. These are also listed in Table \[target\_grid\].
[lllll]{} K7-8 & Gl 143.1 & LHS 1703\* & LHS 3276\* & LHS 1454\*\
& — & LHS 170 & LHS 104 & LSR J0621+3652\
& — & LHS 173 & LHS 522 & LSR J2115+3804\
M0-0.5 & Gl 270\* & LHS 12\* & LHS 360\* & LHS 2843\*\
& — & LHS 42 & LHS 489 & LHS 182\
& — & LHS 174 & LHS 2355 & LSR J1956+4428\
M1-1.5 & Gl 229A\* & LHS 2163\* & LHS 1994\* & LHS 1863\*\
& Gl 908 & LHS 482 & LHS 364 & LHS 518\
& — & LHS 178 & LHS 318 & LSR J2205+5353\
M2-2.5 & Gl 411\* & LHS 228\* & LHS 2326\* & LHS 1691\*\
& Gl 393 & LHS 2852 & LHS 3555 & LSR J0020+5526\
& — & LHS 20 & LHS 161 & WISE J0707+1705\
M3-3.5 & Gl 436\* & LSR J0705+0506\* & \[LSR J1918+1728\*\] & \[LHS 325\*\]\
& Gl 109 & LHS 272 & LHS 1174 & LSR J0522+3814\
& Gl 388 & LHS 156 & LHS 3263 & LHS 3382\
M4-4.5 & Gl 402\* & LHS 2674\*/LHS 504\*& LSR J1340+1902\* & LHS 1032\*\
& Gl 447 & NLTT 3247 & LHS 375 & LHS 4028\
& LHS 3255 & LHS 3409 & LHS 3090 & LHS 453\
M5-5.5 & Gl 51\* & LHS 2061\* & LHS 2405\* & LHS 2500\*\
& \[LP 467-16\] & LHS 3189 & LHS 515 & LSR J2122+3656\
& — & LHS 3390 & LHS 2096 & LHS 205a\
M6-6.5 & Gl 406\* & \[LHS 2746\*\] & LHS 2023\* & LSR J0621+1219\*\
& Teegarden & LHS 1166 & 2MASS J0822+1700 & LHS 1625\
& — & LHS 1074 & LHS 1742a & LHS 1826\
M7-7.5 & — & LHS 377 & — & —\
Observations and Data Reduction {#s:Data}
===============================
Data were taken during six separate nights between August of 2017 and January of 2018, using DBSP on the 200-inch Hale Telescope at Palomar Observatory. DBSP is a moderate resolution optical spectrograph that uses a dichroic to split light into separate red and blue channels that are observed simultaneously [@oke82]. The observer can choose from four different dichroics and can choose the grating angle to set the wavelength coverage and spectral resolution. For all of our nights we chose the dichroic that split the light at a wavelength of 6800Å. For the blue side we used a 600/4000 grating and for the red side a 600/10000 grating. We chose grating angles of $\sim29^{\circ}$ and $\sim32^{\circ}$, leading to a wavelength coverage of $\sim3900-6950$Å and $\sim6610-9970$Å and a mean resolving power of $\sim$2,000 and $\sim$3,000 for the blue and red sides, respectively.
We performed all of the data reduction using the python command line tool for IRAF (PyRAF). Bias subtraction, flat fielding, spectral extraction, cosmic ray removal, wavelength calibration and flux calibration were performed on the red and blue images separately. Wavelength calibration frames using a Fe-Ar lamp for the blue side and a He-Ne-Ar lamp for the red side were taken at the beginning of each night.
The red and blue wavelength scales were each shifted to rest separately by cross correlation with a model stellar spectrum of spectral type either M1 for the hotter stars, or M5 for the cooler stars. We next stitched the spectra together by normalizing the spectra to each other at the stitch point. The stitch point was chosen by visual inspection of each spectrum to be a point with relatively low noise and free of any large absorption features, and fell between $6650-6775$Å. All the spectra are available in Figure Set \[f:spectra\] (8 images), and available in the online journal.
For a small subset of our targets, we also obtained high resolution near-infrared spectra from iSHELL [@rayner12] on NASA’s 3.0-meter Infrared Telescope Facility (IRTF) on Mauna Kea, Hawaii. We used the wider slit width, giving a spectral resolution of about R$\sim$35,000 for our chosen wavelength region ($2.09-2.38 \mu m$). In total we collected spectra of three dwarfs, four subdwarfs, one extreme subdwarf and one ultra subdwarf, to test our metallicity estimate techniques (see Section \[s:Metal\] for details). We completed the data reduction of the iSHELL spectra using the Spextool for iSHELL package[^2]. Spextool [@cushing04] has been updated in the newest release to be compatible with iSHELL data, and performs dark subtraction, flat fielding, order tracing and extraction, linearity correction and returns a wavelength solution calibrated using ThAr lamps. We removed telluric absorption features using the `xtellcor` [@vacca03] function, which is also part of the larger Spextool reduction package.
Determining Stellar Parameters
==============================
Metallicity {#s:Metal}
-----------
Precise metallicities of M dwarfs are notoriously difficult to determine because much of the spectrum is dominated by deep molecular features resulting in a lack of a true continuum in much of the spectrum. Recently however, many groups have successfully used widely separated binaries or common proper motion stars that contain an F, G, or K star and an M dwarf companion to calibrate methods that use metallicity sensitive spectral features to determine precise metallicities of M dwarfs [e.g., @rojas10; @rojas12; @terrien12; @mann13; @newton14]. Unfortunately, all of the relations presented in these studies focus on solar-metallicity or near-solar metallicity stars and are not calibrated for the low metallicities present in our sample. We therefore use two different methods: one to determine the metallicity of the dwarf and dwarf/subdwarf stars (\[Fe/H\] $>-0.5$ dex), and a second to determine the metallicities of the more metal poor subdwarfs, and the extreme and ultra subdwarfs.
The majority of the previously-mentioned methods use spectral features in the near-infrared, while our spectra are optical. @mann13 published \[Fe/H\] relations that utilize optical spectra; however, the relations are highly dependent on the Na doublet at 8200Å, which is contaminated by telluric features in our spectra and therefore it is difficult to measure an equivalent width. Because of this, we use the the near-infrared color relation from @newton14 to estimate \[Fe/H\] for all the dwarfs and subdwarfs in our sample. Figure \[f:litMetal\] shows how the photometric \[Fe/H\] compares to spectroscopic estimates of \[Fe/H\] from @gaidos14 and @mann15 for our 10 overlapping objects. We find a mean scatter of 0.15 dex and we adopt this as the uncertainty in \[Fe/H\] for the dwarfs and subdwarfs.
![ Comparison between our values of \[Fe/H\] and previously measured literature \[Fe/H\] values for 10 of our objects. Our values of \[Fe/H\] were determined photometrically using the near-IR color to metallicity relation from @newton14. The literature values of \[Fe/H\] were determined spectroscopically by @gaidos14 and @mann15, both using the method outlined in @mann13. We find that the photometric metallicities show the same trend as the spectroscopic metallicities and that there is no bias towards over or underestimating the metallicities using photometric relations. The black solid line represents a one-to-one fit, and shows where all the points would lie if our photometrically determined \[Fe/H\] values matched the literature values exactly. We find a mean scatter around this line of 0.15 dex, and we adopt this value as our uncertainty for all of our values of \[Fe/H\] determined using this method. []{data-label="f:litMetal"}](MetalCompare.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
Low-metallicity extreme and ultra subdwarfs are often categorized using a $\zeta$ parameter, which relates the CaH2 (6814$-$6846 Å) and CaH3 (6960$-$6990 Å) band ratios to the TiO5 (7126$-$7135 Å) band, since the CaH band is primarily sensitive to temperature while the TiO5 band is sensitive to both temperature and metallicity [@dhital12]. Using high resolution spectra of subdwarfs and extreme subdwarfs, @woolf09 determined a relationship between $\zeta$ and \[Fe/H\]. We made use of this relation and measured a $\zeta$ value and hence \[Fe/H\] for each of the stars in our sample. The relation was recalibrated by @mann13, but we find that the change in the derived value of \[Fe/H\] is significantly smaller than the quoted uncertainty of the relation (0.3 dex), and so we report the original \[Fe/H\] values determined with the @woolf09 relation.
As an extra check, we used the high-resolution (R$\sim$35,000) near infrared iSHELL spectra of three dwarfs, four subdwarfs, one extreme subdwarf and one ultra subdwarf, to test the metallicities determined with the above methods. Figure \[f:ishell\] shows an example of our high resolution spectra and how the sodium doublet changes with metallicity. We calculated metallicities using the relation presented in @newton14 that uses the equivalent width of the sodium doublet at 2.2 $\mu m$ to determine the metallicity with an uncertainty of 0.12 dex. We find that these metallicities agreed with the metallicities previously reported by @mann13 for the three dwarf stars, and that the metallicities that we derive from the high resolution spectra are consistent with the metallicities derived using the @woolf09 relation. One of our extreme subdwarfs (LHS 173) has a metallicity reported from the APOGEE Stellar Parameters and Chemical Abundances Pipeline (ASPCAP) [@schmidt16]. Our derived metallicity from the $\zeta$ parameter and the metallicity from (ASPCAP) are within 0.05 dex, which further validates our derived metallicites.
![ iSHELL $K$-band spectra of Gl 411, LHS 2163, and LHS 482. The spectra have all been shifted to rest by cross correlation with model templates. The left plot is centered on the sodium doublet (2.2 $\mu m$) and the right plot is centered on the CO bandhead (2.3 $\mu m$). These plots show the effect of decreased metallicity on these line strengths and how we can use the sodium doublet to estimate the stellar metallicity. We also note that LHS 482 seems to be rotationally broadened, which is intriguing since low metallicity ($-0.75$ dex) is reminiscent of old age while rapid rotation is reminiscent of youth [@west15]. This is the only star in our iSHELL sample which shows rotational broadening and we merely note it here as a potential future target of interest. []{data-label="f:ishell"}](iSHELL.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
Effective Temperatures {#s:Teff}
----------------------
{width="\linewidth"}
To calculate the effective temperature we fit each spectrum to the BT-SETTL model grid using a method similar to that of @mann13 [@mann15]. The BT-SETTL grid was created using the PHOENIX stellar atmosphere code [@allard12]. We chose to use the BT-SETTL grid that utilized the @caffau11 solar abundances (CIFIST grid[^3]) since @mann13 found that this grid of abundances gave the smallest errors in effective temperature when comparing model-fit effective temperature values to precisely known effective temperatures determined through long baseline optical interferometry.
The model grid we used was comprised of effective temperatures ranging from $2600-4500K$ in $100K$ bins, metallicities ranging from $-2.5$ to $+0.5$ dex in $0.5$ dex bins, and surface gravities (log $g$) of 4.5, 5.0, or 5.5 dex \[$cm s^{-2}$\]. This was the smallest-resolution grid publicly available for the CIFIST models.
To compare the models to an observed spectrum we convolved the models with a Gaussian kernel. We used the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the spectrum and converted to the standard deviation ($\sigma \simeq \mathrm{FWHM} / 2.355$), which was then used as the standard deviations of the Gaussian kernel. We then determined a goodness-of-fit statistic ($G$) for each model $k$, given by the following equation from @cushing08:
$$G_{k} = \sum_{i=1}^{n} \left( \frac{w_{i}(F_{i} - C_{k}\mathcal{F}_{i,k})}{\sigma_{i}}\right)^2$$
where $n$ is the total number of data pixels, $w_{i}$ is a weight assigned to each data pixel, $F_{i}$ is the flux density of each data pixel, $\mathcal{F}_{i,k}$ is the flux density of each model $k$ pixel, $\sigma_{i}$ is the uncertainty in each data pixel, and $C_{k}$ is a normalization constant. For absolute flux calibrated stars, $C_{k}$ is equal to $R^2/D^2$; however, since $R$ is unknown, we followed @mann13 and set this constant so that the mean of $F$ and $F_{k}$ were the same. The model spectrum chosen as the best fit (and therefore our effective temperature estimate) was the one which minimized the goodness-of-fit statistic ($G$).
The weights $w_{i}$ were set to either 0 or 1 so as to exclude regions in our spectra that were contaminated by telluric features, or regions where models did not accurately fit observed spectra of low-mass stars. These regions are shown with gray boxes in Figure \[f:tempSpec\]. More details on which regions were excluded and why are given in the caption for Figure \[f:tempSpec\].
![Comparison between our temperatures and those measured by previous studies. If our values and the literature values were exactly the same the fractional difference on the bottom plot would be exactly 0.0 (black solid line). The fractional difference is defined as the literature effective temperature minus our effective temperature divided by our effective temperature. We find a mean fractional difference of 0.3% (dotted line). All of our effective temperatures deviate from previous literature values by 100 K or less except for one which deviates by 150 K. The 100 K mismatches seen between our values and those of @rajpurohit14 are probably due to the coarse grid size (100 K) of both studies. []{data-label="f:litTemp"}](CompareTemps.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
To test the accuracy of our effective temperature measurements we compared them to the effective temperatures of stars in our sample that have previous literature values (Figure \[f:litTemp\]). The technique in @mann15 has been calibrated against effective temperatures derived using long baseline optical interferometry and shows typical uncertainties of 60 K, but does not contain subdwarf stars. Effective temperature estimates from @rajpurohit14 [@rajpurohit16] measure the effective temperatures by fitting mid-to-high resolution optical and near-IR spectra to the same BT-Settl model grid as used here, but only measure effective temperatures for a small subset of M subdwarf stars. Our effective temperature estimates are consistent with all three previous literature effective temperature methods and show a mean fractional deviation of less than 1%. We find that 83% of our measurements fall within $1\sigma$ of the literature values and all of our measurements fall within $2\sigma$ of the literature measurements, leading us to conclude that our estimates are valid and accurate.
We also compared our effective temperatures to those reported by Gaia DR 2 [@andrae18]. @andrae18 use an empirically trained machine learning algorithm to determine a relation between Gaia $G$-, $R$-, and $B$-band photometry and previously determined $T_\mathrm{eff}$ measurements in the literature. We find that the effective temperatures listed in Gaia DR2 are higher than our effective temperatures by 10% on average, and that the discrepancy is larger for cooler stars (see Figure \[f:gaiaTemp\]). This discrepancy is not very surprising because the stars in our sample are at the edge of parameter space included in the machine learning training; the vast majority of the stars had near solar metallicities (95% had \[Fe/H\] $> -$0.82 dex) and $T_\mathrm{eff}$ above 4000 K. Because of this, we do not use Gaia DR2 temperatures for any of our remaining analysis.
![Comparison between our temperatures and those reported in Gaia DR2 [@andrae18]. Gaia overestimates the temperatures by a mean value of 10%, however the temperatures below $\sim3200$ are overestimated by an even greater degree (almost 20%). []{data-label="f:gaiaTemp"}](GaiaTemps.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
Bolometric Luminosity
---------------------
### Compiling Photometry {#s:phot}
We collected broad-band photometry for all of our sources, spanning the blue end of the optical region to mid-IR wavelengths. Optical photometry was collected from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey’s $12^{th}$ data release [SDSS; @alam15], the Pan-STARRS1 survey [@chambers16], and from Gaia’s Red and Blue Photometers [@gaia16]. All of the near-infrared (NIR) photometry was from the 2MASS All-Sky Point Source Catalog [2MASS; @skrutskie06], with one source supplemented from the corresponding Reject Table (this source is noted in Table \[t:phot\]). The *Wide-Field Infrared Survey Explorer* [WISE; @wright10] AllWISE Point Source Catalog served as our source of mid-IR photometry. Both $WISE$ and 2MASS photometry were downloaded from IRSA[^4].
We imposed quality cuts to ensure that all the photometry was accurate, and examined each source by eye to ensure that there was no major background contamination. We only used SDSS photometry that had been flagged as “clean", which selects the primary photometry for each source and rejects sources with any deblending problems, interpolation issues or saturation. The main issue with much of the Pan-STARRS photometry is the relatively high saturation limit, which is conservatively estimated to be 14.5, 15, 15, 14, and 13 for the $g$, $r$. $i$, $z$, and $y$ filters, respectively. Many fields are quoted to have reliable photometry up to a magnitude brighter than this, but to be conservative we chose to include only photometry brighter than these limits by at most a half magnitude, and only when there was no other indication of poor photometry (e.g., bad quality flags, or PSF did not include the entire source). For both $WISE$ and 2MASS data we did not include any photometry that was flagged as contaminated, saturated, or had a quality flag indicating that the photometry had a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) less than five. We also visually inspected the $WISE$ W3 and W4 bands and did not include any photometry from these bands when the source was not visually discernible from the background. Since there are no quality flags for the Gaia DR2 data, we followed guidelines from @evans18 and cut any sources with a color excess that exceeds $1.3 + 0.06(G_\mathrm{BP}$ - $G_\mathrm{RP})^2$, where $G_\mathrm{BP}$ is the Gaia blue-band magnitude and $G_\mathrm{RP}$ is the Gaia red-band magnitude. This relation removes any sources that have been affected by severe crowding, or calibration and processing issues. All of the final compiled photometry for each target is listed in Table \[t:phot\].
[cccccccccccc]{} LHS1032&22.5&0.3&19.03&0.03&18.71&0.02&18.15&0.018&17.211&0.003\
LHS104&17.06&0.01&14.48&0.02&–&–&13.969&0.001&–&–\
LHS1074&24.1&1.1&20.18&0.02&19.84&0.02&19.25&0.06&18.374&0.004\
LHS1166&22.4&0.3&19.99&0.02&19.64&0.01&19.22&0.06&18.247&0.003\
LHS1174&21.1&0.1&18.03&0.02&17.81&0.006&17.28&0.01&16.378&0.004\
LHS12&15.75&0.01&13.1950&0.0005&–&–&12.492&0.002&–&–\
LHS1454&–&–&–&–&17.17&0.005&16.788&0.007&15.931&0.002\
LHS156&–&–&–&–&15.651&0.001&15.205&0.003&–&–\
LHS161&18.39&0.02&15.55&0.02&15.368&0.001&14.926&0.004&–&–\
LHS1625&–&–&–&–&20.13&0.03&19.48&0.02&18.52&0.01\
LHS1691&–&–&–&–&18.352&0.003&17.803&0.009&16.874&0.004\
LHS170&–&–&–&–&–&–&10.891&0.001&–&–\
LHS1703&17.82&0.03&15.18&0.04&14.846&3.0E-04&14.496&0.0020&–&–\
Magnitudes were then converted to flux densities using the equation
$$\label{fluxEqn}
F_\nu = F_{\nu 0} \times 10^{-m/2.5}$$
where $F_\nu$ is the flux density, $m$ is the magnitude, and $F_{\nu 0}$ is the zero magnitude flux density. Gaia, 2MASS and $WISE$ magnitudes are given in the Vega photometric system, and $F_{\nu 0}$ is a constant that gives the same response as Vega for a given frequency ($\nu$). The zero magnitudes for 2MASS and $WISE$ were given in the Explanatory Supplements[^5]$^,$[^6], and for Gaia calculated using the Gaia B- and R-band filters and a model of Vega by the SVO Filter Profile Services[^7] [@SVO1]. For $WISE$, we used the zero magnitudes derived using a constant power-law spectrum as recommended in the documentation since our sources were not steeply rising in the mid-IR. Pan-STARRS photometry is given in the AB magnitude system [@oke83] and thus has a constant zero magnitude flux for all bands. The SDSS magnitude system was intended to be an AB system, but is known to require slight adjustments [@fukugita96], which are given in @holberg06. To then convert the SDSS magnitudes to fluxes we used the equations in the SDSS documentation[^8] since the magnitudes are asinh magnitudes and not pogson magnitudes and Equation \[fluxEqn\] cannot therefore be used.
We converted $F_\nu$ to $F_\lambda$ using $F_\lambda = F_\nu (c / \lambda_{c}^2)$, where $c$ is the speed of light and $\lambda_c$ if the center of each filter bandpass, and given in Table \[t:phot\]. These final values of $F_\lambda$ are the photometry values shown in Figure \[f:SED\] and what we used for the remainder of the calculations involving photometry.
### The Bolometric Luminosity {#s:Lbol}
Once the photometry was converted to physical flux densities, we used these points to anchor a spectrum. We chose to use the BT-SETTL model spectra throughout, since the flux calibration of the blue end of our spectra has known issues and there are large telluric absorption features contaminating the red side of our spectra. The best-fit BT-SETTL model from our effective temperature estimates (see Section \[s:Teff\]) was normalized to fit the photometry. The normalization constant was determined by generating synthetic photometry from the model spectrum in a method similar to that of @filippazzo15. The synthetic photometry was generated from the best-fit model spectrum using filter transmission curves from the SVO Filter Profile Services and the following equation
$$F_{\lambda, synth} = \frac{\int_{}^{}T(\lambda)F_{\lambda, model}(\lambda)d\lambda}{\int_{}^{}T(\lambda)d\lambda}$$
where $T(\lambda)$ is the transmission curve from SVO, interpolated onto the same wavelength grid as the model spectrum ($F_{\lambda, model}$). The normalization constant was found by then minimizing the squared difference between the synthetic and catalog photometry. The optimal minimization (and hence value of the normalization constant) was determined using the scipy routine `scipy.optimize.minimize\_scalar`.
The bolometric luminosity was then determined by the following integral
$$L_\mathrm{bol} = 4 \pi D^2 \int^{500\ \mu m}_{0.1\ \mu m} C \times F_\lambda d\lambda$$
where $C$ is the above determined normalization constant, $F_\lambda$ is the model flux, and $D$ is the distance determined from Gaia DR2 parallaxes [@gaia18]. Instead of using the inverted parallax to get $D$, we used the distances reported by @bailer18 for Gaia DR2, which are publicly available within the Gaia archive external catalog `external.gaiadr2\_geometric\_distance`. The @bailer18 distances are more reliable because they account for the nonlinearity of the transformation from parallax to distance. This nonlinearity is corrected using a Bayesian distance prior that varies as a function of galactic longitude and latitude. Finally, we used a simple trapezoidal integration (`numpy.trapz`) to numerically integrate $F_\lambda$ over the stated wavelength range.
To determine how the model parameters ($T_\mathrm{eff}$, \[Fe/H\], and log $g$) influenced our bolometric luminosity calculation, we tested how varying these parameters changed our estimate of $L_\mathrm{bol}$. We found that by changing the model by one grid point, $\log_{10}(L_\mathrm{bol}/L_\mathrm{Sun})$ changed by an average of $0.008\pm0.005$, $0.007\pm0.005$, and $0.002\pm0.002$ for a change in $T_\mathrm{eff}$ of 100K, and \[Fe/H\] and log $g$ of 0.5 dex, respectively. If all three are changed in conjunction, the change in $\log_{10}(L_\mathrm{bol}/L_\mathrm{Sun})$ was on average $0.015\pm0.008$, however we do not expect our estimates to deviate this substantially in all three parameters. These errors are larger than the propagated uncertainties, and so we adopt the change if all three parameters are changed in conjunction as a conservative estimate of the uncertainty in the bolometric flux (the uncertainty in the parallax is then incorporated to determine the total uncertainty in $L_\mathrm{bol}$).
We also compared how using real spectra versus models changed our values of $L_\mathrm{bol}$. Three of our targets had previously published spectra that spanned the near- and mid-IR (LHS 1174, LHS 377, LSR J2122+36, all from the SpeX Prism Spectral Libraries [@burgasser14][^9]). In combination with our optical spectra, a majority of the flux-contributing region of the SED was covered by real spectra. We found that by using the real spectra instead of the best-fit model, $log_{10}(L_{bol}/L_{Sun})$ changed by 0.01. This value is well within our new adopted uncertainties from changing the model, so we conclude that using a model instead of a real spectrum is indeed valid (as long as the uncertainties mentioned above are included).
Results {#s:Results}
=======
The effective temperatures (calculated in Section \[s:Teff\]) and bolometric luminosities (calculated in Section \[s:Lbol\]) were combined to determine a radius using the Stefan-Boltzmann Law: $R = \sqrt{L_\mathrm{bol}/ (4\pi \sigma T_\mathrm{eff}^4)}$. The derived parameters (including $T_\mathrm{eff}$, $L_\mathrm{bol}$, and $R$) for all of our sources are given in Table \[t:params\]. Figure \[f:TeffVsRad\] shows how the radii change for a given effective temperature with decreasing metallicity. We find that stellar evolutionary models from @baraffe97 accurately predict the radii of low-metallicity subdwarfs. For a given effective temperature the radius can deviate by a factor of almost five for a change in metallicity of 2.5 dex.
[lllllllllll]{}
\
Star & Spectral & $T_\mathrm{eff}$ & $\sigma_{T}$ & $log(L_\mathrm{bol}/L_\mathrm{Sun})$ & $\sigma_{\log(L_\mathrm{bol}/L_\mathrm{Sun})}$ & Radius & $\sigma_R$ & \[Fe/H\] & $\sigma_{[Fe/H]}$ & \[Fe/H\]\
Name & Class & (K) & (K) & & & ($R_\mathrm{Sun}$) & ($R_\mathrm{Sun}$) & & & method\
Star & Spectral & $T_\mathrm{eff}$ & $\sigma_{T}$ & $\log(L_\mathrm{bol}/L_\mathrm{Sun})$ & $\sigma_{\log(L_\mathrm{bol}/L_\mathrm{Sun})}$ & Radius & $\sigma_R$ & \[Fe/H\] & $\sigma_{[Fe/H]}$ & \[Fe/H\]\
Name & Class & (K) & (K) & & & ($R_\mathrm{Sun}$) & ($R_\mathrm{Sun}$) & & & method\
\
2MASSJ0822+1700 & usdM6 & 3200 & 100 & $-$3.139 & 0.031 & 0.088 & 0.006&$-$1.4& 0.3 & Spec\
Gl109 & dM3 & 3400 & 100 & $-$1.783 & 0.058 & 0.37 & 0.033 &$-$0.1& 0.08 & Lit\
Gl143.1 & dK7 &4000 & 100 & $-$1.044 & 0.011 & 0.626 & 0.033&0.17& 0.15 & Phot\
Gl229A & dM1 & 3600.0 & 100 & $-$1.271 & 0.035 & 0.595 & 0.041 & 0.02 & 0.08 & Lit$^{\ref{mann}}$\
Gl270 & dM0 &3900& 100 & $-$1.141 & 0.011 & 0.589 & 0.03&0.23& 0.15 & Phot\
Gl388 & dM3 &3400 & 100 & $-$1.643 & 0.02 & 0.435 & 0.027 &0.15& 0.08 & Lit$^{\ref{mann}}$\
Gl393 & dM2 &3500 & 100 & $-$1.597 & 0.01 & 0.432 & 0.025&$-$0.18& 0.08 & Lit$^{\ref{mann}}$\
Gl402 & dM4 &3200 & 100 & $-$2.105 & 0.013 & 0.288 & 0.019 &0.16& 0.08 & Lit$^{\ref{mann}}$\
Gl406 & dM6 &2700 & 100 & $-$2.995 & 0.007 & 0.145 & 0.011&0.25& 0.08 & Lit$^{\ref{mann}}$\
Gl411 & dM2 & 3400 & 100 & $-$1.704 & 0.037 & 0.405 & 0.029&$-$0.38& 0.08 & Lit$^{\ref{mann}}$\
Gl436 & dM3 &3600 & 100 & $-$1.638 & 0.015 & 0.39 & 0.023&0.01& 0.08 & Lit$^{\ref{mann}}$\
Gl447 & dM4 &3200 & 100 & $-$2.43 & 0.014 & 0.198 & 0.013&$-$0.02& 0.08 & Lit$^{\ref{mann}}$\
Gl51 & dM5 &2900 & 100 & $-$2.346 & 0.013 & 0.266 & 0.019&0.22& 0.08 & Lit\
Gl908 & dM1 &3600 & 100 & $-$1.596 & 0.011 & 0.409 & 0.023&$-$0.45& 0.08 & Lit$^{\ref{mann}}$\
LHS1032 & usdM4 &3400 & 100 & $-$2.775 & 0.02 & 0.118 & 0.007&$-$1.4& 0.3 & Spec\
LHS104 & esdK7 &3900 & 100 & $-$1.711 & 0.006 & 0.306 & 0.016& $-$1.29 & 0.3& Spec\
LHS1074 & sdM6 &3200 & 100 & $-$2.88 & 0.028 & 0.118 & 0.008& $-$0.52& 0.3 & Spec\
LHS1166 & sdM6 &3100 & 100 & $-$2.924 & 0.024 & 0.12 & 0.008&$-$0.39& 0.3 & Spec\
LHS1174 & esdM3 &3400 & 100 & $-$2.513 & 0.013 & 0.16 & 0.01&$-$1.31& 0.3 & Spec\
LHS12 & d/sdM0 &3900 & 100 & $-$1.642 & 0.019 & 0.331 & 0.018&$-$0.33& 0.15 & Phot\
LHS1454 & usdK7 &3800 & 100 & $-$2.262 & 0.012 & 0.171 & 0.009&$-$1.59& 0.3 & Spec\
LHS156 & sdM3 &3500 & 100 & $-$2.403 & 0.009 & 0.171 & 0.01&$-$0.64& 0.3 & Spec\
LHS161 & esdM2 &3700 & 100 & $-$2.166 & 0.006 & 0.201 & 0.011&$-$1.1& 0.3 & Spec\
LHS1625 & usdM6 &3400 & 100 & $-$2.809 & 0.041 & 0.114 & 0.009&$-$1.64& 0.3 & Spec\
LHS1691 & usdM2 &3400 & 100 & $-$2.429 & 0.014 & 0.176 & 0.011&$-$1.8& 0.3 & Spec\
LHS170 & esdK7 &4300 & 100 & $-$1.123 & 0.008 & 0.495 & 0.023&$-$1.28& 0.3 & Spec\
LHS1703 & esdK7 & 3900 & 100 & $-$1.587 & 0.012 & 0.352 & 0.019 & $-$1.1 & 0.3 & Spec\
LHS173 & esdK7 &4100 & 100 & $-$1.305 & 0.016 & 0.441 & 0.023&$-$0.94& 0.18 & Lit\
LHS174 & sdM0 &3800 & 100 & $-$1.434 & 0.32 & 0.442 & 0.165&$-$0.63& 0.3 & Spec\
LHS1742a & esdM6 &3300 & 100 & $-$2.912 & 0.333 & 0.107 & 0.042 &$-$0.97& 0.3 & Spec\
LHS178 & d/sdM1 &3600 & 100 & $-$1.795 & 0.013 & 0.326 & 0.019&$-$0.29& 0.3 & Spec\
LHS182 & usdM0 &3700 & 100 & $-$2.128 & 0.085 & 0.21 & 0.024&$-$1.66& 0.3 & Spec\
LHS1826 & usdM6 &3300 & 100 & $-$2.94 & 0.019 & 0.104 & 0.007&$-$1.73& 0.3 & Spec\
LHS1863 & usdM1 &3600 & 100 & $-$2.015 & 0.01 & 0.253 & 0.014&$-$1.59& 0.3 & Spec\
LHS1994 & esdM1 &3700 & 100 & $-$1.844 & 0.017 & 0.291 & 0.017&$-$1.13& 0.3 & Spec\
LHS20 & d/sdM2 &3500 & 100 & $-$2.26 & 0.011 & 0.202 & 0.012&$-$0.28& 0.15 & Spec\
LHS2023 & esdM6 &3200 & 100 & $-$2.917 & 0.022 & 0.113 & 0.008&$-$1.15& 0.3 & Spec\
LHS205a & usdM5 &3400 & 100 & $-$2.783 & 0.028 & 0.117 & 0.008&$-$1.43& 0.3 & Spec\
LHS2061 & sdM5 &3300 & 100 & $-$2.691 & 0.019 & 0.138 & 0.009&$-$0.76& 0.3& Spec\
LHS2096 & esdM5 &3300 & 100 & $-$2.852 & 0.018 & 0.115 & 0.007&$-$1.25& 0.3 & Spec\
LHS2163 & sdM1 &3600 & 100 & $-$1.661 & 0.017 & 0.38 & 0.022&$-$0.56& 0.12 & iSHELL Spec\
LHS228 & sdM2 &3500 & 100 & $-$2.32& 0.019 & 0.188 & 0.012&$-$0.55& 0.3 & Spec\
LHS2326 & esdM2 &3300 & 100 & $-$2.353 & 0.009 & 0.204 & 0.013&$-$0.98& 0.3 & Spec\
LHS2355 & usdM0 &3800 & 100 & $-$2.393 & 0.014 & 0.147 & 0.008&$-$1.76& 0.3 & Spec\
LHS2405 & d/sdM4 &3500 & 100 & $-$1.604 & 0.011 & 0.429 & 0.025&$-$0.24& 0.15& Spec\
LHS2500 & usdM5 &3100 & 100 & $-$2.845 & 0.039 & 0.131 & 0.01&$-$1.88& 0.3 & Spec\
LHS2674 & sdM4 &3300 & 100 & $-$2.573 & 0.022 & 0.158 & 0.01&$-$0.57 & 0.3& Spec\
LHS272 & sdM3 &3400 & 100 & $-$2.431 & 0.01 & 0.175 & 0.011&$-$0.72& 0.3& Spec\
LHS2843 & esdM0 &3500 & 100 & $-$2.068 & 0.015 & 0.251 & 0.015&$-$1.26& 0.3 & Spec\
LHS2852 & sdM2 &3400 & 100 & $-$1.767 & 0.01 & 0.377 & 0.023&$-$0.05& 0.12 & iSHELL Spec\
LHS3090 & usdM4 &3400 & 100 & $-$2.609 & 0.015 & 0.143 & 0.009&$-$1.5& 0.3 & Spec\
LHS318 & esdM1 &3600 & 100 & $-$2.25 & 0.01 & 0.193 & 0.011&$-$1.3& 0.3 & Spec\
LHS3189 &d/sdM1 &3100 & 100 & $-$2.72 & 0.022 & 0.151 & 0.01&$-$0.57& 0.15 & Phot\
LHS3255 & dM4 &3100 & 100 & $-$2.177 & 0.009 & 0.283 & 0.018&$-$0.15& 0.15 & Phot\
LHS326 & esdM3 &3700 & 100 & $-$2.147 & 0.007 & 0.206 & 0.011&$-$1.18& 0.3 & Spec\
LHS3263 & esdM3 &3700 & 100 & $-$2.369 & 0.019 & 0.159 & 0.009&$-$1.22& 0.3 & Spec\
LHS3276 & esdK7 &3900 & 100 & $-$1.741 & 0.014 & 0.295 & 0.016&$-$1.18& 0.3& Spec\
LHS3382 & usdM3 &3400 & 100 & $-$2.472 & 0.013 & 0.167 & 0.01&$-$1.38& 0.3 & Spec\
LHS3390 & sdM5 &3300 & 100 & $-$2.708 & 0.014 & 0.135 & 0.008&$-$0.83& 0.3 & Spec\
LHS3409 & d/sdM4 &3200 & 100 & $-$2.635 & 0.019 & 0.157 & 0.01&$-$0.31& 0.12 & iSHELL Spec\
LHS3555 & usdM2 &3300 & 100 & $-$2.842 & 0.022 & 0.116 & 0.008&$-$1.78& 0.3 & Spec\
LHS360 & esdM0 &3700 & 100 & $-$1.96 & 0.013 & 0.255 & 0.014&$-$0.96& 0.3 & Spec\
LHS364 & usdM1 &3600 & 100 & $-$2.491 & 0.014 & 0.146 & 0.008&$-$1.54& 0.3 & Spec\
LHS375 & esdM4 &3400 & 100 & $-$2.697 & 0.01 & 0.129 & 0.008&$-$1.27& 0.3 & Spec\
LHS377 & sdM7 &3000 & 100 & $-$2.993 & 0.019 & 0.118 & 0.008&$-$0.41 & 0.3 & Spec\
LHS4028 & usdM4 & 3500 & 100 & $-$2.692 & 0.018 & 0.123 & 0.007&$-$1.64& 0.3 & Spec\
LHS42 & esdM0 &3800 & 100 & $-$1.756 & 0.008 & 0.306 & 0.016&$-$0.96& 0.12 & iSHELL Spec\
LHS453 & usdM4 &3300 & 100 & $-$2.799 & 0.026 & 0.122 & 0.008&$-$1.77& 0.3 & Spec\
LHS482 & sdM1 & 3600 & 100 & $-$1.929 & 0.026 & 0.279 & 0.018&$-$0.75& 0.12 & iSHELL Spec\
LHS489 & usdM0 &3600 & 100 & $-$2.299 & 0.017 & 0.182 & 0.011&$-$1.88& 0.3 & Spec\
LHS504 & d/sdM5 &3100 & 100 & $-$2.588 & 0.026 & 0.176 & 0.012&$-$0.18& 0.3 & Spec\
LHS515 & esdM5 &3400 & 100 & $-$2.8 & 0.014 & 0.115 & 0.007&$-$1.08& 0.3 & Spec\
LHS518 & sdK7 &3900 & 100 & $-$1.671 & 0.018 & 0.32 & 0.018&$-$0.79& 0.3 & Spec\
LHS522 & usdK7 &3900 & 100 & $-$2.027 & 0.127 & 0.212 & 0.033&$-$1.41& 0.3 & Spec\
LSRJ0020+5526 & sdM2 &3700 & 100 & $-$2.194 & 0.015 & 0.195 & 0.011&$-$0.7& 0.3 & Spec\
LSRJ0522+3814 & usdM3 &3500 & 100 & $-$2.655 & 0.01 & 0.128 & 0.007&$-$1.63& 0.3 & Spec\
LSRJ0621+1219 & usdM6 &3300 & 100 & $-$2.912 & 0.014 & 0.107 & 0.007&$-$1.65& 0.3 & Spec\
LSRJ0621+3652 & usdK7 &3700 & 100 & $-$2.091 & 0.008 & 0.219 & 0.012&$-$1.38& 0.3 & Spec\
LSRJ0705+0506 & sdM4 &3400 & 100 & $-$2.451 & 0.013 & 0.171 & 0.01&$-$0.64& 0.15 & Phot\
LSRJ1340+1902 & esdM4 &3300 & 100 & $-$2.698 & 0.016 & 0.137 & 0.009&$-$1.15& 0.3 & Spec\
LSRJ1956+4428 & usdM0 &3600 & 100 & $-$2.465 & 0.008 & 0.15 & 0.008&$-$1.56& 0.3 & Spec\
LSRJ2115+3804 & usdK7 &3700 & 100 & $-$2.174 & 0.007 & 0.199 & 0.011&$-$1.62& 0.3 & Spec\
LSRJ2122+3656 & esdM5 &3300 & 100 & $-$2.802 & 0.011 & 0.122 & 0.008&$-$1.34& 0.3 & Spec\
LSRJ2205+5353 & usdM1 &3600 & 100 & $-$2.384 & 0.009 & 0.165 & 0.009&$-$1.55& 0.3 & Spec\
NLTT3247 & dM4 & 3200 &100 & $-$2.475 & 0.026 & 0.188 & 0.013&$-$0.09& 0.15 & Phot\
Teegarden & dM6 & 2700 &100 & $-$3.137 & 0.001 & 0.123 & 0.009&$-$0.31& 0.08 & Lit$^{\ref{mann}}$\
WISE0238+3617 & usdM3 & 3300 &100 & $-$2.807 & 0.015 & 0.121 & 0.008&$-$1.56& 0.3 & Spec\
WISE0707+1705 & usdM2 & 3600 &100 & $-$2.57 & 0.012 & 0.133 & 0.008&$-$1.65& 0.3 & Spec\
{width="\linewidth"}
Color Relations
---------------
Broadband colors are readily available for a massive number of sources thanks to surveys such as Gaia and 2MASS. We therefore present Gaia and 2MASS color to radius and absolute magnitude relations for our sources. Figure \[f:ColorR\] shows different optical and IR color to radius relations. We find that $J-K$ is not well fit by a simple equation, but both Gaia $R - J$ and Gaia $R- B$ can be fit with equations relating these colors to the stellar radius. We chose a decreasing exponential equation to describe the data, which was physically motivated by the fact that the stellar radii cannot collapse to sizes smaller than $0.1 R_\mathrm{Sun}$ due to degeneracy pressure. We use the following exponential to describe the data:
$$R = A\ e^{ - [b(color) + c[Fe/H]]}
\label{e:colorR}$$
where the best fit constants for Gaia $R - J$ are 5.02, 2.04, and -1.06 and for Gaia $B - R$ are 4.0, 1.17, and $-$1.04 for $A$, $b$, and $c$, respectively. Even with a metallicity dependent relation we still find a scatter in the radius of $\sim20\%$.
We also fit color to metallicity relations for our sample. Like previous studies [e.g., @mann13; @newton14; @mann15] we find that $J - K_{s}$ gives the best fit for a single color to \[Fe/H\] relation, and find the following best-fit equation:
$$[Fe/H] = 4.22(J - K_{s}) - 3.86$$
where the 1-$\sigma$ scatter is 0.37 dex.
{width="\linewidth"}
Absolute Magnitude Relations
----------------------------
Previous studies have found that the scatter in radius relations due to metallicity can be reduced (or even eliminated) by using absolute infrared photometry versus radius relations [$M_{K_s} -$ Radius: e.g., @boyajian12; @mann15]. However, the spread in metallicity previously explored was only about 1.0 dex (from $+0.5$ to $-0.5$ dex). We calculate absolute K-band magnitudes for our whole sample and find that while there is significantly less scatter for radii determined using an $M_{K_s} -$ Radius relation, the relation is still metallicity dependent (see Figure \[f:MkRad\]). For our lowest metallicity stars ($[Fe/H] < -1.0$ dex), we measure radii that are on average 10% smaller than the radii that would be determined using the $M_{K} -$ Radius relation that does not include metallicity as a parameter [Equation 4: @mann15]. Equation 5 of @mann15 gives a relation that includes metallicity as a parameter:
$$R = (a - b M_{K_s} + c M_{K_s}^2) \times (1+ f[Fe/H])
\label{e:MkRad}$$
where they find best fit values of 1.9305, -0.3466, 0.01647, and 0.04458 for $a,b,c$, and $f$, respectively. We find that this relation fits our data better, but still overestimates the radii of our sample by an average of 5% for stars with metallicities below -0.5 dex. We use our data to determine new coefficients that are valid for \[Fe/H\] values down to -2.0 dex, and find values of $1.875\pm 0.05$, $-0.337\pm 0.01$, $0.0161 \pm 0.0009$, and $0.079 \pm 0.01$ for $a,b,c$, and $f$, respectively. The scatter in the residuals of our $M_{K_s} -$ Radius relation is 6% and is valid for $M_{K_s}$ values of 4 to 11 and metallicities from +0.5 dex to $-$2.0 dex.
The absolute $K_{s}$-band relation greatly reduces the uncertainty in the radius compared to the color$-$radius relation (Equation \[e:colorR\]) and so we recommend using it to get the more accurate radii whenever possible.
![Absolute $K_s$-band versus radius relation for our entire sample of stars. In black is the best fit relation from @mann15, which is valid for stars with $[Fe/H] > -0.6$ and does not include metallicity as a parameter. In blue, we plot the metallicity dependent relation, which has the form of Equation \[e:MkRad\], extrapolated past its tested metallicity limit ($-$0.6 dex) at a value of $-$1.0 dex. We find that while this better fits our data, it still over-predicts the radii of the lowest metallicity stars in our sample. In red, we plot our new metallicity dependent relation at a value of $-$1.0 dex.[]{data-label="f:MkRad"}](MkVsRad.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
Color Relations Relevant For *WFIRST* Microlensing
--------------------------------------------------
We have used the radii to derive relations for angular diameter versus color, which will be useful for *WFIRST*’s exoplanet microlensing survey (as discussed in Section \[s:intro\]). Figure \[f:angDiam\] shows the angular diameter of our sample at zero apparent magnitude in different filters ($\theta_{m = 0}$) versus color. $\theta_{m = 0}$ is proportional to surface brightness and is used in constraining exoplanet properties from microlensing events.
We also present similar relations using synthetic photometry for the proposed *WFIRST* filters (Figure \[f:angDiamWFIRST\]). The wide near-IR band (W149) ranges from approximately $1 - 2 \mu m$, and will be used to detect microlensing events. We test colors containing W149 and the six other proposed filters to see which color combination has the smallest change in angular diameter for a given color. We find that the $z$-band filter (Z087) reduces the uncertainty in the angular diameter the most, but there is still a clear metallicity trend present. The fractional uncertainty on the host and planet mass is equal to the fractional uncertainty in $\theta_{m = 0}$ ($\sigma_{\theta} / \theta$). We find that the fractional uncertainty in $\theta_{m = 0}$ is 5%, and for some of the cooler stars can be as high as 12%. For comparison, a fractional precision of $\sim 7\%$ is achievable with ground-based microlensing data sets for blue stars using optical filters, where the uncertainty is dominated by dereddening and not the angular diameter-color relations (see Section 4.3 of @gould15 and @gould14 for a detailed discussion).
{width="\linewidth"}
{width="\linewidth"}
The degeneracy between color and metallicity can be broken with the addition of a third filter, which can be used to estimate the metallicity of the source star and in turn obtain a more accurate estimate of the source star’s angular diameter. We test all the different filter combinations that contain either the W149 filter or the Z087 filter (see Figure \[f:WFIRSTmetal\]). The color combination that gives the smallest uncertainty in the metallicity (0.4 dex) is the K208 and W149 filters. This filter combination also shows a linear trend with metallicity throughout our metallicity range, but it only has a dynamic range of $\sim 0.15$ magnitudes. The Z087-F184 relation comparatively has a dynamic range of $\sim 0.75$ magnitudes, while still having a tight relation (uncertainty of 0.52 dex). If bulge stars below $-$1.0 dex are determined to be rare, we can use the Z087-F184 to get metallicities for stars above $\sim -$1.0 dex. However, if the probability of observing M subdwarfs of even lower metallicity (\[Fe/H\] $< -1.0$ dex) is determined to be substantial, the most linear relation, W149-K208, would provide the best discrimination across a wider range of \[Fe/H\]. K208 is not currently included in WFIRST’s filter wheel, but has been considered in the past, and may be included in the future. By adding in a third filter the scatter in the log of the angular diameter can be reduced to $3\%$ (from about $5\%$). We conclude that while adding a third filter will reduce our fractional uncertainty, without a third filter the results are still promising that we can obtain accurate angular diameters for the vast majority of targets.
{width="\linewidth"}
We remind the reader that this section makes use of synthetic photometry, generated using model atmospheres, which have been shown to have discrepancies in the M dwarf regime. While we believe all of the overall trends shown by the synthetic photometry, individual values may differ by small amounts. We also note that the filter profiles used here are not necessarily the ones that will end up on the *WFIRST* mission and so more testing will be required at a later stage in the mission planning.
Discussion
==========
Internal Consistency Check
--------------------------
We can perform a self-consistency check on our radius determinations by comparing the apparent flux levels in our spectrum to the flux of the best fitting model, scaled by the dilution factor $R^2/D^2$ to determine the apparent flux from the model at Earth. Plotted in Figure \[f:R2D2\] is an example of this consistency check. Any target where the observed flux calibrated (black) spectrum fell outside of the $R^2/D^2 \pm \sigma_{R^2/D^2}$ scaled model (transparent blue) was noted as being inconsistent.
We find that 9 out of our 88 spectra fall outside of the $1-\sigma$ errorbars: Gl 436, Gl 447, Gl 51, LHS 170, LHS 375, LHS 2843, LHS 2852, LHS 3189, LHS 3255, LHS 3555. These 9 targets are some of the most extreme outliers in Figure \[f:TeffVsRad\], which suggests that the true scatter in the $T_\mathrm{eff}-$Radius relation is actually smaller than what is shown in Figure \[f:TeffVsRad\]. We believe that the majority of this discrepancy is due to the uncertainty in $T_\mathrm{eff}$, and for the one source with previously determined parameters (Gl 436) this is the case; our $T_\mathrm{eff}$ estimate differs by $\sim$150 K from what @mann15 report and thus our radius estimate differs by 0.06 $R_\mathrm{Sun}$. However, we hypothesize that the radius discrepancy in a few of our sources is due to inaccurate metallicities, which leads to poor fits to the models. LHS 170 is the hottest star in our sample, and for that reason may not have an accurate metallicity estimate since the methods used for determining metallicity for our sample are only valid for spectral types later than $\sim$K7. LHS 2852 has differing spectroscopic and photometric metallicities even though it is in a part of parameter space where both methods should be valid, leading us to conclude that there is potentially something odd about its metallicity.
Because almost 90% of our sources pass our internal consistency check we are confident that the overall trends observed in our data are accurate. We can also conclude that our $1-\sigma$ errorbars do not seem to be underestimated, and if anything they are overestimated.
Variations in Chemical Abundances
---------------------------------
Many of our spectra have unusual spectral features that are not reproduced by the stellar atmosphere models, or have colors and spectroscopic metallicities that are at odds. Figure \[f:odd\] shows these spectra with the features in question labeled. 2MASS J0822+1700 contains prominent Rb I lines (first noted in @lepine04), which are not seen in any other spectra in our sample or in the models. Rb is a slow neutron capture (s-process) element formed during the AGB phase of stellar evolution, so these interesting objects could have formed near an AGB star and hence be polluted by an overabundance of Rb compared to \[Fe/H\]. This effect has been seen in warmer halo stars that exhibit enhancements in s-process elements [@beers05].
WISE 0238+3617 has a significantly broader Na doublet (labeled Na ‘D’ in Figure \[f:odd\]) than any of our other spectra, as well as a deeper Na I doublet ($\sim 8200$ Å), deeper K I lines, and weaker Ca II lines. @kirkpatrick16, who first published its spectrum, theorized that the broad Na doublet was indicative of an extremely low metallicity ($<-2.0$ dex). The extremely broad Na doublet could be indicative of an over-enhancement of Na. Na is produced during C burning in SN II, so this star could have environmental enhancement, but more information is needed to verify this claim.
LHS 1691 has weak absorption from the MgH band compared to other spectra of similar spectral type. Evidence for two populations of metal poor stars with different Mg abundances (low- and high-Mg groups) has been seen by many groups in the halo population [e.g., @hayes18]. We hypothesize that the weak MgH absorption in LHS 1691 suggests that this star is part of a low-Mg population. There are other stars in our sample with varying strengths in MgH for similar spectral types, which could be indicative of the spread in the \[Mg/Fe\] versus \[Fe/H\] measured by @hayes18 (see Figure 3 in @hayes18). Since Mg is an $\alpha$ element, publicly available models with varying $\alpha$ abundances for single \[Fe/H\] values would be useful to better model subdwarfs and estimate $\alpha$ abundances for different stars.
Some of our spectra also have spectroscopic features that are reminiscent of subdwarfs (very little TiO absorption), but near-IR colors that would point towards a dwarf star metallicity when the relation from @newton14 is applied. LHS 1691 is the most extreme of these cases, where spectroscopically it is classified as an ultra subdwarf ($-$1.8 dex), but the photometric metallicity relation estimates a metallicity of +0.3 dex. Other stars that exhibit this behavior but are not as extreme are: WISE 0238+3617, LHS 2843, LHS 3382, and LHS 104. We are unsure what causes this interesting effect and merely note it in this paper, to be further explored at a later time.
All of the above-mentioned unusual spectral features lead us to conclude that a single metallicity value with corresponding $\alpha$ abundance cannot always reproduce observe features, and that in reality the chemical composition of the stars in our sample is more complex.
Conclusions
===========
We find that for a given temperature, an ultra subdwarf can be smaller than a dwarf star by up to a factor of five, and that the @baraffe97 stellar evolution models are in agreement with our data, providing some of the first validation of these models for the lowest stellar temperatures and metallicities. We also present relations that can be used to convert direct observables, such as color and absolute K-band magnitude, to stellar radii for metallicities down to $-$2.0 dex with radius uncertainties of $\sim 20\%$ and 6%, respectively.
Finally, we present color to absolute angular diameter relations that will be useful for the *WFIRST* exoplanet microlensing survey. Many of the source stars observed by *WFIRST* will be in the bulge of the galaxy, where metallicities range from $-$3.0 dex to +1.0 dex, and so the stellar angular diameters as a function of metallicity will be a required input to extract accurate exoplanet masses. We find that along with the W149 filter, the Z087 filter gives the least amount of scatter in the derived angular diameter due to metallicity change. However, the angular diameter of the source star can still change by $10-15\%$ due to a change in metallicity of 2.0 dex. To break this degeneracy a third filter can be used to estimate the metallicity. We find that the W149 - K208 color combination gives a linear color to metallicity relation with the smallest uncertainties.
The authors would like to thank the entire NEOWISE and CatWISE team at IPAC, as well as Avani Gowardhan, Rebecca Larson, Savannah Jacklin, Chris Theissen, and Pat Tamburo for useful conversations throughout the paper process. Part of this work was performed while AYK was a Visiting Graduate Student Research Fellow at the Infrared Processing and Analysis Center (IPAC), California Institute of Technology.
This publication makes use of data products from the Two Micron All Sky Survey, which is a joint project of the University of Massachusetts and the Infrared Processing and Analysis Center/California Institute of Technology, funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Science Foundation.
This publication makes use of data products from the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer, which is a joint project of the University of California, Los Angeles, and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory/California Institute of Technology, funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
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.
SDSS-IV is managed by the Astrophysical Research Consortium for the Participating Institutions of the SDSS Collaboration including the Brazilian Participation Group, the Carnegie Institution for Science, Carnegie Mellon University, the Chilean Participation Group, the French Participation Group, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias, The Johns Hopkins University, Kavli Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe (IPMU) / University of Tokyo, the Korean Participation Group, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Leibniz Institut für Astrophysik Potsdam (AIP), Max-Planck-Institut für Astronomie (MPIA Heidelberg), Max-Planck-Institut für Astrophysik (MPA Garching), Max-Planck-Institut für Extraterrestrische Physik (MPE), National Astronomical Observatories of China, New Mexico State University, New York University, University of Notre Dame, Observatário Nacional / MCTI, The Ohio State University, Pennsylvania State University, Shanghai Astronomical Observatory, United Kingdom Participation Group, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, University of Arizona, University of Colorado Boulder, University of Oxford, University of Portsmouth, University of Utah, University of Virginia, University of Washington, University of Wisconsin, Vanderbilt University, and Yale University.
The Pan-STARRS1 Surveys (PS1) and the PS1 public science archive have been made possible through contributions by the Institute for Astronomy, the University of Hawaii, the Pan-STARRS Project Office, the Max-Planck Society and its participating institutes, the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy, Heidelberg and the Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics, Garching, The Johns Hopkins University, Durham University, the University of Edinburgh, the Queen’s University Belfast, the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, the Las Cumbres Observatory Global Telescope Network Incorporated, the National Central University of Taiwan, the Space Telescope Science Institute, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration under Grant No. NNX08AR22G issued through the Planetary Science Division of the NASA Science Mission Directorate, the National Science Foundation Grant No. AST-1238877, the University of Maryland, Eotvos Lorand University (ELTE), the Los Alamos National Laboratory, and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.
This work made use of data from the European Space Agency (ESA) mission [*Gaia*]{} (<https://www.cosmos.esa.int/gaia>), processed by the [*Gaia*]{} Data Processing and Analysis Consortium (DPAC, <https://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/gaia/dpac/consortium>). Funding for the DPAC has been provided by national institutions, in particular the institutions participating in the [*Gaia*]{} Multilateral Agreement.
This research has made use of the SVO Filter Profile Service (http://svo2.cab.inta-csic.es/theory/fps/) supported from the Spanish MINECO through grant AyA2014-55216. This research has benefitted from the SpeX Prism Library (and/or SpeX Prism Library Analysis Toolkit), maintained by Adam Burgasser at http://www.browndwarfs.org/spexprism. This research made use of Astropy, a community developed core Python package for Astronomy [@astropy13]. This research has made use of the SIMBAD database, operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France.
Alam, S., Albareti, F. D., Allende Prieto, C., et al. 2015, , 219, 12
Allard, F., Homeier, D., & Freytag, B. 2012, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 370, 2765
Andrae, R., Fouesneau, M., Creevey, O., et al. 2018, , 616, A8
Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33
Bailer-Jones, C. A. L., Rybizki, J., Fouesneau, M., Mantelet, G., & Andrae, R. 2018, , 156, 58
Baraffe, I., Chabrier, G., Allard, F., & Hauschildt, P. H. 1997, , 327, 1054
Beers, T. C., & Christlieb, N. 2005, , 43, 531
Boyajian, T. S., von Braun, K., van Belle, G., et al. 2012, , 757, 112
Burgasser, A. J., Kirkpatrick, J. D., Burrows, A., et al. 2003, , 592, 1186
Burgasser, A. J. 2014, Astronomical Society of India Conference Series, 11,
Burrows, A., Hubbard, W. B., Saumon, D., & Lunine, J. I. 1993, , 406, 158
Caffau, E., Ludwig, H.-G., Steffen, M., Freytag, B., & Bonifacio, P. 2011, , 268, 255
Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, arXiv:1612.05560
Cushing, M. C., Vacca, W. D., & Rayner, J. T. 2004, , 116, 362
Cushing, M. C., & Vacca, W. D. 2006, , 131, 1797
Cushing, M. C., Marley, M. S., Saumon, D., et al. 2008, , 678, 1372-1395
D[é]{}k[á]{}ny, I., Minniti, D., Catelan, M., et al. 2013, , 776, L19
Dhital, S., West, A. A., Stassun, K. G., et al. 2012, , 143, 67
Evans, D. W., Riello, M., De Angeli, F., et al. 2018, arXiv:1804.09368
Filippazzo, J. C., Rice, E. L., Faherty, J., et al. 2015, , 810, 158
Fukugita, M., Ichikawa, T., Gunn, J. E., et al. 1996, , 111, 1748
Fulton, B. J., Petigura, E. A., Howard, A. W., et al. 2017, , 154, 109
Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, , 595, A1
Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2018, arXiv:1804.09365
Gaidos, E., Mann, A. W., L[é]{}pine, S., et al. 2014, , 443, 2561
Gaudi, B. S. 2012, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 50, 411.
Gizis, J. E. 1997, , 113, 806
Gran, F., Minniti, D., Saito, R. K., et al. 2016, , 591, A145
Gonzales, E. C., Faherty, J. K., Gagn[é]{}, J., Artigau, [É]{}., & Bardalez Gagliuffi, D. 2018, arXiv:1807.04794
Gould, A. 1994, , 421, L71.
Gould, A. 2014, Journal of Korean Astronomical Society, 47, 153
Gould, A., Huber, D., Penny, M., & Stello, D. 2015, Journal of Korean Astronomical Society, 48, 93
Hayes, C. R., Majewski, S. R., Shetrone, M., et al. 2018, , 852, 49
Holberg, J. B., & Bergeron, P. 2006, , 132, 1221
Jao, W.-C., Henry, T. J., Beaulieu, T. D., & Subasavage, J. P. 2008, , 136, 840
Kervella, P. & Fouqu[é]{}, P. 2008, , 491, 855.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., Kellogg, K., Schneider, A. C., et al. 2016, , 224, 36
L[é]{}pine, S., Rich, R. M., & Shara, M. M. 2003, , 125, 1598
L[é]{}pine, S., Shara, M. M. & Rich, R. M. 2004, , 602, L125.
L[é]{}pine, S., Rich, R. M., & Shara, M. M. 2007, , 669, 1235
Mann, A. W., Gaidos, E., & Ansdell, M. 2013, , 779, 188
Mann, A. W., Feiden, G. A., Gaidos, E., Boyajian, T., & von Braun, K. 2015, , 804, 64
Nemiroff, R. J. & Wickramasinghe, W. A. D. T. 1994, , 424, L21.
Ness, M., & Freeman, K. 2016, , 33, e022
Newton, E. R., Charbonneau, D., Irwin, J., et al. 2014, , 147, 20
Oke, J. B., & Gunn, J. E. 1982, , 94, 586
Oke, J. B., & Gunn, J. E. 1983, , 266, 713
Penny, M. T., Gaudi, B. S., Kerins, E., et al. 2018, arXiv:1808.02490
Rajpurohit, A. S., Reyl[é]{}, C., Allard, F., et al. 2014, , 564, A90
Rajpurohit, A. S., Reyl[é]{}, C., Allard, F., et al. 2016, , 596, A33
Rayner, J., Bond, T., Bonnet, M., et al. 2012, , 8446, 84462C
Reyl[é]{}, C., Rajpurohit, A. S., Schultheis, M., & Allard, F. 2011, 16th Cambridge Workshop on Cool Stars, Stellar Systems, and the Sun, 448, 929
Rodrigo, C., Solano, E., Bayo, A., & Rodrigo, C. 2012, IVOA Working Draft 15 October 2012,
Rojas-Ayala, B., Covey, K. R., Muirhead, P. S., & Lloyd, J. P. 2010, , 720, L113
Rojas-Ayala, B., Covey, K. R., Muirhead, P. S., & Lloyd, J. P. 2012, , 748, 93
Sandage, A. R., & Eggen, O. J. 1959, , 119, 278
Schlafly, E. F., & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, , 737, 103
Schmidt, S. J., Wagoner, E. L., Johnson, J. A., et al. 2016, , 460, 2611
Skrutskie, M. F., Cutri, R. M., Stiening, R., et al. 2006, , 131, 1163
Terrien, R. C., Mahadevan, S., Bender, C. F., et al. 2012, , 747, L38
Vacca, W. D., Cushing, M. C., & Rayner, J. T. 2003, , 115, 389
Witt, H. J. & Mao, S. 1994, , 430, 505.
West, A. A., Weisenburger, K. L., Irwin, J., et al. 2015, , 812, 3
Wright, E. L., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Mainzer, A. K., et al. 2010, , 140, 1868-1881
Woolf, V. M., L[é]{}pine, S., & Wallerstein, G. 2009, , 121, 117
Yoo, J., DePoy, D. L., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2004, , 603, 139.
Zhang, Z. H., Pinfield, D. J., G[á]{}lvez-Ortiz, M. C., et al. 2017, , 464, 3040
Zhang, Z. H., G[á]{}lvez-Ortiz, M. C., Pinfield, D. J., et al. 2018, ,
Zhu, W., Penny, M., Mao, S., et al. 2014, , 788, 73.
[^1]: This is a wide filter extending from 0.927 to 2.000 $\mu$m. See the list of [*WFIRST*]{} telescope and instrument parameters at <http://wfirst.ipac.caltech.edu>
[^2]: <http://irtfweb.ifa.hawaii.edu/research/dr_resources/>
[^3]: <https://phoenix.ens-lyon.fr/Grids/BT-Settl/CIFIST2011/>
[^4]: <http://irsa.ipac.caltech.edu/frontpage/>
[^5]: <https://www.ipac.caltech.edu/2mass/releases/allsky/doc/sec6_4a.html>
[^6]: <http://wise2.ipac.caltech.edu/docs/release/allsky/expsup/sec4_4h.html>
[^7]: <http://svo2.cab.inta-csic.es/svo/theory/fps/index.php?mode=browse>
[^8]: <http://www.sdss.org/dr12/algorithms/magnitudes/>
[^9]: <http://pono.ucsd.edu/~adam/browndwarfs/spexprism/>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'E. M. N. de Guzmán[^1]'
- 'A. Hefez[^2]'
date:
title: On value sets of fractional ideals
---
[**Abstract**]{} The aim of this work is to study duality of fractional ideals with respect to a fixed ideal and to investigate the relationship between value sets of pairs of dual ideals in admissible rings, a class of rings that contains the local rings of algebraic curves at singular points. We characterize canonical ideals by means of a symmetry relation between lengths of certain quotients of associated ideals to a pair of dual ideals. In particular, we extend the symmetry among absolute and relative maximals in the sets of values of pairs of dual fractional ideals to other kinds of maximal points. Our results generalize and complement previous ones by other authors.
Keywords: Singular points of curves, admissible rings, duality of fractional ideals, value sets of fractional ideals.
Mathematics Subject Classification: 13H10, 14H20
Introduction
============
Value sets or semigroups of rings of irreducible plane curves germs, called plane branches, were studied by Zariski in [@Za1] and their importance is due to the fact that they constitute, over $\mathbb C$, a complete set of discrete invariants for their topological classification. From the work of Apéry [@Ap], it follows that this semigroup in the set ${\mathbb N}$ of natural numbers is in some sense symmetric. Many years later, Kunz, in [@Ku], motivated by a question asked by Zariski, showed that a one dimensional noetherian domain, with some additional technical conditions, is Gorenstein if and only if its semigroup of values is symmetric.
For a germ of a singular plane curve with several branches over $\mathbb C$, Waldi in [@W], based on the work [@Za1] of Zariski, showed that also in this case the topological type of the germ is characterized by the semigroup of values of the local ring of the curve, this time, a semigroup of ${\mathbb N}^r$, where $r$ is the number of branches of the curve. Although not finitely generated, this semigroup was shown by Garcia in [@Ga], for $r=2$, to be determined in a combinatorial way by a finite set of points that he called *maximal points*. Garcia also showed that these maximal points of the semigroup of a plane curve have a certain symmetry. These results were generalized later, for any value of $r$, by Delgado in [@D87], where two kinds of maximal points were emphasized: the relative and absolute maximals, showing that the relative maximals determine the semigroup of values in an inductive and combinatorial way and that the relative and absolute maximals determine each other, extending Garcia’s symmetry. A short time later, Delgado, in [@D88], generalizing the work of Kunz, introduced a concept of symmetry for value semigroups in ${\mathbb N}^r$ and showed that this symmetry is equivalent to the Gorensteiness of the ring of the curve.
In [@Da], D’Anna, generalizing the work of Jäger, in [@ja], and of Campillo, Delgado and Kiyek, in [@CDK], extended the properties of value semigroups for some class of one dimensional noetherian rings to value sets of their regular fractional ideals and characterized a normalized canonical ideals of a given ring in terms of a precisely described value set obtained from the value semigroup of the ring.
Also, recently, Pol, in the work [@Pol17], extended Delgado’s result by showing that the Gorensteiness of the ring of a singularity is equivalent to some symmetry relation among sets of values of any dual pair of regular fractional ideal, duality taken with respect to the ring itself, and also showed that in this case one has a pairing between absolute and relative maximal points of the value set of an ideal and that of its dual. In the work [@KST] (see also [@Pol18]), the authors show that this symmetry relation among value sets of dual pairs of ideals holds without any extra assumption on the ring, if one takes duality with respect to a canonical ideal.
In this paper, we generalize the work [@CDK] that characterizes the Gorensteiness of an admissible ring in terms of lengths of certain quotients of complementary ideals by establishing similar conditions, valid without the Gorenstein assumption, for pairs of dual regular fractional ideals with respect to any fixed fractional ideal. This will allow us to unify, generalize and complement previous results in [@Pol17], [@Pol18] and [@KST] and get new symmetry relations among other types of maximal points, other than absolute and relative maximal points, in value sets of pairs of dual fractional ideals.
Admissible rings, fractional ideals and value sets
==================================================
Following [@KST Definition 3.5], a noetherian, Cohen-Macauley, one dimensional local ring $(R,\mathfrak M)$ is called *admissible*, if it is analytically reduced, residually rational and $\# R/\mathfrak M \geq r$, where $r$ is the number of valuation rings over $R$ of the total ring of fractions $Q$ of $R$. In this context, all valuation rings are discrete valuation rings (cf. [@KST Theorem 3.1]).
This class of rings, without any special given name, was previously considered in [@CDK] and in [@Da], generalizing the important family of local coordinate rings of reduced curves at a singular point.
Throughout this work we will assume that $R$ is an admissible ring. We denote by ${\mathbb Z}$ the set of integer and by $I$ the set $\{1,\ldots,r\}$. If $v_1,\ldots,v_r$ are the valuations associated to the discrete valuation rings of $Q$ over $R$, then we have a value map $v\colon Q^{reg} \to {\mathbb Z}^r$, where $Q^{reg}$ is the set of regular elements of $Q$, defined by $h\mapsto v(h)=(v_1(h),\ldots,v_r(h))$ (cf. [@KST Definition 3.2]). We will consider on ${\mathbb Z}^r$ the natural partial order $\leq$ induced by the order of ${\mathbb Z}$.
An $R$-submodule $\mathcal I$ of $Q$ will be called a *fractional ideal* if there is a regular element $d$ in $R$ such that $d\,\mathcal I \subset R$. The ideal ${\mathcal{I}}$ will be said a *regular fractional ideal*, if it contains a regular element of $Q$.
Examples of regular fractional ideals of $R$ are $R$ itself, the integral closure $\widetilde{R}$ of $R$ in $Q$, any ideal of $R$ or of $\widetilde{R}$ that contains a regular element and the ideals of the form $${\mathcal{J}}\colon {\mathcal{I}}=\{x\in Q; \ x{\mathcal{I}}\subset {\mathcal{J}}\},$$ where $\mathcal I$ and $\mathcal J$ are regular fractional ideals. In particular, the conductor $\mathcal C=R\colon \widetilde{R}$, which is the largest common ideal of $R$ and $\widetilde{R}$, is a regular fractional ideal. Notice that ${\mathcal{J}}\colon R=R$ for all fractional ideal ${\mathcal{J}}$.
In the class of admissible rings one has that there is a natural isomorphism $\mathcal J \colon \mathcal I \simeq Hom_R(\mathcal I,\mathcal J)$ (cf. [@KST Lemma 2.4]), for any fractional ideals ${\mathcal{I}}$ and ${\mathcal{J}}$. It is always true that ${\mathcal{I}}\subseteq {\mathcal{J}}\colon({\mathcal{J}}\colon {\mathcal{I}})$. The fractional ideal ${\mathcal{J}}$ is called a *canonical ideal* if the last inclusion is an equality for every fractional ideal ${\mathcal{I}}$. In our context, canonical ideals exist (cf. [@Da] or [@KST]); two canonical ideals differ up to a multiplication by a unit in $Q$ and a multiple by such a unit of a canonical ideal is also a canonical ideal. The ring $R$ will be called *Gorenstein* if $R$ itself is a canonical ideal.
We define the *value set* of a regular fractional ideal ${\mathcal{I}}$ of $R$ as being $$E({\mathcal{I}})=v(\mathcal I^{reg})\subset {\mathbb Z}^r.$$
The value set $E(R)$ of $R$ is a subsemigroup of ${\mathbb N}^r$, called the *semigroup of values* of $R$. The value set $E(\mathcal I)$ of a fractional ideal $\mathcal I$ is not necessarily closed under addition, but it is such that $E(R)+E(\mathcal I)\subset E(\mathcal I)$. For this reason $E({\mathcal{I}})$ is called a *semigroup ideal* of the semigroup $E(R)$. More generally, one has $$\label{$E+E^*$}
E({\mathcal{I}})+E({\mathcal{J}}\colon {\mathcal{I}})\subset E({\mathcal{J}}).$$
A value set $E$ of a regular fractional ideal has the following fundamental properties (cf. [@KST Proposition 3.9]):
$E_0$: There are $\alpha\in {\mathbb Z}^r$ and $\beta \in {\mathbb N}^r$ such that $\beta+{\mathbb N}^r\subset E \subset \alpha+{\mathbb N}^r$;
$E_1$: If $\alpha=(\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_r)$ and $\beta=(\beta_1,\ldots,\beta_r)$ belong to $E$, then $$\min(\alpha,\beta)=(\min(\alpha_1,\beta_1),\ldots,\min(\alpha_r,\beta_r))\in E;$$ $E_3$: If $\alpha=(\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_r), \beta=(\beta_1,\ldots,\beta_r)$ belong to $E$, $\alpha\neq\beta$ and $\alpha_i=\beta_i$ for some $i\in\{1,\ldots,r\}$, then there exists $\gamma\in E$ such that $\gamma_i>\alpha_i=\beta_i$ and $\gamma_j\geq min\{\alpha_j,\beta_j\}$ for each $j\neq i$, with equality holding if $\alpha_j\neq\beta_j$.
Given a semigroup $S$ of ${\mathbb Z}^r$ and a subset $E$ of ${\mathbb Z}^r$, with $S+E\subset E$ and such that $S$ and $E$ have the above properties $E_0$, $E_1$ and $E_2$, then we call $S$ a *good semigroup* and $E$ a *good semigroup ideal* of $S$.
So, if $S=E(R)$ and $E=E({\mathcal{I}})$, where ${\mathcal{I}}$ is a regular fractional ideal, then $E$ a good semigroup ideal of $S$.
For a good semigroup ideal $E$, combining Properties $E_0$ and $E_1$, it follows that there exists a unique $m=m_E=\min(E)$.
On the other side, one has that if $\beta, \beta'\in E$ are such that $\beta +{\mathbb N}^r \subset E$ and $\beta' +{\mathbb N}^r \subset E$, then $\min(\beta,\beta') +{\mathbb N}^r \subset E$. This guarantees that there is a unique least element $\gamma\in E$ with the property that $\gamma+{\mathbb N}^r \subset E$. This element is called the *conductor* of $E$ and denoted by $c(E)$. In particular, when $E=E(\mathcal I)$ for a fractional ideal ${\mathcal{I}}$, then we write $c({\mathcal{I}})$ for $c(E)$. For a good semigroup ideal $E$, we will use the following notation: $${\mathfrak f}(E) =c(E)-e, \quad \text{where} \ e=(1,\ldots,1),$$ which is called the *Frobenius vector* of $E$. For $J\subset I$, we define $e_J$ the vector such that $pr_{\{i\}}(e_J)=1$ if $i\in J$ and $pr_{\{i\}}(e_J)=0$ if $i\not\in J$ and define $e_i=e_{\{i\}}$. If $E=E({\mathcal{I}})$, we write ${\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{I}})$ intead of ${\mathfrak f}(E)$.
Since completion and value sets of fractional ideals are compatible (cf. [@Da §1] or [@KST Theorem 3.19]), we may assume that $R$ is complete with respect to the $\mathfrak M$-adic topology. In this case, the number $r$ of discrete valuation rings of $Q$ over $R$ coincides with the number of minimal primes of $R$.
A fundamental notion in our context, which we define below, is that of a *fiber* of an element $\alpha=(\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_r)\in E \subset {\mathbb Z}^r$ with respect to a subset $J=\{j_1<\cdots <j_s\}\subset I$. We define $pr_J(\alpha)=(\alpha_{j_1},\ldots,\alpha_{j_s})$.
Given $E\subset {\mathbb Z}^r$, $\alpha\in\mathbb{Z}^r$ and $\emptyset \neq J\subset I$, we define: $$\begin{array}{lcl}
F_J(E,\alpha)&=&\{\beta\in E;\; pr_J(\beta)=pr_J(\alpha) \ \text{and} \ \beta_i > \alpha_i, \forall i\in I\setminus J\}, \\
\overline{F}_J(E,\alpha)&=&\{\beta\in E;\; pr_J(\beta)=pr_J(\alpha), \ \text{and} \ \beta_i \geq \alpha_i, \forall i\in I\setminus J\}, \\
F(E,\alpha)&=& \bigcup_{i=1}^rF_i(E,\alpha), \quad \text{where} \ F_i(E,\alpha)=F_{\{i\}}(E,\alpha).
\end{array}$$
The last set, above, will be called the *fiber* of $\alpha$. Notice that $F_I(E,\alpha)=\{\alpha\}$, if and only if $\alpha\in E$, otherwise $F_I(E,\alpha)=\emptyset$.
The importance of this notion may be seen, for example, by the following result (cf. [@Da]): Up to a multiplicative unit in $\widetilde{R}$, there is a unique canonical ideal $\omega^0$ such that $R\subset \omega^0 \subset\widetilde{R}$ and $E(\omega^0)=E^0$, where $$\label{valuecanonical0}
E^0=\{\alpha \in {\mathbb Z}^r; \ F(E(R),{\mathfrak f}(R)-\alpha)=\emptyset\}.$$ Notice that ${\mathfrak f}(\omega^0)={\mathfrak f}(R)$ (cf. [@KST Lemma 5.10]).
Since any canonical ideal $\omega$ of $R$ is a multiple of $\omega^0$ by a unit $u$ in $Q$, then $E(\omega)$ is a translation of $E(\omega^0)$ by $v(u)={\mathfrak f}(\omega)-{\mathfrak f}(R)$. This leeds to the following: $$E(\omega)=\{\alpha \in {\mathbb Z}^r; \ F(E(R),{\mathfrak f}(\omega)-\alpha)=\emptyset\}.$$
A property related to the fibers of the frobenius of a good semigroup ideal $E$ is that (cf. [@KST Lemma 4.1.10 ]): $$\label{frobfiber}
F(E,{\mathfrak f}(E))=\emptyset.$$
We will use later the following remark that follows readily from the definitions of fibers.
\[fibrafechada\] If $E\subset {\mathbb Z}^r$, $\alpha\in {\mathbb Z}^r$, $J\subset I$ and $J^c=I\setminus J$, then one has $$F_J(E,\alpha)= \bigcap_{i\in J} \overline{F}_i(E,\alpha+e_{J^c})$$ In particular, for $J=\{i\}$ one has that $$F_i(E,\alpha)=\overline{F}_i(E,\alpha+e-e_i).$$
Another fundamental notion is that of maximal points of good semigroup ideals.
Let $E\subset {\mathbb Z}^r$ and $\alpha\in E$. We will say that $\alpha$ is a *maximal* point of $E$ if $F(E,\alpha)=\emptyset$.
This means that there is no element in $E$ with one coordinate equal to the corresponding coordinate of $\alpha$ and the other ones bigger.
When $E$ is a good semigroup ideal, since it has a minimum $m_E$ and a conductor $\gamma=c(E)$, one has immediately that all maximal elements of $E$ are in the limited region $$\{(x_1,\ldots,x_r)\in {\mathbb Z}^r; \ m_{E}\leq x_i < \gamma_i, \ \ i=1,\ldots,r\}.$$
This implies that $E$ has finitely many maximal points.
Next, we will describe some special types of maximal points that may occur in a good semigroup ideal $E$. For $\alpha\in E$, let $$\begin{array}{l} p(E,\alpha)=\max\{n; F_J(E,\alpha)=\emptyset,\forall J\subset I,\#J\leq n\}, \ \text{and}\\ \\
q(E,\alpha)=\min\{n; F_J(E,\alpha)\neq\emptyset,\forall J\subset I,\#J\geq n\}.
\end{array}$$
Notice that $p(E,\alpha)<q(E,\alpha)$, and that $\alpha\in E$ if and only if $q(E,\alpha) \leq r$. Also, $\alpha\in E$ is a maximal point of $E$ if, and only if, $p(E,\alpha) \geq 1$.
Let $\alpha$ be a maximal point of $E$. We will call $\alpha$ an *absolute maximal*, if $F_J(E,\alpha)=\emptyset$ for every $J\subset I$, $J\neq I$; that is, if and only if $p(E,\alpha)=r-1$. We will call $\alpha$ a *relative maximal*, if $F_J(E,\alpha)\neq\emptyset$, for every $J\subset I$ with $\#J\geq2$; that is, $p(E,\alpha)=1$ and $q(E,\alpha)=2$. If $p=p(E,\alpha)\geq 1$ and $q=q(E,\alpha)\leq r$, we call $\alpha$ a *maximal of type* $(p,q)$.
Delgado in [@D87 Theorem 1.5] showed that $E(R)$ is determined recursively, in a combinatorial sense, by its set of relative maximals. With essentially the same proof, one may show the same for any good semigroup ideal $E$.
Symmetry
========
The central results in this section will be several generalizations of results in [@D88], [@CDK], [@Pol17], [@Pol18] and [@KST], which establish some symmetry among $E({\mathcal{J}}\colon {\mathcal{I}})$ and $E({\mathcal{I}})$ mediated by $E({\mathcal{J}})$ and among their maximal points.
\[fibra\] Let ${\mathcal{I}}$ and ${\mathcal{J}}$ be any fractional ideals of $R$, then one has $$E({\mathcal{J}}:{\mathcal{I}}) \subseteq \{\beta\in\mathbb{Z}^r; F(E({\mathcal{I}}),{\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}})-\beta)=\emptyset\}.$$
[[**Proof **]{}]{}Let $\beta\in E({\mathcal{J}}:{\mathcal{I}})$ and suppose that $F(E({\mathcal{I}}),{\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}})-\beta)\neq\emptyset$. Then there exist $i\in I$ and $\alpha\in E({\mathcal{I}})$ such that $\alpha_i={\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}})_i-\beta_i$ and $\alpha_j>{\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}})_j-\beta_j$, for $j\neq i$, $j\in I$. From this it follows that $\alpha_i+\beta_i={\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}})_i$ and $\alpha_j+\beta_j>{\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}})_j$, for all $i\neq j$ and since from (\[$E+E^*$\]) we know that $\alpha+\beta\in E({\mathcal{J}})$, we get that $\alpha+\beta\in F_i(E({\mathcal{J}}),{\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}}))$, which is a contradiction, because from (\[frobfiber\]) we know that $F(E({\mathcal{J}}),{\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}}))=\emptyset$. [[$\rule{2mm}{2mm}$]{}]{}
\[J:I\] Let ${\mathcal{I}}$ and ${\mathcal{J}}$ be fractional regular ideals of $R$. The following are equivalent:
1. ${\mathcal{J}}$ is a canonical ideal;
2. $E({\mathcal{J}}\colon{\mathcal{I}})=\{\beta\in{\mathbb Z}^r; F(E({\mathcal{I}}),{\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}})-\beta)=\emptyset\}$, for all ${\mathcal{I}}$.
[[**Proof **]{}]{}i) $\Rightarrow$ ii) Since ${\mathcal{J}}$ is a canonical ideal, from [@KST Proposition 5.18] we know that $E({\mathcal{J}})=\alpha_0+E(\omega^0)$, where $\alpha_0= {\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}})-{\mathfrak f}(\omega^0)\in{\mathbb Z}^r$. From [@KST Theorem 5.27], for any fractional ideal ${\mathcal{I}}$, we have $$\begin{array}{lcl}
E({\mathcal{J}}\colon{\mathcal{I}})&=&E({\mathcal{J}})-E({\mathcal{I}})\\
&=&(\alpha_0+E(\omega^{0}))-E({\mathcal{I}}) \\
&=& \alpha_0+(E(\omega^{0})-E({\mathcal{I}})) \\
&=&\alpha_0+\{\beta\in{\mathbb Z}^r, F(E({\mathcal{I}}),{\mathfrak f}(\omega^{0})-\beta)=\emptyset\}\\
&=&\{\beta\in{\mathbb Z}^r;F(E({\mathcal{I}}),{\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}})-\beta)=\emptyset\},
\end{array}$$ where the fourth equality follows from [@KST Lemma 5.16].
ii\) $\Rightarrow$ i) Suppose that $E({\mathcal{J}}\colon{\mathcal{I}})=\{\beta\in{\mathbb Z}^r; F(E({\mathcal{I}}),{\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}})-\beta)=\emptyset\}$, for all fractional ideal ${\mathcal{I}}$. In particular, for ${\mathcal{I}}=R$ we have that $$\label{E(J)}
E({\mathcal{J}})=E({\mathcal{J}}\colon R)=\{\beta\in{\mathbb Z}^r; F(E(R),{\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}})-\beta)=\emptyset\}.$$
We will show that $E({\mathcal{J}})=\alpha+E(\omega^{0})$, for $\alpha= {\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}})-{\mathfrak f}(\omega^{0})$, which will imply, by [@KST Proposition 5.18 and Theorem 5.25.], that ${\mathcal{J}}$ is a canonical ideal.
Let $\beta\in E(\omega^{0})$, from (\[valuecanonical0\]), we get $$F(E(R),{\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}})-(\alpha+\beta))= F(E(R),{\mathfrak f}(\omega^{0})-\beta)=\emptyset.
$$ Hence, from (\[E(J)\]), $\alpha+\beta \in E({\mathcal{J}})$, which yields $\alpha + E(\omega^{0})\subset E({\mathcal{J}})$.
Let now $\beta\in E({\mathcal{J}})$ and write $\beta=\alpha+\beta'$, with $\beta'\in{\mathbb Z}^r$. Since $\beta\in E({\mathcal{J}})$, we have $$\emptyset= F(E(R),{\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}})- \beta)= F(E(R),{\mathfrak f}(\omega^{0})-\beta'),
$$ hence, from (\[valuecanonical0\]), $\beta'\in E(\omega^{0})$; and therefore $E({\mathcal{J}})\subset \alpha+E(\omega^{0})$, concluding the proof of our result.[[$\rule{2mm}{2mm}$]{}]{}
As mentioned in the proof of the above theorem, the implication (i) $\Rightarrow$ (ii) was proved in the particular case in which ${\mathcal{J}}=\omega^0$ in [@KST Lemma 5.16 and Theorem 5.27] (see also [@Pol18 Theorem 2.15]), while the converse is new.
This leeds to the following result:
\[gor\] The following are equivalent:
1. $E(R\colon {\mathcal{I}})= \{ \beta\in {\mathbb Z}^r; \, F(E({\mathcal{I}}),{\mathfrak f}(R)-\beta)=\emptyset\}$, for all fractional ideal ${\mathcal{I}}$;
2. $R$ is Gorenstein.
[[**Proof **]{}]{}If one has equality for all fractional ideal ${\mathcal{I}}$, then for ${\mathcal{I}}=R$ one has that $$E(R)=E(R\colon R)=\{ \beta\in {\mathbb Z}^r; \, F(E(R),{\mathfrak f}(R)-\beta)=\emptyset\},$$ which says that $E(R)$ is symmetric, hence $R$ is Gorenstein (cf. [@KST Proposition 5.29]). Conversely, if $R$ is Gorenstein, then $R=\omega^0$ is a canonical ideal, and the result follows from Theorem \[J:I\]. [[$\rule{2mm}{2mm}$]{}]{}
For $\alpha\in {\mathbb Z}^r$ and ${\mathcal{I}}$ a fractional ideal of $R$, we define $${\mathcal{I}}(\alpha)=\{h\in {\mathcal{I}}^{reg}; \ v(h)\geq \alpha\}.$$
We denote by $\ell(M)$ the length of an $R$-module $M$. We have the following result.
\[lema\] If $\alpha\in\mathbb{Z}^r$, then we have $$\ell \left(\dfrac{{\mathcal{I}}(\alpha)}{{\mathcal{I}}(\alpha+e_i)}\right)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1, & \ if \ \overline{F}_i(E({\mathcal{I}}),\alpha)\neq \emptyset, \\ \\
0, & \ \text{otherwise},
\end{array}
\right.$$
The following theorem generalizes [@CDK Theorem 3.6].
\[l\_E\] Let ${\mathcal{J}}$ and ${\mathcal{I}}$ be fractional ideals of $R$ and let $\alpha,\beta\in\mathbb{Z}^r$, with $\alpha+\beta=c({\mathcal{J}})$. Then $$\label{leq1}
\ell\left(\frac{{\mathcal{I}}(\alpha)}{{\mathcal{I}}(\alpha+e_i)}\right)+\ell\left(\frac{({\mathcal{J}}\colon {\mathcal{I}})(\beta-e_i)}{({\mathcal{J}}\colon {\mathcal{I}})(\beta)}\right)\leq1, \ \ \text{for every} \ i\in I ,$$ with equality holding for every $\alpha,\beta$ such that $\alpha+\beta=c({\mathcal{J}})$ and for every fractional ideal ${\mathcal{I}}$ if and only if ${\mathcal{J}}$ is a canonical ideal.
[[**Proof **]{}]{}Since by Lemma \[lema\] each summand in (\[leq1\]) is less than or equal to $1$, it is sufficient to show that they are not both equal to $1$.
Suppose by reductio ad absurdum that both summands in (\[leq1\]) are equal to $1$. From Lemma \[lema\], it follows that $\overline{F}_i(E({\mathcal{I}}),\alpha)\neq\emptyset$ and $\overline{F}_i(E({\mathcal{J}}:{\mathcal{I}}),\beta-e_i)\neq \emptyset$. Take $\theta$ in the first of the above two sets and $\theta'$ in the second one, then according to (\[$E+E^*$\]) we have $\theta+\theta'\in E({\mathcal{J}})$; even more, we have that $\theta+\theta'\in F_i(E({\mathcal{J}}),{\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}}))$, because $\theta_i+\theta'_i={\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}})_i$ and $\theta_j+\theta'_j>{\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}})_j$ for all $j\neq i$, which is a contradiction, since $F(E({\mathcal{J}}),{\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}}))=\emptyset$.
Assuming that the equality holds in (\[leq1\]), we will show that ${\mathcal{J}}$ is a canonical ideal.
Notice that, in view of Lemma \[lema\], equality in (\[leq1\]) is equivalent to $$\label{equiv}
\overline{F}_i(E({\mathcal{I}}),\alpha) = \emptyset \ {\Longleftrightarrow}\ \overline{F}_i(E({\mathcal{J}}:{\mathcal{I}}),\beta-e_i) \neq \emptyset, \ \forall i\in I.$$
From the inclusion in Lemma \[fibra\] we know that $$\label{a}
E({\mathcal{J}}\colon {\mathcal{I}}) \subset \{\beta\in {\mathbb Z}^r; \ F(E({\mathcal{I}}),{\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}})-\beta)=\emptyset\}.$$
On the other hand, suppose that $\beta$ is such that $F(E({\mathcal{I}}),{\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}})-\beta)=\emptyset$, hence for all $i\in I$, $F_i(E({\mathcal{I}}),{\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}})-\beta)=\emptyset$. Then, from Remark \[fibrafechada\], it follows that $\overline{F}_i(E({\mathcal{I}}),{\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}})+e-\beta-e_i)=\emptyset$, for all $i\in I$. Now, from (\[equiv\]), we get $\overline{F}_i(E({\mathcal{J}}\colon {\mathcal{I}}),\beta)\neq \emptyset$, for all $i\in I$, which implies that $\beta\in E({\mathcal{J}}\colon {\mathcal{I}})$.
Hence, we have shown that the inclusion in (\[a\]) is an equality, therefore, from Theorem \[J:I\], we have that ${\mathcal{J}}$ is a canonical ideal.
Let us assume conversely that ${\mathcal{J}}$ is a canonical ideal. From Theorem \[J:I\] we know that $$\beta\notin E({\mathcal{J}}\colon {\mathcal{I}}) \ \Leftrightarrow \ F(E({\mathcal{I}}),{\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}})-\beta)\neq \emptyset.$$
To conclude the proof of this part of the theorem, it is clearly enough to show that $$\forall \ i\in I, \ \ \overline{F}_i(E({\mathcal{J}}\colon {\mathcal{I}}),\beta-e_i)=\emptyset \ \Longrightarrow \ \overline{F}_i(E({\mathcal{I}}),\alpha)\neq \emptyset.$$
Suppose that $\overline{F}_i(E({\mathcal{J}}\colon {\mathcal{I}}),\beta-e_i)=\emptyset$, for some $i$. This implies that $\beta-e_i\notin E({\mathcal{J}}\colon {\mathcal{I}})$, so, from Theorem \[J:I\] we get $F(E({\mathcal{I}}),{\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}})-\beta +e_i)\neq \emptyset$. Take now $\theta \in F_i(E({\mathcal{I}}),{\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}})-\beta +e_i)$, for some $i\in I$. So, $\theta_i={\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}})_i-\beta_i +1=c({\mathcal{J}})_i-\beta_i=\alpha_i$ and $\theta_j\geq {\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}})_j-\beta_j+1=c({\mathcal{J}})_j-\beta_j=\alpha_j$, for all $j\neq i$. So, we have that $\theta\in \overline{F}_i(E({\mathcal{I}}),\alpha)$, hence this set is nonempty. [[$\rule{2mm}{2mm}$]{}]{}
We have the following consequence of the above theorem.
\[dimGo\] For every fractional ideal ${\mathcal{I}}$ of $R$ and every $\alpha,\beta\in {\mathbb Z}^r$, with $\alpha+\beta=c(R)$, one has $$\ell\left(\frac{{\mathcal{I}}(\alpha)}{{\mathcal{I}}(\alpha+e_i)}\right)+\ell\left(\frac{(R\colon {\mathcal{I}})(\beta-e_i)}{(R\colon {\mathcal{I}})(\beta)}\right) =1 \ \text{for every} \ i\in I$$ if and only if $R$ is Gorenstein.
Let ${\mathcal{I}}$ and ${\mathcal{J}}$ be fractional ideals of $R$ and let $\alpha\in {\mathbb Z}^r$. Let us define $$\rho_{{\mathcal{J}}}({\mathcal{I}},\alpha)=p(E({\mathcal{I}}),\alpha)+q(E({\mathcal{J}}\colon {\mathcal{I}}),{\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}})-\alpha)-1.$$
The following theorem generalizes [@CDK Theorem 5.3]. Recall that we defined $J^c$ as being the complement in $I$ of any subset $J$ of $I$.
\[p+q\] For any fractional ideals ${\mathcal{I}}$ and ${\mathcal{J}}$ of $R$ and for any $\alpha\in\mathbb{Z}^r$, we have $$\label{p,q}
\rho_{{\mathcal{J}}}({\mathcal{I}},\alpha) \geq r.$$ Moreover, equality holds in (\[p,q\]), for every fractional ideal ${\mathcal{I}}$ of $R$ and every $\alpha\in\mathbb{Z}^r$ if, and only if, ${\mathcal{J}}$ is a canonical ideal.
[[**Proof **]{}]{}Suppose that $q(E({\mathcal{J}}\colon{\mathcal{I}}),{\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}})-\alpha)=r-n+1$, from the definition of $q$, we know that $$\label{K}
F_{K}(E({\mathcal{J}}\colon{\mathcal{I}}),{\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}})-\alpha)\neq\emptyset, \ \forall K \subset I, \ \#K \geq r-n+1.$$
If we take any $J\subset I$ with $\#J\leq n$ and let $K=J^c\cup\{i\}$, where $i\in J$ is fixed, then $\#K\geq r-n+1$. Hence from (\[K\]) we get easily that $$\overline{F}_{K}(E({\mathcal{J}}\colon{\mathcal{I}}),{\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}})-\alpha+e_{K^c})\neq\emptyset.$$
Since $e_{K^c}=e-e_{K}=e-(e_{J^c}+e_i)$, we get that $$\overline{F}_{K}(E({\mathcal{J}}\colon{\mathcal{I}}),c({\mathcal{J}})-\alpha-e_{J^c}-e_i)\neq\emptyset.$$
This implies that $$\overline{F}_{i}(E({\mathcal{J}}\colon{\mathcal{I}}),c({\mathcal{J}})-\alpha-e_{J^c}-e_i)\neq\emptyset,$$ that, from Theorem \[l\_E\] and Lemma \[lema\], implies that $$\overline{F}_{i}(E({\mathcal{I}}),\alpha+e_{J^c})=\emptyset, \ \forall i\in J,$$ which in view of Remark \[fibrafechada\], implies that $F_J(E({\mathcal{I}}),\alpha)=\emptyset$.
So, we have shown, for any $J\subset I$, with $\#J\leq n$, that $F_J(E({\mathcal{I}}),\alpha)=\emptyset$. Hence it follows that $p(E({\mathcal{I}}),\alpha)\geq n$, and consequently, $\rho_{{\mathcal{J}}}({\mathcal{I}},\alpha)\geq r$.
Now, suppose that ${\mathcal{J}}$ is a canonical ideal. To prove equality in (\[p,q\]) holds, we must show that $p(E({\mathcal{I}}),\alpha)=n$. Suppose by reductio ad absurdum that $p(E({\mathcal{I}}),\alpha)\geq n+1$. Then, from the definition of $p$, we have that $$F_J(E({\mathcal{I}}),\alpha)=\emptyset, \ \forall J\subset I, \ \text{with} \ \#J=n+1,$$ which implies that $$\label{J^c}
\overline{F}_i(E({\mathcal{I}}),\alpha+e_{J^c})=\emptyset, \ \forall i\in J, \ \text{with}\ \#J\leq n+1,$$ because, otherwise, we would have for some $i\in J$ that $\overline{F}_i(E({\mathcal{I}}),\alpha+e_{J^c})\neq \emptyset$. Take $\theta$ is this last nonempty set, then $\theta_i=\alpha_i$, $\theta_j \geq \alpha_j$, $\forall j\in J$ and $\theta_l>\alpha_l$, $\forall l\not\in J$. Let $J'$ be the subset of elements $j\in J$ such that $\theta_j =\alpha_j$, hence $\theta \in F_{J'}(E({\mathcal{I}}),\alpha)$, which implies that $F_{J'}(E({\mathcal{I}}),\alpha)\neq \emptyset$, with $\#J' \leq n+1$, contradicting the fact that $p(E({\mathcal{I}}),\alpha)\geq n+1$.
For any $K\subset I$, with $\#K=r-n$, define the set $J=K^c\cup \{i\}$, where $i\in K$. Since $J$ has $n+1$ elements, it follows from (\[J\^c\]) that $$\overline{F}_i(E({\mathcal{I}}),\alpha+e_{J^c})=\emptyset, \ \forall i\in J.$$
Since, ${\mathcal{J}}$ is a canonical ideal, from Theorem \[l\_E\] and Lemma \[lema\], it follows that $$\overline{F}_i(E({\mathcal{J}}\colon{\mathcal{I}}),{\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}})-\alpha+e_{K^c})\neq\emptyset,$$ and since, $i$ was any element of $K$, we have that $$\overline{F}_i(E({\mathcal{J}}\colon{\mathcal{I}}),{\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}})-\alpha+e_{K^c})\neq\emptyset,\ \forall K\subset I, \ \#K=r-n, \forall i\in K.$$
For every $i\in K$, take $\theta^i\in \overline{F}_i(E({\mathcal{J}}\colon{\mathcal{I}}),{\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}})-\alpha+e_{K^c})$, then $\theta^i_i={\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}})_i-\alpha_i$. $\theta^i_k\geq {\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}})_k-\alpha_k$, for $k\in K$ and $\theta^i_j>{\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}})_j-\alpha_j$, for $j\not\in K$. If we take $\theta=\min\{\theta^i; \ i\in K\}$, it follows that $\theta \in F_K(E({\mathcal{J}}\colon{\mathcal{I}}),{\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}})-\alpha)$, hence $$F_K(E({\mathcal{J}}\colon{\mathcal{I}}),{\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}})-\alpha)\neq \emptyset, \ \forall K\subset I, \ \#K=r-n,$$ which contradicts the fact that $q(E({\mathcal{J}}\colon{\mathcal{I}}),{\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}})-\alpha)=r-n+1$. Therefore, we must have $p(E({\mathcal{I}}),\alpha)=n$.
Now, assume that we have equality in (\[p,q\]). Let ${\mathcal{I}}$ be a fractional ideal of $R$ and let $\alpha\in\mathbb{Z}^r$. If $\overline{F}_i(E({\mathcal{I}}),\alpha)=\emptyset$, for some $i\in I$, then, from [@CDK Lemma 4.7], there exists $\beta$ with $\beta_i=\alpha_i$ and $\beta_j<\alpha_j$ for every $j\neq i$, such that $F(E({\mathcal{I}}),\beta)=\emptyset$. From this last condition, we get that $p(E({\mathcal{I}}),\beta)\geq1$, so, from the equality in (\[p,q\]), we get that $q(E({\mathcal{J}}\colon{\mathcal{I}}),{\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}})-\beta)\leq r$, which means that ${\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}})-\beta\in E({\mathcal{J}}\colon{\mathcal{I}})$. This implies that $\overline{F}_i(E({\mathcal{J}}\colon{\mathcal{I}}),{\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}})-\beta)\neq\emptyset$. Now, since ${\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}})_i-\beta_i={\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}})_i-\alpha_i$ and ${\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}})_j-\beta_j> {\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}})_j-\alpha_j$, it follows that $\emptyset \neq \overline{F}_i(E({\mathcal{J}}\colon{\mathcal{I}}), {\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}})-\beta) \subset \overline{F}_i(E({\mathcal{J}}\colon{\mathcal{I}}), {\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}})-\alpha)$, hence this last set is nonempty. So, we proved that equality holds in (\[leq1\]), which, by Theorem \[l\_E\], implies that ${\mathcal{J}}$ is a canonical ideal. [[$\rule{2mm}{2mm}$]{}]{}
This leads immediately to the following result:
The following two conditions are equivalent:
i\) $\rho_R({\mathcal{I}},\alpha) = r$, for all fractional ideal ${\mathcal{I}}$ and all $\alpha\in {\mathbb Z}^r$;
ii\) $R$ is Gorenstein.
The following result will generalize [@D87 Theorem 2.10].
\[ed3\] Let ${\mathcal{I}}$ and ${\mathcal{J}}$ be fractional ideals of $R$. Suppose that $\alpha\in E({\mathcal{I}})$ and ${\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}})-\alpha\in E({\mathcal{J}}\colon {\mathcal{I}})$. Then $\alpha$ is maximal of $E({\mathcal{I}})$ if and only if ${\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}})-\alpha$ is maximal of $E({\mathcal{J}}\colon {\mathcal{I}})$. Moreover, if $\alpha$ is a maximal of type $(p,q)=(p(E({\mathcal{I}}),\alpha),q(E({\mathcal{I}}),\alpha))$ then ${\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}})-\alpha$ is maximal of type $(p',q')$, where
$p'=\rho_{\mathcal{J}}({\mathcal{J}}\colon({\mathcal{J}}\colon {\mathcal{I}}),{\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}})-\alpha)+1-q(E({\mathcal{J}}\colon({\mathcal{J}}\colon {\mathcal{I}})),\alpha), \ \text{and}$
$q'=\rho_{\mathcal{J}}({\mathcal{I}},\alpha)+1-p(E({\mathcal{I}}),\alpha).$
[[**Proof **]{}]{}Suppose that $\alpha$ is a maximal of $E({\mathcal{I}})$, then $p(E({\mathcal{I}}),\alpha)\geq1$. From Theorem \[p+q\] we have $$\rho_{{\mathcal{J}}}({\mathcal{J}}\colon{\mathcal{I}},{\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}})-\alpha)=p(E({\mathcal{J}}\colon{\mathcal{I}}),{\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}})-\alpha)+q(E({\mathcal{J}}\colon({\mathcal{J}}\colon{\mathcal{I}})),\alpha)-1\geq r.$$
Since ${\mathcal{I}}\subset {\mathcal{J}}\colon({\mathcal{J}}\colon{\mathcal{I}})$, by the definition of the number $q$ we have $$q(E({\mathcal{J}}\colon({\mathcal{J}}\colon{\mathcal{I}})),\alpha)\leq q(E({\mathcal{I}}),\alpha), \ \text{for any} \ \alpha\in{\mathbb Z}^r.$$
Hence, $$\begin{array}{lcr}
r&\leq &p(E({\mathcal{J}}\colon{\mathcal{I}}),{\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}})-\alpha)+q(E({\mathcal{J}}\colon({\mathcal{J}}\colon{\mathcal{I}})),\alpha)-1 \\
&\leq & p(E({\mathcal{J}}\colon{\mathcal{I}}),{\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}})-\alpha)+q(E({\mathcal{I}}),\alpha)-1,
\end{array}$$ so $p(E({\mathcal{J}}\colon{\mathcal{I}}),{\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}})-\alpha)\geq1$ and, since ${\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}})-\alpha\in E({\mathcal{J}}\colon {\mathcal{I}})$, it follows that ${\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}})-\alpha$ is a maximal of $E({\mathcal{J}}\colon {\mathcal{I}})$.
The proof of the converse of this statement is completely analogous.
Furthermore, since $p'=p(E({\mathcal{J}}\colon{\mathcal{I}}),{\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}})-\alpha)$, we have $$p'=p(E({\mathcal{J}}\colon{\mathcal{I}}),{\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}})-\alpha)=\rho_{\mathcal{J}}({\mathcal{J}}\colon({\mathcal{J}}\colon {\mathcal{I}}),{\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}})-\alpha)+1-q(E({\mathcal{J}}\colon({\mathcal{J}}\colon {\mathcal{I}})),\alpha);$$ and since, for $\alpha\in E({\mathcal{I}})$, we have $$\rho_{{\mathcal{J}}}({\mathcal{I}},\alpha)=p(E({\mathcal{I}}),\alpha)+q(E({\mathcal{J}}\colon{\mathcal{I}}),{\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}})-\alpha)-1,$$ then $$q'=q(E({\mathcal{J}}\colon{\mathcal{I}}),{\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}})-\alpha) =\rho_{{\mathcal{J}}}({\mathcal{I}},\alpha)+1-p(E({\mathcal{I}}),\alpha).$$ [[$\rule{2mm}{2mm}$]{}]{}
If ${\mathcal{J}}$ is a canonical ideal, do not have to assume that both $\alpha\in E({\mathcal{I}})$ and ${\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}})-\alpha\in E({\mathcal{J}}\colon {\mathcal{I}})$, since in this case, $$\alpha \ \text{is maximal of } \ E({\mathcal{I}}) \ {\Longleftrightarrow}\ {\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}})-\alpha \ \text{is maximal of} \ E({\mathcal{J}}\colon {\mathcal{I}}).$$ Also, ${\mathcal{J}}\colon({\mathcal{J}}\colon {\mathcal{I}})={\mathcal{I}}$ and $\rho_{{\mathcal{J}}}({\mathcal{I}},\alpha)=r$. Taking this into account, we get the following result:
Suppose that ${\mathcal{J}}$ is a canonical ideal, then one has that $\alpha$ is maximal of $E({\mathcal{I}})$ if, and only if, ${\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}})-\alpha$ is maximal of $E({\mathcal{J}}\colon {\mathcal{I}})$. Moreover, $\alpha$ is a maximal of type $(p,q)$ if and only if ${\mathfrak f}({\mathcal{J}})-\alpha$ is a maximal of type $(r+1-q,r+1-p)$.
[X]{} <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Apéry, R.</span>; *Sur les branches superlinéaires des courbes algébriques*, C.R.A.S. Paris, vol. 222, pp 1198-1200 (1946). <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Campillo, A.</span>; <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Delgado de la Mata, F.</span>; <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Kiyek, K.</span>, *Gorenstein property and symmetry for one-dimensional local Cohen-Macaulay rings.*, Manuscripta Math. 83, pp 405-423 (1994).
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">D’anna, M.</span>, *The Canonical Module of a One-dimensional Reduced Local Ring*, Communications in Algebra, 25, pp 2939-2965 (1997).
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Delgado de la Mata, F.</span>, *The semigroup of values of a curve singularity with several branches*, Manuscripta Math. 59, pp 347-374 (1987).
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Delgado de la Mata, F.</span>, *Gorenstein curves and symmetry of the semigroup of values*, Manuscripta Math. 61, pp 285-296 (1988).
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Garcia, A.</span>, *Semigroups associated to singular points of plane curves*, J. Reine. Angew. Math. 336, 165-184 (1982).
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Jäger, J.</span>, *Längeberechnungen und kanonische Ideale in eindimensionalen Ringen*, Arch. Math. 29, pp 504-512 (1977).
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Korell, P.; Schulze, M.; Tozzo, L.</span>, *Duality on value semigroups*, J. of Comm. Alg. V. 11, no. 1, pp 81-129 (2019).
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Kunz, E.</span>, *The value semigroup of a one-dimensional Gorenstein ring*, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc, 25, pp 748-751 (1970).
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Pol, D.</span>, *On the values of logarithmic residues along curves*, Annales de l’Institut Fourier, 68 no. 2, pp 725-766 (2018).
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Pol, D.</span>, *Symmetry of maximals for fractional ideals of curves*, To appear on J. of Comm. Alg. (arXiv:1802.07901).
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Waldi, R.</span>, *Wertehalbgruppe und Singularität einer ebenen algebraischen Kurve*, Dissertation. Regensburg (1972). <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Zariski, O.</span>, *Studies in Equisingularity I*, Amer. Jour. Math. 87, pp 507-536 (1965).
[^1]: Supported by a fellowship from CAPES
[^2]: Partially supported by the CNPq Grant 307873/2016-1
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We consider a wireless network with a set of transmitter-receiver pairs, or links, that share a common channel, and address the problem of emptying finite traffic volume from the transmitters in minimum time. This, so called, minimum-time scheduling problem has been proved to be ${\cal NP}$-hard in general. In this paper, we study a class of minimum-time scheduling problems in which the link rates have a particular structure consistent with the assumed environment and topology. We show that global optimality can be reached in polynomial time and derive optimality conditions. Then we consider a more general case in which we apply the same approach and thus obtain approximation as well as lower and upper bounds to the optimal solution. Simulation results confirm and validate our approach.
*Index Terms–* algorithm, interference, optimality, scheduling, wireless networks.
author:
- Qing He
- Vangelis Angelakis
- Anthony Ephremides
- Di Yuan
title: |
[Polynomial Complexity Minimum-Time Scheduling\
in a Class of Wireless Networks]{}
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
In a wireless network with a shared multiple access channel, the minimum-time scheduling problem amounts to determining which links are allowed to transmit simultaneously, and for how long, so that a given finite traffic volume at the sources can be delivered in minimum time. We consider the case in which all the links can be divided into several clusters, and in each cluster the activated links transmit at the same rate, which is determined by the numbers of simultaneously activated links in respective clusters. We illustrate in Figure \[fig:rn\] an example scenario that corresponds to this case. Suppose a base station is located at a central point and the users are distributed along co-centric circles around it. Then users on the same circle have equal distance to the base station and hence identical geometric channel gain if the propagation environment is isotropic.
\[ht!\]
Assume all the users on the same circle transmit with the same power, we refer to the links with users on the same circle as a cluster. The links of the same cluster transmit at the same rate but that rate does depend on how many of them transmit at the same time. The reason is that, the total interference a link experiences only depends on how many links in each cluster are enabled instead of the individual elements of the activated set. It is worth noting that the scenarios corresponding to this case are not restricted to this simple topology. In fact, any case that has such multi-cluster symmetry in link rates is included.
Related Work
------------
The Minimum-Time Scheduling Problem (MTSP), also known as the Minimum-Length Scheduling Problem, represents a fundamental aspect of resource allocation in wireless networks. The scheduling problem has been studied either through classical, so called protocol models [@HaSa88; @Pr89; @StAm90] or through so called physical model (e.g., [@BjVaYu03; @GrHaNi00]). The latter enables successful decoding in the presence of interference and uses a cross-layer view of transmission rate and access control, thus making it possible to integrate this with general network resource allocation problems (e.g., [@BoEp06; @CaFiGuYu13; @GeNeTa06]).
In solving MTSP with signal-to-interference-and-noise ratio (SINR) constraints, several algorithms have been proposed. Notable amongst them is a column-generation-based solution method that was used in [@KoWi10], which can approach or attain an optimal solution, with the advantage of a potentially reduced complexity. In [@PaEp08] it was formulated as a shortest path problem on directed acyclic graphs and the authors obtained suboptimal analytic characterizations. In [@isita2], a modular algorithmic framework was provided to encompass exact as well as sub-optimal, but fast, scheduling algorithms, all under a unified principle design.
Previous complexity analysis [@Ar84; @BjVaYu04; @BoLiXi10; @GoPsWa07] concluded the hardness of the scheduling problem with discrete rates, that is, a discrete set corresponding to SINR threshold. In [@j12], we proved that the problem remains ${\cal NP}$-hard for most general cases of continuous rate functions. These ealier fundamental results provide the motivation for investigating the case that is on one hand polynomially tractable and on the other hand has high potential to approximate general practical scenarios.
Contributions and Organization
------------------------------
In this paper, our contributions include the following. First, we consider the class of MTSP with multi-cluster cardinality-based rates, proving it can be solved in polynomial time. Then we derive the optimality conditions for the solutions that correspond to emptying each cluster separately. Finally we apply this model to more general scenarios with k-means clustering and propose a column generation algorithm that can either precisely determine the optimal schedule, or provide a good approximation, as well as upper and lower bounds, to the optimum.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec:system\], we discuss the system model of MTSP and introduce the concept of multi-cluster cardinality-based rates, followed by the complexity analysis in Section \[sec:complex\]. Then the problem decomposition is studied in Section \[sec:oc\]. In Section \[sec:algorithm\], we extend the application of this setup with proposed approach, with the numerical results presented in Section \[sec:simulation\], and in Section \[sec:conclusion\], we provide final concluding remarks.
System Model {#sec:system}
============
Minimum-Time Scheduling Problem in Wireless Networks
----------------------------------------------------
We consider a wireless network of $N$ transmitter-receiver pairs, or links. Each link $i$ has a finite amount of backlogged data bits $d_i$ at its transmitter’s queue. Without loss of generality, assume that the entries in the demand vector ${\boldsymbol{d}}= (d_1,d_2, ... d_N)$ are in descending order. Let ${\mathcal{H}}$ denote the union of all subsets of ${\mathcal{N}}$, excluding the empty set. Clearly, $|{\mathcal{H}}| = 2^N-1$. We use the term [***group***]{} to refer to a member ${\mathpzc{c}}\in {\mathcal{H}}$. Scheduling a group ${\mathpzc{c}}$ of the $N$ links means that all links in ${\mathpzc{c}}$ are concurrently activated, with a given fixed power, for some positive amount of time $t_{\mathpzc{c}}$. For any group ${\mathpzc{c}}$, the effective transmit rate $r_{i{\mathpzc{c}}}$ of any link $i \in {\mathpzc{c}}$ directly depends on the composition of the activation group.
In all systems with meaningful physical interpretations, the service rate of any link in a group does not increase if the group is augmented, i.e., for any two groups ${\mathpzc{c}}\subset {\mathpzc{c}}'$ and $i \in {\mathpzc{c}}\cap {\mathpzc{c}}'$, $r_{i{\mathpzc{c}}} \geq r_{i{\mathpzc{c}}'}$. We refer to this as the rate monotonicity property.
The MTSP amounts to determining which groups should be selected and their activating durations, so that the queues are emptied in minimum time. If all the link rates for all $2^N-1$ groups ${\mathpzc{c}}\in {\mathcal{H}}$ are known, the MTSP accepts the following linear programming (LP) formulation:
\[eq:lp\] $$\begin{aligned}
\min~~ & \sum_{{\mathpzc{c}}\in {\mathcal{H}}} t_{\mathpzc{c}}\label{eq:lpobj}\\
\text{s.~t.}~~ & \sum_{{\mathpzc{c}}\in {\mathcal{H}}} r_{i{\mathpzc{c}}} t_{\mathpzc{c}}= d_i ~~i=1, \dots, N \label{eq:lpcons} \\
& {\boldsymbol{t}}\geq 0\end{aligned}$$
Herein ${\boldsymbol{t}}$ represents the scheduling vector composed of $t_{\mathpzc{c}}, {\mathpzc{c}}\in {\mathcal{H}}$. We use ${\boldsymbol{t}}^*$ to denote an optimal scheduling solution. $T^* = ||{\boldsymbol{t}}^*||_1 = \sum_{{\mathpzc{c}}\in {\mathcal{H}}}t^*_{{\mathpzc{c}}}$ stands for the optimal schedule length. Notation ${\mathcal{H}}^*$ is reserved for a set of groups that correspond to an optimum solution, that is, ${\mathcal{H}}^* = \{{\mathpzc{c}}\in {\mathcal{H}}: t^*_{{\mathpzc{c}}} > 0\}$.
In some of the analysis later on, we also utilize the LP dual of (\[eq:lp\]). Letting $\pi_i$ denote the dual variables, the dual formulation is as follows.
\[eq:dual\] $$\begin{aligned}
\max~~ & \sum_{i \in {\mathcal{N}}} d_i \pi_i, \label{eq:dualobj}\\
\text{s.~t.}~~ & \sum_{i \in {\mathpzc{c}}} r_{i{\mathpzc{c}}} \pi_i \leq 1~~{\mathpzc{c}}\in {\mathcal{H}}, \label{eq:dualcons} \\
& {\boldsymbol{\pi}}\geq 0.\end{aligned}$$
Multi-Cluster Cardinality-Based Rates
-------------------------------------
For the class of MTSP in which the links can be divided into $K$, where $K \leq N$, clusters, we use $n_j$ to denote the number of links in cluster $j, j = 1, 2, ..., K$, with $n_1 + n_2 + ... + n_K = N$. For each group ${\mathpzc{c}}\in {\mathcal{H}}$, ${\mathpzc{c}}_j$ refers to the set of activated links in cluster $j$. Clearly, ${\mathpzc{c}}_j$ is a subset of ${\mathpzc{c}}$ and ${\mathpzc{c}}= {\mathpzc{c}}_1 \bigcup {\mathpzc{c}}_2 \bigcup...\bigcup {\mathpzc{c}}_K$.
The link rates in this problem class have the following properties:
- The links in the same cluster have the same rate if they are activated.
- The rate value of a link is fully determined by the number of activated links in every cluster and the cluster that the link belongs to, but not on the identity of the links.
That is, for any link $i \in {\mathpzc{c}}_j \subseteq {\mathpzc{c}}$, the rate $r_{i{\mathpzc{c}}}$ is a function of $j$ and the cardinalities $|{\mathpzc{c}}_1|, |{\mathpzc{c}}_2|, ...,$ and $|{\mathpzc{c}}_K|$. Define ${\boldsymbol{g}}({\mathpzc{c}}) = (|{\mathpzc{c}}_1|, |{\mathpzc{c}}_2|, ..., |{\mathpzc{c}}_K|)$ as the profile of group ${\mathpzc{c}}$ and let ${\mathcal{G}}$ denote the union of ${\boldsymbol{g}}({\mathpzc{c}})$ for all ${\mathpzc{c}}\in {\mathcal{H}}$. As for all $2^N -1$ groups, $|{\mathpzc{c}}_j|$ ranges from $0$ to $n_j$, we have $|{\mathcal{G}}| = \prod_{j=1}^K{(n_j+1)}-1$. In this problem class, the rate of any link in cluster $j$ can be denoted by $r^j_{{\boldsymbol{g}}({\mathpzc{c}})}$. Therefore we refer to it as Multi-Cluster Cardinality-based Rates (MCCR).
For MTSP with MCCR, we subsequently use $(N, {\boldsymbol{d}}, {\boldsymbol{r}}, K)$ to refer to this problem class. The key notations used are summarized in Table \[tab:notation\] for easy reading.
Note that the problem is modelled in a rather generic form and the link rates are not restricted to be produced by any explicit or implicit rate functions. Thus the new insights presented in this paper are independent of physical-layer system specifications and are valid for any feasible, or achievable, rates from a communication/information-theoretic perspective.
\[tab:notation\]
Notation Description
----------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$N$ Number of links
${\mathcal{N}}$ The set of $N$ links
${\mathcal{H}}$ The union of subsets of ${\mathcal{N}}$
$d_i$ Data bits in the queue of transmitter of link $i$
${\boldsymbol{d}}$ Demand vector $(d_1,d_2, ... d_N)$
${\mathpzc{c}}$ Group, member of ${\mathcal{H}}$
$r_{i{\mathpzc{c}}}$ Rate of link $i$ if group ${\mathpzc{c}}$ is activated
$t_{\mathpzc{c}}$ Activation time of group ${\mathpzc{c}}$
${\boldsymbol{t}}$ Scheduling vector, composed of $t_{\mathpzc{c}}, {\mathpzc{c}}\in {\mathcal{H}}$
${\boldsymbol{t}}^*$ Optimal scheduling solution
$T^*$ Optimal scheduling length
${\mathcal{H}}^*$ The set of activated groups at optimal, that is,
${\mathcal{H}}^* = \{{\mathpzc{c}}\in {\mathcal{H}}: T^*_{{\mathpzc{c}}} > 0\}$
$K$ Number of clusters
$n_j$ Number of links in cluster $j$
${\mathpzc{c}}_j$ Link set in the intersection of group ${\mathpzc{c}}$ and cluster $j$, ${\mathpzc{c}}_j \subseteq {\mathpzc{c}}$
${\boldsymbol{g}}({\mathpzc{c}})$ Profile of group ${\mathpzc{c}}$, defined as ${\boldsymbol{g}}({\mathpzc{c}}) = (|{\mathpzc{c}}_1|, |{\mathpzc{c}}_2|, ..., |{\mathpzc{c}}_K|)$
${\mathcal{G}}$ The union of ${\boldsymbol{g}}({\mathpzc{c}})$ for all ${\mathpzc{c}}\in {\mathcal{H}}$
$r^j_{{\boldsymbol{g}}({\mathpzc{c}})}$ Rate of any activated link in cluster $j$ and group ${\mathpzc{c}}$
with profile ${\boldsymbol{g}}({\mathpzc{c}})$
: Notation
Complexity Consideration {#sec:complex}
========================
We show in the following that MTSP with MCCR can be solved in polynomial time as long as $K$ is independent of $N$.
\[theo:polynomialM\] $(N, {\boldsymbol{d}}, {\boldsymbol{r}}, K)$ is in class P, that is, the global optimum can be computed in polynomial time.
Consider the LP dual problem in (\[eq:dual\]). For problem class $(N, {\boldsymbol{d}}, {\boldsymbol{r}}, K)$, the dual has the following form.
\[eq:dualc\] $$\begin{aligned}
\max~~ & \sum_{i \in {\mathcal{N}}} d_i \pi_i \label{eq:dualcobj}\\
\text{s.~t.}~~ & \sum_{j=1}^K (r^j_{{\boldsymbol{g}}({\mathpzc{c}})} \sum_{i \in {\mathpzc{c}}_j \subseteq {\mathpzc{c}}} \pi_i) \leq 1~~{\mathpzc{c}}\in {\mathcal{H}}\label{eq:dualccons} \\
& {\boldsymbol{\pi}}\geq 0\end{aligned}$$
Observe that in , the dual variables of links in the same cluster have uniform coefficient, i.e., the same rate value, and occur in the same pattern in the constraint set. As a result, for any feasible solution, if we swap the values of $\pi_i$ and $\pi_l$, for any $i, l \in {\mathpzc{c}}_j$, the new solution remains feasible. It follows that there exists an optimal solution such that, for each cluster, the order of values of dual variables is consistent with the order of values of link demands because otherwise the objective function value can be improved by swapping the variable values so that the condition holds. The demand vector ${\boldsymbol{d}}$ is given in descending order, with the result that in this optimal solution, $\pi_1 \geq \pi_2 \geq \dots \geq \pi_N \geq 0$. Based on the above observation, one can conclude that, for all constraints in that correspond to the groups with same profile ${\boldsymbol{g}}({\mathpzc{c}}) = (|{\mathpzc{c}}_1|, |{\mathpzc{c}}_2|, ..., |{\mathpzc{c}}_K|)$, if the one that consists of the first $|{\mathpzc{c}}_j|$ links in cluster $j$ is satisfied, the others are also met. Therefore, we can use this constraint, which is the most stringent one, as a substitute for the whole set.
For example, assume $K = 3$, in each cluster, arrange the link demands in descending order. For simplification, define the $i$th link in cluster $j$ as link $ji$. For all the groups with ${\boldsymbol{g}}({\mathpzc{c}}) = (|{\mathpzc{c}}_1|, |{\mathpzc{c}}_2|, |{\mathpzc{c}}_3|) = (1, 2, 1)$, we can identify the most stringent constraint is the one constituted with the first link in cluster 1, the first two links in cluster 2 and the first link in cluster 3. That is,
$$\label{eq:strict}
r^1_{{\boldsymbol{g}}({\mathpzc{c}})}\pi_{11} + r^2_{{\boldsymbol{g}}({\mathpzc{c}})}(\pi_{21} + \pi_{22}) + r^3_{{\boldsymbol{g}}({\mathpzc{c}})}\pi_{31} \leq 1$$
Following the aforementioned rationale, the inequality (\[eq:strict\]) is equivalent to cover the constraints for all the ${n_1 \choose 1} {n_2 \choose 2} {n_3 \choose 1}$ groups, herein $n_j$ is the total number of links in cluster $j$.
For all $2^N-1$ possible groups, there are $|{\mathcal{G}}|$, i.e., $\prod_{j=1}^K{(n_j+1)}-1$ different profiles ${\boldsymbol{g}}({\mathpzc{c}})$. Following the above approach, in , we have at most the same number of constrains that are sufficient to define the optimum. Therefore, together with the constraints derived from the order of link demands, i.e., $\pi_1 \geq \pi_2 \geq \dots \geq \pi_N \geq 0$, the total number of constraints reduces to $N-1+\prod_{j=1}^K{(n_j+1)}$, implying that the optimal solution to problem class $(N, {\boldsymbol{d}}, {\boldsymbol{r}}, K)$ is found by solving an LP of size $O(N^K)$. As long as $K$ is independent of $N$, it can be solved in polynomial time, hence the conclusion follows.
Theorem \[theo:polynomialM\] significantly extends previous results on the complexity of cardinality-based rates model (see [@j12] and the references therein). In fact, the cardinality-based rates model is a special case of $(N, {\boldsymbol{d}}, {\boldsymbol{r}}, K)$, in which $K=1$, that is, the case of only one cluster so that the rate values are determined solely by the group cardinality $|{\mathpzc{c}}|$.
Optimality Conditions for Problem Decomposition {#sec:oc}
===============================================
According to the proof of Theorem \[theo:polynomialM\], the complexity of $(N, {\boldsymbol{d}}, {\boldsymbol{r}}, K)$ is determined by $N^K$, which means if $K$ increases, the complexity grows rapidly. However, if the scheduling problem allows a decomposition into $K$ subproblems so the optimal solution for each cluster can be constructed separately, the complexity is significantly decreased. Thus we are interested in investigating when such a decomposition can occur. We refer to the groups formed by link(s) in a single cluster as [***intra-cluster groups***]{}, (as opposed to [***inter-cluster groups***]{}), which contain links in more than one cluster). Decomposition means that the optimal solution only needs to consider intra-cluster groups.
We first consider a more structured setting, in which the links in the same cluster have uniform demand. The following theorem provides a sufficient condition.
\[theo:introclu\] $(N, {\boldsymbol{d}}, {\boldsymbol{r}}, K)$ with uniform demand in each cluster decomposes if there is at least one intra-cluster group in each cluster having higher or equal sum-rate, i.e., the sum of all the link rates in the group, than any inter-cluster group.
Suppose ${\mathcal{H}}^*$ is an optimum schedule. We utilize the fact that the links of each cluster exhibit full symmetry in demand and rate, and perform a two-step transformation of ${\mathcal{H}}^*$ to arrive at a new solution that uses intra-cluster groups only and does not run longer than ${\mathcal{H}}^*$ in schedule length.
In the first step, we construct a new solution ${\bar
{\mathcal{H}}}^*$ as follows. Consider any group ${\mathpzc{c}}^* \in {\mathcal{H}}^*$ that runs for time $t_{{\mathpzc{c}}^*}$. Without loss of generality, for notational convenience we assume ${\mathpzc{c}}^*$ is composed by links of the first $k$ clusters, with $1 \leq k
\leq K$, i.e., ${\mathpzc{c}}^* = \cup_{j=1}^k {\mathpzc{c}}^*_j$. Consider any cluster $j \in \{1, \dots, k\}$, and suppose, again merely for simplifying notation, the link indices of this cluster are $1, \dots, n_j$, among which $1,\dots, |{\mathpzc{c}}^*_j|$ form ${\mathpzc{c}}_j^*$ in group ${\mathpzc{c}}^*$. We construct $n_j$ groups, all having size $|{\mathpzc{c}}_j^*|$ and containing links of cluster $j$ in a rotational manner, that is, $\{1, 2, \dots, |{\mathpzc{c}}_j^*|\}$, $\{2,
\dots, |{\mathpzc{c}}_j^*|, |{\mathpzc{c}}_j^*|+1\}$, and so on, with the last group being $\{n_j, 1, 2,
\dots, |{\mathpzc{c}}_j^*|-1\}$. Applying this operation to all clusters $j = 1, \dots, k$ and taking the Cartesian product of the resulting sets of groups lead to a set of $\prod_{j=1}^k n_j$ link groups. Each group runs for a time duration $\frac{t_{{\mathpzc{c}}^*}}{\prod_{j=1}^k n_j}$.
Consider applying the above construction to all ${\mathpzc{c}}^* \in {\mathcal{H}}^*$, and denote the result by ${\bar {\mathcal{H}}}^*$. We make the following observations. First, for any cluster, all of its links receive equal activation time in ${\bar {\mathcal{H}}}^*$. This, together with the assumption of uniform demand across all links in the same cluster, imply that for any link and group in ${\bar
{\mathcal{H}}}^*$, the link will not have its demand emptied when the group is active. Second, for each cluster having link activation in ${\mathpzc{c}}^* \in
{\mathcal{H}}^*$, the rate of any link of this cluster in the groups derived remain as that in ${\mathpzc{c}}^*$, because the cardinality of links of the cluster is not altered. Third, again as a result of equal time sharing, for any cluster $j$, the total amount of demand drained by ${\bar {\mathcal{H}}}^*$ for all links in $j$ equals that in ${\mathcal{H}}^*$. In conclusion, ${\bar {\mathcal{H}}}^*$ qualifies as a schedule. By construction, ${\bar {\mathcal{H}}}^*$ has the same length in time duration as ${\mathcal{H}}^*$, and hence ${\bar {\mathcal{H}}}^*$ is an alternative optimum.
The second step of the transformation eliminates the use of inter-cluster groups. Consider any group ${\mathpzc{c}}^*$ in the original schedule ${\mathcal{H}}^*$ and suppose again ${\mathpzc{c}}^* = \cup_{j=1}^k {\mathpzc{c}}^*_j$, with $k>1$, i.e., ${\mathpzc{c}}^*$ is an inter-cluster group. Denote by ${\bar {\mathcal{H}}}^*({\mathpzc{c}}^*) = \{ {\bar {\mathpzc{c}}}^{*,1},
\dots, {\bar {\mathpzc{c}}}^{*,m} \} $ the set of the groups derived from ${\mathpzc{c}}^*$ in step one, with $m = \prod_{j=1}^k n_j$. Consider any cluster $j \in \{1, \dots
k\}$. It follows from the construction above (cf. Fig. \[fig:proc\]) that all links of $j$ appears in ${\bar {\mathcal{H}}}^*({\mathpzc{c}}^*)$, with full symmetry in terms of both rate and amount of activation duration. Thus the amount of demand drained by using ${\bar {\mathcal{H}}}^*({\mathpzc{c}}^*)$ is uniform for all links in $j$. Moreover, activating any ${\bar {\mathpzc{c}}}^{*,i} \in {\bar
{\mathcal{H}}}^*({\mathpzc{c}}^*)$, the demand drained per time unit for all links (of multiple clusters) in ${\bar {\mathpzc{c}}}^{*,i}$ equals the sum rate of ${\bar {\mathpzc{c}}}^{*,i}$.
By the theorem’s assumption, there is some cardinality, say $\ell_j$, for which the intra-cluster groups of cluster $j$ have the same or better sum rate than that of any group in ${\bar {\mathcal{H}}}^*({\mathpzc{c}}^*)$. We construct $n_j$ intra-cluster groups with cardinality $\ell \leq n_j$ for cluster $j$ in a rotational manner, that is, $\{1, \dots,
\ell_j\}$, $\dots$, $\{n_j, \dots, \ell_j-1\}$. By the construction, using these $n_j$ intra-cluster groups with uniform activation time drains the same amount of demand across all links of $j$. Consider performing the construction for all $j = 1, \dots, k$, and using the resulting intra-cluster groups to serve the same amount of demand as in ${\bar
{\mathcal{H}}}^*({\mathpzc{c}}^*)$ for each $j$. Doing so achievers a higher or equal amount of drained demand per time unit than ${\bar {\mathcal{H}}}^*({\mathpzc{c}}^*)$ throughout, no matter which of the new groups is under activation. Hence after the second step of the transformation we obtain a schedule consisting of intra-cluster groups only and having better or equal performance as ${\mathcal{H}}^*$, and the theorem follows.
We illustrate the two-step transformation in Figure \[fig:proc\] with an example. Assume cluster 1 has link set $\{1, ~2, ~3, ~4\}$ and cluster 2 has $\{5, ~6,~7\}$. The intra-cluster groups in cluster 1 and 2, with two and three links, respectively, have higher sum-rates. In this case, we show below the transformation on an arbitrarily selected group ${\mathpzc{c}}^* = \{1, ~2, ~3, ~5, ~6\}$.
\[ht!\]
For the links with non-uniform demand, the above theorem cannot be applied directly. Thus we set up the following sufficient condition for the general case.
\[theo:introclun\] If the single-link group in each cluster has higher or equal sum-rate than any inter-cluster group, then the problem $(N, {\boldsymbol{d}}, {\boldsymbol{r}}, K)$ with non-uniform demand decomposes.
Suppose an inter-cluster group ${\mathpzc{c}}^* = \cup_{j=1}^k {\mathpzc{c}}^*_j, 1 < k \leq K$, exists in an optimal solution and it runs for time $t_{{\mathpzc{c}}^*}$. The solution can be further improved by replacing this group with a combination of single-link groups, that is, all the links in ${\mathpzc{c}}^*$ will be activated one by one. To empty same demand as ${\mathpzc{c}}^*$ does, the activation duration for the single-link groups of cluster $j$ is: $$\frac {r^j_{{\boldsymbol{g}}({\mathpzc{c}}^*)}|c_j|t_{{\mathpzc{c}}^*}} {R_j},$$ herein $R_j$ is the rate of the link in cluster $j$ when it is activated alone.
According to the theorem’s condition, the total time the new groups needed is calculated as following: $$\sum_{j=1}^k \frac {r^j_{{\boldsymbol{g}}({\mathpzc{c}}^*)}|c_j|t_{{\mathpzc{c}}^*}} {R_j} \leq \sum_{j=1}^k \frac {r^j_{{\boldsymbol{g}}({\mathpzc{c}}^*)}|c_j|t_{{\mathpzc{c}}^*}} {\sum_{j=1}^k r^j_{{\boldsymbol{g}}({\mathpzc{c}}^*)}|c_j|} = t_{{\mathpzc{c}}^*}$$
The new solution is either better or as good as the original one, hence the conclusion follows.
On recognizing the decomposition for $(N, {\boldsymbol{d}}, {\boldsymbol{r}}, K)$, we show in the following theorem that it is polynomial-time tractable.
\[theo:ccc\] The computational complexity of recognizing the conditions in Theorem \[theo:introclu\] and \[theo:introclun\] is no more than $O((\frac{N+K}{K})^K)$.
For $(N, {\boldsymbol{d}}, {\boldsymbol{r}}, K)$, we have $2^N-1$ groups ${\mathpzc{c}}\in {\mathcal{H}}$. Among them, the groups with the same profile ${\boldsymbol{g}}({\mathpzc{c}})$ have uniform sum-rate due to the properties of MCCR. Therefore, even in the worst case in which we need to check all the possible sum-rates to recognize the decomposition condition, there are no more than $|{\mathcal{G}}| = \prod_{j=1}^K{(n_j+1)}-1$ sum-rates instead of $2^N-1$. According to the inequality of arithmetic and geometric means:
$$\prod_{j=1}^K{(n_j+1)} \leq \left(\begin{array}{c}\frac{\sum_{j=1}^K{(n_j+1)}}{K}\end{array}\right)^K = \left(\begin{array}{c}\frac{N+K}{K}\end{array}\right)^K$$
The computational complexity is at most $O((\frac{N+K}{K})^K)$. Hence the conclusion follows.
Even with the maximum time complexity $O((\frac{N+K}{K})^K)$, the recognition of decomposition condition is much easier than directly solving the LP. This is because the running time for the latter is of $O(N^{3.5K})$ (or even longer, depending on method). Moreover, for some special cases, the recognition can be trivial. We show an example of such cases in Figure \[fig:exmp2\]. In this scenario, the receivers in one cluster are far from their own transmitters but close to the transmitters in the other cluster, thus the links in different clusters generate significant interference to each other, which means the sum-rate of an inter-cluster group is much less than that of an intra-cluster group. Thus we can disregard most of inter-cluster groups in checking the condition.
\[ht!\]
Application of Multi-Cluster Cardinality-Based Rates Model {#sec:algorithm}
==========================================================
The above results hold provided that the links can be partitioned into $K$ clusters such that the symmetry in rates holds for all the links in the same cluster. In a wireless system with one base station and a number of users, this is not the case even with a distance-based propagation model because the users’ locations do not confirm with the given criteria. For this scenario, the complexity result in [@j12] is still valid, that is, with a polynomial reduction, the MTSP is proved to be as hard as a fractional coloring problem, which is known to be ${\cal NP}$-hard. Therefore the scheduling problem for this scenario remains hard. However, we can divide the users into several clusters in which they have similar distances to the base station. Then the MCCR can be applied to the model of the general case. The greater the total number of clusters $K$, the more accurate the modelling is. Therefore the applicability of MCCR extends to a more general setup as an approximation and its polynomial-time tractability contributes to the efficiency of the solution.
k-means clustering
------------------
To apply the MCCR model to general networks, the links need to be divided into several clusters with close-to-uniform gain within each cluster. For geometric distance based channel gain, an intuitive method is to partition the users into several clusters based on their locations so that each user belongs to the cluster with the nearest mean distance to the base station. This is actually the well-studied k-means clustering. That is, define $l_i$ as the length of link $i$, i.e., the distance between user $i$ and the base station, we aim to partition the $N$ data points in $\{l_1, l_2, ..., l_N\}$ into $K$ disjoint subsets ${\mathpzc{s}}_j, j = 1, 2, ..., K$ so as to minimize the within-cluster sum of squares (WCSS):
\[eq:kmeans\] $$\begin{aligned}
\min~~ & \sum_{j=1}^K {\sum_{i \in {\mathpzc{s}}_j}|l_i - \mu_j|^2},\\
\text{s.~t.}~~& \bigcup_{j=1}^K {\mathpzc{s}}_j = \{l_1, l_2, ..., l_N\},\\
& {\mathpzc{s}}_j \cap {\mathpzc{s}}_m = \emptyset, \forall j \neq m,\\
& \mu_j = \frac {\sum_{i \in {\mathpzc{s}}_j}l_i}{|{\mathpzc{s}}_j|}.\end{aligned}$$
Here we use the notation $K$ as a parameter in the clustering. Increasing $K$ on one side improves the precision of the modelling, but on the other side, increases the time complexity of solving the model. Hence a trade-off is needed. In Section \[sec:simulation\], numerical results are provided to show the impact of $K$ on performance.
We apply the standard k-means algorithm, which is also referred to as Lloyd’s algorithm [@Md03], to the problem. The algorithm consists of a re-estimation procedure as follows. Initially, the data points are assigned at random to the $K$ sets. In step 1, each data point $l_i$ is assigned to the cluster whose mean yields the least WCSS. In step 2, the new mean of the data points in each cluster is calculated to be the new centroid. These two steps are alternated until a stopping criterion is met, i.e., when there is no further change in the assignment of the data points.
After clustering, we set the mean $\mu_j^*$ as the new length of the links in cluster $j$ for cardinality-based rates calculation. It is utilized to provide an approximation of actual link rate.
Column Generation Algorithm
---------------------------
The problem $(N, {\boldsymbol{d}}, {\boldsymbol{r}}, K)$ is polynomial-time solvable. Still, when $N^K$ is large, directly solving the LP is time-consuming since its running time can be more than cubic of the LP size. Therefore we develop a column generation algorithm with the advantage of reduced computational complexity. The algorithm works as follows: firstly we split the scheduling problem into two problems: the master problem and the subproblem. The master problem is the original LP (\[eq:lp\]) with only a subset of variables, or groups (denoted by ${\mathcal{H}}'$) being considered.
\[eq:cg\] $$\begin{aligned}
\min~~ & \sum_{{\mathpzc{c}}\in {\mathcal{H}}'} t_{\mathpzc{c}}\label{eq:cgo}\\
\text{s.~t.}~~ & \sum_{{\mathpzc{c}}\in {\mathcal{H}}'} r_{i{\mathpzc{c}}} t_{\mathpzc{c}}= d_i ~~i=1, \dots, N \label{eq:cgcons} \\
& {\boldsymbol{t}}\geq 0\end{aligned}$$
The subproblem is the following
\[eq:rc\] $$\begin{aligned}
\min~~ &1- \sum_{i \in {\mathcal{N}}} r_{i{\mathpzc{c}}} \pi_i, \label{eq:rco}\\
\text{s.~t.}~~ & \sum_{i \in {\mathpzc{c}}} r_{i{\mathpzc{c}}} \pi_i \leq 1~~{\mathpzc{c}}\in {\mathcal{H}}, \label{eq:rcc} \\
& {\boldsymbol{\pi}}\geq 0.\end{aligned}$$
We start with a simple and feasible TDMA-based activation, that is, all the $N$ links are emptied one by one. Solving the master problem, we are able to obtain dual prices $\pi$ for each of the constraints. This information is then utilized in the objective function of the subproblem. On solving the subproblem, we design the following quick method based on the property of MCCR: 1) rank the $\pi_i$ with descending order in each cluster; 2) form the group that has the minimum reduced cost, i.e., the objective of subproblem, among all the candidate groups that have same ${\boldsymbol{g}}({\mathpzc{c}})$. Thus we reduce the size of solution space of the subproblem from $2^N-1$ to $\prod_{j=1}^K{(n_j+1)}-1$. Then we solve the subproblem and if the objective value is negative, a variable, i.e., a group, with negative reduced cost has been identified. This variable is then added to the master problem, and the master problem is re-solved. Re-solving the master problem will generate a new set of dual values, and the process is repeated until no negative reduced cost variables are identified. The subproblem returns a solution with non-negative reduced cost. We can thus conclude that the solution to the master problem is optimal.
Lower and Upper Bounds for Optimum
----------------------------------
Besides approximating the optimal solution by calculating link rates with $\mu^*$, the proposed approach can be utilized to obtain lower and upper bounds for MTSP. In detail, instead of the rates derived from $\mu^*$, we consider the minimum and maximum rates in each cluster.
For the example scenario, the approximation is equivalent to put all the links in cluster $j$ on a circle around the central base station with a radius equals to $\mu_j^*$. Now we extend the circle to a minimum ring in which all the users in this cluster are included. Then if we use the minimum link length to calculate the signal strength and the maximum value to calculate the interference, we obtain an upper bound for the SINR. Conversely, we have a lower bound. As in wireless networks, the rate that a link can support is monotonously increasing with its SINR, we actually get an interval of the link rate.
Suppose we use the lower bound of the link rate as the input of MTSP and get the objective value, i.e., schedule length, ${\hat T}$; then use the upper rates to get the schedule length ${\check T}$. We prove in the following that the true optimal schedule length ${T^*}$ is bounded by these two values, that is, ${\check T} \leq {T^*} \leq {\hat T}$.
\[theo:bounds\] The optimal scheduling length of MTSP that can be approximated by the MCCR model is bounded by ${\hat T}$ and ${\check T}$.
Consider the lower bound ${\check T}$, which is derived from the upper bound for link rate, i.e., $\hat r_{i{\mathpzc{c}}}$. In the LP dual (\[eq:dual\]), we change the coefficient $r_{i{\mathpzc{c}}}$ in (\[eq:dualcons\]) from the actual value of the rate to its upper bound $\hat r_{i{\mathpzc{c}}}$. As $r_{i{\mathpzc{c}}} \leq \hat r_{i{\mathpzc{c}}}$, it can be easily verified that any solution of the problem with the new rate setting is also a feasible solution of the original problem. That is, the latter has a larger solution space and thus a greater or equal objective value, which equals to the optimal schedule length due to the strong duality of LP. Hence we conclude ${T^*} \geq {\check T}$.
Following the similar approach, we get ${T^*} \leq {\hat T}$, so the conclusion follows.
Note although the schedule solution derived from the lower bound may not be attainable for the actual network, it contributes to tighten the scope of optimal solution. For the networks that cannot be exactly mapped to the MCCR model, as proved in previous work, the MTSP is generally hard. Therefore, upper and lower bounds are critical on defining the optimum region and evaluating any heuristic result.
Improvement on the Upper Bound {#sec:vd}
------------------------------
The upper bound ${\hat T}$ can be further improved as the follows. Start with the optimal solution of ${\hat T}$ and its corresponding activated group set ${\hat{\mathcal{H}}} = \{{\mathpzc{c}}\in {\mathcal{H}}: {\hat t}_{\mathpzc{c}}> 0\}$, if we back to the original rate setting and activate all the groups in ${\hat{\mathcal{H}}}$, according to the rate bound, $r_{i{\mathpzc{c}}}$ is either increased or kept the same value. In the case that some of the queues become empty before $\hat t_{{\mathpzc{c}}}$, we will continue with the new group ${\mathpzc{c}}'$, which contains all none-zero queues in this group ${\mathpzc{c}}$, until all the queues are empty. Clearly, ${\mathpzc{c}}'\subset {\mathpzc{c}}$, by the monotonicity property of rate, $r_{i{\mathpzc{c}}} \leq r_{i{\mathpzc{c}}'}$. Thus to empty the same demand as $r_{i{\mathpzc{c}}}{\hat t}_{{\mathpzc{c}}}$, less or at most the same time duration is needed. In this way, we construct a feasible solution of the MTSP with true link rates and observe its scheduling length ${\hat T'} \leq {\hat T}$. As $T^*$ is the optimal solution, implying $T^*\leq {\hat T'}$, we get $T^*\leq {\hat T'} \leq {\hat T}$, showing that ${\hat T'}$ is a tighter upper bound for $T^*$.
Simulation Setup and Results {#sec:simulation}
============================
Simulation Setup
----------------
We consider wireless networks with $N$ transmitters randomly placed in a square area of $1000 \times 1000$ meters with receivers concentrate at the centre. All the links are activated with a given power of $30$ dBm. The background noise is set to $-100$ dBm. The wireless signal propagation follows a distance-based model with a path loss exponent of 4, thus the distance between each pair of transmitter and receiver, i.e., the length of a link, is restricted between 3 and 250 meters to obtain links of practically meaningful signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) values. For the rate values, we utilize the Shannon function, assuming interference from concurrently activated links as noise.
Simulation Results for Different Values of $K$
----------------------------------------------
The parameter $K$ stands for the total number of clusters that the links are divided into. For wireless networks with $N = 15$ links and the links have uniformly random queue sizes of \[100, 1500\] bits, we performed the simulations with $K= \{ 1, ~2, ~3, ~4, ~5,~6 \}$ respectively. For each setup, 100 instances are run and the results are normalized with respect to the global optimal solution of LP in (\[eq:lp\]), which is obtained by AMPL [@AMPL02].
Figure \[fig:kk\] presents the average upper and lower bounds. As expected, enlarging $K$ improves the performance of the result. Both upper and lower bounds become tighter with the increase of $K$. The trend is more noticeable for the first three values of $K$. For $K=4$ and beyond, the average gap between the lower and upper bounds is less than 9 percent and the improvement caused by $K$ is not pronounced as before. The observation implies that $K$ can be set to a relatively small number in relation to $N$, which means we can get satisfactory results with low computational complexity.
\[ht!\]
We use the mean value of link length in each cluster, i.e., $\mu^*$, to calculate the channel gains and consequently, the link rates. This approach provides an approximate result of the optimal solution. Figure \[fig:cdfk\] shows the empirical cumulative distribution function (CDF) of the normalized results with different values of $K$. For any group and activated link, the rate derived from $\mu^*$ can be either larger or smaller than its true value, thus the result of this approach is possibly less or greater than the true optimum (1.0) in schedule length. Overall, we can see the approach provides an excellent approximation of the global optimal solution. And, with the increase of $K$, the approximate results have less deviation from the optimal schedule length. For all the 100 instances, the optimality gap is no more than 3 percent when $K \geq 3$.
\[ht!\]
Simulation Results of Medium-Sized Networks
-------------------------------------------
We performed the proposed setup in medium-sized networks with $N = 30$ links, for which the true optimum can be hardly achieved by solving the LP in (\[eq:lp\]) due to the exponentially increased complexity. The links have uniformly random queue sizes of \[100, 3000\] bits. We set $K=6$ and 100 instances are tested. The results are presented in Figure \[fig:30lk\]. Herein, the lower bounds are normalized to 1.0 and the other values are set in relation to the lower bounds.
\[ht!\]
The results show that the approach performs well on providing tight lower and upper bounds. The average gap between upper and lower bound is 7.2 percent. With using improved upper bounds in Section \[sec:vd\], the gap can be further decreased to 4.0 percent in average. The approximate solutions are very close to the relative lower bounds, with the gaps ranging from 2.2 to 5.9 percent for 90 instances of the 100.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusion}
===========
We have provided fundamental insights on the minimum-time scheduling problem with multi-cluster cardinality-based rates, showing it can be solved in polynomial time and presenting conditions for problem decomposition. Then the model has been extended to more general wireless networks with k-means clustering and a column generation algorithm has been designed. We have applied the proposed approach to exactly solve the problem or provide a good approximation, as well as the lower and upper bounds for the true optimum. Numerical results have been provided to evaluate the performance of the approach. It has been demonstrated that, with a moderate number of cluster in the approximation, the optimality gap of no more than 4.0 percent on average can be reached.
[1]{}
V. Angelakis, A. Ephremides, Q. He, and D. Yuan. Minimum-time link scheduling for emptying backlogged traffic in wireless systems: solution characterization and algorithmic framework. Accepted by [*IEEE Transactions on Information Theory*]{}, DOI: 10.1109/TIT.2013.2292065.
E. Arikan. Some complexity results about packet radio networks. , 30:910–918, 1984.
P. Bj[ö]{}rklund, P. V[ä]{}rbrand, and D. Yuan. Resource optimization of spatial TDMA in ad hoc radio networks: a column generation approach. In [*Proc. of IEEE INFOCOM ’03*]{}, 2003.
P. Bj[ö]{}rklund, P. V[ä]{}rbrand, and D. Yuan. A column generation method for spatial TDMA scheduling in ad hoc networks. , 2:405–418, 2004.
S. A. Borbash and A. Ephremides. Wireless link scheduling with power control and SINR constraints. , 52:5106–5111, 2006.
C Boyac[ý]{}, B. Li, and Y. Xia. An investigation on the nature of wireless scheduling. In [*Proc. of IEEE INFOCOM ’10*]{}, 2010.
A. Capone et al. Resource optimization in multi-radio multi-channel wireless mesh networks. In: S. Basagni, M. Conti, S. Giordano, and I. Stojmenovic (editors), [*Mobile Ad Hoc Networking: The Cutting Directions*]{}, 2nd edition, Wiley and IEEE Press, 2013.
R. Fourer, D. M. Gay, and B. W. Kernighan. . Duxbury Press, 2002.
L. Georgiadis, M. J. Neely, and L. Tassiulas. Resource allocation and cross-layer control in wireless networks. , 1(1), 2006.
O. Goussevskaia, Y. A. Pswald, and R. Wattenhofer. Complexity in geometric SINR. In [*Proc. of ACM MobiHoc ’07*]{}, 2007.
J. Gr[ö]{}nkvist, A. Hansson, and J. Nilsson. A comparison of access methods for multihop ad hoc radio networks. In [*Proc. of IEEE VTC ’00*]{}, pp. 1435–1439, 2000.
B. Hajek and G. Sasaki. Link scheduling in polynomial time. , 34:910–917, 1988.
Q. He, V. Angelakis, A. Ephremides and D. Yuan. Revisiting minimum-length scheduling in wireless networks: an algorithmic framework. In [*Proc. of IEEE ISITA ’12*]{}, 2012.
S. Kompella et al. On optimal SINR-based scheduling in multihop wireless networks. , 18:1713–1724, 2010.
D. J. C. MacKay. An example inference task: clustering. , ch. 20, Cambridge University Press, 2003.
A. Pantelidou and A. Ephremides. Minimum schedule lengths with rate control in wireless networks. In [*Proc. of IEEE MILCOM ’08*]{}, 2008.
C. G. Prohazka. Decoupling link scheduling constraints in multihop packet radio networks. , 38:455–458, 1989.
D. S. Stevens and M. H. Ammar. Evaluation of slot allocation strategies for TDMA protocols in packet radio networks. In [*Proc. of IEEE MILCOM ’90*]{}, pp. 835–839, 1990.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In low-light conditions, a conventional camera imaging pipeline produces sub-optimal images that are usually dark and noisy due to a low photon count and low signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). We present a data-driven approach that learns the desired properties of well-exposed images and reflects them in images that are captured in extremely low ambient light environments, thereby significantly improving the visual quality of these low-light images. We propose a new loss function that exploits the characteristics of both pixel-wise and perceptual metrics, enabling our deep neural network to learn the camera processing pipeline to transform the short-exposure, low-light RAW sensor data to well-exposed sRGB images. The results show that our method outperforms the state-of-the-art according to psychophysical tests as well as pixel-wise standard metrics and recent learning-based perceptual image quality measures.'
author:
- |
Syed Waqas Zamir, Aditya Arora, Salman Khan, Fahad Shahbaz Khan, Ling Shao\
Inception Institute of Artificial Intelligence, UAE\
[[email protected]]{}
bibliography:
- 'bib.bib'
title: 'Learning Digital Camera Pipeline for Extreme Low-Light Imaging'
---
Introduction
============
In a dark scene, the ambient light is not sufficient for cameras to accurately capture detail and color information. On one hand, leaving the camera sensor exposed to light for a long period of time retains the actual scene information, but may produce blurred images due to camera shake and object movement in the scene. On the other hand, images taken with a short exposure time preserve sharp details, but are usually dark and noisy. In order to address this dilemma, one might consider taking a sharp picture with a short exposure time and then increasing its brightness. However, the resulting image will not only have amplified noise and blotchy appearance, but the colors will also not match with those of a corresponding well-exposed image (see, for example, Figure \[Fig:teaser\_input\_image\] ). Even if we reduce the problem of noise to some extent by using any state-of-the-art image denoising algorithm, the issue of color remains unsolved [@Betalmio2014; @Chen2018].
[0.48]{} ![[]{data-label="Fig:teaser_ours"}](Images/Teaser_Input1.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[0.48]{} ![[]{data-label="Fig:teaser_ours"}](Images/Teaser_Traditional_pipeline1.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[0.48]{} ![[]{data-label="Fig:teaser_ours"}](Images/Teaser_ChenEtAl1.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[0.48]{} ![[]{data-label="Fig:teaser_ours"}](Images/Teaser_Ours1.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
\[Fig:teaser\]
A conventional camera imaging pipeline processes the RAW sensor data through a sequence of operations (such as white balance, demosaicking, denoising, color correction, tone mapping, sharpening, etc.) in order to generate the final RGB images [@Ramanath2005]. Solving each of these problems requires hand-crafted priors and, even then, the pipeline breaks down in extremely low-light environments, often yielding dark images with little-to-no visible detail [@Chen2018].
An alternative way to tackle the issue of low-light imaging is to use deep neural networks. These networks are data hungry in nature and require a large amount of training data: pairs of short-exposure input with corresponding long-exposure ground-truth. To encourage the development of learning-based techniques, Chen [@Chen2018] propose a large scale See-in-the-Dark (SID) dataset captured in low light conditions. The SID dataset contains both indoor and outdoor images acquired with two different cameras, having different color filter arrays. They further propose an end-to-end network, employing the $\ell_1$ loss, that learns the complete camera pipeline specifically for low-light imaging. However, the reproduced images often lack contrast and contain artifacts (see Figure \[Fig:teaser\_input\_image\] ), especially under extreme low-light environments with severely limited illumination (, dark room with indirect dim light source).
Most existing image transformation methods [@Chen2018; @Dong2016; @long2015; @Zhang2016] focus on measuring the difference between the network’s output and the ground-truth, using standard per-pixel loss functions. However, recent studies [@Johnson2016; @Prashnani2018; @Zhang2018] have shown that applying traditional metrics ($\ell_1$/$\ell_2$, SSIM [@Wang2004]) directly on the pixel-level information often provide overly smooth images that correlate poorly with human perception. These studies, therefore, recommend computing error on the deep feature representations, extracted from any pre-trained network [@He2016; @Krizhevsky2012; @Szegedy2015], resulting in images that are visually sharp and perceptually faithful. A drawback of such a feature-level error computation strategy is the introduction of checkerboard artifacts at the pixel-level [@Johnson2016; @Odena2016]. Therefore, information from both *the pixel-level* and *the feature-level* is essential to produce images that are sharp, perceptually faithful and free from artifacts. The aforementioned observation motivates us to develop a new hybrid loss function, exploiting the basic properties of both pixel-wise and perceptual metrics. In this paper we propose a data-driven approach based on a novel loss function that is capable of generating well-exposed sRGB images with the desired attributes: sharpness, color vividness, good contrast, noise free, and no color artifacts. Our end-to-end network takes as input the RAW data captured in extreme low light and generates an sRGB image that fulfills these desired properties. By using our new loss function, we learn the entire camera processing pipeline in a supervised manner. Figure \[Fig:teaser\_ours\] shows the image produced by the proposed approach.
Background {#sec:ISP}
==========
Here, we first provide a brief overview of a traditional camera processing pipeline. We then discuss the recently introduced learning-based approach specifically designed for low-light imaging.
Traditional Camera Pipeline
---------------------------
The basic modules of the imaging pipeline, common to all standard single-sensor cameras, are the following [@Ramanath2005]. **(a)** *Preprocessing* deals with the issues related to the RAW sensor data such as defective sensor cells, lens shading, light scattering and dark current. **(b)** *White balance* step estimates the scene illumination and remove its effect by linearly scaling the RAW data so that the reproduced image has no color cast [@Buchsbaum1980; @Karaimer2018]. **(c)** *Demosaicking* stage takes in the RAW data, in which at each pixel location the information of only one color is present, and estimates the other two missing colors by interpolation [@Gunturk2005], yielding a three-channel true color image. **(d)** *Color correction* transforms the image from the sensor-specific color space to linear sRGB color space [@Morovic2008]. **(e)** *Gamma correction* encodes images by allocating more bits to low luminance values than high luminance values, since we are more perceptible to changes in dark regions than bright areas. **(f)** *Post processing* stage applies several camera-specific (proprietary) operations to improve image quality, such as contrast enhancement [@Palma-Amestoy2009], style and aesthetic adjustments [@Chen2017; @He2018; @Yan2016], denoising [@Lefkimmiatis2018; @Plotz2017], and tone mapping [@Mantiuk2008]. Optionally, data compression may also be applied [@Wallace1991].
{width="\linewidth"}
In low-light environments, the standard camera pipeline provides sub-optimal results due to a low photon count and SNR [@Betalmio2014; @Chen2018]. To acquire well-exposed images in low light, apart from using long exposure, other methods include: exposure bracketing, burst imaging and fusion, larger-aperture lens, flash, and optical image stabilization [@Hasinoff2016]. However, each of these methods comes with a trade-off and is not always applicable. For instance, a mobile camera has thickness and power constraints, so adding a large lens with fast aperture is infeasible [@Hasinoff2016]. In exposure bracketing, a series of images are captured in quick succession with varying shutter speeds and then the user gets to pick the most visually pleasing image from this set, which oftentimes is none of them for difficult lighting. Image fusion for burst imaging often have misalignment problems, leading to ghosting artifacts. Finally, flash photography causes unwanted reflections, glare, shadows, and might change the scene illumination. In this paper, we address the problem of low light photography using single-imaging systems without flash.
Data-driven Image Restoration Approaches
----------------------------------------
Deep convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have been used with great success in ‘*independently*’ solving several image processing tasks such as denoising [@Lefkimmiatis2018; @Plotz2017], demosaicking [@Kokkinos2018], deblurring [@Nah2017; @Su2017; @Xu2014], super-resolution [@Dong2016; @Lai2017; @Zhang2018SR], inpainting [@Liu2018; @Pathak2016] and contrast enhancement [@Gharbi2017; @Talebi2018]. Recently, learning-based methods [@Chen2018; @Schwartz2018] have been proposed that ‘*jointly*’ learn the complete camera processing pipeline in an end-to-end manner. Both of these methods take as input the RAW sensor data and produce sRGB images. Particularly, the work of Schwartz [@Schwartz2018] deals with images taken in well-lit conditions, and the method of Chen [@Chen2018] is developed specifically for extremely low-light imaging. After investigating several loss functions ($\ell_1, \ell_2$, SSIM [@Wang2004], total variation, and GAN [@Goodfellow2014]), Chen [@Chen2018] opt for a standard pixel-level loss function, i.e., $\ell_1$, to measure the difference between the network’s prediction and the ground-truth. However, the per-pixel loss function is restrictive as it only models absolute errors and does not take into account the perceptual quality. Next, we propose an approach that exploits the characteristics of both pixel-wise and perceptual metrics to learn the camera processing pipeline in an end-to-end fashion.
Our Method
==========
Our network design is based on a novel multi-criterion loss formulation, as shown in Figure \[Fig:network\]. The model consists of two main blocks: (1) the ‘*image restoration subnet*’, and (2) the ‘*perceptual loss subnet*’. The image restoration subnet is an encoder-decoder architecture with skip connections between the contraction and expansion pathways. The perceptual loss subnet is a feed-forward CNN. Here, we first present the loss formulation and later describe each individual block in Sec. \[Sec:network\].
Proposed Multi-criterion Loss Function {#sec:proposed loss}
--------------------------------------
As described earlier, the existing work [@Chen2018] for low-light imaging is based on per-pixel loss, i.e., $\ell_1$. We propose a multi-criterion loss function that jointly models the local and global properties of images using pixel-level image details as well as high-level image feature representations. Moreover, it explicitly incorporates perceptual similarity measures to ensure high-quality visual outputs.
Given an input image $\mathbf{x}$ and the desired output image $\mathbf{y}$, the image restoration subnet learns a mapping function $f(\mathbf{x};\theta)$. The parameters $\theta$ are updated using the following multi-criterion loss formulation: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:our proposed loss}
\theta^* = \arg\min_{\theta}\mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y}}\Big[\sum\limits_{k}\alpha_k \mathcal{L}_k(g^k(\mathbf{x};\psi), h^k(\mathbf{y}; \phi))\Big] \end{aligned}$$ where, $\mathcal{L}_k$ denotes the individual loss function, and $g^k(\cdot), h^k(\cdot)$ are functions on the input and target image, respectively, whose definitions vary depending on the type of loss. In this paper, we consider two distinct representation levels (pixel-level and feature-level) to compute two loss criterion, i.e., $\mathcal{L}_k \in \{\mathcal{L}_{pix}, \mathcal{L}_{feat}\}$. The first loss criterion, $\mathcal{L}_{pix}$, is pixel-based and accounts for low-level image detail. The pixel-level loss is further divided into two terms: standard $\ell_1$ loss and structure similarity loss. The second loss criterion, $\mathcal{L}_{feat}$, is a high-level perceptual loss based on intermediate deep feature representations. Next, we elaborate on these pixel-level and feature-level error criterion.
### Pixel Loss: $\mathcal{L}_{pix}$
The $\mathcal{L}_{pix}$ loss in Eq. (\[eq:our proposed loss\]) computes error directly on the pixel-level information of the network’s output and the ground-truth image. In this case, the definitions of $g^{pix}$ and $h^{pix}$ are fairly straight-forward: $g^{pix} = f(\mathbf{x}; \theta) = \hat{\mathbf{y}}, \; h^{pix} = \mathds{1}(\mathbf{y}).$ The loss function is defined as: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_{pix} = \beta \ell_1(\hat{\mathbf{y}},\mathbf{y}) + (1-\beta) \mathcal{L}_{\text{MS-SSIM}}(\hat{\mathbf{y}},\mathbf{y})
\label{Eq:pixel loss}\end{aligned}$$ where $\beta \in [0,1]$ is a weight parameter that we set using grid search on the validation set.\
**Absolute deviation.** The $\ell_1$ error directly minimizes the difference between the network output and the ground-truth to transform low-light images to well-exposed ones. Given $\hat{\mathbf{y}}$ and $\mathbf{y}$, the $\ell_1$ loss can be computed as: $$\ell_1(\hat{\mathbf{y}} ,\mathbf{y}) = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{p=1}^{N}\lvert \hat{\mathbf{y}}_p - \mathbf{y}_p \rvert,$$ where $p$ is the pixel location and $N$ denotes the total number of pixels in the image.
Although the $\ell_1$ metric is a popular choice for the loss function, it compromises high-frequency details, such as texture and sharp edges. To avoid such artifacts, we introduce a structural similarity measure in Eq. (\[Eq:pixel loss\]).\
**Structural similarity measure.** This term ensures the perceptual change in the structural content of output images to be minimal. In this work, we utilize the multi-scale structural similarity measure (MS-SSIM) [@Wang2003]: $$\mathcal{L}_{\text{MS-SSIM}}(\hat{\mathbf{y}},\mathbf{y}) = 1- \frac{1}{N}\sum_{p=1}^{N} \text{MS-SSIM}(\hat{\mathbf{y}}_p, \mathbf{y}_p).$$
In order to define $\text{MS-SSIM}$, let us assume $\mu_{\hat{y}}$, $\sigma_{\hat{y}}^2$ and $\sigma_{{\hat{y}}y}$ are the mean of image $
\hat{\mathbf{y}}$, the variance of $\hat{\mathbf{y}}$, and the covariance of image $\hat{\mathbf{y}}$ and image $\mathbf{y}$, respectively. Then, $$\text{SSIM}(\hat{\mathbf{y}},\mathbf{y}) = \frac{2 \mu_{\hat{\mathbf{y}}} \mu_\mathbf{y} + C_1}{\mu_{\hat{\mathbf{y}}}^2 + \mu_\mathbf{y}^2 + C_1} \cdot \frac{2\sigma_{\hat{\mathbf{y}}\mathbf{y}} + C_2}{\sigma_{\hat{\mathbf{y}}}^2+\sigma_\mathbf{y}^2 + C_2}
\label{Eq:SSIM}$$ $$= l(\hat{\mathbf{y}},\mathbf{y}) \cdot cs(\hat{\mathbf{y}},\mathbf{y})$$ and finally, $$\text{MS-SSIM}(\hat{\mathbf{y}},\mathbf{y}) = \left[ l_M(\hat{\mathbf{y}},\mathbf{y})\right]^{\gamma_M} \cdot \prod_{i=1}^{M}\left[cs_i(\hat{\mathbf{y}},\mathbf{y})\right]^{\eta_i},
\label{Eq:MSSSIM}$$ where, $M$ is the number of scales. The first term in Eq. (\[Eq:MSSSIM\]) compares the luminance of image $\hat{\mathbf{y}}$ with the luminance of reference image $\mathbf{y}$, and it is computed only at scale $M$. The second term measures the contrast and structural differences at various scales. $\gamma_M$ and $\eta_i$ adjust the relative importance of each term and, for convenience, we set $\gamma_M = \eta_i = 1$ for $i = \{1,...,M\}$. $C_1$ and $C_2$ in Eq. (\[Eq:SSIM\]) are small constants [@Wang2003].
### Feature Loss: $\mathcal{L}_{feat}$
The pixel-level loss term is valuable for preserving original colors and detail in the reproduced images. However, it does not integrate perceptually sound global scene detail since the structural similarity is only enforced locally. To resolve this problem, we propose to use an additional loss term that quantifies the perceptual viability of the generated outputs in terms of a higher-order feature representation obtained from the perceptual loss subnet (see Figure \[Fig:network\]).
In the feature loss term of the objective function (\[eq:our proposed loss\]), instead of calculating errors directly on the pixel-level, we measure the difference between the feature representations of the output and ground-truth images extracted with a deep network [@Simonyan2015] pre-trained on the ImageNet dataset [@Deng2009]. Note that this choice is motivated from a recent large-scale study [@Zhang2018] that demonstrates the suitability of deep features as a perceptual metric. In this case, the functions $g^{feat}$ and $h^{feat}$ are defined as $g^{feat} = h^{feat} = v^l(\cdot)$, where $v^l(\cdot)$ denotes the $l^{th}$ layer activation map from the the network. The loss term is formulated as: $$\mathcal{L}_{feat}(\hat{\mathbf{y}},\mathbf{y}) = \frac{1}{N}\parallel v^l(\hat{\mathbf{y}}; \psi) - v^l(\mathbf{y}; \psi) \parallel_2^2,
\label{Eq:feature loss}$$ In this work, we use the VGG-16 network [@Simonyan2015]. Note that other image classification networks such as AlexNet [@Krizhevsky2012], ResNet [@He2016], or GoogLeNet [@Szegedy2015] can also be used to extract feature representations [@Zhang2018]. The perceptual loss function $\mathcal{L}_{feat}$ [@Johnson2016] enforces our *image restoration subnet* to generate outputs that are perceptually similar to their corresponding well-exposed reference images.
Network Architecture {#Sec:network}
--------------------
Here we provide details of both blocks of our framework (see Figure \[Fig:network\]).\
**Image restoration subnet.** Our network inherits a U-net encoder-decoder structure [@ronneberger2015u] with symmetric skip connections between the lower layers of the encoder and the corresponding higher layers of the decoder. The benefits of such a design for the restoration subnet are three-fold: (a) it has superior performance on image restoration and segmentation tasks [@Chen2018; @ronneberger2015u], (b) it can process a full-resolution image (i.e., at $4240{\times}2832$ or $6000{\times}4000$ resolution) due to its fully convolutional design and low memory signature, and (c) the skip connections between the encoder and decoder modules enable adequate propagation of context information and preserve high-resolution details. Our network operates on RAW sensor data rather than RGB images, since our objective is to replace the traditional camera pipeline with an automatically learned network.
The image restoration subnet consists of a total of 23 convolutional layers. Among these, the *encoder* module has 10 convolutional layers, arranged as five pairs of $3{\times}3$ layers. Each pair is followed by a leaky ReLU non-linearity $\left(LReLU(x) = \text{max}(0,x) + 0.2\text{min}(0,x)\right)$ and a $2{\times}2$ max-pooling operator for subsampling. The *decoder* module has a total of 13 convolutional layers. These layers are arranged as a set of four blocks, each of which consists of a transpose convolutional layer whose output is concatenated with the corresponding features maps from the encoder module, followed by two $3{\times}3$ convolutional layers. The number of channels in the feature maps are progressively reduced and the spatial resolution is increased due to the transpose convolutional layers. Finally, a $1{\times}1$ convolutional layer, followed by a sub-pixel layer [@Shi2016], is applied to remap the channels and obtain the RGB image with the same spatial resolution as the original RAW image. (For more details on network design and for a toy example, see supplementary material.)\
**Perceptual loss subnet.** The perceptual loss subnet consists of a truncated version of VGG-16 [@Simonyan2015]. We only use the first two convolutional layers of VGG-16 and obtain the feature representation after ReLU non-linearity. This feature representation has been demonstrated to accurately encode the style and perceptual content of an image [@Johnson2016]. The result is a $\nicefrac{H}{4} \times \nicefrac{W}{4} \times 128$ tensor for both the output of the image restoration net and the ground-truth, which are then used to compute the similarity between them.
Experiments
===========
Dataset
-------
We validate our approach on the See-in-the-Dark (SID) dataset [@Chen2018] that was specifically collected for the development of learning-based methods for low-light photography. In Figure \[Fig:dataset\] we show some sample images from the SID dataset. The images were captured using two different cameras: Sony $\alpha$7S II with a Bayer color filter array (CFA) and sensor resolution of 4240$\times$2832, and Fujifilm X-T2 with a X-Trans CFA and 6000$\times$4000 spatial resolution. The dataset contains 5094 short-exposure RAW input images and their corresponding long-exposure reference images. Note that there are 424 unique long-exposure reference images, indicating that multiple short-exposure input images can correspond to the same ground-truth image. There are both indoor and outdoor images of the static scenes. The ambient illuminance reaching the camera was in the range 0.2 to 5 lux for outdoor scenes and between 0.03 lux and 0.3 lux for indoor scenes. Input images were taken with an exposure time between 1/30 and 1/10 seconds and the exposure time for the ground-truth images was 10 to 30 seconds.
Camera-specific Preprocessing {#Sec:preprocessing}
-----------------------------
As mentioned in Sec. \[sec:ISP\], cameras have a CFA in front of the image sensor to capture color information. Different cameras use different types of CFAs; Bayer filter array being the most popular choice due to its simple layout. Images of the SID dataset [@Chen2018] come from cameras with different CFAs. Therefore, before passing the RAW input to the *image restoration subnet* (Figure \[Fig:network\]), we pack the data, as in [@Chen2018], into $4$ channels if it comes from Bayer CFA and $9$ channels for X-Trans CFA.
At the borders of the image sensor, there are some pixels that never see the light and therefore should be zero (black). However, during image acquisition, the values of these pixels are raised due to thermally generated voltage. We subtract this camera-specific black level from the image signal. Finally, we scale the sensor data with an amplification factor (, $\times$100, $\times$250, or $\times$300), which is the ratio between the reference image and the input image and determines the brightness of the output image.
![Some sample images from the See-in-the-Dark (SID) dataset [@Chen2018]: long-exposure ground truth images (in front), and short-exposure and essentially black input images (in background). Note that the reference images in the last row are noisy, indicating the presence of a very high noise level in their corresponding short-exposure input images, thus making the problem even more challenging.[]{data-label="Fig:dataset"}](Images/dataset_images_a.png){width="\linewidth"}
[0.33]{} {width="\linewidth"}
[0.33]{} {width="\linewidth"}
[0.33]{} {width="\linewidth"}
[0.235]{} ![Visual example in extremely difficult lighting. Compare the (zoomed-in) clock and the other objects.[]{data-label="Fig:results extreme"}](Images/extreme_case_Chen.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[0.235]{} ![Visual example in extremely difficult lighting. Compare the (zoomed-in) clock and the other objects.[]{data-label="Fig:results extreme"}](Images/extreme_case_Ours.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
Training
--------
We train two separate networks: one for the Sony subset and the other for the Fuji subset from the SID dataset [@Chen2018]. Each network takes as input a short-exposure RAW image and a corresponding long-exposure reference image (which is converted into the sRGB color space with the *LibRAW* library). Note that the input is prepared using camera-specific preprocessing mentioned in Sec. \[Sec:preprocessing\], before being passed through our network (Figure \[Fig:network\]). Both networks are trained for $4000$ epochs using the proposed loss function (Sec. \[sec:proposed loss\]). We use Adam optimizer with an initial learning rate of $10^{-4}$, which is reduced to $10^{-5}$ after $2000$ epochs. In each iteration we take a $512 \times 512$ crop from the training image and perform random rotation and flipping. To compute the $\mathcal{L}_{feat}$ loss (\[Eq:feature loss\]), we use features from the $conv2$ layer after ReLU of the VGG-16 network. The batch size is set to one, as we observed that setting the batch size greater than one reduces accuracy. This might be because the network struggles to learn, at once, the transformation process for images having significantly different light and noise levels. We empirically set $\alpha = 0.9$ and $\beta = 0.99$ in Eq. (\[eq:our proposed loss\]) and Eq. (\[Eq:pixel loss\]), respectively, for all the experiments.
Qualitative Evaluation
----------------------
To the best of our knowledge, Chen [@Chen2018] present the “*first and only*” data-driven work that learns the digital camera pipeline specifically for extreme low-light imaging. Figure \[Fig:results\] presents a qualitative comparison of the images produced by our method and those of the state-of-the-art technique [@Chen2018], as well as the traditional camera processing pipeline. Note that the traditional pipeline provides dark images with little-to-no visible detail. Therefore, we scale the brightness of the results of the traditional pipeline for visualization purposes. It is apparent in Figure \[Fig:results traditional\] that the traditional pipeline handles low-light images poorly and yields results with extreme noise, color cast and artifacts. As reported in [@Betalmio2014; @Chen2018], applying a state-of-the-art image denoising algorithm [@Guo2018; @Lefkimmiatis2018; @Plotz2017] might reduce noise to some extent. However, the issue of color distortion remains unsolved.
Figure \[Fig:results\] further shows that the results produced by our model are noticeably sharper, better denoised, more natural and visually pleasant, compared to those generated by the state-of-the-art method [@Chen2018]. For instance, it can be seen in Figure \[Fig:results chen\] that the image reproductions of [@Chen2018] exhibit splotchy textures (text, rail-track), color distortions (train, flowers, bottom corners of row 1) and poorly reconstructed shapes, such as for the text, rail-track and wooden fence.\
**Extremely challenging case.** In Figure \[Fig:results extreme\], we show the performance of our method on an (example) image captured in extremely difficult lighting: dark room with indirect dim light source. Our result might not be acceptable in isolation, but when compared with [@Chen2018], we can greatly appreciate the reconstruction of sharp edges such as for the digits of the clock, and the spatial smoothness of the homogeneous regions, such as the table top and the floor.
-- --------------------------- ---------- ---------- -- ---------- ----------
x100 Set x250 Set x100 Set x250 Set
Ours $>$ Chen [@Chen2018] 84.7% 92.6% 80.3% 86.6%
Ours $>$ Chen [@Chen2018] 76.1% 89.7% 80.9% 89.2%
-- --------------------------- ---------- ---------- -- ---------- ----------
-- ---------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -- ---------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------
PSNR $\textcolor{red}{\uparrow}$ PieAPP [@Prashnani2018] $\textcolor{red}{\downarrow}$ LPIPS [@Zhang2018] $\textcolor{red}{\downarrow}$ PSNR $\textcolor{red}{\uparrow}$ PieAPP [@Prashnani2018] $\textcolor{red}{\downarrow}$ LPIPS [@Zhang2018] $\textcolor{red}{\downarrow}$
29.18 1.576 0.470 27.34 1.957 0.598
**29.43** **1.511** **0.443** **27.63** **1.763** **0.476**
-- ---------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -- ---------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------
$\ell_1$ (Chen [@Chen2018]) MS-SSIM $\mathcal{L}_{pix}$ $\mathcal{L}_{feat}$ $\mathcal{L}_{feat}$ + $\ell_1$ $\mathcal{L}_{feat}$ + $\mathcal{L}_{\text{MS-SSIM}}$ $\mathcal{L}_{final}$
-- ----------------------------- --------- --------------------- ---------------------- --------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------
29.18 29.37 29.33 27.34 29.22 29.40 **29.43**
27.34 27.55 27.51 23.07 27.37 27.52 **27.63**
Subjective Evaluation of Perceptual Quality
-------------------------------------------
We conduct a psychophysical experiment to assess the performance of competing approaches in an office-like environment. A corpus of 25 observers with normal color vision participated in the experiment. The subjects belong to two different groups: 7 expert observers with prior experience in image processing, and 18 naive observers. Each observer was shown a pair of corresponding images on the screen, sequentially and in random order: one of these images is produced by our method and the other one by Chen [@Chen2018]. Observers were asked to examine the color, texture, structure, sharpness and artifacts, and then choose the image which they find more pleasant. Each participant repeated this process on the test images of the Sony and Fuji subsets from the SID dataset [@Chen2018]. The percentage with which the observers preferred images produced by our method than those of Chen [@Chen2018] is reported in Table \[Table:results sup\]. These results indicate that our method significantly outperforms the state-of-the-art [@Chen2018] in terms of perceptual quality.
Quantitative Evaluation
-----------------------
To perform a quantitative assessment of the results, we use two recent learning-based perceptual metrics (LPIPS [@Zhang2018] and PieAPP [@Prashnani2018]) and the standard PSNR metric. For the sake of fair comparison, we leave SSIM metric [@Wang2004] out from the evaluation as our method is optimized using its variant MS-SSIM [@Wang2003]. The average values of these metrics for the testing images of the Sony and Fuji subsets [@Chen2018] are reported in Table \[Table:results\]. Our method outperforms the state-of-the-art [@Chen2018] by a considerable margin.\
**Ablation study.** The proposed loss function that minimizes the error of the network consists of three individual terms ($\ell_1$, $\mathcal{L}_{\text{MS-SSIM}}$ and $\mathcal{L}_{feat}$). Here, we evaluate the impact of each individual term and their combinations on our end-task. Table \[Table:ablation study\] summarizes our results where we compare different loss variants using the exact same parameter ($\alpha, \beta$) settings. Our results demonstrate that each individual term contributes towards the final performance of our method. Based on the PSNR values in Table \[Table:ablation study\] and our qualitative observations, we draw the following conclusions: **(a)** each individual component has its respective limitations e.g., $\ell_1$ yields colorful results but with artifacts, $\mathcal{L}_{\text{MS-SSIM}}$ preserves fine image details but provides less saturated results, $\mathcal{L}_{feat}$ reconstructs structure well, but introduces checkerboard artifacts. **(b)** The combination of $\ell_1$, $\mathcal{L}_{\text{MS-SSIM}}$ and $\mathcal{L}_{feat}$ in an appropriate proportion provides the best results. The final loss function accumulates the complementary strengths of each individual criterion and avoids their respective shortcomings. The resulting images are colorful and artifact free, while faithfully preserving image structure and texture [^1].
[0.245]{} {width="\linewidth"}
[0.245]{} {width="\linewidth"}
[0.245]{} {width="\linewidth"}
[0.245]{} {width="\linewidth"}
[0.235]{} ![Effect of contrast contrast improvement procedure when applied on our results and those of [@Chen2018]. The visual quality of our results is further improved. Whereas, in the results of [@Chen2018] the artifacts become even more apparent.[]{data-label="Fig:results dehazed"}](Images/results_chen_dehazed1.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[0.235]{} ![Effect of contrast contrast improvement procedure when applied on our results and those of [@Chen2018]. The visual quality of our results is further improved. Whereas, in the results of [@Chen2018] the artifacts become even more apparent.[]{data-label="Fig:results dehazed"}](Images/results_ours_dehazed1.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
Contrast Improvement Procedure
==============================
The network of Chen [@Chen2018] produces images that are often dark and lack contrast. It is the inherent limitation enforced by the *imperfect* ground-truth of the SID dataset, and therefore learned network will also be only partially optimal. In attempt to dealing with this issue, [@Chen2018] preprocesses the ground-truth images with histogram equalization. Subsequently, their network learns to generate contrast enhanced outputs; however, with artifacts. Thus the performance of the method [@Chen2018] was significantly reduced.
Inspired from [@Dong2011], we employ the following procedure in order to improve the color contrast of the results produced by our proposed method. We observe that the histogram of outputs produced by our image restoration subnet is mostly skewed towards dark regions (see for example Figure \[Fig:dehazing fig a\]). By inverting the intensity values of the image, the histogram becomes similar to that of a hazy image (Figure \[Fig:dehazing fig b\]). This indicates that, by applying an image dehazing algorithm [@He2011], we can make the image histogram more uniform (Figure \[Fig:dehazing fig c\]). Finally, inverting back the intensities of the image provides us with a new image that is bright, sharp, colorful and without artifacts, as shown in Figure \[Fig:dehazing fig d\].
We notice that preprocessing the reference images by applying the just mentioned procedure and then training the network from scratch produces suboptimal results. Therefore, we first train the network with regular ground-truth for 4000 epochs, and then perform fine-tuning for another 100 epochs with the contrast-enhanced ground-truth.
In Figure \[Fig:results dehazed\], we compare the results obtained after applying the contrast improvement strategy to our image restoration net and to the framework of Chen [@Chen2018]. It is evident that our method produces visually compelling images with good contrast and vivid colors. Whereas the method of [@Chen2018] has a tendency of reproducing images with artifacts, which become even more prominent when the contrast enhancement procedure is employed; notice the zoomed-in portions of Figure \[Fig:results dehazed\], especially the sky in column 1.
Conclusion
==========
Imaging in extremely low-light conditions is a highly challenging task for the conventional camera pipeline, often yielding dark and noisy images with little-to-no detail. In this paper, we proposed a learning-based approach that learns the entire camera pipeline, end-to-end, for low-light conditions. We explored the benefits of computing loss both at the pixel-level information and at the feature-level, and presented a new loss function that significantly improved the performance. We conducted a psychophysical study, according to which the observers overwhelmingly preferred the outputs of our method over the existing state-of-the-art. Similar trends were observed when the image quality of the competing methods was assessed with standard metrics, as well as recent learning-based error metrics.
[^1]: Additional results are provided in supplementary material.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Our aim in this paper is to compute the entire cyclic cohomology of noncommutative 2-tori. First of all, we clarify their algebraic structure of noncommutative 2-tori as a $F^*$-algebra, according to the idea of Elliott-Evans. Actually, they are the $F^*$-inductive limit of subhomogeneous $F^*$-algebras. Using such a result, we compute their entire cyclic cohomology, which is isomorphic to their periodic one as a complex vector space.'
author:
- 'Katsutoshi Kawashima$^{1}$'
title: 'The Entire Cyclic Cohomology of Noncommutative 2-tori'
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
Elliott and Evans [@ee] show that the irrational rotation $C^*$-algebras (or noncommutative 2-tori) $T^2_\theta$ are isomorphic to certain inductive limits, which are now called AT-algebras, $$\varinjlim (C(T)\otimes (M_{q_{2n}}({\mathbb{C}})\oplus M_{q_{2n-1}}({\mathbb{C}})), \pi_n).$$
To compute the entire cyclic cohomology of their smooth parts ${(T^2_{\theta})^\infty}$, we need to know their algebraic structure. In this paper, we elaborate Elliott and Evans’ result cited above, and show that ${(T^2_{\theta})^\infty}$ are isomorphic to inductive limits $$\varinjlim ({C^\infty(T)}\otimes (M_{q_{2n}}({\mathbb{C}})\oplus M_{q_{2n-1}}({\mathbb{C}})), \pi_n^\infty)$$ as Fréchet $^*$-algebras (or $F^*$-algebras). Using this fact, we can compute their entire cyclic cohomology quite easily.
In Sect.\[pre\], we prepare the notations needed for ${(T^2_{\theta})^\infty}$ and review the definition of entire cyclic cohomology. In Sect.\[str\], we determine the algebraic structure of ${(T^2_{\theta})^\infty}$ by using appropriate smooth functions to construct projections based on Connes [@co2] instead of the original ones due to Rieffel [@r]. In Sect.\[fre\], it is shown that the functor of entire cyclic cohomology $H_{\varepsilon}^*$ is continuous in some sense. More precisely, $$H_{\varepsilon}^* (\varinjlim \mathfrak{A}_n )\simeq
\varprojlim H_{\varepsilon}^* (\mathfrak{A}_n)$$ (cf. Meyer [@meyer]), where the right hand side means the projective limit of $H_{\varepsilon}^*({\mathfrak{A}_n})$ which will be defined in the same section.
Our main result is stated in Sect.\[main\].
Preliminaries {#pre}
=============
First of all, we define some notations for our discussion in this section.
Given an irrational number $\theta$, let us treat the noncommutative 2-tori ${(T^2_{\theta})^\infty}$ generated by two unitaries $u, v$ with reltaion $$uv=e^{{2\pi i}\theta}vu$$ as a Fréchet \*-algebra (or $F^*$-algebra). In some cases, we regard each element of ${(T^2_{\theta})^\infty}$ as an operator on the Hilbert space $L^2(T)$ of the square integrable complex valued functions on the 1-torus $T$. For instance, $$(uf)(t)=tf(t), \quad (vf)(t)=f(e^{-{2\pi i}\theta}t)$$ for $f\in L^2(T), \, t\in T$.
There is a smooth action $\alpha$ of $T^2$ on ${(T^2_{\theta})^\infty}$ defined by $$\alpha_{t, s}(u)=tu, \quad \alpha_{t, s}(v)=sv$$ for $t, s\in T$. Moreover, we have the two \*-derivations $\delta_1, \delta_2$ on ${(T^2_{\theta})^\infty}$ associated with $\alpha$ satisfying $$\delta_1(u)=iu, \quad \delta_2(u)=0, \quad \delta_1(v)=0, \quad \delta_2(v)=iv.$$ Using these derivations, we define seminorms $\|\cdot\|_{k, l}$ on ${(T^2_{\theta})^\infty}$ by $$\|x\|_{k, l}=\|\delta_1^k\circ\delta_2^l (x)\|,$$ where $\|\cdot\|$ is the usual $C^*$-norm on $T^2_\theta$.
Here, we briefly review the definition of entire cyclic cohomology. For any unital $F^*$-algebra $\mathfrak{A}$ and any integer $n\geq 0$, we put $C^n$ be the set of all $(n+1)-$linear functionals on $\mathfrak{A}$. For $n<0$, let $C^n =\{ 0\}$. Moreover, we define $$\begin{aligned}
C^{\rm{ev}}&=\{(\varphi_{2n})_n \,|\, \varphi_{2n}\in C^{2n} \,(n\geq 0) \}, \\
C^{\rm{od}}&=\{(\varphi_{2n+1})_n \,|\, \varphi_{2n+1}\in C^{2n+1} \,(n\geq 0) \}.\end{aligned}$$
We call $(\varphi_{2n})$ an entire even cochain if for each bounded subset $\Sigma \subset \mathfrak{A}$, we can find a constant $C>0$ such that $$\left|\varphi_{2n}(a_0, \dots , a_{2n})\right|\leq C\cdot n!$$ for all $n\geq 1$ and $a_j\in \Sigma$. In odd case, we define entire odd cochains by the same way as in even case. We denote by $C_{\varepsilon}^{\rm{ev}}$ (resp. $C_{\varepsilon}^{\rm{od}}$) the set of all entire even (resp. odd) cochains. Then we define the entire cyclic cohomology of $\mathfrak{A}$ by the cohomology of the short complex $$C_{\varepsilon}^{\rm{ev}} \overset{\partial}{\underset{\partial}\leftrightarrows} C_{\varepsilon}^{\rm{od}},$$ where $\partial$ are certain derivativions defined by Connes [@co].
${(T^2_{\theta})^\infty}$ is a Fréchet Inductive Limit {#str}
======================================================
In this section, we prove the key lemma which states that noncommutative 2-tori ${(T^2_{\theta})^\infty}$ as $F^*$-algebras are isomorphic to inductive limits $$\varinjlim (C^\infty (T)\otimes (M_{q_{2n}}({\mathbb{C}})\oplus M_{q_{2n-1}}({\mathbb{C}})), \pi^\infty_n),$$ where the sequence $\{q_{2n-1}\}_n$ appears in the continued fraction expansion of $\theta$.
Let $\begin{pmatrix}
p' & p \\
q' & q
\end{pmatrix} \in SL(2, {\mathbb{Z}})$ with $p/q<\theta<p'/q', \, q>0$ and $q'>0$ for each fixed $\theta \in (0, 1)$. We write $\beta=p'-q'\theta, \beta'=q\theta-p$. First of all, we construct two projections $e_\beta$ and $e_{\beta '}$ in ${(T^2_{\theta})^\infty}$ with traces $\beta$ and $\beta'$ respectively using the functions $f_\beta$ and $g_\beta$ defined below. We regard the $1$-torus $T$ as the interval $[0, 1]$. Since $\begin{pmatrix}
p' & p \\
q' & q
\end{pmatrix}\in SL(2, {\mathbb{Z}})$, we note that $q\beta+q'\beta'=1$. In particular, we have $0<\beta<1/q, 0<\beta'<1/q'$. When $\beta\geq 1/2q$, we put $$\begin{aligned}
f_1(x)&=e^{-\alpha/x} &
f_2(x)&=1-f_1(1/q-\beta-x) \\
f_3(x)&=f_2(1/q-x) & f_4(x)&=f_1(1/q-x),\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha=(1/q-\beta)\log \sqrt{2}$. Using the functions described above, we define the functions $f, g$ defined by $$\begin{aligned}
f_\beta(x)&=
\begin{cases}
f_1(x) & (0\leq x \leq 1/2q-\beta/2) \\
f_2(x) & (1/2q-\beta/2 \leq x \leq 1/q-\beta) \\
1 & (1/q-\beta \leq x \leq \beta) \\
f_3(x) & (\beta \leq x \leq \beta/2+1/2q) \\
f_4(x) & (\beta/2+1/2q \leq x \leq 1/q) \\
0 & (1/q \leq x <1),
\end{cases}
\\
g_\beta(x)&=\chi_{[\beta, 1/q]}(x)\sqrt{f(x)-f(x)^2}, \end{aligned}$$ where $\chi$ stands for the characteristic function. In the case when $\beta <1/2q$, we put $$\begin{aligned}
f_1(x)&=e^{-\alpha'/x} & f_2(x)&=1-f_1(1/q-\beta-x) \\
f_3(x)&=f_2(\beta-x) & f_4(x)&=f_1(\beta-x),\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha'=\beta\log \sqrt{2}$, and define $$\begin{aligned}
f_\beta(x)&=
\begin{cases}
f_1(x) & (1/2q-\beta \leq x \leq 1/2q-\beta/2) \\
f_2(x) & (1/2q-\beta/2 \leq x \leq 1/2q) \\
f_3(x)& (1/2q \leq x \leq 1/2q+\beta/2) \\
f_4(x) & (1/2q+\beta/2 \leq x \leq 1/2q+\beta) \\
0 & (\text{otherwise}),
\end{cases}
\\
g_\beta(x)&=\chi_{[1/2q, 1/2q+\beta]}(x)\sqrt{f(x)-f(x)^2}.\end{aligned}$$ We note that, in either case, $f$ and $g$ are infinitely differentiable functions. Putting $e_\beta$ by $$e_\beta=v^{-q'}g(u)+f(u)+g(u)v^{q'},$$ where $f(u)$ and $g(u)$ belong to the Fréchet \*-algebra $F^*(u)$ generated by $u$, we have the following lemma:
$e_\beta$ cited above is a projection in ${(T^2_{\theta})^\infty}$.
This follows from Connes [@co2].
Another projection $e_{\beta'}$ is constructed by the similar way as $v$ and $u^{-1}$ in place of $u$ and $v$, and as $q'$ and $\beta'$ in place of $q$ and $\beta$ respectively.
\[th:2\] The projections $e_\beta, \alpha_{e^{{2\pi i}p/q}, 1}(e_\beta), \dots , \alpha^{q-1}_{e^{{2\pi i}p/q}, 1}(e_\beta)$ are mutually\
orthogonal. So are the projections $e_{\beta'}, \alpha_{1, e^{-{2\pi i}p'/q'}}(e_{\beta'}), \dots , \alpha^{q'-1}_{1, e^{-{2\pi i}p'/q'}}(e_{\beta'})$.
We have that $$\alpha_{e^{{2\pi i}p/q}, 1}(e_\beta)=
v^{-q'}g(e^{{2\pi i}p/q}u)+f(e^{{2\pi i}p/q}u)+g(e^{{2\pi i}p/q}u)v^{q'}.$$ Since the supports of $g$ and $g(e^{{2\pi i}p/q}\cdot)$ are disjoint, we see for example that $$\begin{aligned}
e_\beta\alpha_{e^{{2\pi i}p/q}, 1}(e_\beta)&=
v^{-q'}g(u)v^{-q'}g(e^{{2\pi i}p/q}u)+f(u)v^{-q'}g(e^{{2\pi i}p/q}u) \\
&\quad +g(u)v^{q'}f(e^{{2\pi i}p/q}u)+g(u)v^{q'}g(e^{{2\pi i}p/q}u)v^{q'} \\
&=v^{-2q'}g(e^{-{2\pi i}q'\theta}u)g(e^{{2\pi i}p/q}u)+v^{q'}g(e^{{2\pi i}q'\theta}u)f(e^{{2\pi i}p/q}u) \\
&\quad +v^{-q'}f(e^{-{2\pi i}p/q}u)+v^{q'}g(e^{{2\pi i}q'\theta}u)g(e^{{2\pi i}p/q}u)v^{q'} \\
&=v^{-2q'}g(e^{{2\pi i}\beta}u)g(e^{{2\pi i}p/q}u)+v^{-q'}f(e^{{2\pi i}\beta}u)g(e^{{2\pi i}p/q}u) \\
&\quad +v^{-q'}g(e^{-{2\pi i}\beta}u)f(e^{{2\pi i}p/q}u)+v^{q'}g(e^{-{2\pi i}\beta}u)g(e^{{2\pi i}p/q}u)v^{q'}. \end{aligned}$$
When $\beta\geq 1/2q$, since $\operatorname{supp}f=[0, 1/q]$ and $\operatorname{supp}g=[\beta, 1/q]$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{supp}g(e^{{2\pi i}\beta}\cdot)&=[2\beta, 1/q+\beta], & \operatorname{supp}g(e^{-{2\pi i}\beta}\cdot)&=[0, 1/q-\beta] \\
\operatorname{supp}g(e^{-{2\pi i}p/q}\cdot)&=[\beta+p/q, (p+1)/q], & \operatorname{supp}f(e^{{2\pi i}\beta}\cdot)&=[\beta, \beta+1/q] \\
\operatorname{supp}f(e^{{2\pi i}p/q}\cdot)&=[p/q, (p+1)/q]. & \end{aligned}$$ Using the fact that $p$ and $q$ are mutually prime, we conclude that the supports of $g(e^{{2\pi i}\beta}\cdot)$ and $g(e^{{2\pi i}p/q}\cdot)$ are disjoint and so on, which implies that $e_\beta\alpha_{e^{{2\pi i}p/q}, 1}(e_\beta)=0$. By the analogous argument, we also have that the above equation holds when $\beta<1/2q$. By the same way, we see that $$\alpha^k_{e^{{2\pi i}p/q}, 1}(e_\beta)\alpha^l_{e^{{2\pi i}p/q}, 1}(e_\beta)=0$$ for $k, l \in \{0, 1, \cdots , q-1\}$ with $k\not=l$, as desired. Similarly, we can prove that the projections $e_{\beta'}, \alpha_{1, e^{-{2\pi i}p'/q'}}(e_{\beta'}), \dots , \alpha^{q'-1}_{1, e^{-{2\pi i}p'/q'}}(e_{\beta'})$ are also mutually orthogonal.
Now we define the elements $e_1$ and $e_2$ by $$e_1=\sum_{k=0}^{q'-1}(\alpha')^k(e_{\beta'}), \quad
e_2=1-\sum_{k=0}^{q-1}\alpha^k(e_\beta),$$ where $\alpha=\alpha_{e^{{2\pi i}p/q}, 1}, \alpha'=\alpha_{1, e^{-{2\pi i}p'/q'}}$. By the previous proposition, both $e_1$ and $e_2$ are projections in ${(T^2_{\theta})^\infty}$. Furthermore, we have that $\tau(e_\beta)=\beta, \tau(e_{\beta'})=\beta'$, where $\tau(x)$ is the canonical trace of $x\in T^2_\theta$.
\[th:3\] The projections $e_1$ and $e_2$ are unitarily equivalent in ${(T^2_{\theta})^\infty}$.
First of all, we show that ${(T^2_{\theta})^\infty}$ is algebraically simple. Let ${\mathfrak{I}}$ be a non-zero \*-ideal of ${(T^2_{\theta})^\infty}$. Since the closure $\overline{{\mathfrak{I}}}$ of ${\mathfrak{I}}$ in $T^2_\theta$ is a closed \*-ideal of $T^2_\theta$, it follows by the algebraic simplicity of $T^2_\theta$ that $\overline{{\mathfrak{I}}}$ must be equal to $T^2_\theta$. Then, there is an element $x\in{\mathfrak{I}}$ such that $\| 1-x\|<1$, so that the spectrum of $x$ does not include the origin of ${\mathbb{C}}$. Since the function $h(t)=1/t$ is holomorphic on the spectrum of $x$, it follows that $h(x)=x^{-1}\in {(T^2_{\theta})^\infty}$. Hence, $1=x^{-1}x\in{\mathfrak{I}}$, which implies that ${\mathfrak{I}}=T^2_\theta$, as claimed.
Next, we have to verify that stable rank of ${(T^2_{\theta})^\infty}$ is equal to one, i.e., the set of all invertible elements of ${(T^2_{\theta})^\infty}$ is dense in ${(T^2_{\theta})^\infty}$. If we would have this fact, ${(T^2_{\theta})^\infty}$ has cancellation property (cf. Rieffel [@r2; @r3]). Take any element $a\in {(T^2_{\theta})^\infty}$. We may assume that $a\geq 0$. Then, for $\forall {\varepsilon}>0$, there exists an invertible element $b\geq 0$ in $T^2_\theta$ such that $\| a-b \|<{\varepsilon}/2$ (note that $T^2_\theta$ is of stable rank one.). By the density of ${(T^2_{\theta})^\infty}$, we can find an element $c\in{(T^2_{\theta})^\infty}$ with $c\geq 0$ and $\| b-c \| <{\varepsilon}/2$. We act ${(T^2_{\theta})^\infty}$ on $L^2(T)$ defined before. Let us show that $c$ is invertible as an operator on $L^2(T)$. If $\xi\in \ker c$ and $\|b-c\|<{\varepsilon}/2$, we have $$\|(b-c)\xi\|=\|b\xi\|<\frac{{\varepsilon}}{\,2\,}\|\xi\|.$$ Since ${\varepsilon}$ is arbitrary, we see that $\xi=0$, which means that $c$ is an injective operator. We note that we can find a positive number ${\varepsilon}/2>\delta>0$ such that $\|b\xi\|\geq \delta\|\xi\|$ for any $\xi \in L^2(T)$. We then have for any $\xi\in L^2(T)$, $$\|c\xi\|\geq |\|(b-c)\xi\|-\|b\xi\||\geq \left|\delta-\frac{{\varepsilon}}{\, 2\,}\right|\|\xi\|,$$ which implies that $c^{-1}$ is bounded. By triangle inequality, $\|a-c\|\leq \|a-b\|+\|b-c\|<{\varepsilon}$. Consequently, the stable rank of ${(T^2_{\theta})^\infty}$ is one.
Now recall that $\tau(e_1)=\tau(e_2)$, we thus have $[e_1]=[e_2]\in K_0({(T^2_{\theta})^\infty})$. Since ${(T^2_{\theta})^\infty}$ has cancellation property, they are unitarily equivalent in ${(T^2_{\theta})^\infty}$.
Let $\theta=[a_0, a_1, \dots , a_n, \dots ]$ be the continued fraction expansion and define the matrices $P_1, P_2, \cdots $ by $$P_n=
\begin{pmatrix}
a_{4n} & 1 \\
1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
a_{4n-1} & 1 \\
1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}
a_{4n-2} & 1 \\
1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}
a_{4n-3} & 1 \\
1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}$$ for $n\geq 1$. Moreover, we put $$\begin{pmatrix}
q_{2n} \\
q_{2n-1}
\end{pmatrix}
=P_nP_{n-1}\cdots P_1
\begin{pmatrix}
1 \\ 0
\end{pmatrix}$$ and $${\mathfrak{A}_n}=M_{q_{2n}}(C^\infty(T))\oplus M_{q_{2n-1}}(C^\infty(T)).$$ For each $n\geq 1$, we construct homomorphisms $\pi_n^\infty : {\mathfrak{A}_n}\to \mathfrak{A}_{n+1}$ as follows: we write $P_{n+1}=\left( \begin{smallmatrix} a&b \\ c&d \end{smallmatrix}\right)$. Let $z\in {C^\infty(T)}$ be the canonical unitary generator of ${C^\infty(T)}$. The element $$\begin{pmatrix}
z & & \\
& \ddots & \\
& & z
\end{pmatrix}
\oplus O_{q_{2n-1}} \in {\mathfrak{A}_n}=M_{q_{2n}}(C^\infty(T))\oplus M_{q_{2n-1}}(C^\infty(T))$$ should be mapped to the element $$\begin{pmatrix}
J_a & & & & & \\
& \ddots & & & & \\
& & J_a & & & \\
& & & O_b & & \\
& & & & \ddots & \\
& & & & & O_b
\end{pmatrix}
\oplus
\begin{pmatrix}
J_c' & & & & & \\
& \ddots & & & & \\
& & J_c' & & & \\
& & & O_d & & \\
& & & & \ddots & \\
& & & & & O_d
\end{pmatrix}
\in \mathfrak{A}_{n+1}$$ $(=(\underbrace{J_a\oplus \cdots \oplus J_a}_{q_{2n}}\oplus \underbrace{O_b \oplus \cdots \oplus O_b}_{q_{2n-1}})\oplus (\underbrace{J_c'\oplus \cdots \oplus J_c'}_{q_{2n}}\oplus \underbrace{O_d \oplus \cdots \oplus O_d}_{q_{2n-1}}))$, where $$J_k=\begin{pmatrix}
0 & & & z \\
1 & \ddots & & \\
& \ddots & \ddots & \\
& & 1 & 0
\end{pmatrix},
\qquad
J_k'=\begin{pmatrix}
0 & & & 1 \\
1 & \ddots & & \\
& \ddots & \ddots & \\
& & 1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\in M_k({C^\infty(T)})$$ and $O_l$ means the $l \times l$ zero matrix. Any element $(a_{ij})\oplus O_{q_{2n-1}} \in M_{q_{2n}}({\mathbb{C}})\oplus M_{q_{2n-1}}({\mathbb{C}})\subset {\mathfrak{A}_n}$ should be mapped to $$\begin{pmatrix}
a_{11}I_a & \cdots & a_{1q_{2n}}I_a & \\
\vdots & & \vdots & \\
a_{q_{2n}, 1}I_a & \cdots & a_{q_{2n}, q_{2n}}I_a \\
& & & O_{bq_{2n-1}}
\end{pmatrix}
\oplus
\begin{pmatrix}
a_{11}I_c & \cdots & a_{1q_{2n}}I_c & \\
\vdots & & \vdots & \\
a_{q_{2n}, 1}I_c & \cdots & a_{q_{2n}, q_{2n}}I_c \\
& & & O_{dq_{2n-1}}
\end{pmatrix}
,$$ where $I_a, I_c$ are the $a\times a, c\times c$ identity matrices respectively. The second direct summand of ${\mathfrak{A}_n}$ should be mapped into $\mathfrak{A}_{n+1}$ by the similar way as $q_{2n}$ replaced by $q_{2n-1}$, $a$ and $c$ by $b$ and $d$ respectively, and interchanging the places to whose elements are mapped from upper left-hand side to lower right-hand side. It is easily verified that these $\pi_n^\infty$ are smooth inclusions.
Next, we need the following proposition. We define $$\begin{aligned}
e_{kk}&=\alpha^{k-1}(e_\beta) & (k&=1, 2, \dots , q-1) \\
\intertext{and}
e_{kk}'&=(\alpha')^{k-1}(e_{\beta'}) & (k&=1, 2, \dots , q'-1).\end{aligned}$$
Let $e_{22}ve_{11}=e_{21}|e_{22}ve_{11}|$ be the polar decomposition of $e_{22}ve_{11}$. Then, $e_{21}=e_{22}ve_{11}$.
We write $x=ve_{11}$. Since $x^*x=e_{11}v^*ve_{11}=e_{11}$, we have $|x|=e_{11}$. Thus, $x=ve_{11}$ is the polar decomposition of $x$, which implies that it is a surjective operator since $v$ is unitary. Hence, it follows that $\overline{\operatorname{Ran}e_{22}}=\overline{\operatorname{Ran}e_{22}ve_{11}}$, where $\overline{V}$ is the closure of a linear subspace $V$ of the Hilbert space $L^2(T)$. Furthermore, it is also verified that $\overline{\operatorname{Ran}e_{11}}=\overline{\operatorname{Ran}|e_{22}ve_{11}|}$. Note that $e_{22}ve_{11}=(e_{22}ve_{11})e_{11}$. By uniqueness of polar decomposition, we deduce that $e_{21}=e_{22}ve_{11}$, as desired.
By the similar way, we put $e_{21}'=e_{22}'ue_{11}'$. Our goal in this section is to construct the $F^*$-subalgebras generated by some unitaries, which is isomorphic to $M_{q_{2n}}(C^\infty(T))\oplus M_{q_{2n-1}}(C^\infty(T))$. For this, since $q_{2n-1}$ and $q_{2n}$ are mutually prime, we can find an integer $p_{2n-1}, p_{2n}$ with $\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
p_{2n-1} & p_{2n} \\ q_{2n-1} & q_{2n} \end{smallmatrix}\right)\in SL(2, {\mathbb{Z}})$ and $p_n/q_n \to \theta$ as $n\to \infty$. With the same notations as above, we set $$\begin{pmatrix}
p' & p \\
q' & q
\end{pmatrix}
=
\begin{pmatrix}
p_{2n} & p_{2n-1} \\ q_{2n} & q_{2n-1} \end{pmatrix}$$ and $\beta=\beta_n=p_{2n-1}-q_{2n-1}\theta, \beta'=\beta'_n=q_{2n}\theta-p_{2n}$, and so on. First of all, we check the following fact although it seems to be known:
\[th:deri\] For arbitrary $h\in {C^\infty(T)}$, $\delta_j(h(u))=h'(u)\delta_j(u) \, (j=1, 2)$, where $h'$ is the first derivative of $h$.
If $h(x)=\sum_{\nu=-m}^{n}a_\nu x^\nu$ is a Laurent polynomial, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_1(h(u))&=\delta_1\left(\sum_{\nu=-m}^{n}a_\nu u^\nu\right) =\sum_{\nu=-m}^{n}a_\nu \nu iu^\nu \\
&=\left(\sum_{\nu=-m}^{n}a_\nu \nu u^{\nu-1}\right)iu=h'(u)\delta_1(u).\end{aligned}$$ For any $h\in {C^\infty(T)}$, we can find a family of Laurent polynomials $\{p_n\}_{n\geq 1}$ such that $p_n \to h$ with respect to the seminorms $\{\|\cdot \|_{k, l}\}$. For $m, n\geq 1$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_1(p_n(u)-p_m(u))&=(p_n'(u)-p_m'(u))\delta_1(u) \\
&=(p_n'(u)-p_m'(u))u.\end{aligned}$$ Since $\{p_n(u)\}_n$ is Cauchy, $\{\delta_1(p_n(u))\}_{n\geq 1}$ is also a Cauchy sequence. Using the fact that $\delta_1$ is a closed operator, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_1(h(u))&=\lim_{n\to\infty}\delta_1(p_n(u)) \\
&=\lim_{n\to\infty}p_n'(u)\delta_1(u)=h'(u)\delta_1(u).\end{aligned}$$ As $\delta_2(u)=0$, it is clear that $\delta_2(h(u))=0=h'(u)\delta_2(u)$. This completes the proof.
In what follows, we use the notations $e_{11}^{(n)}=e_{\beta_n}, (e_{11}')^{(n)}=e'_{\beta_n}$ and so on for $n\geq 1$. Denoting $r_m=p_m/q_m$ for any integer $m\geq 1$, we define $u_n=u_{n, 1}+u_{n, 2}$ and $v_n=v_{n, 1}+v_{n, 2}$, where $$\begin{aligned}
u_{n, 1}&=\sum_{j=0}^{q_{2n}-1}e^{{2\pi i}r_{2n}j}
\alpha^j_{e^{{2\pi i}r_{2n}}, 1}(e_{11}^{(n)}),
&\\
u_{n, 2}&=\sum_{j=0}^{q_{2n-1}-1}\alpha^j_{1, e^{-{2\pi i}r_{2n-1}}}((e_{21}')^{(n)}) \\
v_{n, 1}&=\sum_{j=0}^{q_{2n}-1}\alpha^j_{e^{{2\pi i}r_{2n}}, 1}(e_{21}^{(n)}), & \\
v_{n, 2}&=\sum_{j=0}^{q_{2n-1}-1}e^{-{2\pi i}r_{2n-1}j}\alpha^j_{1, e^{-{2\pi i}r_{2n-1}}}((e_{11}')^{(n)}).\end{aligned}$$ We note that since $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha^{q_{2n}-1}(e_{21}^{(n)})&\in e_{11}^{(n)}{(T^2_{\theta})^\infty}e_{q_{2n}q_{2n}}^{(n)} \\
(\alpha')^{q_{2n-1}-1}((e'_{21})^{(n)})&\in (e'_{11})^{(n)}{(T^2_{\theta})^\infty}(e'_{q_{2n-1}q_{2n-1}})^{(n)},\end{aligned}$$ where $e_{q_{2n}q_{2n}}^{(n)}=\alpha^{q_{2n}-1}_{e^{{2\pi i}r_{2n}}, 1}(e_{11}^{(n)})$ and $(e'_{q_{2n-1}q_{2n-1}})^{(n)}=\alpha^{q_{2n-1}-1}_{1, e^{-{2\pi i}r_{2n-1}}}((e_{11}')^{(n)})$, we can find a unitary $v_{1q_{2n}}\in e_{11}^{(n)}{(T^2_{\theta})^\infty}e_{11}^{(n)}$ (resp. $u'_{1q_{2n-1}}\in (e'_{11})^{(n)}{(T^2_{\theta})^\infty}(e'_{11})^{(n)}$) such that $\alpha^{q_{2n}-1}(e_{21}^{(n)})=v_{1q_{2n}}e_{1q_{2n}}^{(n)}$ (resp. $(\alpha')^{q_{2n-1}-1}((e'_{21})^{(n)})=u'_{1q_{2n-1}}(e'_{1q_{2n-1}})^{(n)}$). By Lemma \[th:2\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
u_{n, 1}u_{n, 1}^*
&=\left(\sum_{j=0}^{q_{2n}-1}e^{{2\pi i}r_{2n}j}
\alpha^j_{e^{{2\pi i}r_{2n}}, 1}(e_{11}^{(n)})\right) \\
&\quad \cdot \left(\sum_{j=0}^{q_{2n}-1}e^{-{2\pi i}r_{2n}j}\alpha^j_{e^{{2\pi i}r_{2n}}, 1}(e_{11}^{(n)})\right) \\
&=\sum_{j, m}e^{{2\pi i}r_{2n}(j-m)}\alpha^j_{e^{{2\pi i}r_{2n}}, 1}(e_{11}^{(n)})\alpha^m_{e^{{2\pi i}r_{2n}}, 1}(e_{11}^{(n)}) \\
&=\sum_{j=0}^{q_{2n}-1}\alpha^j_{e^{{2\pi i}r_{2n}}, 1}(e_{11}^{(n)})=1-e_2^{(n)}.\end{aligned}$$
Similarly, $u_{n, 1}^*u_{n, 1}=1-e_2^{(n)}, v_{n, 2}v_{n, 2}^*=v_{n, 2}^*v_{n, 2}=e_1^{(n)}$. Moreover, we have $$\begin{aligned}
u_{n, 2}u_{n, 2}^*&=
\left(\sum_{j=0}^{q_{2n-1}-2}(e'_{2+j, 1+j})^{(n)}+u'_{1q_{2n-1}}(e'_{1q_{2n-1}})^{(n)}\right) \\
&\quad \cdot\left(\sum_{j=0}^{q_{2n-1}-2}(e'_{1+j, 2+j})^{(n)}+(e'_{q_{2n-1}1})^{(n)}(u'_{1q_{2n-1}})^*\right) \\
&=\left((e'_{21})^{(n)}+\dots +(e'_{q_{2n-1}, q_{2n-1}-1})^{(n)}\right) \\
&\quad \cdot \left((e'_{12})^{(n)}+\dots +(e'_{q_{2n-1}-1, q_{2n-1}})^{(n)}\right) \\
&\quad +\left((e'_{21})^{(n)}+\dots +(e'_{q_{2n-1}, q_{2n-1}-1})^{(n)}\right)u'_{1q_{2n-1}}(e'_{1q_{2n-1}})^{(n)} \\
&\quad +(e'_{q_{2n-1}, 1})^{(n)}u'_{1q_{2n-1}}\left((e'_{12})^{(n)}+\dots +(e'_{q_{2n-1}-1, q_{2n-1}})^{(n)}\right) \\
&\quad +(e'_{q_{2n-1}, 1})^{(n)}(u'_{1q_{2n-1}})^*u'_{1q_{2n-1}}(e'_{1q_{2n-1}})^{(n)},\end{aligned}$$ where $$(e'_{k, k-1})^{(n)}=\alpha^{k-2}_{1, e^{-{2\pi i}r_{2n-1}}}((e'_{11})^{(n)}), \quad (e_{k-1, k})^{(n)}=((e_{k, k-1})^{(n)})^*$$ for $k=2, \dots , q_{2n-1}$. Since $u'_{1q_{2n-1}}$ is a unitary in $(e'_{11})^{(n)}{(T^2_{\theta})^\infty}(e'_{11})^{(n)}$, it follows that the second and the third terms above are 0 and $$\begin{aligned}
(e'_{q_{2n-1}, 1})^{(n)}(u'_{1q_{2n-1}})^*u'_{1q_{2n-1}}(e'_{1q_{2n-1}})^{(n)}&=(e'_{q_{2n-1}1})^{(n)}(e'_{11})^{(n)}(e'_{1q_{2n-1}})^{(n)} \\
&=(e'_{q_{2n-1}q_{2n-1}})^{(n)}. \end{aligned}$$ Thus we have $$u_{n, 2}u_{n, 2}^*=(e'_{11})^{(n)}+\dots +(e'_{q_{2n-1}-1, q_{2n-1}-1})^{(n)}+(e'_{q_{2n-1}q_{2n-1}})^{(n)}=e_1^{(n)}.$$ The same calculations show that $$u_{n, 2}^*u_{n, 2}=e_1^{(n)}, \quad v_{n, 1}v_{n, 1}^*=v_{n, 1}^*v_{n, 1}=1-e_2^{(n)}.$$ Moreover, we have $$\begin{aligned}
v_{n, 1}u_{n, 1}
&=\left(e_{21}^{(n)}+\dots +e_{q_{2n}, q_{2n}-1}^{(n)}+u_{1q_{2n}}e_{1q_{2n}}^{(n)}\right)
\left(e_{11}^{(n)}+\dots +\omega^{q_{2n}-1}e_{q_{2n}q_{2n}}^{(n)}\right) \\
&=e_{21}^{(n)}+\dots +\omega^{q_{2n}-2}e_{q_{2n}q_{2n}-1}^{(n)}+\omega^{q_{2n}-1}u_{1q_{2n}}e_{1q_{2n}}^{(n)} \\
\intertext{and}
u_{n, 1}v_{n, 1}
&=\left(e_{11}^{(n)}+\dots +\omega^{q_{2n}-1}e_{q_{2n}q_{2n}}^{(n)}\right)\left(e_{21}^{(n)}+\dots +e_{q_{2n}, q_{2n}-1}^{(n)}+u_{1q_{2n}}e_{1q_{2n}}^{(n)}\right) \\
&=e_{11}^{(n)}u_{1q_{2n}}e_{1q_{2n}}^{(n)}+\omega e_{21}^{(n)}+\dots +\omega^{q_{2n}-1}e_{q_{2n}q_{2n}-1}^{(n)},\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
e_{kk}^{(n)}&=\alpha^{k-1}_{e^{{2\pi i}r_{2n}}, 1}(e_{\beta_n}) \quad (k=2, \dots , q_{2n}-1), \\
e_{k, k-1}^{(n)}&=\alpha^{k-2}_{e^{{2\pi i}r_{2n}}, 1}(e_{21}^{(n)}), \quad e_{k-1, k}^{(n)}=(e_{k, k-1}^{(n)})^* \quad (k=2, \dots , q_{2n}) \end{aligned}$$ and $\omega =e^{{2\pi i}r_{2n}}$. Using the fact that $u_{1q_{2n}}\in e_{11}^{(n)}{(T^2_{\theta})^\infty}e_{11}^{(n)}$ and $\omega^{q_{2n}}=1$, we have $$v_{n, 1}u_{n, 1}=e^{-{2\pi i}r_{2n}}u_{n, 1}v_{n, 1}.$$ To sum up, we get the following:
The following hold:
1. $u_{n,1}$ and $u_{n, 2}$ are unitaries in $(1-e_2^{(n)}){(T^2_{\theta})^\infty}(1-e_2^{(n)})$ and so are $u_{n, 2}$ and $v_{n, 2}$ in $e_1^{(n)}{(T^2_{\theta})^\infty}e_1^{(n)}$.
2. $u_{n, 1}v_{n, 1}=e^{{2\pi i}r_{2n}}v_{n, 1}u_{n, 1}, \quad u_{n, 2}v_{n, 2}=e^{{2\pi i}r_{2n-1}}v_{n, 2}u_{n, 2}$.
Now we construct subalgebras isomorphic to $M_{q_{2n}}(C^\infty (T))\oplus M_{q_{2n-1}}(C^\infty (T))$. Let $\{e_{ij}^{(n)}\}_{1\leq i, j\leq q_{2n}}$ be the matrix units constructed by $$\{e_{11}^{(n)}, e_{22}^{(n)}, \dots e_{q_{2n}q_{2n}}^{(n)}, e_{21}^{(n)}, \dots , e_{q_{2n}, q_{2n}-1}^{(n)} \}.$$ We then see the following lemma:
The $F^*$-algebras $F^*(\{e_{ij}^{(n)}\}_{1\leq i, j\leq q_{2n}}, v_{1q_{2n}})$ generated by $\{e_{ij}^{(n)}\}_{1\leq i, j\leq q_{2n}}$ and $v_{1q_{2n}}$ are isomorphic to $M_{q_{2n}}(C^\infty (T))$ for all integers $n\geq 1$.
Consider the continuous field $S\ni t\mapsto e_{\beta_n}$ defined by Elliott and Evans [@ee], where $S$ is a closed subinterval in $(0, \infty )$. The functions $f$ and $g$ appeared in the construction of $e_{\beta_{n}}$ are depend on $t\in S$, so that we write $f=f_t, \, g=g_t$. It is not difficult to verify that $$\|f_t^{(\nu )}-f_{t_0}^{(\nu )}\|_\infty \, , \, \|g_t^{(\nu )}-g_{t_0}^{(\nu )}\|_\infty \to 0$$ as $t\to t_0$ for any integer $\nu \geq 0$, where $f^{(\nu)}$ stands for the $\nu$-th derivatives of $f\in{C^\infty(T)}$ and $\|\cdot \|_\infty$ is the supremum norm on ${C^\infty(T)}$. Then our statement of this lemma follows immediately.
By the same way, it follows that the $F^*$-algebra $F^* (\{(e'_{ij})^{(n)}\}, u'_{1q_{2n-1}})$ generated by $\{(e'_{ij})^{(n)}\}_{1\leq i, j\leq q_{2n-1}}$ and $u'_{1q_{2n-1}}$ is isomorphic to $M_{q_{2n-1}}({C^\infty(T)})$, where $\{(e'_{ij})^{(n)}\}_{1\leq i, j\leq q_{2n-1}}$ are the matrix units generated by $$\{ (e'_{11})^{(n)}, \dots (e'_{q_{2n-1}q_{2n-1}})^{(n)}, (e'_{21})^{(n)}, \dots (e'_{q_{2n-1}, \, q_{2n-1}-1})^{(n)}\}.$$
\[deri\] For each $h\in {C^\infty(T)}$ and any integer $k\geq 1$, there exist $\{a_{\nu, k}\}\subset {\mathbb{R}}$ such that $$\delta_1^k(h(u))=\sum_{\nu=1}^k a_{\nu, k}h^{(\nu)} (u)u^\nu
\quad \quad (\nu=1, \dots , k).$$
For $k=1$, by Proposition \[th:deri\]. If this statement holds for some $k\geq 1$, one has $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_1^{k+1}(h(u))&=\delta_1\left(\sum_{\nu=1}^k a_{\nu, k}h^{(\nu)}(u)u^\nu\right) \\
&=\sum_{\nu=1}^k a_{\nu, k}\delta_1(h^{(\nu)}(u)u^\nu) \\
&=\sum_{\nu=1}^k a_{\nu, k}\left( h^{(\nu+1)}(u)u\cdot u^\nu+i\nu h^{(\nu)}(u)u^\nu\right) \\
&=\sum_{\nu=1}^k a_{\nu, k}\left( h^{(\nu+1)}(u)u^{\nu+1}+i\nu h^{(\nu)}(u)u^\nu\right) \\
&=\sum_{\nu=2}^{k+1}a_{\nu -1, k}h^{(\nu)}(u)u^\nu
+\sum_{\nu=1}^k ia_{\nu, k}\nu h^{(\nu)}(u)u^\nu .\end{aligned}$$ Thus, we have $$a_{\nu, k+1}=\sum_{\nu=2}^{k+1}a_{\nu -1, k}+
\sum_{\nu=1}^k ia_{\nu, k}\nu ,$$ this ends the proof.
We note that the coefficients $a_{\nu, k}$ do not depend on the choice $h$.
By Lemma\[deri\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
\| \delta_1^k(f_n(u))-\delta_1^k(f_m(u)) \|
&=\left\| \sum_{\nu=1}^k a_{\nu, k}\left(f_n^{(\nu)}(u)-f_m^{(\nu)}(u)\right)u^\nu\right\| \\
&\leq \sum_{\nu=1}^k |a_{\nu, k}|\|f_n^{(\nu)}(u)-f_m^{(\nu)}(u)\| \to 0 \quad
(n, m \to \infty),\end{aligned}$$ which means that $\{\delta_1^k(f_n(u))\}_n$ is a Cauchy sequence. Analogously, we see that $\{\delta_1^k(g_n(u))\}_n$ is also Cauchy.
By construction, the following fact follows:
Let $F^* (u_n, v_n)$ be the $F^*$-algebras generated by $u_n$ and $v_n$. Then, they are equal to $F^*(\{e_{ij}^{(n)}\}, v_{1q_{2n}})\oplus F^*(\{(e'_{ij})^{(n)}\}, u'_{1q_{2n-1}})$.
Since $u_{n, j}$ and $v_{n, j}$ $(j=1, 2)$ are all periodic unitaries, their spectra are finite. Then the projections appeared in the spectral decompositions of $u_{n, j}, v_{n, j}$ are unitarily equivalent to $e_{ij}^{(n)}$s by the properties that $F^*(u_{n, j})$ and $F^*(v_{n, j})$ are closed under the holomorphic functional calculus.
For any integers $k, l\geq 0$, $$\lim_{n\to \infty}\|u-u_n\|_{k, l}=\lim_{n\to\infty}\|v-v_n\|_{k, l}=0.$$
At first, we have to verify that the sequence $\{\delta_1^k(e_{\beta_n})\}_n$ is Cauchy. By construction of $e_{\beta_n}$, we have, for $n, m\geq 1$, $$\begin{aligned}
\|\delta_1^k(e_{\beta_n})-\delta_1^k(e_{\beta_m})\|
&\leq \|\delta_1^k(v^{-q_{2n-1}}g_n(u)-v^{-q_{2m-1}}g_m(u))\| \\
&\quad +\| \delta_1^k(f_n(u)-f_m(u)) \|+\|\delta_1^k(g_n(u)v^{q_{2n-1}}-g_m(u)v^{q_{2m-1}})\| \\
&=\|v^{-q_{2n-1}}\delta_1^k(g_n(u))-v^{-q_{2m-1}}\delta_1^k(g_m(u))\| \\
&\quad +\|\delta_1^k(f_n(u))-\delta_1^k(f_m(u))\| \\
&\quad +\|\delta_1^k(g_n(u))v^{q_{2n-1}}-\delta_1^k(g_m(u))v^{q_{2m-1}}\|.\end{aligned}$$
Since $p_{2n-1}/q_{2n-1} \to \theta$, the last term of the above calculation tends to $0$ as $n, m\to \infty$. Therefore, $\{\delta_1^k\circ\delta_2^l(u(1-e_2^{(n)})-u_{n, 1})\}_n$ is Cauchy. Similarily, the sequence $\{\delta_1^k\circ\delta_2^l(ue_1^{(n)}-u_{n, 2})\}_n$ is also a Cauchy sequence. Hence, by [@r], $$u(1-e_2^{(n)})-u_{n, 1} \to 0, \quad ue_1^{(n)}-u_{n, 2} \to 0$$ as $n \to \infty$. Using the fact that $\delta_1^k\circ\delta_2^l$ are closed, the sequences above tend to $0$ as $n\to \infty$. Consequently, $$\begin{aligned}
\|u-u_n\|_{k, l}&\leq \|u(1-e_2^{(n)})-u_{n, 1}\|_{k, l}+\|ue_1^{(n)}-u_{n, 2}\|_{k, l} \\
&\to 0 \qquad (n\to \infty).\end{aligned}$$ By the similar argument, we have $\|v-v_n\|_{k, l}\to 0$ as $n\to\infty$, this ends the proof.
Combining all together in this section, we conclude that our key fact follows:
Given an irrational number $\theta \in (0, 1)$, ${(T^2_{\theta})^\infty}$ is isomorphic to the Fréchet $^*$-inductive limit $$\varinjlim (M_{q_{2n}}({C^\infty(T)})\oplus M_{q_{2n-1}}({C^\infty(T)}), \pi_n^\infty).$$
Entire Cyclic Cohomology of Fréchet Inductive Limits {#fre}
====================================================
Let $\{{\mathfrak{A}_n}, i_n \}_{n\geq 1}$ be a family of Fréchet \*-algebras and $i_n : {\mathfrak{A}_n}\to \mathfrak{A}_{n+1}$ Fréchet \*-imbeddings. We can form the Fréchet \*-inductive limit $\varinjlim \mathfrak{A}_n$, which is denoted by $\mathfrak{A}$. In this section, we prove that the projective limit $\varprojlim H_{\varepsilon}^*({\mathfrak{A}_n})$ of the entire cyclic cohomologies $\varprojlim H_{\varepsilon}^*({\mathfrak{A}_n})$ is isomorphic to $H_{\varepsilon}^*({\mathfrak{A}})$. Let $[\,\cdot\,]_{{\mathfrak{A}_n}}$ be the entire cyclic cohomology classes on ${\mathfrak{A}_n}$, and the maps $\widehat{i_n}^* : H_{\varepsilon}^{{\rm ev}}({\mathfrak{A}}_{n+1})\to H_{\varepsilon}^{{\rm ev}}({\mathfrak{A}_n})$ are defined by $$\widehat{i_n}^*([(\varphi_{2k}^{(n+1)})_k]_{{\mathfrak{A}}_{n+1}})=[(i_n^{\otimes (2k+1)})^*\varphi_{2k}^{(n+1)}]_{{\mathfrak{A}_n}},$$ where $$(i_n^{\otimes (2k+1)})^*\varphi_{2k}^{(n+1)}(a_0, \dots , a_{2k})
=\varphi_{2k}^{(n+1)}(i_n(a_0), \dots , i_n(a_{2k}))$$ for ${a_0, \cdots , a_{2k}}\in {\mathfrak{A}_n}$. First of all, we define the notion of projective limit as follows:
\[teigi\] The projective limit ${\varprojlim H_{\varepsilon}^{\text{{\rm ev}}}(\mathfrak{A}_n)}$ of $H_{\varepsilon}^{{\rm ev}}({\mathfrak{A}_n})$ is the space of sequences $\{ [(\varphi_{2k}^{(n)})_k ]_{{\mathfrak{A}_n}} \}_n \in \prod_{n\geq 1} H_{\varepsilon}^{\rm{ev}}({\mathfrak{A}_n})$ such that for any $n\geq 1$, $$\widehat{i_n}^*([(\varphi^{(n+1)}_{2k})_k]_{{\mathfrak{A}}_{n+1}})= [(\varphi^{(n)}_{2k})_k]_{{\mathfrak{A}_n}}$$ with the property that for any $k\geq 0, l\geq 1$, $$\sup_{n\geq 1}\| \varphi^{(n)}_{2k} \|_l < \infty,$$ where $$\| \varphi_{2k}^{(n)} \|_l = \sup_{a_j \in {\mathfrak{A}_n}, \, \| a_j \|_l\leq 1} | \varphi_{2k}^{(n)}(a_0, \dots , a_{2k}) |.$$ We define $\varprojlim H_{\varepsilon}^{{\rm od}}({\mathfrak{A}_n})$ in the similar way as in the even case. $\{ [(\varphi_{2k}^{(n)})_k ]_{{\mathfrak{A}_n}} \}_n = \{ [(\psi_{2k}^{(n)})_k ]_{{\mathfrak{A}_n}} \}_n$ if and only if there exists $\{ [(\theta_{2k+1}^{(n)})_k ]_{{\mathfrak{A}_n}} \}_n \in \varprojlim H_{\varepsilon}^{{\rm od}}({\mathfrak{A}_n})$ such that $$\varphi_{2k}^{(n)}-\psi_{2k}^{(n)}=b\theta_{2k-1}^{(n)}+B\theta_{2k+1}^{(n)}$$ for any $n\geq 1, k\geq 0$.
Let us construct two maps between ${\varprojlim H_{\varepsilon}^{\text{{\rm ev}}}(\mathfrak{A}_n)}$ and $H_{\varepsilon}^{{\rm ev}}({\mathfrak{A}})$. First of all, we define $\Phi : {H_{\varepsilon}^{\text{{\rm ev}}}(\mathfrak{A})}\to {\varprojlim H_{\varepsilon}^{\text{{\rm ev}}}(\mathfrak{A}_n)}$ by $$\Phi([(\varphi_{2k})_k]_{\mathfrak{A}})=\{[(\varphi_{2k}|_{{\mathfrak{A}_n}})_k]_{{\mathfrak{A}_n}}\}_n,$$ where $[\,\cdot\,]_{\mathfrak{A}}$ means the same symbol as $[\,\cdot\,]_{{\mathfrak{A}_n}}$. Actually it is well-defined. In fact, if $[(\varphi_{2k})_k]_{\mathfrak{A}}=[(\varphi'_{2k})_k]_{\mathfrak{A}}$ then there exists an odd entire cyclic cocycle $\theta=(\theta_{2k+1})_k$ such that $(\varphi_{2k}-\varphi'_{2k})_k=(b+B)(\theta_{2k+1})_k,$ where $b+B$ is the derivation on entire cyclic cocycles. It is trivial that $(\varphi_{2k}|_{{\mathfrak{A}_n}}-\varphi'_{2k}|_{{\mathfrak{A}_n}})_k=(b+B)(\theta_{2k+1}|_{{\mathfrak{A}_n}})_k$ for each integer $n\geq 1$. This means that $\{[(\varphi_{2k}|_{{\mathfrak{A}_n}})_k]_{{\mathfrak{A}_n}}\}_n=\{[(\varphi'_{2k}|_{{\mathfrak{A}_n}})_k]_{{\mathfrak{A}_n}}\}_n$. Moreover, $$\sup_{n\geq 1} \| \varphi_{2k}^{(n)}|_{{\mathfrak{A}_n}} \|_l=\| \varphi_{2k} \|_l < \infty,$$ which implies $[(\varphi_{2k}^{(n)}|_{{\mathfrak{A}_n}})_k]_{{\mathfrak{A}_n}}\in H_{\varepsilon}^{{\rm ev}}({\mathfrak{A}_n})$.\
Now we construct the inverse map $\Psi$ of $\Phi$. For any $\{[(\varphi_{2k}^{(n)})_k]_{{\mathfrak{A}_n}}\}_n$ $\in {\varprojlim H_{\varepsilon}^{\text{{\rm ev}}}(\mathfrak{A}_n)}$ and ${a_0, \cdots , a_{2k}}\in {\mathfrak{A}}$, we can take sequences $\{b_j^{(m)}\}_m$ for $j=0, \dots , 2k$ which converge to $a_j$ as $m\to\infty$ with respect to the seminorms $\|\cdot\|_l$ on $\varinjlim {\mathfrak{A}_n}$. Choose integers $N(m)\geq 1$ such that $b_j^{(m)}\in \mathfrak{A}_{N(m)}$ for any $0\leq j\leq 2k$. We may assume that $N(m)=m$ by taking a larger number between $N(m)$ and $m$. We have that for $m>m'$, there exists an odd entire cocycle $\theta^{(m')}=(\theta^{(m')}_{2k+1})_k$ on $\mathfrak{A}_{m'}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{shiki1}
&\varphi_{2k}^{(m)}(b_0^{(m)}, \dots , b_{2k}^{(m)})-\varphi_{2k}^{(m')}(b_0^{(m')}, \dots , b_{2k}^{(m')}) \\
&\quad =(b\theta_{2k-1}^{(m')}+B\theta_{2k+1}^{(m')})(b_0^{(m')}, \dots , b_{2k}^{(m')}). \notag\end{aligned}$$ By Hahn-Banach theorem, we can extend $\varphi_{2k}^{(m)}$ and $\varphi_{2k}^{(m')}$ to $\widetilde{\varphi_{2k}}^{(m)}$ and $\widetilde{\varphi_{2k}}^{(m')}$ on ${\mathfrak{A}}$ such that $$\|\widetilde{\varphi_{2k}}^{(m)}\|_l=\|\varphi_{2k}^{(m)}\|_l, \quad \|\widetilde{\varphi_{2k}}^{(m')}\|_l=\|\varphi_{2k}^{(m')}\|_l$$ for any $l\geq 1$.
For any $a_0, \dots , a_{2k} \in {\mathfrak{A}}$, the sequence $$\{ \widetilde{\varphi_{2k}}^{(m)} ({a_0, \cdots , a_{2k}})\}_m$$ is bounded.
We have $$\begin{aligned}
|\widetilde{\varphi_{2k}}^{(m)}({a_0, \cdots , a_{2k}})|&\leq |\widetilde{\varphi_{2k}}^{(m)}(a_0-b_0^{(m)}, a_1, \dots , a_{2k})| \\
&+|\widetilde{\varphi_{2k}}^{(m)}(b_0^{(m)}, a_1-b_1^{(m)}, a_2, \dots , a_{2k})| \\
&+\cdots \\
&+|\widetilde{\varphi_{2k}}^{(m)}(b_0^{(m)}, \dots , b_{2k-1}^{(m)}, a_{2k}-b_{2k}^{(m)})| \\
&+|\widetilde{\varphi_{2k}}^{(m)}(b_0^{(m)}, \dots , b_{2k}^{(m)})|.\end{aligned}$$ By the above equation (\[shiki1\]), $$\begin{aligned}
&\widetilde{\varphi_{2k}}^{(m)}(b_0^{(m)}, \dots , b_{2k}^{(m)}) \\
&=\varphi_{2k}^{(m)}(b_0^{(m)}, \dots , b_{2k}^{(m)}) \\
&=\varphi_{2k}^{(m')}(b_0^{(m')}, \dots , b_{2k}^{(m')})
+(b\theta_{2k-1}^{(m')}+B\theta_{2k+1}^{(m')})(b_0^{(m')}, \dots , b_{2k}^{(m')})\end{aligned}$$ is a constant independent of $m$. Using the hypothesis in Definition \[teigi\] and Hahn-Banach theorem, it follows that $\lim_{m\to \infty}|\widetilde{\varphi_{2k}}^{(m)}({a_0, \cdots , a_{2k}})|$ is dominated by the constant $|\varphi_{2k}^{(m')}(b_0^{(m')}, \dots , b_{2k}^{(m')})+(b\theta_{2k-1}^{(m')}+B\theta_{2k+1}^{(m')})(b_0^{(m')}, \dots , b_{2k}^{(m')})|$. In particular, the sequence $\{|\widetilde{\varphi_{2k}}^{(m)}({a_0, \cdots , a_{2k}})|\}_m$ is bounded.\
Therefore, by taking the subsequence of $\{|\widetilde{\varphi_{2k}}^{(N)}({a_0, \cdots , a_{2k}})|\}_N$, we may assume that $$\lim_{N\to \infty}\widetilde{\varphi_{2k}}^{(N)}({a_0, \cdots , a_{2k}})$$ exists, so that we define $$\widetilde{\varphi_{2k}}({a_0, \cdots , a_{2k}})=\lim_{N\to \infty}\widetilde{\varphi_{2k}}^{(N)}({a_0, \cdots , a_{2k}}).$$ Here we note that $$\widetilde{\varphi_{2k}}({a_0, \cdots , a_{2k}})=\lim_{m\to \infty}\widetilde{\varphi_{2k}}^{(m)}(b_0^{(m)}, \dots , b_{2k}^{(m)}).$$ In fact, by the same reason as before, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&|\widetilde{\varphi_{2k}}^{(m)}({a_0, \cdots , a_{2k}})-\widetilde{\varphi_{2k}}^{(m)}(b_0^{(m)}, \dots , b_{2k}^{(m)})| \\
&\leq |\widetilde{\varphi_{2k}}^{(m)}(a_0-b_0^{(m)}, a_1, \dots , a_{2k})| \\
&\quad +\cdots \\
&\quad +|\widetilde{\varphi_{2k}}^{(m)}(b_0^{(m)}, \dots , b_{2k-1}^{(m)}, a_{2k}-b_{2k}^{(m)})| \to 0\end{aligned}$$ as $m \to \infty$. Using the above preparation, we shall show the following fact:
$(\widetilde{\varphi_{2k}})_k$ is an entire cyclic cocycle on ${\mathfrak{A}}$.
Let $\Sigma$ be a bounded subset of ${\mathfrak{A}}$ and ${a_0, \cdots , a_{2k}}\in \Sigma$. Then we can choose sequences $\{b_j^{(m)}\}_m \subset \bigcup {\mathfrak{A}_n}$ for $j=0, \dots , 2k$ such that $b_j^{(m)}\to a_j$ as $m\to \infty$ with respect to the topology induced by the seminorms $\| \cdot \|_l$ on ${\mathfrak{A}}$. In this case, the set $$\Sigma_0 = \{b_j^{(m)}\in \bigcup {\mathfrak{A}_n}\, | \, j=0, \dots , 2k, m\in \mathbb{N} \}$$ is bounded in ${\mathfrak{A}}$. So, by the equation (\[shiki1\]), $$\begin{aligned}
|\widetilde{\varphi_{2k}}({a_0, \cdots , a_{2k}})|&=\lim_{m\to\infty}|\widetilde{\varphi_{2k}}^{(m)}(b_0^{(m)}, \dots , b_{2k}^{(m)})| \\
&\leq |\widetilde{\varphi_{2k}}^{(1)}(b_0^{(1)}, \dots , b_{2k}^{(1)})| \\
&\quad +|(b\theta_{2k-1}^{(1)}+B\theta_{2k+1}^{(1)})(b_0^{(1)}, \dots , b_{2k}^{(1)})|.\end{aligned}$$ As $(\varphi_{2k}^{(1)})_k$ and $(b\theta_{2k-1}^{(1)}+B\theta_{2k+1}^{(1)})_k$ are entire on $\mathfrak{A}_1$, $$|\widetilde{\varphi_{2k}}({a_0, \cdots , a_{2k}})|\leq Ck!$$ for some constant $C>0$ independent of $m$, which implies that $(\widetilde{\varphi_{2k}})_k$ is entire.\
Now we are ready to define a map $\Psi : \varprojlim H_{\varepsilon}^{{\rm ev}}({\mathfrak{A}_n}) \to H_{\varepsilon}^{{\rm ev}}({\mathfrak{A}})$ in the following fashion: $$\Psi(\{ [(\varphi_{2k}^{(n)})_k ]_{{\mathfrak{A}_n}} \}_n)=[(\widetilde{\varphi_{2k}})_k]_{\mathfrak{A}}.$$ We have to verify that the definition is well-defined. Let $$\{ [(\varphi_{2k}^{(n)})_k ]_{{\mathfrak{A}_n}} \}_n = \{ [(\psi_{2k}^{(n)})_k ]_{{\mathfrak{A}_n}} \}_n \in \varprojlim H_{\varepsilon}^{{\rm ev}}({\mathfrak{A}_n}) .$$ Then for any $n\geq 1$, there exists an odd entire cyclic cocycles $\theta^{(n)}=(\theta_{2k+1}^{(n)})_k$ on ${\mathfrak{A}_n}$ such that $$\varphi_{2k}^{(n)}(b_0, \dots , b_{2k})-\psi_{2k}^{(n)}(b_0, \dots , b_{2k})
=(b\theta_{2k-1}^{(n)}+B\theta_{2k+1}^{(n)})(b_0, \dots b_{2k})$$ for $b_0, \dots , b_{2k}\in {\mathfrak{A}_n}.$ By the above argument, there exists an odd entrie cyclic cocycle $\widetilde{\theta}=(\widetilde{\theta_{2k+1}})_k$ on ${\mathfrak{A}}$. Then by the definition of $b+B$, we have that $$\begin{aligned}
&(b\theta_{2k-1}^{(n)}+B\theta_{2k+1}^{(n)})({a_0, \cdots , a_{2k}}) \\
&=\lim_{m\to\infty}(b\theta_{2k-1}^{(m)}+B\theta_{2k+1}^{(m)})(b_0^{(m)}, \dots , b_{2k}^{(m)}) \\
&=\lim_{m\to\infty}\left(\widetilde{\varphi_{2k}}^{(m)}(b_0^{(m)}, \dots , b_{2k}^{(m)})-\widetilde{\psi_{2k}}^{(m)}(b_0^{(m)}, \dots , b_{2k}^{(m)})\right) \\
&=\widetilde{\varphi_{2k}}({a_0, \cdots , a_{2k}})-\widetilde{\psi_{2k}}({a_0, \cdots , a_{2k}}),\end{aligned}$$ which implies that $[(\widetilde{\varphi_{2k}})_k]_{\mathfrak{A}}=[(\widetilde{\psi_{2k}})_k]_{\mathfrak{A}}$.
\[th:10\] The following isomorphism holds as a vector space over ${\mathbb{C}}$: $$\varprojlim H_{\varepsilon}^*({\mathfrak{A}_n}) \simeq H_{\varepsilon}^{*}({\mathfrak{A}}).$$
We prove just in the even case. For any $[(\varphi_{2k})_k]_{\mathfrak{A}}\in H_{\varepsilon}^{{\rm ev}}({\mathfrak{A}})$, we have $$\Psi \circ \Phi ([(\varphi_{2k})_k]_{\mathfrak{A}})=\Psi(\{[(\varphi_{2k}|_{{\mathfrak{A}_n}})_k]_{{\mathfrak{A}_n}}\}_n)=[(\widetilde{\varphi_{2k}|_{{\mathfrak{A}_n}}})_k]_{\mathfrak{A}}.$$
For any ${a_0, \cdots , a_{2k}}\in {\mathfrak{A}}$, we take sequences $\{b_j^{(m)}\}_{m}$ $(j=0, \cdots, 2k)$ which converge to $a_j$ as $m\to\infty$ and $b_j^{(m)}\in \mathfrak{A}_{m}$ for $j=0, \cdots , 2k$. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{\varphi_{2k}|_{{\mathfrak{A}_n}}}({a_0, \cdots , a_{2k}})
&= \lim_{m \to \infty} \varphi_{2k}|_{\mathfrak{A}_{m}}(b_0^{(m)}, \dots , b_{2k}^{(m)}) \\
&=\varphi_{2k}({a_0, \cdots , a_{2k}}).\end{aligned}$$ This implies that $\widetilde{\varphi_{2k}|_{\mathfrak{A}_n}}=\varphi_{2k}$ , which means that $\Psi \circ \Phi$ is the identity on ${H_{\varepsilon}^{\text{{\rm ev}}}(\mathfrak{A})}$. On the other hand, for any $\{[(\varphi_{2k}^{(n)})_k]_{{\mathfrak{A}_n}}\}_n \in {\varprojlim H_{\varepsilon}^{\text{{\rm ev}}}(\mathfrak{A}_n)}$, we have $$\Phi\circ\Psi(\{[(\varphi_{2k}^{(n)})_k]_{{\mathfrak{A}_n}}\}_n)=\Phi([(\widetilde{\varphi_{2k}})_k]_{\mathfrak{A}})=\{[(\widetilde{\varphi_{2k}}|_{{\mathfrak{A}_n}})_k]_{{\mathfrak{A}_n}}\}_n.$$ Since for $b_0, \dots , b_{2k} \in {\mathfrak{A}_n}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{\varphi_{2k}}|_{{\mathfrak{A}_n}}(b_0, \dots , b_{2k})&=\lim_{m\to\infty}\widetilde{\varphi_{2k}}^{(m)}(b_0, \dots , b_{2k}) \\
&=\lim_{m\to\infty}\varphi_{2k}^{(m)}(b_0, \dots , b_{2k}) \\
&=\varphi_{2k}^{(n)}(b_0, \dots , b_{2k}).\end{aligned}$$ Thus $\Phi\circ\Psi(\{[(\varphi_{2k}^{(n)})_k]_{{\mathfrak{A}_n}}\}_n)=\{[(\varphi_{2k}^{(n)})_k]_{{\mathfrak{A}_n}}\}_n$. Hence $\Phi\circ\Psi$ is also the identity on ${\varprojlim H_{\varepsilon}^{\text{{\rm ev}}}(\mathfrak{A}_n)}$. Therefore, the proof is completed.\
[*[Remark]{}*]{}. We here prefer the original defintion by Connes [@co] to prove our main result although Meyer [@meyer] obtained the above Proposition by means of analytic cyclic theory.
Entire Cyclic Cohomology of ${(T^2_{\theta})^\infty}$ {#main}
=====================================================
Summing up the argument discussed in the previous sections, we are ready to obtain the next main result
The entire cyclic cohomology $H_{\varepsilon}^*({(T^2_{\theta})^\infty})$ of the noncommutative $2$-torus ${(T^2_{\theta})^\infty}$ is isomorphic to ${\mathbb{C}}^4$ as linear spaces, especially $$\begin{cases}
H_{\varepsilon}^{\rm{ev}}({(T^2_{\theta})^\infty})=HP^{\rm{ev}}({(T^2_{\theta})^\infty})\simeq {\mathbb{C}}^2 \\
H_{\varepsilon}^{\rm{od}}({(T^2_{\theta})^\infty})=HP^{\rm{od}}({(T^2_{\theta})^\infty})\simeq {\mathbb{C}}^2,
\end{cases}$$ where $HP^*({(T^2_{\theta})^\infty})$ is the periodic cyclic cohomology of ${(T^2_{\theta})^\infty}$.
By Lemma \[th:10\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\varepsilon}^*({(T^2_{\theta})^\infty})&\simeq H_{\varepsilon}^*(\varinjlim ({C^\infty(T)}\otimes (M_{q_{2n}}({\mathbb{C}})\oplus M_{q_{2n-1}}({\mathbb{C}})), \
\pi_n^\infty)) \\
&\simeq \varprojlim H_{\varepsilon}^*(({C^\infty(T)}\otimes (M_{q_{2n}}({\mathbb{C}})\oplus M_{q_{2n-1}}({\mathbb{C}})), (\pi^\infty_n)^* ) \end{aligned}$$
We have the following decomposition by applying Khalkhali [@k]’s Proposition 7 in the case of $F^*$-algebras: $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\varepsilon}^*(C^\infty (T)\otimes (M_{q_{2n}}({\mathbb{C}})\oplus M_{q_{2n-1}}({\mathbb{C}})))
\simeq H_{\varepsilon}^*(C^\infty (T)\otimes (M_{q_{2n}}({\mathbb{C}})\oplus H_{\varepsilon}^*(C^\infty (T)\otimes M_{q_{2n-1}}({\mathbb{C}}))) \end{aligned}$$ We also deduce applying Khalkhali [@k]’s Theorem 6 in the case of $F^*$-algebras that $$H_{\varepsilon}^*(C^\infty (T)\otimes (M_{q}({\mathbb{C}})) \simeq H_{\varepsilon}^*(C^\infty (T))~~(q \geq 1)$$ Since the above two phenomena are shown for $HP^*({(T^2_{\theta})^\infty})$ as well and we can see that $$H_{\varepsilon}^j(C^\infty (T))=HP^j(C^\infty (T)) \simeq {\mathbb{C}}~~(j=\rm{ev,od})$$ (Connes [@co],Thm 2(page 208) and Thm 25(page 382)), then we obtain that $$H_{\varepsilon}^j(C^\infty (T)\otimes (M_{q}({\mathbb{C}})) \simeq HP^j(C^\infty (T)\otimes (M_{q}({\mathbb{C}})) ~~~~(j=\rm{ev,od})$$ We then have the the following commutative diagram : $$\begin{CD}
HP^{\rm{ev}}(\mathfrak{A}_{n+1})@>\simeq>i^*> H_{\varepsilon}^{\rm{ev}}(\mathfrak{A}_{n+1}) \\
@V(\pi^\infty_n)^*VV @VV(\pi^\infty_n)^*V \\
HP^{\rm{ev}}(\mathfrak{A}_{n}) @>i^*>\simeq> H_{\varepsilon}^{\rm{ev}}(\mathfrak{A}_{n})
\end{CD}$$ where $i^*$ is the canonical inclusion map. Then we work on the periodic cyclic cohomology in what follows: we consider homomorphisms $$\begin{aligned}
(\pi^\infty_n)^* : HP^{\rm{ev}}(C^\infty (T)\otimes (M_{q_{2n+2}}({\mathbb{C}})\oplus M_{q_{2n+1}}({\mathbb{C}}))) \\
\to
HP^{\rm{ev}}(C^\infty (T)\otimes (M_{q_{2n}}({\mathbb{C}})\oplus M_{q_{2n-1}}({\mathbb{C}}))). \end{aligned}$$ Now we note that $$\begin{aligned}
&\, HP^{\rm{ev}}(C^\infty (T)\otimes (M_{q_{2n+2}}({\mathbb{C}})\oplus M_{q_{2n+1}}({\mathbb{C}}))) \\
&\simeq HP^{\rm{ev}}(C^\infty (T)\otimes M_{q_{2n+2}}({\mathbb{C}}))
\oplus HP^{\rm{ev}}(C^\infty (T)\otimes M_{q_{2n+1}}({\mathbb{C}}))\end{aligned}$$ and moreover, we have seen that $$\begin{aligned}
HP^{\rm{ev}}(C^\infty (T)\otimes M_{q}({\mathbb{C}}))
&\simeq HP^{\rm{ev}}(C^\infty (T))\otimes HP^{\rm{ev}}(M_q({\mathbb{C}})) \\
&\simeq {\mathbb{C}}\left[\int_T \right] \otimes {\mathbb{C}}\left[{\rm Tr}_q\right] \\
&\simeq {\mathbb{C}}\left[\int_T \otimes {\rm Tr}_q \right],\end{aligned}$$ where $\int_T$ and ${\rm Tr}_q$ are the usual integral on $C^\infty(T)$ and the trace on $M_q({\mathbb{C}})$ respectively. Here, we consider the following diagram: $$\begin{CD}
HP^{\rm{ev}}(\mathfrak{A}_{n+1})@>\simeq>> {\mathbb{C}}\left[\int_T\otimes {\rm Tr}_{q_{2n+2}}\right]\oplus {\mathbb{C}}\left[\int_T\otimes {\rm Tr}_{q_{2n+1}}\right] \\
@V(\pi^\infty_n)^*VV @VV(\pi^\infty_n)^*V \\
HP^{\rm{ev}}(\mathfrak{A}_{n}) @>>\simeq> {\mathbb{C}}\left[\int_T\otimes {\rm Tr}_{q_{2n}}\right]\oplus {\mathbb{C}}\left[\int_T\otimes {\rm Tr}_{q_{2n-1}}\right],
\end{CD}$$ where the horizonal isomorphisms are defined by $$\begin{aligned}
HP^{\rm{ev}}(\mathfrak{A}_n) \to {\mathbb{C}}\left[\int_T\otimes {\rm Tr}_{q_{2n}}\right]\oplus\left[\int_T\otimes {\rm Tr}_{q_{2n-1}}\right] \\
\varphi\mapsto \varphi|_{(C^\infty(T)\otimes M_{q_{2n}}({\mathbb{C}}))\oplus 0} \oplus \varphi|_{0\oplus (C^\infty(T)\otimes M_{q_{2n-1}}({\mathbb{C}}))}. \end{aligned}$$ We check that the diagram above is also commutative.
So, we regard $(\pi^\infty_n)^*$ as the linear map from ${\mathbb{C}}[\int_T \otimes {\rm Tr}_{q_{2n+2}}]\oplus {\mathbb{C}}[\int_T \otimes {\rm Tr}_{q_{2n+1}}]$ into ${\mathbb{C}}[\int_T \otimes {\rm Tr}_{q_{2n}}]\oplus {\mathbb{C}}[\int_T \otimes {\rm Tr}_{q_{2n-1}}]$. Let us recall that we write the matrix $P_{n+1}$ by $\left( \begin{smallmatrix} a&b \\ c&d \end{smallmatrix}\right)$ used in the definition of $\pi^\infty_n$. Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\left(\int_T \otimes {\rm Tr}_{q_{2n+2}}\right)\oplus 0\right)(\pi^\infty_n (\xi))
&=a \left( \int_T \otimes {\rm Tr}_{q_{2n}}\right)({\bf 1}\otimes (x_{ij})) \tag{$*$}\label{con} \\
&\quad +b \left( \int_T \otimes {\rm Tr}_{q_{2n-1}}\right)({\bf 1}\otimes (y_{ij})) \end{aligned}$$ for each $\xi=({\bf 1}\otimes (x_{ij}))\oplus ({\bf 1}\otimes (y_{ij}))
\in (C^\infty(T)\otimes M_{q_{2n}}({\mathbb{C}}))\oplus (C^\infty(T)\otimes M_{q_{2n-1}}({\mathbb{C}}))$, where ${\bf 1}$ is the function which evaluates 1 at each point of $T$. In fact, by the definition of $\pi^\infty_n$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\pi^\infty_n (({\bf 1}\otimes (x_{ij})\oplus ({\bf 1}\otimes (y_{ij}))
&=
\begin{pmatrix}
x_{11}I_a & \dots & x_{1q'}I_a & & & \\
\vdots & & \vdots & & & \\
x_{q'1}I_a & \dots & x_{q'q'}I_a & & & \\
& & & y_{11}I_b & \dots & y_{1q}I_b \\
& & & \vdots & & \vdots \\
& & & y_{q1}I_b & \dots & y_{qq}I_b
\end{pmatrix}
\\
&\oplus
\begin{pmatrix}
x_{11}I_c & \dots & x_{1q'}I_c & & & \\
\vdots & & \vdots & & & \\
x_{q'1}I_c & \dots & x_{q'q'}I_c & & & \\
& & & y_{11}I_d & \dots & y_{1q}I_d \\
& & & \vdots & & \vdots \\
& & & y_{q1}I_d & \dots & y_{qq}I_d
\end{pmatrix},\end{aligned}$$ where $q=q_{2n-1}, \, q'=q_{2n}$ and so on. Then, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\left(\int_T \otimes {\rm Tr}_{q_{2n+2}}\right)\oplus 0 \right)(\pi^\infty_n(\xi))
&=a\sum_{i=1}^{q_{2n}}x_{ii} + b\sum_{i=1}^{q_{2n-1}}y_{ii} \\
&=a \left(\int_T \otimes {\rm Tr}_{q_{2n}}\right)({\bf 1}\otimes (x_{ij})) \\&\quad +b \left(\int_T \otimes {\rm Tr}_{q_{2n-1}}\right)({\bf 1}\otimes (y_{ij})).\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\left(0\oplus \left(\int_T \otimes {\rm Tr}_{q_{2n+1}}\right)\right)(\pi^\infty_n (\xi))
&=c \left( \int_T \otimes {\rm Tr}_{q_{2n}}\right)({\bf 1}\otimes (x_{ij})) \tag{$**$}\label{con2} \\
&\quad +d \left( \int_T \otimes {\rm Tr}_{q_{2n-1}}\right)({\bf 1}\otimes (y_{ij})). \end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, we check that $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\left(\int_T\otimes {\rm Tr}_{q_{2n+2}}\right)\oplus 0\right)(\pi^\infty_n((z^k\otimes I_{q_{2n}})\oplus 0))&=0 \\
\left(0\oplus\left(\int_T\otimes {\rm Tr}_{q_{2n+1}}\right)\right)(\pi^\infty_n((z^k\otimes I_{q_{2n}})\oplus 0))&=0 \\
\left(\left(\int_T\otimes {\rm Tr}_{q_{2n+2}}\right)\oplus 0\right)(\pi^\infty_n(0\oplus (z^k\otimes I_{q_{2n-1}})))&=0 \\
\intertext{and}
\left(0\oplus\left(\int_T\otimes {\rm Tr}_{q_{2n+1}}\right)\right)(\pi^\infty_n(0\oplus (z^k\otimes I_{q_{2n-1}})))&=0 \end{aligned}$$ for each integer $k\geq 1$. Indeed, for example, it is easily verified that if $$\begin{pmatrix}
0 & & & z \\
1 & \ddots & & \\
& \ddots & \ddots & \\
& & 1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\in M_q (C^\infty (T)),$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & & & z \\
1 & \ddots & & \\
& \ddots & \ddots & \\
& & 1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}^k =
\begin{cases}
z^\nu\otimes I_q & (k\equiv 0 \mod q) \\
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & & {\large *} \\
& \ddots & \\
{\large *} & & 0
\end{pmatrix}
& (k\not\equiv 0 \mod q)
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ for some integer $\nu\geq 1$. Thus, we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\int_T\otimes {\rm{Tr}}_q\right)
\left(
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & & & z \\
1 & \ddots & & \\
& \ddots & \ddots & \\
& & 1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}^k
\right)&=
\begin{cases}
{\displaystyle \int_T} z^\nu dz & (k\equiv 0 \mod q) \\
0 & (k\not\equiv 0 \mod q)
\end{cases}
\\
&=0.\end{aligned}$$
Since the space of Laurent polynomials are dense in $C^\infty(T)$ with respect to Fréchet topology, we then conclude that (\[con\]) and (\[con2\]) hold for every $\xi\in \mathfrak{A}_n$. Hence, it is verified that $(\pi^\infty_n)^*$ is an isomorphism by the fact that $$\begin{aligned}
\det
\begin{pmatrix}
a & b \\
c & d
\end{pmatrix}
&=\det P_{n+1} \\
&=\det
\begin{pmatrix}
a_{4n+4} & 1 \\
1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
a_{4n+3} & 1 \\
1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}
a_{4n+2} & 1 \\
1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}
a_{4n+1} & 1 \\
1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\\
&=1\neq 0\end{aligned}$$
Finally, we conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\varepsilon}^{\rm{ev}}({(T^2_{\theta})^\infty})&\simeq \varprojlim ({\mathbb{C}}\oplus{\mathbb{C}}, (\pi^\infty_n)^*) \\
&\simeq {\mathbb{C}}^2.\end{aligned}$$ Analogously, the same consequence is obtained in the odd case. We note that $$\begin{aligned}
&\, HP^{\rm{od}}(C^\infty(T)\otimes M_q({\mathbb{C}})) \\
&\simeq HP^{\rm{od}}(C^\infty(T))\otimes HP^{\rm{ev}}(M_q({\mathbb{C}})) \\
&\simeq {\mathbb{C}}\left[\psi\otimes {\rm Tr}_q\right],\end{aligned}$$ where $\psi(f, g)=\int_T f(t)g'(t)dt$ for $f, g\in C^\infty (T)$. This ends the proof.
acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
I would like to thank my supervisor Professor H. Takai for suggesting this problem and many useful advices. I am also very grateful to Professor A. Connes for his valuable suggestions.
[99]{} A. Connes, $C^*$ algebrès et géométrie differentielle, C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris, Ser. A, 290, (1980), 599–604. A. Connes, Noncommutative Geometry, Academic Press (1994). G. A. Elliott, D. E. Evans, The structure of the irrational rotation $C^*$-algebra, Annals. of Math [**138**]{} (1993), 477–501. M. Khalkhali, On the entire cyclic cohomology of Banach algebras, Comm. in Alg. [**22**]{}(14), 5861–5874. R. Meyer, Analytic cyclic cohomology, Ph.D. Thesis, Münster, 1999,\
arXiv. math. KT/9906205. M. A. Rieffel, $C^*$-algebras associated with irrational rotations, Pacific J. Math. [**93**]{} (1981), 415–429. M. A. Rieffel, The cancellation theorem for projective modules over irrational rotation $C\sp{*} $-algebras, Proc. London Math. Soc. (3) [**47**]{} (1983), no. 2, 285–302. M. A. Rieffel, Dimension and stable rank in the $K$-theory of $C\sp{*}$-algebras, Proc. London Math. Soc. (3) [**46**]{} (1983), no. 2, 301–333.
[^1]: Department of Mathematics and Information Sciences, Tokyo Metropolitan University\
e-mail:[email protected] The former family name was NAITO.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The reduction criterion is a well known necessary condition for separable states, and states violating this condition are entangled and also 1-distillable. In this paper we introduce a new set of necessary conditions for separability of multipartite states, obtained from a set of positive but not completely positive maps. These conditions can be thought of as generalisations of the reduction criterion to multipartite systems. We use tripartite Werner states as an example to investigate the entanglement detecting powers of some of these new conditions, and we also look at what these conditions mean in terms of distillation. Finally, we show that these maps can be used to give a partial solution to the *subsystem problem*, as described in [@Sub].'
author:
- William Hall
title: Multipartite reduction criteria for separability
---
Introduction
============
Entanglement [@Ent] is one of the most intriguing phenomena in quantum mechanics. Its inherently non-classical nature caused much controversy in the early years of its discovery [@EPR; @Bell], and in more recent years many practical uses have been found for entanglement in the developing subject of quantum information science [@EntQI; @NC]. This has led to a concerted effort to understand the nature of entanglement, and to create a consistent theory that allows us to both determine when an arbitrary mixed state is entangled, and to quantify the entanglement of that state. While the nature of bipartite pure state entanglement is well understood [@Ent1], there is still much work to be done in the case of arbitrary mixed multipartite states; indeed, we still do not have an operational criteria to determine whether an arbitrary multipartite mixed state is entangled. However, in [@EntNC], a necessary and sufficient condition for a bipartite state to be entangled was established using positive maps, and this was generalised to the multipartite case in [@EntNC_M]. We will make use of the positive map formalism heavily in this paper. A good review can be found in [@EntRev].
The *reduction criterion* [@Red; @Red2] gives a necessary condition for a state to be separable; states which violate this criterion are hence entangled, and it can also be shown that these states are 1-distillable. In this paper we will produce some further necessary criteria for states to be (semi-)separable by introducing a new set of positive but not completely positive maps, and furthermore we will use the tripartite Werner states discussed in [@W3] to investigate their entanglement detecting properties. Finally, we will also discuss what the violation of these criteria means in terms of distillation.
The criteria described in this paper are related to the subsystem compatibility problem: *Given states of all proper subsystems of a multipartite system, what are the necessary and sufficient conditions for these subsystem states to be compatible with a single state of the whole system?* In [@Sub], this problem is solved for a classical system of $n$ bits, and some of these conditions can be translated into necessary conditions for a system of $n$ qubits. We will show in this paper how our new set of positive maps can be used to derive some of these conditions in a more general setting.
The reduction and generalised reduction criteria
================================================
Let $\mathcal{H}$ be a Hilbert space, and $\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$ be the set of (bounded) operators on $\mathcal{H}$. The reduction map $\Lambda: \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H}) \to \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$, which is defined by $$\Lambda(\rho) = \operatorname{Tr}(\rho) \openone - \rho$$ ($\openone$ is the identity matrix) is a positive map: If $\rho$ has positive eigenvalues $\lambda_i$ $(i = 1,\ldots,n)$ then $\operatorname{Tr}(\rho)= \sum_i \lambda_i$, and hence the eigenvalues of $\Lambda(\rho)$ are $\sum_{i \neq j} \lambda_i$ $(j = 1,\ldots,n)$, which are also positive. The map is not however completely positive: for instance, let ${| \Psi^+ \rangle} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}({| 00 \rangle} + {| 11 \rangle}) \in \mathbb{C}^2 \otimes \mathbb{C}^2$, then $$I \otimes \Lambda ({| \Psi^+ \rangle \langle \Psi^+ |}) = \frac{\openone}{2} - {| \Psi^+ \rangle \langle \Psi^+ |}$$ (where $I : \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H}) \to \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$ above is the identity map i.e. $I(\rho) = \rho)$ clearly has a negative eigenvalue. Hence for a bipartite state $\rho \in \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H}_A \otimes \mathcal{H}_B)$, $$I \otimes \Lambda (\rho) = \rho_A \otimes \openone - \rho \geq 0$$ (where $\rho_A = \operatorname{Tr}_B \rho$) is a necessary condition for a quantum state to be separable. This is known as the *reduction criterion*. Any state violating this condition is not only entangled, but in fact is 1-distillable. This was originally proved in [@Red] and shown in a more abstract fashion in [@DW].
Let us define the maps $\Lambda^{(n)} : \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H}_1 \otimes \ldots \otimes \mathcal{H}_n) \to \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H}_1 \otimes \ldots \otimes \mathcal{H}_n)$ by $$\Lambda^{(n)}(\rho) = \sum_{B \subseteq N} (-1)^{|B|} \rho_B \label{GRM}$$ where $N=\{1,\ldots,n\}$, $|B|$ denotes the number of elements in the set $B$ and $\rho_B$ is the reduced density matrix of $\rho$ over the subsystems given in the set $B$, padded out with identities in the other systems (e.g. if $N=\{1,2,3\}$, and $B=\{1\}$, then $\rho_B = \operatorname{Tr}_{2,3}(\rho) \otimes \openone_2 \otimes \openone_3$). For example, $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda^{(1)}(\rho) &=& \operatorname{Tr}(\rho)\openone - \rho ;\\
\Lambda^{(2)}(\rho) &=& \operatorname{Tr}(\rho)\openone - \rho_1 - \rho_2 + \rho ;\\
\Lambda^{(3)}(\rho) &=& \operatorname{Tr}(\rho)\openone - \rho_1 - \rho_2 - \rho_3 + \rho_{12} + \rho_{13} + \rho_{23} - \rho.\end{aligned}$$ It is from these maps that we will form our necessary criteria for separability. We first note a preliminary result:
$\Lambda^{(n)}(\rho_1 \otimes \ldots \otimes \rho_n) = \bigotimes_{i=1}^n (\operatorname{Tr}(\rho_i)\openone - \rho_i)$
*Proof* By induction: Trivially true for $n=1$; furthermore, assuming the result is true for the $n-1$ case, $$\Lambda^{(n)}(\rho_1 \otimes \ldots \otimes \rho_n) = \sum_{B \subseteq N} (-1)^{|B|} \rho_B$$ $$= \sum_{B \subseteq N, 1 \notin B} (-1)^{|B|} \rho_B + \sum_{B \subseteq N, 1 \in B} (-1)^{|B|} \rho_B$$ $$= (\operatorname{Tr}(\rho_1)\openone - \rho_1) \otimes \sum_{B \subseteq N / \{1\}} (-1)^{|B|} \rho_B$$ $$= \bigotimes_{i=1}^n (\operatorname{Tr}(\rho_i)\openone - \rho_i) \ \Box$$
This result immediately shows the sense in which we can think about these maps as generalising the reduction criterion. We now prove that these maps are positive, and furthermore they satisfy a further condition known as *$2n$-decomposability*. We first recall the definition of Schmidt number for density matrices [@Schmidt]: A bipartite density matrix $\rho$ has Schmidt number $k$ if
1. For any decomposition $\rho = \sum_i p_i {| \psi_i \rangle \langle \psi_i |}$, at least one of the ${| \psi_i \rangle}$ has Schmidt rank (number of non-zero coefficients in Schmidt decomposition) at least $k$;
2. There exists a decomposition of $\rho$ with all vectors ${| \psi_i \rangle}$ of Schmidt rank no more than $k$.
A map $\Lambda: \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H}) \to \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$ is $k$-decomposable if we can write $\Lambda = \Lambda_{CP} \circ T$, where $T$ is the transpose and $\Lambda_{CP}(\rho) = \sum_i V_i \rho V_i^\dagger$ is a completely positive map such that each $V_i$ has rank $k$.
With these definitions, we are ready to state our main result:
$\Lambda^{(n)}$ is a positive map, and is $2n$-decomposable.
*Proof* We make use of the Jamiołkowski correspondence [@J]: Let $\mathcal{K} = \mathcal{H}_1 \otimes \ldots \otimes \mathcal{H}_n$ and consider the operator $A^{(n)} \in \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{K} \otimes \mathcal{K})$ defined by $$A^{(n)} = \left( I \otimes \Lambda^{(n)} \right) (P_+)$$ where $$P_+ = \sum_{i_1, \ldots, i_n, j_1, \ldots j_n} {| i_1 \ldots i_n i_1 \ldots i_n \rangle \langle j_1 \ldots j_n j_1 \ldots j_n |},$$ a multiple of the projector onto the maximally entangled state on $\mathcal{K} \otimes \mathcal{K}$, and ${| i_r \rangle}$ forms an orthonormal basis for $\mathcal{H}_r$. We number the $2n$ systems as $\mathcal{H}_1, \ldots, \mathcal{H}_{2n}$ (so that $\mathcal{H}_{n+r} \cong \mathcal{H}_r$). Then, using Lemma 1, $$\begin{aligned}
A^{(n)} &=& \sum {| i_1 \ldots i_n \rangle \langle j_1 \ldots j_n |} \otimes \Lambda^{(n)} ({| i_1 \ldots i_n \rangle \langle j_1 \ldots j_n |} )\\
&=& \sum {| i_1 \ldots i_n \rangle \langle j_1 \ldots j_n |} \otimes \left( \bigotimes_{k=1}^n (\delta_{i_k j_k} \openone - {| i_k \rangle \langle j_k |})\right) \\\end{aligned}$$ Let us now write the above as an n-fold tensor product, grouping together the Hilbert spaces $\mathcal{H}_i$ for each $i$ (i.e. systems 1 and $n+1$ etc.). We can then write $$\begin{aligned}
A^{(n)} &=& \sum_{i_1, j_1} \left( {| i_1 j_1 \rangle \langle i_1 j_1 |} - {| i_1 i_1 \rangle \langle j_1 j_1 |} \right)_{1,n+1} \otimes \\
&& \ldots \otimes \sum_{i_n, j_n} \left( {| i_n j_n \rangle \langle i_n j_n |} - {| i_n i_n \rangle \langle j_n j_n |} \right)_{n-1,2n} \\
&=& \bigotimes_{k=1}^n \left( \openone - {P_+} \right)_{k,n+k} \\\end{aligned}$$ Let us consider the partial transpose of this over the second system $\mathcal{K}$ (i.e. over systems $n+1, \ldots, 2n$). Since $$\begin{aligned}
(\openone - {P_+})_{k,n+k}^{T_{n+k}} &=& \openone_{k,n+k} - \sum_{i_k, j_k} {| i_k j_k \rangle \langle j_k i_k |}_{k,n+k} \\
&=& \openone_{k,n+k} - {V}_{k,n+k}\end{aligned}$$ where $V$ is the swap operator, we have $$(A^{(n)})^{T_B} = \bigotimes_{k=1}^n \left( \openone - {V} \right)_{k,n+k} \label{witness}$$ where $T_B$ indicates partial transpose over the systems $n+1$ to $2n$. This is a positive operator, as $V$ has eigenvalues $\pm 1$. Furthermore, $\openone - V$ has a Schmidt rank 2 decomposition: defining ${| \psi_{ij} \rangle} = {| ij \rangle} - {| ji \rangle}$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i<j} {| \psi_{ij} \rangle \langle \psi_{ij} |} &=& \sum_{i \neq j} {| ij \rangle \langle ij |} - {| ij \rangle \langle ji |} \\
&=& \openone - V .\end{aligned}$$ Hence $(\openone-V)_{k,n+k}$ is a Schmidt rank 2 operator (the operator is clearly not separable and hence cannot have a Schmidt rank 1 decomposition). Due to the the tensor product structure of $A^{(n)}$ in (\[witness\]), it must have Schmidt rank $2n$.
It is possible to obtain $\Lambda^{(n)}$ from $A^{(n)}$ using the inversion formula [@J; @DW] $$D = \left( I \otimes \Lambda \right)(P_+) \Leftrightarrow \Lambda(\rho) = \operatorname{Tr}_A \left[ D (\rho^T \otimes \openone) \right].$$ Suppose $D = \left( {| \psi \rangle \langle \psi |} \right)^{T_B}$, with ${| \psi \rangle}$ having Schmidt decomposition $\sum_{i=1}^n c_i {| a_i, b_i \rangle}$ i.e. Schmidt rank is $n$. Some elementary algebra and the above inversion formula allows us to obtain that $\Lambda(\rho) = V \rho^T V^\dagger$, with $V=\sum_{i=1}^n c_i {| b_i^* \rangle \langle a_i |}$, an operator of rank $n$, where if ${| b_i \rangle} = \sum_m b_{im} {| m \rangle}$, then ${| b_i^* \rangle} = \sum_m b_{im}^* {| m \rangle}$. Hence by linearity, for $D^{T_B}$ being positive and having Schmidt rank $k$, $\Lambda$ is $k$-decomposable. It follows that $\Lambda^{(n)}$ is a $2n$-decomposable map. $\Box$
From these conditions we can obtain some of the necessary conditions mentioned briefly in the introduction to this paper. For odd $n$, the coefficient of $\rho$ in the expression for $\Lambda^{(n)}(\rho)$ is negative, and hence the expression $$\Lambda^{(n)}(\rho) + \rho = \sum_{B \subset N} (-1)^{|B|} \rho_B$$ is positive. Furthermore, this expression is written only in terms of the reduced density matrices of all of the proper subsystems of an $n$-partite system. Hence if the above expression is *not* positive, it follows that the given reduced density matrices are not compatible with an overall state $\rho$. This generalises part of the necessary condition in [@Sub], which is made for $n$-partite systems of qubits with $n$ odd, to the case of $n$-partite systems (still for odd $n$) where each individual system has arbitrary (finite) dimension.
Entanglement detection
======================
We note that none of these maps are completely positive; this is evident from the construction above. An example [^1] is $\mathcal{H}_i = \mathcal{H} \equiv \mathbb{C}^2$ for $i = 1,\ldots, n+1$ (i.e. $n+1$ qubits), and $\rho \in \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H}^{\otimes (n+1)})$ defined by $\rho={| \psi \rangle \langle \psi |}$, with ${| \psi \rangle} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} ({| 00 \rangle}_{12} + {| 11 \rangle}_{12}) \otimes {| 0 \rangle}_{3\ldots n+1}$. Then, using (\[GRM\]), $$I_1 \otimes \Lambda^{(n)}_{2\ldots n+1} (\rho) = \sum_{B \subset \{2,\ldots, n+1\}} (-1)^{|B|} \rho_{B \cup \{1\}}$$ $$= (\rho_1 \otimes \openone_2 - \rho_{12}) \otimes \sum_{B \subset \{3,\ldots, n+1\}} (-1)^{|B|} \rho_B$$ $$= (\rho_1 \otimes \openone_2 - \rho_{12}) \otimes \Lambda^{(n-1)}_{3\ldots n+1} ({| 0 \rangle \langle 0 |}_{3\ldots n+1})$$ $$= (\openone_{12}/2 - {| \psi_+ \rangle \langle \psi_+ |}) \otimes \Lambda^{(n-1)}_{3\ldots n+1} ({| 0 \rangle \langle 0 |}_{3\ldots n+1})$$ which has negative eigenvalues (the subscripts label which systems each map acts on). We can hence think of each of these maps as providing necessary conditions for a density matrix to be separable: for a multipartite system with $n$ parts, and $A \subseteq N=\{1,\ldots,n\}$ with $|A|=k$, $$I_{N \setminus A} \otimes \Lambda^{(k)}_A (\rho) \geq 0$$ is a necessary condition for separability, where the subscript set denotes the systems that the map operates on. For example, for a tripartite state $\rho$, we have that $$\rho_1 - \rho_{12} - \rho_{13} + \rho \geq 0$$ is a necessary condition for $\rho$ to have the semi-separable form $\rho= \sum_i p_i \rho_1^i \otimes \rho_{23}^i$.
We note that if $I_1 \otimes \Lambda^{(n-1)}_{2\ldots n}(\rho) \ngeq 0$, then $I_1 \otimes \Lambda^{(n)}_{2\ldots n+1}(\rho \otimes \sigma) = I_1 \otimes \Lambda^{(n-1)}_{2\ldots n}(\rho) \otimes (Tr(\sigma)\openone -\sigma)$, which will also have negative eigenvalues.
One issue we are concerned with is the entanglement detecting power of these maps, especially in relation to the reduction criterion. The important result we will show here is that *there are states detected by $\Lambda^{(2)}$ that are not detected by $\Lambda^{(1)}$, and vice versa*. To do this we utilise the tripartite Werner states that are introduced in [@W3] (we choose these states in particular as the entangled two-party Werner states are not detected by the reduction criterion [@Red]).
Let us consider the Hilbert space $(\mathbb{C}^d)^{\otimes 3}$, and let us define the permutation operators $$V_\pi ({| \phi_1 \rangle} {| \phi_2 \rangle} {| \phi_3 \rangle}) = {| \phi_{\pi^{-1}(1)} \rangle} {| \phi_{\pi^{-1}(2)} \rangle} {| \phi_{\pi^{-1}(3)} \rangle}$$ where $\pi \in S_3$. Then [@W3 Lemma 1] states that the tripartite Werner states are given by $\rho = \sum_\pi \mu_\pi V_\pi (\mu_\pi \in \mathbb{C})$. We can rewrite these states using the following linear combinations, which we obtain from the representation theory of the group $S_3$: $$\begin{aligned}
R_+ &=& \frac{1}{6} \left( \openone + V_{(12)} + V_{(13)} + V_{(23)} + V_{(123)} + V_{(132)} \right) \\
R_- &=& \frac{1}{6} \left( \openone - V_{(12)} - V_{(13)} - V_{(23)} + V_{(123)} + V_{(132)} \right) \\
R_0 &=& \frac{1}{3} \left( 2\openone - V_{(123)} - V_{(132)} \right) \\
R_1 &=& \frac{1}{3} \left( 2V_{(23)} - V_{(13)} - V_{(12)} \right) \\
R_2 &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} \left( V_{(12)} - V_{(13)} \right) \\
R_3 &=& \frac{i}{\sqrt{3}} \left( V_{(123)} - V_{(132)} \right)\end{aligned}$$ We note that $R_+$ and $R_-$ represent the projections onto symmetric and antisymmetric subspaces (trivial and alternating representations of $S_3$), $R_0$ the projection onto the orthogonal subspace corresponding to the two-dimensional representation of $S_3$, and that $R_i \ (i = 1,2,3)$ act as the Pauli matrices in this subspace. This leads to Lemma 2 of [@W3]:
Let $\rho = \sum_k c_k R_k \ (k \in \{+,-,0,1,2,3\})$, and define $r_k(\rho) = tr(\rho R_k)$. Then $\rho$ is a density matrix if and only if $$r_+,r_-,r_0 \geq 0, \ r_+ + r_- + r_0 = 1, \ r_1^2 + r_2^2 + r_3^2 \leq r_0^2.$$
We will consider a subset of these states parameterised by two real variables $a,b$. Let $\rho = \frac{1}{N}(a R_+ + (1-a)R_0 + bR_1)$. For positivity we require $0 \leq a \leq 1$, and $|r_1| \leq r_0$, which is equivalent to $|b|\leq a$. $N=\operatorname{Tr}(\rho)$ is the normalisation factor, and is given by $$N = \frac{1}{6}d(d+1)(3a(2-d) + 4(d-1)).$$ We will consider the eigenvalues of $I_{12} \otimes \Lambda^{(1)}_3(\rho) = \rho_{12} - \rho$ and $I_{2} \otimes \Lambda^{(1)}_{23}(\rho) = \rho_1 - \rho_{12} - \rho_{13} + \rho$. If $\rho$ is an entangled state, we are interested in the *sign* of the eigenvalues: if all the eigenvalues are positive, then any present entanglement is not detected; one negative eigenvalue detects the entanglement. We note that $N$ is independent of $a$ if $d=2$, and for $d>2$, $N<0$ if and only if $a > \frac{4}{3} \left( 1+ \frac{1}{d-2} \right) > 1$, and hence we can ignore this normalisation factor for the purposes of determining the sign of the eigenvalues. Some elementary algebra outlined in Appendix A allows us to determine the eigenvalues of $\rho_{12} - \rho$ as $$\begin{array}{c}
\frac{1}{3N}(d-1)(2-a-b), \\
\frac{1}{3N}(d+1)(2-2a+b), \\
\frac{1}{6N}\bigg(a(d+2)+(1-a)(4d-6)+2b) \pm \\
\Big\{(1/4)(a(d+2)-4(1-a)+b(12-2d))^2 +
\\ (3/4)(a(d+2)-4(1-a)-2bd)^2 \Big\}^{1/2} \bigg)
\end{array} \label{e1}$$ and the eigenvalues of $\rho_1 - \rho_{12} - \rho_{13} + \rho$ as $$\begin{array}{c}
\frac{1}{6N} ( a((d+2)(d-3)+6) + 4(1-a)(d-1)^2 \\
+ 4b(d-1) ), \\
\frac{1}{6N} ( a(d+1)(d+2) - 4(1-a)(d+1)(d-3) \\
- 4b(d+1) ), \\
\frac{1}{6N} ( ad(d+2) + 2(1-a)(2(d+1)(d-1) - 4d +1) \\
+ 2b(1-d) ) ), \\
\frac{1}{6N} ( a(d+2)(d-2) + 2(1-a)(2(d+1)(d-1) - 4d + 5) \\
+ b(2d-10) )
\end{array} \label{e2}$$ (we note that for $d=2, R_-=0$ and hence the second expression in both lists above is *not* an eigenvalue of the corresponding operator). To determine which states are detected by which maps, we need only look at when the above eigenvalues are positive/negative and hence we can ignore the normalisation $1/N$, since for $0 \leq a \leq 1$, $N>0$. Below is a figure giving an example for $d=2$. It clearly shows states detected by $\Lambda^{(2)}$ but not $\Lambda^{(1)}$, and vice-versa.
![Plot for $d=2$ illustrating which maps detect the state $\rho$ for given values of $a,b$. The white region represents states detected by both maps (i.e. have a negative eigenvalue), the lightest grey represents states detected by $\Lambda^{(2)}$ but not $\Lambda^{(1)}$; the middle grey those detected by $\Lambda^{(1)}$ but not $\Lambda^{(2)}$, and the darker grey is where neither map detects the state. The inside of the outlined box on the right of the graph represents states biseparable in the $1|23$ cut (this can be determined from [@W3]) and hence $I_{1} \otimes \Lambda^{(2)}_{23}(\rho)$ will never detect these states. ](g4)
Interestingly, for the above states for $d>2$ all states detected by $\Lambda^{(2)}$ are also detected by $\Lambda^{(1)}$. However no definite conclusions can be drawn from this since we are only looking at a small subset of symmetric states.
Distillation criteria
=====================
It is a well known result that if a bipartite state violates the reduction criterion then it is 1-distillable. This was first proved in [@Red] by giving an explicit distillation protocol and later in [@DW] using a more abstract positive map formalism. In this section we investigate the potential for the maps introduced above to be used as a distillation criterion.
Consider a bipartite state $\rho \in \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H}_A \otimes \mathcal{H}_B)$. We recall the following theorem from [@DW]:
$\rho$ is 1-undistillable if and only if $(I \otimes \Lambda)(\rho) \geq 0$ for all 2-decomposable maps $\Lambda: \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H}_B) \to \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H}_B)$.
The reduction map $\Lambda^{(1)}$ is 2-decomposable, and so if $\rho$ satisfies the relation $$\rho_A \otimes \openone - \rho \ngeq 0 \label{re}$$ then $\rho$ is 1-distillable. This gives us the distillation criterion at the start of this article. Now, let us consider $\rho^{\otimes n} \in \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H}_A^{\otimes n} \otimes \mathcal{H}_B^{\otimes n})$. Let us act $\Lambda^{(n)}$ on $\mathcal{H}_B^{\otimes n}$, and the identity map on $\mathcal{H}_A^{\otimes n}$. We wish to consider what the condition $$I_{1\ldots n} \otimes \Lambda^{(n)}_{n+1 \ldots 2n} (\rho^{\otimes n}) \ngeq 0 \label{newred}$$ means in terms of the distillation of $\rho$. We can deduce this from the following lemma:
$I_{1\ldots n} \otimes \Lambda^{(n)}_{n+1 \ldots 2n} (\rho^{\otimes n}) = (I \otimes \Lambda (\rho))^{\otimes n}$
*Proof* Again by induction. Trivial for $n=1$; assuming the $n-1$ case, $$I_{1\ldots n} \otimes \Lambda^{(n)}_{n+1 \ldots 2n} (\rho^{\otimes n})= \sum_{B \subset \{n+1, \ldots, 2n \} } (-1)^{|B|} \rho^{\otimes n}_{B \cup \{1, \ldots, n \} }$$ $$= ( {\operatorname{Tr}}_B( \rho ) \otimes \openone - \rho)_{1,n+1} \otimes \sum_{B \subset \{n+2, \ldots, 2n\}} (-1)^{|B|} \rho^{\otimes (n-1)}_{B \cup \{2, \ldots, n \}}$$ $$= (\operatorname{Tr}_B(\rho) \otimes \openone - \rho)_{1,n+1} \otimes \left( I_{2\ldots n} \otimes \Lambda^{(n)}_{n+2 \ldots 2n} (\rho^{\otimes (n-1)}) \right)$$ and hence the result holds by induction. $\Box$
From this result it is clear that $$\begin{aligned}
I_{1\ldots n} \otimes \Lambda^{(n)}_{n+1 \ldots 2n} (\rho^{\otimes n}) \ngeq 0 & \Leftrightarrow & (I \otimes \Lambda (\rho))^{\otimes n} \ngeq 0 \\
&\Leftrightarrow& (I \otimes \Lambda (\rho)) \ngeq 0 \end{aligned}$$ and so condition (\[newred\]) is equivalent to (\[re\]), the violation of the reduction criterion.
Conclusion
==========
In this paper we have given a set of positive but not completely positive maps that can be used to define a new set of separability criteria, and we have shown that they can be thought of as multi-party forms of the reduction criterion. We have analysed the entanglement detecting powers of these maps, and have shown that there are states that $\Lambda^{(2)}$ detects but not $\Lambda^{(1)}$, and vice-versa. It is highly likely that there will be similar results for the maps in general, and in theory, by using $n$-party analogues of the Werner states, we could obtain further results. It remains to be seen (although from the above results it seems unlikely) whether there is any hierarchy within these separability criteria. We have also analysed the criteria from a distillation viewpoint, and have shown that we can recover the criteria for distillation that we obtain from the reduction criterion.
The author would like to thank Paul Butterley for providing the impetus behind the above work, Matthias Christandl for a very illuminating conversation, Lieven Clarisse and Anthony Sudbery for checking the final manuscript, and finally the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (UK) for supporting this work.
Details of calculations for tripartite Werner states
====================================================
In this appendix we give a few more details of the calculations required to obtain the eigenvalues of the given maps in section 3. Suppose that $\rho = \sum_k c_k R_k \ (k \in \{+,-,0,1,2,3\})$. Then defining $$\nu_+ = \frac{d}{6}(d^2 + 3d+2), \ \nu_- = \frac{d}{6}(d^2 - 3d+2), \ \nu_0 = \frac{d}{3}(d^2 - 1),$$ it can easily be shown that $r_+ = c_+ \nu_+, r_- = c_- \nu_-, r_i = 2 c_i \nu_0 \ (i \in \{0,1,2,3\})$. Furthermore, for $k=+,-,0$, the projectors $R_k$ are orthogonal, and project onto a subspace of dimension $\nu_k$, and $R_1,R_2,R_3$ act as Pauli matrices within the subspace of $R_0$. Hence the eigenvalues of $\rho$ are given by $$c_+ \textrm{ (multiplicity }\nu_+), \ c_- \textrm{ (multiplicity }\nu_-)$$ $$c_0 \pm \sqrt{c_1^2 + c_2^2 + c_3^3} \textrm{ (multiplicity }\nu_0) \label{eig}$$ This allows us to easily investigate the properties of $I_{12} \otimes \Lambda^{(1)}_3(\rho)$ and $I_{2} \otimes \Lambda^{(1)}_{23}(\rho)$. Now take $\rho = \frac{1}{N}(a R_+ + (1-a)R_0 + bR_1)$ with $N = \frac{1}{6}d(d+1)(3a(2-d) + 4(d-1))$ as defined above. We reiterate that for positivity we require $0 \leq a \leq 1$, and $|b|\leq a$. Inverting the relations for $R_+$ etc. in terms of $V_\rho$, and some tedious but elementary algebra allows us to write $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\rho_{12} - \rho =} \\
&& \frac{1}{3N}(d-1)(2-a-b)R_+ \\
&+& \frac{1}{3N}(d+1)(2-2a+b)R_- \\
&+& \frac{1}{6N} (a(d+2) + (1-a)(4d-6) + 2b)R_0 \\
&-& \frac{1}{12N} (a(d+2)-4(1-a)+b(12-2d))R_1 \\
&+& \frac{\sqrt{3}}{12N}(a(d+2)-4(1-a)-2bd)R_2 \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\rho_1 - \rho_{12} - \rho_{13} + \rho =} \\
&& \frac{1}{6N} a((d+2)(d-3)+6) \\
&& + 4(1-a)(d-1)^2 + 4b(d-1) )R_+ \\
&+& \frac{1}{6N} ( a(d+1)(d+2) - 4(1-a)(d+1)(d-3) \\
&& - 4b(d+1) )R_- + \frac{1}{6N} ( a(d-1)(d+2) \\
&& + (1-a)(4(d-1)(d+1) - 8d + 6) - 4b)R_0 \\
&+& \frac{1}{6N} ( a(d+2) - 4(1-a) - b(6-2d) ) R_1 \end{aligned}$$ from which, using (\[eig\]) above also, we can easily determine the eigenvalues of $\rho_{12} - \rho$ and $\rho_1 - \rho_{12} - \rho_{13} + \rho$ given in equations (\[e1\]) and (\[e2\]) above. We finish by noting that we do not need to consider $\rho_{13} - \rho$ additionally, as it can be shown to have identical eigenvalues to $\rho_{12} - \rho$ (this follows simply from the symmetry of $\rho$ between systems 2 and 3, and the symmetry of the expressions for $V_\rho$ in terms of $R_+$ etc.).
[16]{}
E. Schrödinger, Proc. Camb. Philos. Soc. **35**, 555 (1935). A. Einstein, B. Poldosky and N. Rosen, Phys. Rev. **23**, 777 (1935). J. S. Bell, Physics **1**, 195 (1964). For example, see A. K. Ekert, Phys. Rev. Lett. **67**, 661 (1991); C. H. Bennett and S. J. Wiesner, *ibid.* **69**, 2881 (1992); C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Crepeau, R. Jozsa, A. Peres and W.K. Wootters, *ibid* **70**, 1895 (1993). M. Nielsen and I. Chuang, *Quantum Computation and Quantum Information* (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000). For example see C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, J. A. Smolin and W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. A **54**, 3824 (1996). M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, Phys. Lett. A **223**, 1 (1996). M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, Phys. Lett. A **283**, 1 (2001). M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, in *Quantum Information: An Introduction to Basic Theoretical Concepts and Experiments*, edited by G. Alber (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2001). M. Horodecki and P. Horodecki, Phys. Rev. A **59**, 4206 (1999). N.J. Cerf, C. Adami and R.M. Gingrich, Phys. Rev. A **60**, 898 (1999). L. Clarisse, Phys. Rev. A **71**, 032332 (2005). T. Eggeling and R. F. Werner, Phys. Rev. A **63**, 042111 (2001). P. Butterley, A. Sudbery and J. Szulc, Found. Phys. (to be published). A. Jamiołkowski, Rep. Math. Phys. **3**, 275 (1972). B. M. Terhal and P. Horodecki, Phys. Rev. A **61**, 040301(R) (2000).
[^1]: This was discovered in the $n=3$ case by Paul Butterley.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
R. $\mbox{Raussendorf}^1$, J. $\mbox{Harrington}^2$ and K. $\mbox{Goyal}^1$\
$\mbox{}^1$[**]{}\
$\mbox{}^2$[**]{}
title: 'A fault-tolerant one-way quantum computer'
---
Introduction
============
A quantum computer as a physical device has to cope with imperfections of its hardware. Fortunately, it turns out that arbitrary large quantum computations can be performed with arbitrary accuracy, provided the error level of the elementary components of the quantum computer is below a certain threshold. This is the content of the threshold theorem for quantum computation [@TT1; @TT2; @TT3; @TT4]. The threshold theorem also provides lower bounds to the error threshold which are in the range between $10^{-10}$ and $10^{-4}$, depending on the error model. It thus appears that there is a gap between the required and the currently available accuracy of quantum operations, and it invites narrowing from both the experimental and the theoretical side. In this context, significant progress has been made in [@Kn2] where a threshold estimate in the percent range has been demonstrated. For experimentally viable quantum computation there is a further desideratum besides a high error threshold. With the exception of certain schemes for topological quantum computation [@Kit1; @Pr; @Mo], the price for fault-tolerance is an overhead in quantum resources. This overhead should be moderate.
Here we describe a fault-tolerant version of the one-way quantum computer (). The is a scheme for universal quantum computation by one-qubit measurements on cluster states [@QCc]. Cluster states [@BR] consist of qubits arranged on a two- or three-dimensional lattice and may be created by a nearest-neighbor Ising interaction. Thus, for the , only nearest-neighboring qubits need interact and furthermore, only once at the beginning of the computation. For this scenario in three dimensions we present methods of error correction and a threshold value.
The existence of an error threshold for the has previously been established [@FTQCc; @FTQCc2; @FTQCc2b] and threshold estimates have been obtained [@FTQCc2; @FTQCc2b], by mapping to the circuit model. Here we take a different path. We make use of topological error correction capabilities that the cluster states naturally provide [@LRE] and which can be linked to surface codes [@Kit1; @Kit2]. The main design tool upon which we base our construction are engineered lattice defects which are topologically entangled.
The picture is the following: quantum computation is performed on a three-dimensional cluster state via a temporal sequence of one-qubit measurements. The cluster lattice is subdivided into three regions, $V$, $D$ and $S$. The set $S$ comprises the ‘singular’ qubits which are measured in an adaptive basis. The quantum computation happens essentially there. The sets $V$ and $D$ are to distribute the correct quantum correlations among the qubits of $S$. $V$ stands for ‘vacuum’, the quantum correlations can propagate and spread freely in $V$. $D$ stands for ‘defect’. Quantum correlations cannot penetrate the defect regions. They either end in them or wrap around them. In both cases, the defects [*[guide]{}*]{} the quantum correlations. $V$ and $D$ are distinguished by the bases in which the respective cluster qubits are measured. The region $V$ fills most of the cluster. Embedded in $V$ are the defects ($D$) most of which take the shape of loops. These loops are topologically entangled with another. Further, there are defects in the shape of ear clips which each hold an $S$-qubit in their opening. Such a defect and the belonging $S$-qubit form again a loop. These are the only locations where the $S$-qubits occur. See Fig. \[scheme\].
There are two codes upon which we base our construction, the planar code [@Kit2] and the concatenated $[15,3,1]$ quantum Reed-Muller code [@Kn; @magic]. Both codes individually have their strengths and weaknesses, but they can be advantageously combined. The planar code has a relatively high error threshold of about 11% [@RPGM], and the symmetries of its stabilizer fit well with cluster states. Moreover, fault-tolerant data storage with the planar code and the creation of long range entanglement among planar code qubits are easily accomplished in three-dimensional cluster states, via a bcc-symmetric pattern of one-qubit measurements. Therefore, it is suggestive to base fault-tolerant cluster state computation on this code. However, the planar code is not well suited to non-Clifford operations which are essential for universal quantum computation.
Now, in cluster- and graph state quantum computation, the non-Clifford part of the circuit is implemented by destructive measurements of the observables $(X\pm Y)/\sqrt{2}$ (The Clifford part is implemented by $X$-, $Y$- and $Z$-measurements.). The Reed-Muller quantum code is well suited for fault-tolerant quantum computation via local measurements because the measurements of the encoded observables $(\overline{X}\pm \overline{Y})/\sqrt{2}$ (and of $\overline{X}$, $\overline{Y}$, $\overline{Z}$ besides) are accomplished fault-tolerantly by the respective measurements on the bare level—and bare level measurements is what we are allowed to do in the . If we could assume we had given a graph state state as algorithmic resource where each cluster qubit was encoded with the concatenated Reed-Muller code and where noise acted locally on the bare level, then fault-tolerant quantum computation were trivial to achieve. However, is not obvious how to create such an encoded graph state affected by local noise only. But this is just what the topological error correction in cluster states can do.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section \[objects\], we introduce the ingredients required for the error correction mechanisms we use, namely cluster states, the planar code and the 15-qubit Reed-Muller quantum code. In Section \[MeaP\] the measurement pattern used for fault-tolerant cluster state quantum computation is described, and in Sections \[homology\] - \[Elm\] it is explained. Specifically, in Section \[homology\] we describe the physical objects relevant for the discussed scheme—defects, cluster state quantum correlations, errors and syndrome bits—in the language of homology. In Section \[Elm\] we introduce the techniques for structuring quantum correlations via topological entanglement of lattice defects. Our error models are stated in Section \[EM\] and the fault-tolerance threshold is derived in Section \[MECTV\]. The overhead is estimated in Section \[O\]. We discuss our results in Section \[Disc\].
Cluster states and quantum codes {#objects}
================================
This section is a brief review of the ingredients for the described fault-tolerant .
#### Cluster states.
A cluster state is a stabilizer state of qubits, where each qubit occupies a site on a $d$-dimensional lattice ${\cal{C}}$. Each site $a \in {\cal{C}}$ has a neighborhood $N(a)$ which consists of the lattice sites with the closest spatial distance to $a$. Then, the cluster state $|\phi\rangle_{\cal{C}}$ is—up to a global phase—uniquely defined via the generators $K_a$ of its stabilizer $$\label{corr}
K_a:=X_a \bigotimes_{b \in N(a)}Z_b,\;\; \forall a \in {\cal{C}},$$ i.e., $|\phi\rangle_{\cal{C}} = K_a |\phi\rangle_{\cal{C}}$. Here, $X_a$ and $Z_b$ are a shorthand for the Pauli operators $\sigma_x^{(a)}$ and $\sigma_z^{(b)}$ that we use throughout the paper. We refer to the generators $K_a$ of the cluster state stabilizer as the elementary cluster state quantum correlations.
In this paper, we will use as the lattice underlying the cluster state a bcc-symmetric lattice in tree dimensions. That is, the location of cluster qubits is given by lattice vectors $$\label{e/o}
\begin{array}{lcr}
\{(o\mbox{[dd]},e\mbox{[ven]},e), (e,o,e), (e,e,o)\},&&
\mbox{odd qubits},\\
\{(e,o,o),(o,e,o),(o,o,e)\}, && \mbox{even qubits}.
\end{array}$$ We sub-divide the set of qubits into two subsets, the even and the odd qubits. For even (odd) qubits the sum of the coordinates of their respective lattice site is even (odd).
Note that instead of with a bcc-symmetric lattice we could have equivalently started with a cluster state on an sc-symmetric lattice, because a cluster state on the latter is mapped to a cluster state on the former by $Z$-measurements on the qubits $(e,e,e)$ and $(o,o,o)$; see [@QCc].
#### The $[15,3,1]$ quantum Reed-Muller code.
By this we denote a 15 qubit CSS-code based on the (classical) punctured Reed-Muller code ${\cal{R}}(1,4)^*$ [@MacWilliams]. Its stabilizer generator matrix has the form $$G_{RM} = \left(\begin{array}{c|c} G_X & 0 \\ 0 & G_Z \end{array}\right),$$ where $$G_X = \left(
\begin{array}{lllllllllllllll}
1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1\\
0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1
\end{array}\right),$$ and $G_Z$ is given by ${G_X}^{\perp}=G_Z \oplus (1,1,...,1,1)$.
This code has the fairly rare property that the encoded non-Clifford gate $\overline{U}_z(\pi/4)= \exp(-i \pi/8 \overline{Z})$ is local [@Kn; @magic], i.e., $$\label{trans}
\exp\left(-i \frac{\pi}{8}\, \overline{Z} \right) \cong
\bigotimes_{i=1}^{15} \exp\left(i \frac{\pi}{8}\, Z_i\right).$$ This property has been used in magic state distillation [@magic]. In the computational scheme described here we use it to fault-tolerantly measure the encoded observables $\frac{\overline{X} \pm
\overline{Y}}{\sqrt{2}}$ via [*[local]{}*]{} measurements of observables $\frac{X_i \pm Y_i}{\sqrt{2}}$.
#### Surface codes.
For the surface codes [@Kit1; @Kit2] physical qubits live on the edges of a two-dimensional lattice. The support of a physical error must stretch across a constant fraction (typically 1/2) of the lattice to cause a logical error. The protection against errors is topological.
The stabilizer generators of the code are associated with the faces $f$ and the vertices $v$ of the lattice, $$S_X(v) = \bigotimes_{e|\, v \in \{\partial e\}} X_e,\;\;
S_Z(f)=\bigotimes_{e \in \{\partial f\}} Z_e.$$ Therein, $\partial$ is the boundary operator. The number of qubits that can be stored depends on the boundary conditions of the code lattice. The code resulting from periodic boundary conditions, the ‘toric code’ [@Kit1], can store two qubits.
As an example we would briefly like to discuss the planar code [@Kit2] which encodes one qubit; see Fig. \[codes\]a. This example exhibits many features of our subsequent constructions one dimension higher up: Errors are identified with 1-chains and show a syndrome only at their end points. Homologically equivalent chains correspond to physically equivalent errors. Error chains can end in the system boundary without leaving a syndrome.
Specifically, Pauli operators $Z_i$ live on the edges of the primal (=shown) lattice, and Pauli operators $X_j$ live on edges of the dual lattice. The encoded $Z$-operator is a tensor product of individual $Z_i$ operators corresponding to a primal 1-chain stretching from left to right across the code lattice. The encoded $X$-operator corresponds to a 1-chain of the dual lattice that stretches from top to bottom.
The code stabilizer is modified at the system boundary. For example, a face to the left or right of the lattice has only three elementary 1-chains in its boundary, instead of four. Such boundary is called a ‘rough edge’. Where no modification of the faces occurs the system boundary is a ‘smooth edge’. ‘Smooth’ on the primal lattice is ‘rough’ on the dual, and vice versa. Error chains can end in a rough edge of their respective lattice without leaving a syndrome, but not in a smooth edge.
The surface codes will occur rather implicitly in our constructions. The reason is that here we do not use such codes to encode logical qubits. Instead, we use them to appropriately “wire” a subset of the cluster qubits, the $S$-qubits. The link between surface codes and cluster states has been established in [@LRE], for the purpose of creating long range entanglement in noisy 3D cluster states via local measurements. It has been found that the error correction implemented by the local measurements is described—like fault-tolerant data storage with the toric code—by the so-called [*[Random plaquette $\mathbb{Z}_2$-gauge model in three dimensions]{}*]{} (RPGM) [@RPGM]. The three-dimensional cluster state is like a surface code, one dimension higher up. The third dimension, which is temporal in data storage with the toric code, is spatial for the cluster state. The extra spatial dimension can be used to fault-tolerantly mediate interaction among qubits. The creation of an encoded Bell state over large distances [@LRE] is the simplest example. The long-range quantum correlations are engineered by the suitable choice of boundary conditions.
Why are the above two codes chosen? For the fault-tolerant scheme of quantum computation described in this paper we require a quantum code with the following three properties: 1) The code is of CSS-type, 2) The code satisfies Eq. (\[trans\]), and 3) The code fits with cluster states. For some arrangement of qubits on a translation-invariant two-dimensional lattice, the code has a translation-invariant set of stabilizer generators and these generators each have a small support on the lattice.
The Reed-Muller code has properties 1 and 2 but not 3. The surface codes have properties 1 and 3 but not 2. Thus, neither of the codes alone suffices. But their combination does, as is described in the subsequent sections.
---- ----
a) b)
---- ----
The measurement pattern {#MeaP}
=======================
As pointed out in the introduction, we subdivide the cluster $C$ into the three disjoint subsets $V$, $D$ and $S$. $S$ is the the set of qubits where the non-Clifford part of the quantum computation is performed, and $V$ and $D$ are to connect the qubits of $S$ in the proper way. We have not yet explained what the defects are, and we will do so only in the next section. For the moment it suffices to note that the defects are located on the subset $D$ of the cluster, and that $D$ is the union of the two disjoint subsets $D_1$ and $D_2$. The measurement pattern on $D$, $S$ and $V$ is given by $$\label{MP}
\begin{array}{lll}
\mbox{Defect qubits}\,\, a \in D:& \mbox{Measurement of }\left\{
\begin{array}{r} X_a \\ Z_a \end{array} \right.,& \mbox{if} \,\,
\left\{
\begin{array}{r} a \in D_2 \\ a \in D_1 \end{array}
\right.,\vspace{1mm}\\
\mbox{Singular qubits}\,\, a \in S: & \mbox{Measurement of }
\displaystyle{\frac{X_a\pm Y_a}{\sqrt{2}}},\vspace{1mm}\\
\mbox{Vacuum qubits}\,\, a \in V: & \mbox{Measurement of}\,\, X_a.
\end{array}$$ Now we have to explain why we choose this measurement pattern, which is best done using the language of homology.
Involving the Reed-Muller quantum code {#RM}
======================================
In this section we explain the role of the Reed-Muller code for the described computational scheme. Consider a cluster state $|\phi\rangle_{{\cal{C}}_2}$ on a two-dimensional cluster ${\cal{C}}_2$. It is a resource for universal quantum computation by measurements of the local observables $X$, $Z$ and $\frac{X\pm Y}{\sqrt{2}}$, [@QCc]. Denote by $Q \subset
{\cal{C}}_2$ the set of qubits which are measured in the eigenbasis of $\frac{X\pm Y}{\sqrt{2}}$. These measurements implement the non-trivial part of a quantum circuit. The measurements of $X$ and $Z$ on the qubits ${\cal{C}}_2\backslash Q$ implement the Clifford part. They are performed simultaneously in the first round of measurements. $|\Psi_\text{algo}\rangle_Q$ is the state of the unmeasured qubits after the first measurement round. It is an algorithm-specific stabilizer state, hence the subscript “algo”. Since it is a stabilizer state, it is easy to create and one may start with this state as an algorithm-specific resource instead of the universal cluster state. Quantum computation with this state proceeds by measuring local observables $\frac{X\pm
Y}{\sqrt{2}}$.
Now suppose an encoded version of this state, $|\overline{\Psi}_\text{algo}\rangle_{S}$, was given. The state were not perfect but only affected by local noise on the bare level. Of course, a question that arises immediately is how such a state is obtained. The main part of work in this paper goes into answering this question, see subsequent sections. Now, with $|\overline{\Psi}_\text{algo}\rangle_{S}$ given, one could perform fault-tolerant quantum computation by fault-tolerant measurement of the encoded observables $\frac{\overline{X}\pm
\overline{Y}}{\sqrt{2}}$. This is not what we have in mind, because we are seeking a scheme of fault-tolerant quantum computation by [*[local]{}*]{} measurements. Here lies the reason for involving the (concatenated) Reed-Muller code: For this code, the fault-tolerant measurement of the observables $\frac{\overline{X}\pm
\overline{Y}}{\sqrt{2}}$ proceeds by local measurements of observables $\frac{X\pm Y}{\sqrt{2}}$. The reason for this is property (\[trans\]). If $J$ is a set such that $g_X(J):=\bigotimes_{j \in J}X_j$ is in the RM code stabilizer, then also $$g_\pm(J):=\bigotimes_{j \in J}\frac{X_j\pm
Y_j}{\sqrt{2}} \in \mbox{RM code stabilizer}.$$ The relevant encoded observables are given by $$\frac{\overline{X}\pm
\overline{Y}}{\sqrt{2}} = \bigotimes_j \frac{X_j \mp
Y_j}{\sqrt{2}}.$$ The “$\mp$” is for the total number of concatenation levels being odd. If the number is even, replace “$\mp$” by “$\pm$”. Therefore, if all the bare qubits belonging to an encoded qubit are individually measured in the eigenbasis of $\frac{X_j-Y_j}{\sqrt{2}}$, then the eigenvalue found in a measurement of the encoded observable $\frac{\overline{X}+
\overline{Y}}{\sqrt{2}}$ and the eigenvalues of the stabilizer generators $g_+(J)$ can be deduced from the individual measurement outcomes. This is all what is needed for fault-tolerant measurement of the encoded observable $\frac{\overline{X}+
\overline{Y}}{\sqrt{2}}$.
The $Z$-part of the code stabilizer is lost in the local measurement, but it is not needed for the fault-tolerant measurement of $\frac{\overline{X}\pm \overline{Y}}{\sqrt{2}}$. This can be seen as follows. For simplicity assume a local depolarizing error $p/3
\left([X_j]+[Y_j]+[Z_j]\right) = \frac{p}{3 \sqrt{2}}
\left( \left[X_j+Y_j \right]
+ \left[X_j-Y_j\right] + \sqrt{2}[Z_j] \right)$ for all qubits $j$. The brackets “$[\cdot]$” indicate a super-operator. W.l.o.g. assume that the local measurements are in the eigenbasis of $\frac{X_j-Y_j}{\sqrt{2}}$. Then, the error $\frac{X_j-Y_j}{\sqrt{2}}$ is absorbed in the measurement and has no effect. The second error $\frac{X_j+Y_j}{\sqrt{2}} =
i \frac{X_j-Y_j}{\sqrt{2}} Z_j \cong Z_j$, so all remaining errors are equivalent to $Z$-errors. Such errors are identified by the stabilizer elements $\{g_+(J)\}$.
To summarize, the Reed-Muller code is involved to perform the fault-tolerant measurement of the encoded observables locally on the bare level. The eigenvalues corresponding to the encoded observable and to the relevant stabilizer generators are simultaneously inferred from the measurement outcomes. Error correction proceeds by classical post-processing of these quantities.
Involving a topological quantum code - Homology {#homology}
===============================================
The remaining question is how we actually create the state $|\overline{\Psi}_\text{algo}\rangle_{S}$ with only local error from a three-dimensional cluster state. To accomplish this task we involve topological error correction.
Errors and correlations as chains {#ecc}
---------------------------------
The physical objects of our discussion—cluster state correlations and error operators—may be identified with faces and edges of an underlying lattice. Compositions of such faces or edges are called 2-chains and 1-chains, respectively. For the chains homology provides an equivalence relation; namely, two chains are homologically equivalent if they differ by the boundary of a third chain one dimension higher up [@Vick; @Hatcher; @Nakahara]. Homology plays a role in our constructions because homological equivalence of the underlying chains implies physical equivalence of the associated physical objects.
First we introduce the two simple cubic sub-lattices ${\cal{L}}$ and $\overline{\cal{L}}$ whose vertices are at locations $$\begin{array}{rcl}
{\cal{L}}&:&\{(e,e,e)\},\\
\overline{\cal{L}}&:&\{(o,o,o)\}.
\end{array}$$ One lattice can be obtained from the other via translation by a vector $(\pm 1,\pm 1,\pm 1)$. ${\cal{L}}$ and $\overline{\cal{L}}$ are dual to another in the sense that the faces of ${\cal{L}}$ are the edges of $\overline{\cal{L}}$, the cubes of ${\cal{L}}$ are the vertices of $\overline{\cal{L}}$, and vice versa. We denote by $*$ the duality transformation that maps primal edges into the corresponding dual faces ($*e=\overline{f}$), and so forth.
We denote by ${\cal{B}}(C_0):=\{v_k\}$ the set of vertices in ${\cal{L}}$, by ${\cal{B}}(C_1) =\{e_l\}$ the set of edges in ${\cal{L}}$, by ${\cal{B}}(C_2)=\{f_m\}$ the set of faces in ${\cal{L}}$, and by ${\cal{B}}(C_3) =\{q_n\}$ the set of elementary cells \[or cubes\] of ${\cal{L}}$. We may now define chains in ${\cal{L}}$ [@Vick]. ${\cal{B}}(C_0)$ forms a basis for the set $C_0$ of so called 0-chains $c_0$, ${\cal{B}}(C_1)$ forms a basis for the set $C_1$ of 1-chains $c_1$, and so forth. Specifically, the chains are given by $$\begin{array}{rclcrclcrclcrcl}
c_0&=&\sum_k z_k v_k,\;\; & c_1&=&\sum_l z_l e_l,\;\;& c_2&=&\sum_m z_m
f_m, \;\;& c_3&=&\sum_n z_n q_n.
\end{array}$$ where $z_k,z_l,z_m,z_n \in \mathbb{Z}_2$. The sets $C_0$, $C_1$, $C_2$ and $C_2$ are, in fact, abelian groups under component-wise addition, e.g. $c_1+c_1^\prime=\sum_lz_le_l+\sum_lz_l^\prime e_l=
\sum_l(z_l+z_l^\prime) e_l$. For each $i=1..3$, there exists a homomorphism $\partial_i$ mapping $C_i$ to $C_{i-1}$, with the composition $\partial_{i-1} \circ \partial_i=0$. Then, $${\cal{L}}=\{C_3, C_2, C_1, C_0\}$$ is called a chain complex, and $\partial$ is called boundary operator. It maps an $i$-chain $c_i$ to its boundary, which is an $i-1$-chain. In the same way, $\overline{\cal{L}}$ can be defined as a dual chain complex, $\overline{\cal{L}}=\{\overline{C}_3,\overline{C}_2, \overline{C}_1,
\overline{C}_0\}$, with chains $\overline{c}_3$, $\overline{c}_2$, $\overline{c}_1$ and $\overline{c}_0$.
Now, considering a space ${\cal{C}}$, two chains $c_n,\, c_n^\prime \in
C_n({\cal{C}})$ are homologically equivalent if $c_n^\prime=c_n +
\partial c_{n+1}$ for some $c_{n+1} \in C_{n+1}({\cal{C}})$ [@Vick]. Of interest for topological error-correction is the notion of [*[relative homology]{}*]{}. Consider a pair of spaces $({\cal{C}}, D)$ with $D\subset {\cal{C}}$. Then, two chains $c_n$, $c_n^\prime$ are called equivalent w.r.t relative homology, $c_n^\prime
\cong_\text{r} c_n$, if $c_n^\prime = c_n+ \partial c_{n+1}+ \gamma_n$ for some $c_{n+1} \in
C_{n+1}({\cal{C}})$, $\gamma_n \in C_n(D)$; see [@Hatcher]. Relative cycles may end in $D$.
Below we describe how the cluster state quantum correlations may be identified with the 2-chains, the errors with the 1-chains and the syndrome with the 0-chains of ${\cal{L}}$ and $\overline{\cal{L}}$. All these objects appear in two kinds, ‘primal’ and ‘dual’, depending on whether they are defined with respect to ${\cal{L}}$ or $\overline{\cal{L}}$.
#### Cluster state correlations.
We define primal such correlations, $K(c_2)$, and dual ones, $K(\overline{c}_2)$, which can be identified with 2-chains in ${\cal{L}}$ and $\overline{\cal{L}}$, respectively, by $$\label{Hcorr}
K(c_2):=\prod_{f \in \{c_2\}} K_f,\;\;
K({\overline{c}_2}):=\prod_{\overline{f} \in \{\overline{c}_2\}}
K_{\overline{f}}.$$ Therein, e.g. the set $\{c_2\}$ is defined via a mapping $c_2=\sum_mz_mf_m \longrightarrow \{c_2\}=\{f_m|z_m=1\}$. Further, we introduce the notion $O(c):=\bigotimes_{a \in\{c\}} O_a$, for all $c \in C$ and $O \in \{X,Z\}$. It is now easily verified that $$\label{Hcorr2}
K(c_2)=X(c_2)Z(\partial c_2),\; K(\overline{c}_2)=X(\overline{c}_2)Z(\partial
\overline{c}_2).$$
#### Errors.
We will mainly discuss (correlated) probabilistic noise. Then, it is sufficient to restrict the attention to Pauli phase flips $Z$, because $X_a \cong \bigotimes_{b\in N(a)} Z_b$ etc. We combine $Z$-errors on odd (even) qubits to primal (dual) error chains $E(c_1)$ ($E(\overline{c}_1)$), $$E(c_1):=Z(c_1),\;\; E(\overline{c}_1):= Z(\overline{c}_1).$$
#### Syndrome.
The first type of correlations we discuss are those for error correction in $V$. They are characterized by the property that the corresponding 2-chains have no boundary. I.e., we consider $K(c_2)$, $K(\overline{c}_2)$ with $\{c_2\}, \{\overline{c}_2\} \in V$ and $\partial c_2 = \partial \overline{c}_2 = 0$. With (\[Hcorr\]), these correlations take the form $K(c_2)=X(c_2)$, $K(\overline{c}_2)=X(\overline{c}_2)$. They are measured by the $X$-measurements in $V$, see (\[MP\]), and are used to identify errors occurring on the qubits $\{c_2\}$, $\{\overline{c}_2\}$.
The group of 2-chains in the kernel of $\partial$ we denote by $Z_2({\cal{L}})$. Since $\partial\partial =0$, a subgroup of those, $B_2({\cal{L}})$, is formed by the 2-chains which are themselves a boundary of a 3-chain. Denote by $q$ ($\overline{q}$) a 3-chain from the basis ${\cal{B}}(C_3)$ (${\cal{B}}(\overline{C}_3)$). It represents an individual cell \[or cube\] of the primal lattice ${\cal{L}}$ (dual lattice $\overline{\cal{L}}$). The associated quantum correlations are $$\label{TopECC}
K_q:=K(\partial q)= X(\partial q),\;\; K_{\overline{q}}:=K(\partial
\overline{q})= X(\partial \overline{q}).$$ When being measured, each of these correlations yields a syndrome bit $Sy(q)$, $Sy(\overline{q})$ which, we say, is located at $q$ or $\overline{q}$, respectively. Because the lattices ${\cal{L}}$ and $\overline{\cal{L}}$ are dual to another, we may identify the cell $q$ in ${\cal{L}}$ with a vertex $\overline{v}$ in $\overline{\cal{L}}$, and vice versa. In this way, the syndrome bits become located at vertices of the lattices ${\cal{L}}$ and $\overline{\cal{L}}$. The syndrome resulting from the quantum correlations (\[TopECC\]) are those which enable topological error correction [@RPGM].
#### Syndrome and errors.
Let $E(c_1)$ denote a primal error chain, $\overline{q} \in {\cal{B}}(\overline{C}_3)$ a cell in the dual lattice $\overline{\cal{L}}$ and $v \in {\cal{B}}(C_0)=*\overline{q}$. $K(\overline{q})$ detects the error $E(c_1)$ if $|\{c_1\} \cap \{\partial \overline{q}\}| = \mbox{odd}$. Equivalently, $K(\overline{q})$ detects $E(c_1)$ if $v \in
\{\partial c_1\}$. Thus, error chains show a syndrome only at their ends.
#### Correlations and errors.
Primal cluster state correlations are affected by dual error chains and dual correlations are affected by primal error chains. Primal correlations are not affected by primal error chains, and dual correlations are not affected by dual error chains.
To see this, note that a primal correlation $K(c_2)$ consists of Pauli operators $X$ on even qubits and Pauli operators $Z$ on odd qubits. A dual error chain $E(\overline{c}_1)$ consists of operators $Z$ on even qubits. Then, $E(\overline{c}_1)
K(c_2) = (-1)^{|\{\overline{c}_1\} \cup \{c_2\}|}\, K(c_2)
E(\overline{c}_1)$. If $|\{\overline{c}_1\} \cup \{c_2\}|$ is odd, the correlation $K(c_2)$ is conjugated to $-K(c_2)$ by the error. If it is even, then the correlation remains unchanged. This situation has a geometric interpretation. $|\{\overline{c}_1\} \cup \{c_2\}|$ is the number of intersection points between the primal 2-chain $c_2$ and the dual 1-chain $\overline{c}_1$. If the number of intersections is odd (even) then the correlation is (is not) affected by the error. For dual correlations and primal errors the situation is the same. Further, a primal error chain consists of Pauli operators $Z$ on odd qubits. Thus, $[K(c_2),E(c_1)]=0$ always. Similarly, $[K(\overline{c}_2),E(\overline{c}_1)]=0$, $\forall\, \overline{c}_1,
\overline{c}_2$.
#### Defects.
The purpose of defects is to structure the space underlying the pair of lattices ${\cal{L}}, \overline{\cal{L}}$. Practically, a defect can be thought of as a set of qubits that are removed from the initial cluster ${\cal{C}}$ before the remaining qubits are entangled. For the chain complexes $C$, $\overline{C}$, a defect is a set $d$ of missing edges. What defines a defect as an entity is that the belonging edges are connected. As all the other objects, defects are either primal or dual, $$\label{defdef}
d \subset {\cal{B}}(C_1),\; \overline{d} \subset {\cal{B}}(\overline{C}_1).$$ The sets $d$, $\overline{d}$ of defect qubits are not arbitrary. Seen from afar they take the shape of doughnuts. These doughnut-shaped defects will be topologically entangled with another, and the way they are entangled encodes the quantum algorithm to be performed. From the viewpoint of quantum logic, what matters about the doughnuts is that they are loops. Their ‘thickness’ is required for fault-tolerance.
We now briefly explain how the above definition of a defect as a set of missing cluster qubits fits with the measurement pattern (\[MP\]). Formally, each defect $d$ will be assigned a set $D(d)$ of locations on the cluster. This set is subdivided into a set of edge- and a set of face qubits, $D_1(d)$ and $D_2(d)$. Here, the notions of ‘edge’ and ‘face’ are in reference to the lattice the defect belongs to. If the defect is primal (dual) then the edges and faces are taken with respect to the primal (dual) lattice. For primal defects, the sets $D_1(d)$ and $D_2(d)$ are defined as $$D_1(d):=d,\; D_2(d)=\left\{f \in {\cal{B}}(C_2)|\, \{\partial f\} \cap
d= \{\partial f\} \right\}.$$ For dual defects, replace $f$ by $\overline{f}$ and $C_2$ by $\overline{C}_2$ in the above definition. The whole defect region $D$ splits into an edge part $D_1$ and a face part $D_2$, $D=D_1\cup D_2$ where $$D_1 = \bigcup_d D_1(d),\; D_2=\bigcup_d D_2(d).$$ Now the measurement pattern (\[MP\]) becomes understandable: the edge qubits in the defects are measured in the $Z$-basis which effectively removes them from the cluster [@BR]. In this way, the quantum state on the exterior of the defect becomes disentangled from the state with support on interior of the defect. Thereby, a defect is created in the cluster lattice. Note that the qubits on faces whose entire boundary is in $D_1(d)$ become disentangled individually. If no errors were present we could leave these qubits alone. However, their measurement in the $X$-basis provides additional syndrome and so it is advantageous to measure them.
#### Correlations and defects.
In the proximity of a primal defect, edges in the boundary of a primal 2-chain are removed, see (\[defdef\]). Therefore, primal correlations can end in primal defects. Dual defects do not remove primal edges, and thus primal correlations cannot end in dual defects. Analogously, dual correlations can end in dual defects, but not in primal defects.
#### Syndrome and defects.
In the presence of a primal defect $d$ the correlations $\{K_{\overline{q}}=K(\partial \overline{q})|\, \overline{q} \in
{\cal{B}}(\overline{c}_3) \, \wedge\, \partial \overline{q} \cap d \neq
\emptyset \}$ do not commute with the measurements (\[MP\]), such that the syndrome at the locations $$D_0=\{v \in \partial e|\, e \in d \}$$ is lost. Note, however, that for each defect $d$ there will be one syndrome bit associated with the defect as a whole. There exists a 2-cycle $\overline{c}_2(d)$, $\{\overline{c}_2(d)\} \subset V$, that wraps around $d$, and $K(\overline{c}_2(d))=X(\overline{c}_2(d))$. When the qubits in $V$ are measured in the $X$-basis, this correlation yields an additional syndrome bit. Dual defects act analogously on the dual lattice.
#### Errors and defects.
Because the local syndrome is lost at the surface of a defect, primal error chains can potentially end in primal defects. However, there is a dual correlation $K(\overline{c}_2(d))=X(\overline{c}_2(d))$ wrapping around a primal defect, and this correlation detects a primal error chain $E(c_1)$ if the number of intersection points between $\overline{c}_2(d)$ and $c_1$ is odd. Thus, primal error chains can [*[pairwise]{}*]{} end in primal defects.
Primal error chains cannot end in dual defects, because dual defects do not remove primal syndrome. Similarly, dual error chains can pairwise end in dual defects, and they cannot end in primal defects.
The relations among cluster state correlations, errors and defects are summarized in Tab. \[relations\].
----------------------------- ------------ --------------- ------------- ----------------- ---------------
**to this one**$\downarrow$ dual corr. primal defect dual defect primal err. cy. dual err. cy.
correlation nothing bound repel nothing affect
dual correlation repel bound affect nothing
primal defect
dual defect
primal err. cy. nothing
----------------------------- ------------ --------------- ------------- ----------------- ---------------
: \[relations\]This table shows who does what to whom. ‘$A$ bounds $B$’ is synonymous with ‘$B$ ends in $A$’. The displayed objects do not interact with themselves.
Homological and physical equivalence
------------------------------------
We have so far identified physical objects—correlations and errors—with chains of a chain complex. In this section we point out that it is the homology class of the chain rather than the chain itself which characterizes the respective physical object. The equivalence of two chains under relative homology implies the physical equivalence of the corresponding physical operators.
1\. Cluster state correlations. We regard two cluster state correlations $K(c_2)$, $K(c_2^\prime)$ as physically equivalent if they yield the same stabilizer element for the state $|\overline{\Psi}_\text{algo}\rangle_S$ after the measurement of the qubits in $V$ and $D$. This requires two things. First, $K(c_2)$ and $K(c_2^\prime)$ need to be simultaneously measurable. With $O_a$ the locally measured observables (\[MP\]) we require $[K(c_2), O_a] =0\;
\forall a \in V\cup D \Longleftrightarrow [K(c_2^\prime ), O_a] =0\;
\forall a \in V\cup D$. Second, the two operators must agree on $S$, $K(c_2)|_S = K(c_2^\prime)|_S$. Then, the following statement holds: If $c_2^\prime \cong_\text{r} c_2$ w.r.t. $(V\cup
D, D)$ then $K(c_2^\prime) \cong K(c_2)$.\
[*[Proof]{}*]{}: There exists $c_3 \in C_3 |\, \{\partial c_3\} \subset V
\cup D_2$ and $\gamma_2 \in C_2|\, \{\gamma_2\} \subset D_2$ such that $c_2^\prime = c_2 + \partial c_3 + \gamma_2$. 1. Simultaneous measurability: $K(\gamma_2) = \left( \bigotimes_{a \in
D_2(\gamma_2)}X_a \right) \left( \bigotimes_{b \in
D_1(\gamma_2)}Z_b \right)$, where $D_1(\gamma_2) \subset D_1$ and $D_2(\gamma_2) \subset D_2$. Therefore, with (\[MP\]), $[K(\gamma_2), O_a] =0\;
\forall a \in V\cup D$ (\*). Similarly, $K(\partial c_3)=X(\partial c_3)$ such that, with (\[MP\]), $[K(\partial c_3), O_a] =0\;
\forall a \in V\cup D$ (\*\*). Since $K(c_2^\prime) = K(c_2) K(\partial
c_3) K(\gamma_2)$, (\*) and (\*\*) imply simultaneous measurability of $K(c_2)$ and $K(c_2^\prime)$ on $V \cup D$. 2. Same restriction to $S$: $K(\partial c_3)$ and $K(\gamma_2)$ don’t act on $S$, hence $K(c_2)|_S = K(c_2^\prime)|_S$. $\Box$
2\. Errors. Two errors $E(c_1)$ and $E(c_1^\prime)$ are physically equivalent if they cause the same damage to the computation. That is, they have the same logical effect and leave the same syndrome. Then, the following statement holds: If $c_1^\prime \cong_r c_1$ w.r.t. $(V \cup D, D)$ then $E(c_1^\prime) \cong E(c_1)$.\
[*[Proof]{}*]{}: There exist $c_2 \in C_2,\,
\gamma_1 \in C_1,\,\, \mbox{with } \{c_2\} \subset V \cup D_2, \, \{\gamma_1\}
\subset D_1$, such that $c_1^\prime = c_1 + \partial
c_2 + \gamma_1$. Now, a Pauli spin flip error $X$ is absorbed in a subsequent $X$-measurement and has no effect on the computation, $\frac{I \pm X}{2} X = \pm \frac{I \pm X}{2}
I$. Thus, with (\[MP\]), $X_a \cong I_a$ for all $a \in V \cup D_2$. Similarly, $Z_b \cong I_b$ for all $b \in D_1$. Then, $E(c_1+\partial
c_2 + \gamma_1) = E(c_1) Z(\partial c_2) Z(\gamma_1)
= E(c_1) K(c_2) X(c_2) Z(\gamma_1) \cong E(c_1)$. $\Box$
Constructive techniques {#Elm}
=======================
The purpose of the measurements in $V$ and $D$ is to create on $S$ the Reed-Muller-encoded algorithm-specific resource $|\overline{\Psi}_\text{algo}\rangle_S$ described in Section \[RM\]. In Section \[Sloc\], we specify the location of $S$-qubits with respect to the lattice defects and then, in Section \[BC\], we give a construction for a topologically protected circuit providing $|\overline{\Psi}_\text{algo}\rangle_S$.
Location of the $S$-qubits {#Sloc}
--------------------------
The $S$-qubits have very particular locations within the cluster. Besides the defects in the shape of doughnuts that we have already introduced the cluster also supports defects shaped like ear clips. The opening of these ear clip defects is only one cluster qubit wide. If this one cluster qubit were a defect qubit ($q \in D$) too, the ear clips would become doughnuts. But the particular cluster qubit is not in $D$, it is an $S$-qubit. The situation is displayed graphically in Fig. \[SLOC\]a.
The appropriate stabilizer generators among the $S$-qubits are induced from the cluster state correlations associated with relative 2-cycles, by measurement of the $V$- and $D$-qubits. As everything else in this computational scheme, the $S$-qubits occur in the two kinds ‘primal’ and ‘dual’. We call an $S$-qubit $q$ primal, $q \in S_p$, if it lives on the a face of the primal lattice, and we call it dual, $q \in S_d$, if it lives on a face of the dual lattice.
We now discuss how primal and dual correlations affect the $S$-qubits. Consider, for example the correlation $K(c_2)$ corresponding to a primal relative 2-chain $c_2$. A primal $S$-qubit at location $q$ may lie within $c_2$, but never in its boundary, $\{\partial c_2\} \cap q =
\emptyset$. A dual $S$-qubit $q^\prime$ may lie in the boundary of a primal 2-chain $c_2$ but never in $c_2$ itself, $\{c_2\} \cap q^\prime
=\emptyset$. We therefore conclude that $$\label{KaffeS}
\mbox{\parbox{14cm}{\em{
A primal correlation $K(c_2)$ acts on a
primal $S$-qubit by one of the two Pauli-operators $X$, $I$ and on a
dual $S$-qubit by one of the two operators $Z$, $I$. A
dual correlation $K(\overline{c}_2)$ acts on a
primal $S$-qubit by one of the two Pauli-operators $Z$, $I$ and on a
dual $S$-qubit by one of the two operators $X$, $I$.}}}$$ For finding the extended relative 2-cycles on the primal lattice, we thus regard $S_p$ as part of $V$ and $S_d$ as part of $D$. Analogously, for finding the extended relative 2-cycles on the dual lattice, we regard $S_p$ as part of $D$ and $S_d$ as part of $V$. In this way, the problem of finding the extended primal 2-cycles on a cluster with $S$-qubits is reduced to the same problem without $S$-qubits.
---- -- ---- -- ----
a) b) c)
---- -- ---- -- ----
Creating $|\overline{\Psi}_\text{algo}\rangle$ among the $S$-qubits {#BC}
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The construction of a topologically protected circuit providing $|\overline{\Psi}_\text{algo}\rangle_S$ proceeds in three steps. First we show that $|\overline{\Psi}_\text{algo}\rangle_S$ is local unitarily equivalent to a bi-colorable graph state, by local Hadamard-transformations. Second, we show how to create a bi-colorable graph state. Third, we take care of the Hadamard-transformations.
#### Equivalence of $|\overline{\Psi}_\text{algo}\rangle$ to a bi-colorable graph state.
Denote by $|\Psi\rangle_{{\cal{C}}_2}$ the state after the first measurement round ($X$- and $Z$-measurements) in a -computation on a cluster state $|\phi\rangle_{{\cal{C}}_2}$, cf. Section \[RM\]. Denote by ${\cal{C}}_X$, ${\cal{C}}_Z$ the subsets of ${\cal{C}}_2\backslash Q$ whose qubits are measured in the $X$- or $Z$-basis, respectively. Further, denote by ${\cal{C}}_\text{even}$, ${\cal{C}}_\text{odd}$ the sets of even and odd qubits in ${\cal{C}}_2$ (checkerboard pattern). The state $|\Psi\rangle_{{\cal{C}}_2}$ is given by $$\label{DePsi}
|\Psi\rangle_{{\cal{C}}_2} \sim \left(\bigotimes_{a \in {\cal{C}}_X}
\frac{I \pm X_a}{2} \right) \left(\bigotimes_{b \in {\cal{C}}_Z}
\frac{I \pm Z_b}{2} \right) |\phi\rangle_{{\cal{C}}_2}$$ and has the form $|\Psi\rangle_{{\cal{C}}_2}=|\Psi_\text{algo}\rangle_Q \otimes
|\mbox{rest}\rangle_{{\cal{C}}_2\backslash Q}$. Further, $|\phi\rangle_{{\cal{C}}_2}$ is local unitary equivalent to some CSS-state, $|\phi\rangle_{{\cal{C}}_2}= \left(\bigotimes_{i \in
{\cal{C}}_\text{odd}} H_i \right) |CSS\rangle_{{\cal{C}}_2}$. Then, with (\[DePsi\]) and ${\cal{C}}_X^\prime:=\left({\cal{C}}_X \cap
{\cal{C}}_\text{even}\right) \cup \left({\cal{C}}_Z \cap
{\cal{C}}_\text{odd}\right)$, ${\cal{C}}_Z^\prime:=\left({\cal{C}}_Z \cap
{\cal{C}}_\text{even}\right) \cup \left({\cal{C}}_X \cap
{\cal{C}}_\text{odd}\right)$, $
|\Psi\rangle_{{\cal{C}}_2} \sim \left(\bigotimes_{i \in
{\cal{C}}_\text{odd}} H_i \right) \left(\bigotimes_{a \in
{\cal{C}}_X^\prime}
\frac{I \pm X_a}{2} \circ \bigotimes_{b \in {\cal{C}}_Z^\prime}
\frac{I \pm Z_b}{2} |CSS\rangle_{{\cal{C}}_2} \right)
= \left(\bigotimes_{i \in
{\cal{C}}_\text{odd}} H_i \right) |CSS^\prime\rangle_{{\cal{C}}_2}.
$ Thus, also the state $|\Psi_\text{algo}\rangle$ is l.u. equivalent to a CSS-state, $$|\Psi_\text{algo}\rangle_Q =
\left(\bigotimes_{q \in {\cal{C}}_\text{odd} \cap Q} H_q \right)
|CSS^{\prime\prime}\rangle_Q.$$ Now, we consider the concatenated-Reed-Muller-encoded resource $|\overline{\Psi}_\text{algo}\rangle_S$, which may obtained from the bare state $|\Psi_\text{algo}\rangle_Q$ via encoding, $|\overline{\Psi}_\text{algo}\rangle_S = \left(\bigotimes_{q \in
Q}\mbox{Enc}_q \right) |\Psi_\text{algo}\rangle_Q$. The encoding procedure $\mbox{Enc}$ takes every qubit $q \in Q$ to a set $S(q)$ of qubits, $\bigcup_{q \in Q} S(q) = S$. It has the property that $\mbox{Enc}_q \circ H_q = \left(\bigotimes_{i \in S(q)} H_i \right)
\circ \mbox{Enc}^\prime_q$. Therein, $\mbox{Enc}^\prime$ is an encoding procedure for the code conjugated to the Reed-Muller-code, i.e., for the code with the $X$- and the $Z$-block of the stabilizer interchanged. This code is of CSS type, like the Reed-Muller code itself. The encoding procedure changes when passing through the Hadamard-gate because the encoded Hadamard-gate is not local for the Reed-Muller quantum code.
At any rate, the state $|\overline{\Psi}_\text{algo}\rangle_S$ is l.u. equivalent to a CSS-state encoded with CSS-codes, i.e., to a larger CSS-state, $|\overline{\Psi}_\text{algo}\rangle_S = \left(\bigotimes_{q \in
{\cal{C}}_\text{odd} \cap Q} \bigotimes_{i \in S(q)} H_i\right)
|CSS^{\prime\prime\prime}\rangle_S$. Every CSS-state is l.u. equivalent to a bi-colorable graph state [@Rains], by a set of local Hadamard-transformations. Thus, we finally obtain $$|\overline{\Psi}_\text{algo}\rangle_S = \bigotimes_{i \in S_H}H_i
\,\, |\Gamma\rangle_S.$$ Therein, $S_H$ is some subset of $S$ and $|\Gamma\rangle_S$ is a bi-colorable graph state with adjacency matrix of the corresponding graph $$\Gamma = \left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & G^T\\ G & 0\end{array}\right).$$
#### Circuit for a bi-colorable graph state. {#BCGcirc}
The circuit layout for the topologically protected creation of an arbitrary bi-colorable graph state is shown in Fig. \[circ\]. The circuit consists of a set of horizontal primal and a set vertical dual defects. Each primal defect comes close to each dual defect once, and the two defects may be linked in that region. The form of this junction is decided by a corresponding element of the graph state adjacency matrix $G$. If $G_{i,j}=1$ then the defects are linked and otherwise they are not. In addition, each of the loop defects is linked with an ear-clip shaped defect which holds an $S$-qubit. The graph state in question is formed among these qubits after the remaining qubits have been measured.
An explanation of the circuit in Fig. \[circ\], for the specific example of a line graph, is given in Fig. \[circEx\]. From this example it should be clear how the circuit works in general. For the line graph we have the adjacency sub-matrix $$G_\text{line} =
\begin{array}{cl} \mbox{ }\\
\left(\begin{array}{ccc} 1 & 1 & 0\\ 0 & 1 & 1
\end{array} \right) & \begin{array}{c} b \\ d \end{array} \vspace{2mm}\\
\begin{array}{ccc} a & c & e \end{array} \end{array}.$$ This implies, for example, that in the circuit of Fig. \[circEx\]a the dual defect winding around the dual $S$-qubit $a$ will be linked with the primal defect winding around the primal $S$-qubit $b$. Now we explain how the stabilizer element $K_b=Z_aX_bZ_c$ for the graph state $|\Gamma_\text{line}\rangle$ emerges. The other stabilizer generators emerge in the same way.
Consider the relative 2-cycle $c_2(b)$ and imagine it being built up step by step. We start around the $S$-qubit $b$. Because $c_2(b)$ is primal and $b$ is primal, $K(c_2(b))$ affects qubit $b$ by a Pauli-operator $X$, see Eq. (\[KaffeS\]). Also, $c_2(b)$ is bounded by the primal defect encircling $b$.
We move further to the left. At some point, $c_2(b)$ approaches a dual defect. Primal correlations cannot end in dual defects. Therefore, $c_2(b)$ bulges out and forms a tube wrapping around the dual defect, leading downwards. It ends in the primal defect holding the dual $S$-qubit $c$. $K(c_2(b))$ affects qubit $c$ by a Pauli-operator $Z$. Back at the junction, $c_2(b)$ continues to expand to the left. It approaches a second dual defect where it forms another tube. In result, the dual $S$-qubit $a$ is affected by a Pauli-operator $Z$. Further to the left, the primal defect closes up and bounds $K(c_2(b))$.
$K(c_2(b))$ takes the form $X_b Z_a Z_c \bigotimes_{d \in V(b)V} X_d$ for some set $V(b) \subset V$. All qubits in $V$ are measured in the $X$-basis (\[MP\]) such that after these measurements the correlation $K_b = \pm Z_aX_bZ_c$ remains. This is a stabilizer generator for the graph state in Fig. \[circEx\]b since $(a,b)$ and $(c,b)$ are the only edges of the line graph ending in the vertex $b$. For every edge in the graph there is a link among defect loops in the circuit.
---- ----
a) b)
---- ----
The proof for the programmable circuit of Fig. \[circ\] realizing a general bi-colorable graph state is similar. As an outline, each stabilizer generator is associated with a doughnut-shaped defect in the circuit. Such a defect bounds a correlation, and this correlation affects one $S$-qubit by $X$. Further, because the considered defect is linked with other defects of the opposite kind, the correlation surface forms tubes. These tubes affect one other $S$-qubit each—the neighbors of the first—by Pauli-operators $Z$.
#### Implementing the local Hadamard-transformations.
The equivalence between the graph state $|\Gamma\rangle_S$ and the encoded algorithm specific resource $|\overline{\Psi}_\text{algo}\rangle_S$ is by Hadamard-transformations on some subset $S_H$ of $S$-qubits. Wherever such a Hadamard-transformation needs to be applied, attach an extra loop to the circuit in Fig. \[circ\], $$\parbox[c]{6cm}{\epsfig{width=5.8cm, file=Modif.eps}}.$$
Error sources, error correction and fault-tolerance threshold
=============================================================
Two error models {#EM}
----------------
Below we describe two error models, a simple one and a more realistic one.
The cluster state is created only on those cluster qubits which are needed for the computation, i.e., on $V \cup S$. The defect qubits of $D$ are left out.
1. [The noise is described by independent partially depolarizing channels acting on each cluster qubit. The noisy state $\rho_{\cal{C}}$ is given by $\displaystyle{\rho_{\cal{C}}=\bigotimes_{a \in
{\cal{C}}}T_a (p_1)\,
|\phi\rangle_{\cal{C}}\langle\phi|}$, with $$\label{LDC}
T_a^{(1)}(p_1)=
(1-p_1)[I_a]+ \frac{p_1}{3}\left([X_a]+[Y_a]+[Z_a]\right).$$]{}
2. [The classical computation for syndrome processing is instantaneous.]{}
The reason for considering this error model first is its simplicity. We would like to separate the intricacies inherent in the presented error-correction scheme from additional difficulties incurred by a realistic error model. The basic justification for such an approach is this: The error correction used here is topological. Therefore, a threshold should exist regardless of whether independent errors are strictly local or only local in the sense of having a support of bounded size.
The most straightforward method to create a cluster state is from a product state $\bigotimes_{a} |+\rangle_a$ via a (constant depth) sequence of $\Lambda(Z)$-gates [@BR]. If these gates are erroneous, then Error Model 1 does not apply in general.[^1] Specifically, one may raise the following objections to Error Model 1:
- [No correlated errors are included in Error Model 1. Creating the cluster state via a sequence of gates will, however, lead to correlated errors in the output cluster state.]{}
- [Storage errors accumulate in time. There is temporal order among the measurements such that the computation takes a certain time $t_\text{comp}$ which cannot be bounded by a constant for all possible computations. As a consequence, for the qubits measured in the final round the local noise rate increases monotonically with $t_\text{comp}$ and exceeds the error threshold.]{}
- [To leave the $D$-qubits out is a deviation from the originally envisioned setting: the cluster state on $S
\cup V$ is algorithm-specific.[^2]]{}
To account for these inadequacies, we consider a second error model.
A cluster state on a bcc-symmetric lattice is created in four steps of nearest-neighbor $\Lambda(Z)$-gates. The gate sequence is as shown in Fig. \[GateSeq\]. Errors occur due to the erroneous preparation of the initial $|+\rangle$-qubits, erroneous $\Lambda(Z)$-gates in the process of creating the cluster state, storage and measurement.
1. [The computation is split up into steps which performed on sub-clusters ${\cal{C}}_k$. In each step, unmeasured qubits remaining from the previous step—the hand-over qubits—are loaded into a cluster state on a sub-cluster. Subsequently, all but a few cluster qubits (the new hand-over qubits) are measured. The steps have their temporal depth adjusted such that each qubit, after being locally prepared and entangled, waits at most a constant number $t_0$ of time steps until its measurement occurs, $t_0\geq1$. Error in storage is described by a partially depolarizing noise with error probability $p_S$ per time step.]{}
2. [The erroneous preparation of initial $|+\rangle$-qubits is modeled by the perfect procedure followed by local depolarizing noise [*[(\[LDC\])]{}*]{}, with probability $p_P$. Measurement is described by perfect measurement preceded by partially depolarizing noise with error probability $p_M$. The erroneous $\Lambda(Z)$-gates are modeled by the perfect gate followed by a 2-qubit depolarizing channel $$\label{T2}
T^{(2)}_{e,f}(p_2) = (1-p_2) [I_{e,f}] + \frac{p_2}{15}\left([I_e \otimes
X_f] + ... + [Z_e \otimes Z_f] \right).$$]{}
3. [Classical syndrome processing is instantaneous.]{}
In the subsequent sections we compute a fault-tolerance threshold for both error models. In Error Model 2, storage error will cause the minimum damage for the smallest possible value of $t_0$, which is $t_0=1$. In this case, each sub-cluster carries a subset of $S$-qubits with no mutual temporal dependence. All qubits in $V$ and $D$, except the hand-over qubits (See Appendix \[SubClusters\]), are measured immediately after being entangled. The measurement of the $S$-qubits has to wait one time step. [*[Henceforth we set $t_0=1$.]{}*]{}
Methods for error correction and the threshold value {#MECTV}
----------------------------------------------------
There are different methods of error correction associated with the different regions $V$, $S$ and $D$ of the cluster. In $D$, there are as many inequivalent errors as there are syndrome bits, such that the error correction is trivial. The error correction in $V$ is based on the random plaquette $\mathbb{Z}_2$-gauge model in three dimensions [@RPGM]. The error correction in $S$ is carried out using the (concatenated) quantum Reed-Muller code.
#### Error correction in $D$.
In the domain $D(d)$ of the defect only $Z$-errors matter for face qubits and only $X$-errors matter for edge qubits. Any other errors may be absorbed into the subsequent measurements (\[MP\]). The $X$-errors on edges may be relocated to $Z$ errors on the neighboring face qubits via $X_e \cong K_e X_e$, such that we need to consider $Z$-errors on face qubits only. For each face in $d$ we learn one syndrome bit, yielding a unique syndrome for each error configuration.
However, if an error $X_e$ on an edge qubit $e$ in the surface of defect $d$ is relocated, the equivalent error $K_e X_e$ may partially be outside $D(d)$. After error correction in $D(d)$, an individual $Z$-error on a face qubit in $V$ is left next to $D(d)$. This affects the error correction in $V$ near $D$; see below.
#### Error correction in $V$.
First consider a scenario where the entire cluster consists of the region $V$ ([*i.e.*]{}, there are no defects and no singular qubits). Error correction on the primal lattice ${\cal{L}}$ and the dual lattice $\overline{\cal{L}}$ run separately. Here we consider error correction on the primal lattice only; error correction on the dual lattice is analogous.
The error chains live on the edges of the lattice ${\cal{L}}$ and leave a syndrome at the end points, which are vertices of ${\cal{L}}$. This is exactly the scenario which has been considered for topological quantum memory in [@RPGM], and subsequently the results of [@RPGM] that we need in the present context are briefly summarized. The connection between topological error correction and cluster states has been made in [@LRE] for the purpose of creating long-range entanglement in the presence of noise.
Given a particular syndrome and an error chain $E(c_1)$ compatible with this syndrome, we are interested in the total probability $P(c_1)$ of the [*[homology class]{}*]{} of $c_1$, $$P(c_1) = \sum_{z_1 \in Z_1} p(c_1+z_1),$$ where $p(c_1^\prime)$ is the probability of an individual error chain $E(c_1^\prime)$, and the sum is over all 1-cycles. For error correction we infer that the physical error which occurred was from the homology class with the largest probability.
If the errors on the lattice edges occur independently with a probability $q$ then the problem of computing $P(c_1)$ for a given chain $c_1$ can be mapped onto a problem from statistical mechanics, namely the random plaquette $\mathbb{Z}_2$-gauge model in three dimensions [@RPGM]. The crossover from high fidelity error correction at small error rates to low fidelity error correction at high error rates corresponds to a phase transition in this model. A numerical estimate of the critical error rate is $q_{\text{c}}=0.033\pm0.001\;$[@Ohno].
As far as is known, the classical operational resources required to find the most likely error homology class consistent with a given syndrome scales exponentially in the number of error locations. The assumption of the classical processing being instantaneous cannot be justified under these conditions. However, it is possible to trade threshold value for efficiency in the error correction procedure. A reasonable approximation to the maximum probability for a homology class of errors is the probability of the lowest weight admissible chain. The minimum-weight perfect matching algorithm [@MWCM; @CR] computes this chain using only polynomial operational resources. A numerical estimate to the threshold with this algorithm for error correction is $q^\prime_{\text{c}}=0.0293\pm0.0002$ [@WHP].
[*[Remark:]{}*]{} The topological error threshold is estimated in numerical simulations of finite-size systems. For this purpose, the probability of logical error is plotted vs. the physical error parameter for various system sizes. For sufficiently large lattices (such that finite-size effects are small), we expect these curves to follow a universal scaling ansatz near the threshold such that they share a common intersection point and their slopes are proportional to a common power of the lattice size. As the system size is increased to infinity, we then expect the curves to approach a step function which transitions at the threshold value of the physical error parameter.
The above quoted threshold value is for independent errors on the edges of ${\cal{L}}$. Do the models for the physical error sources of Section \[EM\] lead to such independent errors? The answer is ‘yes’ for error Model 1 and ‘no’ for error Model 2. For the latter, we need to consider a modified RPGM with correlated errors among next-to-nearest neighbors. Specifically, for Error Model 1 the relation between the local rate $p_1$ of the physical depolarizing error and the error parameter $q$ that shows up in the RPGM is $$q=\frac{2}{3}p_1, \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\text{for Error Model 1}.$$ Given a threshold of $q = 2.93\%$ [@WHP] for error correction via the minimum weight perfect matching algorithm in the bulk, then the corresponding depolarizing error rate that can be tolerated is $$\label{Trpgm_M1}
p_{1,\text{c}} = 4.4\times 10^{-2}, \;\;\;\; \mbox{(in $V$)}.$$
(9,8)(0,0) (-1.2,8) (0.4,5.3)
For Error Model 2, first consider the case where only the $\Lambda(Z)$-gates are erroneous, $p_P=p_S=p_M=0$. Then, in addition to local errors with a rate $q_1$ there exist correlated errors with error rate $q_2$ for each pair of opposite edges in all faces of ${\cal{L}}$. That is, with a probability $q_2$ simultaneous errors are introduced on opposite edges of the faces in ${\cal{L}}$. The local noise specified by $q_1$ and the two-local noise specified by $q_2$ are independent processes. The relations between the error parameter $p_2$ of the $\Lambda(Z)$-gates and the parameters $q_1, q_2$ of the RPGM with correlated errors are $$\label{RPGMmap}
\begin{array}{rcl}
q_1 &=& \displaystyle{\frac{32}{15}p_2 \left( 1-\frac{8}{15}p_2 \right)
\left(\frac{64}{225}p_2^{\,\,2} + \left(1-\frac{8}{15}p_2\right) ^2
\right),}\\
q_2 &=& \displaystyle{\frac{1}{2}-\sqrt{\frac{1}{4}-\frac{4}{15}p_2}\, =\,
\frac{4}{15}p_2 + O(p_2^{\,\,2}).}
\end{array}$$ The correlation of errors on sites separated by a distance of two arises through error propagation in the creation of the cluster state. Correlations among errors on next-neighboring sites play no role because such errors live on different lattices (${\cal{L}}$ and $\overline{\cal{L}}$) and are corrected independently.
The only effect of $p_P,p_S,p_M>0$ is an enhanced local error rate $q_1$. We give the relations to leading order only; they read $$\label{RPGMmap2}
\begin{array}{rcl}
q_1 &=&
\displaystyle{\frac{32}{15}p_2+\frac{2}{3}\left(p_P+p_S+p_M\right),}
\vspace{1mm}\\
q_2 &=& \displaystyle{\frac{4}{15}p_2 ,}
\end{array}\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; \text{for error Model 2}.$$ See Fig. \[TE\] for a simulation of error correction under faulty $\Lambda(Z)$-gates as the only error source, which gives rise to correlated noise between neighboring edge qubits. If we define $x = (p_2 - p_{2,c}) L^{1/\nu_0}$ then the universal scaling ansatz states that fidelity $F$ should be a function dependent only on the scaling parameter $x$ in the vicinity of the threshold [@WHP]. We find very good agreement (with $R^2 > .9991$) for $F = A + Bx + Cx^2$, where we fit for constants $A$, $B$, $C$, $p_{2,c}$, and $\nu_0$. This gives very tight bounds on the critical probability $p_{2,c} = 9.6 \times 10^{-3}$. Interestingly, we also find $\nu_0 = 1.00 \pm 0.02$, which indicates that this model belongs to the same universality class as the purely local error model of the 3D-RPGM [@WHP].
In Fig. \[NT\] the threshold trade-off curve between $p_P+p_S+p_M$ and $p_2$ is displayed. Numerically, we obtain for the thresholds in the bulk $$\label{Trpgm_M2}
\begin{array}{rclcl}
p_P=p_S=p_M&=& 1.46 \times 10^{-2}, && \mbox{for }p_2=0,\\
p_2&=&0.96 \times 10^{-2}, && \mbox{for }p_P=p_S=p_M=0,\\
p_i&=&0.58\times 10^{-2}, && \mbox{for }p_P=p_S=p_M=p_2.
\end{array}$$
#### Error correction in $V$ near $D$.
In the presence of defects there are two modifications to error processes in $V$. First, the length scale for the minimum extension of a non-trivial error cycle shrinks. Second, there is a surface effect; the effective error rate for qubits in $V$ next to the surface of defects is enhanced by a constant factor.
1\. Length scale for non-trivial errors: For comparison, consider a cluster cube of finite size $2L\times 2L \times 2L$. A non-trivial error cycle must stretch across the entire cube and thus has a weight of at least $L$. The lowest weight errors which are misinterpreted by the error correction procedure occur with a probability $q^{L/2}$. The total error probability incurred by such errors may therefore be expected to decrease exponentially fast in $L$, which is confirmed in numerical simulations [@LRE].
In the presence of defects, the dominant sources for logical error are 1-chains that either wind around a defect or that begin and end in a defect and intersect a correlation surface (2-chain) in between; see Fig. \[ES\]. The relevant length scales are thus the thickness (circumference) and the diameter of the defects. They are much smaller than $L$.
Specifically, consider a defect with circumference $u$ and length $l$ which bounds a correlation surface $c_2$, such that $|\{\partial c_2\}|=l$. An error cycle winding around the defect has a weight of at least $u+8 \approx u$, and there are $l$ such minimum weight cycles. Therefore, the probability $p_E(u,l)$ for affecting $K(c_2)$ by an error is, to lowest contributing order, $$\label{expsupp}
p_E(u,l)= l\frac{u!}{(u/2)!^2} q^{u/2} \approx l \exp\left(\frac{\ln
4q}{2} u \right) \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi/2\, u}}.$$ In the range of validity for the above expansion in powers of $q$, the error is still exponentially suppressed in the relevant length scale $u$.
2\. Surface effects: As discussed above, the error level is enhanced for qubits in $V$ near the surface of a defect. If the defect is primal (dual), the enhancement occurs on dual (primal) qubits. This effect will—if anything—lower the threshold. But there is another effect: the presence of the defect changes the boundary conditions. In case of a primal defect, the boundary conditions on the defect surface become rough for the primal lattice and smooth for the dual lattice. Dual error chains cannot end in a primal defect, as we noted earlier. For the dual lattice, there is excess syndrome available at the defect surface. This effect will—if anything—increase the threshold. Our intuition is that neither effect has an impact on the threshold value. The threshold should, if the perturbations at the boundary are not too strong, still be set by the bulk.
We have performed numerical simulations for lattices of size $L \times L \times 2 L$, where half of the lattice belongs to $V$ and the other half to the defect region $D$. The error rate is doubled near the mutual boundary of the regions and there is no remaining error in $D$. Simulations are feasible with reasonable effort up to $L \approx 20$. We find that finite-size effects (due to the smooth boundary conditions) are still noticeable up to these lattice sizes, but the intersection point of fidelity curves for nearby lattice sizes is slowly converging to a threshold value around that of the bulk ($\sim 2.9\%$).
[lcl]{} a) & & b)\
\
&&
#### Error correction in $V$ near a junction between $D$ and $S$.
Near an $S$-qubit there exist relative error cycles of small length, see Fig. \[NearS\]a, and the topological error correction breaks down. As a result, the effective error on an $S$-qubit is enhanced by its surrounding. To compute the effective error probabilities, we replace every low-weight error-chain $E(\gamma)$ that results in a logical error [*[after error correction]{}*]{} by an equivalent error $E_S(\gamma)$ acting on the $S$-qubits. The error correction converts $E(\gamma)$ into $E(c_1(\gamma))$ with $c_1(\gamma)$ a relative 1-cycle. ‘Equivalent’ means that $E(c_1(\gamma))$ and $E_S(\gamma)$ act in the same way on the stabilizer generators $\{K_{\overline{\Psi},s}|\; s \in S\}$ of the induced state $|\overline{\Psi}_\text{algo}\rangle_S$, i.e., $[E(c_1(\gamma))E_S(\gamma),K_{\overline{\Psi},s}]=0$ for all $s\in
S$. The relevant correlations to check are $K(\overline{c}_2)$ and $K(c_2)$ displayed in Fig. \[NearS\]a.
It is important to note that the effective error on the $S$-qubits is [*[local]{}*]{}. This arises because only error chains causing a 1-qubit error may have small length. Error chains causing a correlated error on the $S$-qubits are suppressed exponentially in the qubit separation. See Fig. \[NearS\]b.
We compute the effective error channel on the $S$-qubit to first order in the error probabilities only. For error Model 1 the error enhancement only affects sub-leading orders of $p_1$, $$\label{effSEC1}
T^{(1)}_s =
(1-p_1)[I_s]+\frac{p_1}{3}\left([X_s]+[Y_s]+[Z_s]\right).$$ For Error Model 2 the effective error channel on an $S$-qubit is not universal but depends on the precise shape of the defect double-tip near the $S$-qubit. For our calculation we use the defect shape displayed in Fig. \[Detail\]. The defect is one-dimensional nearest to the $S$-qubit, and farther away becomes three-dimensional. The effective error channel then is $$\label{effSEC}
\begin{array}{rcl}
\tilde{T}^{(1)}_s &=&
\displaystyle{\left(1-\frac{2}{3}p_P-\frac{7}{3}p_S-\frac{7}{3}p_M
-\frac{94}{15}p_2\right)[I_s]\,
+\left(2p_2 + \frac{5}{3}p_S+\frac{5}{3}p_M\right) [X_s]\,+}\\
&&
\displaystyle{+\left(\frac{2}{5}p_2+ \frac{1}{3}p_S+\frac{1}{3}p_M \right)
\,[Y_s]+\left(\frac{2}{3}p_P+\frac{1}{3}p_S+\frac{1}{3}p_M
+\frac{58}{15} p_2 \right) [Z_s]}.
\end{array}$$ The individual contributions to (\[effSEC\]) are listed in Appendix \[E2\].
---- ----
a) b)
---- ----
#### Error correction in $S$.
The $S$-qubits are protected by the concatenated Reed-Muller code. This code corrects for the errors (\[effSEC1\])/(\[effSEC\]) that remain after error correction in $V$ and $D$.
The $S$-qubits are all measured in the eigenbases of $\frac{X\pm
Y}{\sqrt{2}}$. Then, an $X$- or a $Y$-error is equivalent to a $Z$-error with half the probability. This is easily verified for the case where $X$- and $Y$-errors occur with the same probability. W.l.o.g. assume the measurement basis is $\frac{X+Y}{\sqrt{2}}$. Then $[X]+[Y]= \frac{[X+Y]}{\sqrt{2}} + \frac{[X-Y]}{\sqrt{2}} =
\frac{[X+Y]}{\sqrt{2}} ([I]+[Z]) \cong [Z]$. But the statement is, to leading and next-to-leading order in the error probability, also true when $X$- and $Y$-errors do not occur with equal probability; see Appendix \[E3\]. We may thus convert the $X$- and $Y$-errors in (\[effSEC1\]) and (\[effSEC\]) into $Z$-errors. The corresponding error probability $p_Z$ is $$\label{eqZerr}
\begin{array}{rclcl}
p_Z&=&\displaystyle{\frac{2}{3}{p_1}}, && \mbox{for error Model
1},\vspace{1mm}\\
p_Z&=&
\displaystyle{\frac{76}{15}p_2+\frac{2}{3}p_P+\frac{4}{3}p_M+
\frac{4}{3}p_S,} && \mbox{for error Model 2}.
\end{array}$$ The fault-tolerance threshold of the concatenated $[15,1,3]$-Reed-Muller code for independent $Z$-errors with probability $p_Z$ is $1.09 \times 10^{-2}$. As we discuss all Reed-Muller error correction to leading order only, we take the leading order estimate $$\label{RMT}
p_{Z,\text{c}}= \frac{1}{105} \approx 0.95 \times 10^{-2}.$$ For Error Model 1, from (\[eqZerr\]) and (\[RMT\]) we obtain the threshold $$\label{RMT_M1}
p_{1,\text{c}} = \frac{1}{70} \approx 1.4 \times 10^{-2},
\;\;\;\;\;\;\mbox{(in $S$)}.$$ For error Model 2 we obtain $$\label{TRM_M2}
\begin{array}{rclcl}
p_{P,\text{c}}=p_{S,\text{c}}=p_{M,\text{c}}&=& \displaystyle{\frac{1}{350}
\approx 0.29 \times 10^{-2}}, && \mbox{for }p_2=0, \vspace{1mm}\\
p_{2,\text{c}}&=& \displaystyle{\frac{1}{532} \approx 0.19 \times
10^{-2}}, && \mbox{for }p_P=p_S=p_M=0,\vspace{1mm}\\
p_{i,\text{c}}&=& \displaystyle{\frac{1}{882} \approx 0.11 \times
10^{-2}}, &&
\mbox{for }p_P=p_S=p_M=p_2,
\end{array}
\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\mbox{(in $S$)}.$$ The topological error correction in $V$ and the Reed-Muller error correction in $S$ run separately, and all that remains is to check which mechanism breaks down first. By comparison of Equation (\[Trpgm\_M1\]) with (\[RMT\_M1\]) and Equation (\[Trpgm\_M2\]) with (\[TRM\_M2\]), we find for both error models that the Reed-Muller error correction collapses first. It therefore sets the overall threshold. In Error Model 1, the critical error probability for local depolarizing error is $1.4 \times
10^{-2}$. In Error Model 2, for the case where preparation, gate, storage and measurement errors each have equal strength, the error threshold for the individual processes is $1.1 \times 10^{-3}$.
Overhead {#O}
========
Denote by $N$ the number of qubits in the algorithm-specific resource state $|\Psi_\text{algo}\rangle_Q$. $N$ is also the number of non-Clifford one-qubit rotations in a quantum circuit realizing the algorithm “algo”. What is the number $N_\text{ft}$ of cluster qubits required to perform the same computation fault-tolerantly?
The qubit overhead factor for Reed-Muller error correction is $$O_\text{RM}= \left( \frac{\log N}{\log
p_\text{c}/p}\right)^{\gamma},$$ where $\gamma=\log_2 15 \approx 3.91$, and $p$ is the actual and $p_\text{c}$ the critical Reed-Muller error rate. The set $S$ consists of $|S|=N O_\text{RM}$ qubits.
We need to determine the additional overhead due to topological error correction. We choose a separation $r$ between strands of a defect loop, and a strand diameter of $r/2$. $$\begin{aligned}
\parbox{5cm}{\epsfig{width=5cm, file=Overhead.eps}} \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The dimensions of the cluster thus are $\mbox{width}, \mbox{depth}
\leq 3/2\, r N O_\text{RM}$, $\mbox{height}=4r$. The most likely errors then occur with a probability of $\exp(-\kappa(p) r)$, (\[expsupp\]), and there are less than $3r (N O_\text{RM})^2$ locations for them (primal+dual). We require that $3r (N O_\text{RM})^2 \exp(-\kappa(p) r) \approx 1$, such that in the large $N$ limit $$r \approx \frac{2}{\kappa(p)} \ln N.$$ Double-logarithmic corrections are omitted. The total number of qubits is given by $N_\text{ft}=\mbox{width}\times
\mbox{depth}\times \mbox{height} \leq 9r^3(N O_\text{RM})^2$, such that $$N_\text{ft} \sim N^2 \left(\log N\right)^{3+2\gamma}.$$ The overhead is polynomial. The values of the exponents in the above expression may be reduced in more resourceful adaptations of the presented scheme.
Discussion {#Disc}
==========
We have described a scheme for fault-tolerant cluster state universal quantum computation which employs topological error correction. This is possible because of a link between cluster states and surface codes. In addition to the topological method, we make use of a Reed-Muller quantum code which ensures that non-Clifford operations can be performed fault-tolerantly by local measurements.
The error threshold is $1.4\%$ for an ad-hoc error model with local depolarizing error and $0.11\%$ for a more detailed error model with preparation-, gate-, storage- and measurement errors. We have not tried to optimize for either threshold value or overhead here; the foremost purpose of this paper is to explain the techniques. With regard to a high threshold, the obvious bottleneck is the Reed-Muller code. The error threshold imposed by this code on the cluster region $S$ is—depending on the error model—a factor of 3 to 5 times worse than the threshold obtained from the topological error correction in $V$. To increase the threshold one may replace this code by another CSS code with property (\[trans\]) that has a higher error threshold, provided such a code exists. Alternatively, one may probe the Reed-Muller code in error detection, as in magic state distillation [@magic]. The error detection threshold is $14\%$, which indicates that there is some room for improvement.
Part of the investigations in this paper are numerical simulations, and we would like to comment on their impact on the threshold value. Numerics are encapsulated only in the threshold estimate for topological error correction which is much higher than the overall threshold. Our final threshold estimate stems from the Reed-Muller code and is analytical.
#### Acknowledgments:
We would like to thank Sergey Bravyi, Frank Verstraete, Alex McCauley, Hans Briegel and John Preskill for discussions. JH is supported by ARDA under an Intelligence Community Postdoctoral Fellowship. KG is supported by DOE Grant No. DE-FG03-92-ER40701. RR is supported by MURI under Grant No. DAAD19-00-1-0374 and by the National Science Foundation under contract number PHY-0456720. Additional support was provided by the Austrian Academy of Sciences.
[99]{} E. Knill, R. Laflamme, W.H. Zurek, Proc. Roy. Soc. London A [**[454]{}**]{}, 365 (1998). D. Aharonov and M. Ben-Or, Proc. 29th Ann. ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing, 176 (New York, ACM, 1998); D. Aharonov, M. Ben-Or, quant-ph/9906129 (1999). D. Gottesman, PhD thesis, Caltech (1997), quant-ph/9705052. P. Aliferis, D. Gottesman, J. Preskill, quant-ph/0504218. E. Knill, Nature [**[434]{}**]{}, 39 (2005). A. Kitaev, Ann. Phys. [**[303]{}**]{}, 2 (2003); quant-ph/9707021. J. Preskill, quant-ph/9712048. C. Mochon, Phys. Rev. A [**[67]{}**]{}, 022315 (2003). R. Raussendorf and H.-J. Briegel, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**[86]{}**]{}, 5188, (2001). H.-J. Briegel and R. Raussendorf, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**[86]{}**]{}, 910, (2001). R. Raussendorf, PhD thesis, University of Munich (2003). M.A. Nielsen, C.M. Dawson, Phys. Rev. A [**[71]{}**]{}, 052312 (2005); C.M. Dawson, H.L. Haselgrove, and M.A. Nielsen, quant-ph/0509060. P. Aliferis, D. Leung, quant-ph/0503130. R. Raussendorf, S. Bravyi, J. Harrington, Phys. Rev. A [**[71]{}**]{}, 062313 (2005). S. Bravyi and A. Kitaev, quant-ph/980092. E. Knill, R. Laflamme, W. Zurek, quant-ph/9610011. S. Bravyi and A. Kitaev, Phys. Rev. A [**[71]{}**]{}, 022316 (2005). E. Dennis, A. Kitaev, A. Landahl and J. Preskill, quant-ph/0110143. F.J. MacWilliams, N.J.A. Sloane, [*[The Theory of Error-Correcting Codes]{}*]{}, North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam (1977). J.W. Vick, [*[Homology theory: an introduction to algebraic topology]{}*]{}, Springer, New York (1994), originally published: Academic Press, New York (1973). A. Hatcher, [*[Algebraic Topology]{}*]{}, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2002). M. Nakahara, [*[Geometry, Topology and Physics]{}*]{}, IOP Publishing Ltd, Bristol (1990). E. Rains, private communication. See: K. Chen and H.-K. Lo, quant-ph/0404133, and H. Aschauer, W. D[ü]{}r and H.-J. Briegel, Phys. Rev. A [**[71]{}**]{}, 012319 (2005). W. D[ü]{}r, H. Aschauer and H.-J. Briegel, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**[91]{}**]{}, 107903 (2003). T. Ohno, G. Arakawa, I. Ichinose, and T. Matsui, quant-ph/0401101. J. Edmonds, Canadian J. Math., [**[17]{}**]{}, 449 (1965). W. Cook and A. Rohr, INFORMS Journal on Computing [**[11]{}**]{}, 138, (1999). C. Wang, J. Harrington, and J. Preskill, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) [**[303]{}**]{}, 31 (2003).
The appendices are relevant for Error Model 2 only.
Connecting sub-clusters {#SubClusters}
=======================
The cluster ${\cal{C}}$ consists of a set of sub-clusters ${\cal{C}}_k$, ${\cal{C}} = \bigcup_k {\cal{C}}_k$ which are prepared in sequence. Two successive sub-clusters ${\cal{C}}_k$, ${\cal{C}}_{k+1}$ have an overlap, ${\cal{C}}_k \cap {\cal{C}}_{k+1}
=H_k \subset V \cup D$. $H_k$ is a set of locations for hand-over qubits. Each graph edge (corresponding to a $\Lambda(Z)$-gate in cluster state creation) can be unambiguously assigned to one sub-cluster. The set of edges ending in one vertex either belongs to one or to two sub-clusters. In the latter case, the vertex is the location for a hand-over qubit.
If $k$ is odd, the cluster state creation procedure on ${\cal{C}}_k$ is the sequence $1\rightarrow 2 \rightarrow 3 \rightarrow 4$. If $k$ is even, the sequence is $3 \rightarrow 4 \rightarrow 1 \rightarrow
2$. As shown in Fig. \[ssc\]b, connecting the sub-clusters proceeds smoothly. Consider, for example, the sub-cluster ${\cal{C}}_1$. With the exception of a subset of the hand-over qubits to ${\cal{C}}_2$, the qubits in ${\cal{C}}_1$ are prepared at $t=0$, entangled in steps 1 to 4, and measured at $t=5,6$. Specifically, the $V$- and $D$-qubits are measured at time $t=5$, while the $S$-qubits are measured at time $t=6$ with measurement bases adapted according to previous measurement outcomes. The sub-clusters ${\cal{C}}_k$ are chosen such that there is no temporal order among the measurements on qubits within $S \cap {\cal{C}}_k$, for all $k$. Then, the $S$-qubits wait for one time step in which a storage error may occur.
---- ---- --
a) b)
---- ---- --
The hand-over qubits stay in the computation no longer than the other $V$- and $D$-qubits. They form two subsets, $H_1 = A \cup B$; see Fig. \[ssc\]a. The qubits in $A$ are prepared at $t=0$, entangled in time steps 1 to 4 and measured in at $t=5$. They cause no change in the error model.
The qubits in $B$ are not acted upon by a gate until time step 2 (since the potential interaction partner of step 1 isn’t there yet), so they are prepared at time $t=1$. The final interaction involving the $B$-qubits is in step 5, and they are measured in step 6. Between preparation and measurement, the $B$-qubits are in the computation for four time steps in each of which they are acted upon by a gate. No additional storage error occurs. There is one modification due to the $B$-qubits. The temporal order of $\Lambda(Z)$-gates involving the qubits $b \in B$ is changed. As a result, the correlated errors on the edge qubits of the faces $\{c_2\}=b$ are not among pairs of opposite edge qubits but among pairs of neighboring edge qubits. So, the error rates $q_1$ and $q_2$ in (\[RPGMmap2\]) are unchanged, but $q_2$ characterizes a slightly different process.
We expect this to be a minor effect. The overall threshold is still set by the threshold for Reed-Muller error-correction, which is some five times smaller than the simulated threshold for topological error correction.
Effective error channel on the $S$-qubits {#E2}
=========================================
The effective error on an $S$-qubit stems from the $S$-qubit itself and its immediate surrounding shown in Fig. \[SEC\] and from the two edge-qubits in the one-dimensional section of the defect, which are not protected by any syndrome. Of the latter each contributes an error $$\label{Defe}
E_\text{defect} =
\left(\frac{4}{5}p_2+\frac{2}{3}p_S+\frac{2}{3}p_M\right) [X_s].$$ The preparation error does not contribute, because the corresponding $Z$-error on the defect qubit is absorbed in the $Z$-measurement.
The effective error of the center qubit $s \in S$ stems from operations that act on $s$ directly, from $X$- or $Y$-errors propagated to $s$ by the $\Lambda(Z)$-gates and from short nontrivial cycles. Specifically, there are four non-trivial cycles of length 3. One of them is denoted as $E(c_1)$ in Fig. \[SEC\]. Because of the correlations in the forward-propagated errors these cycles have weight 2 and cause inconclusive syndrome at lowest order in the error probability. There are further error cycles of length 3, such as $E(c_1^\prime)$ in Fig \[SEC\]. But they have weight 3 even for Error Model 2 and do not contribute to the lowest order error channel. We perform a count including all error sources in the cluster region displayed in Fig. \[SEC\], right. There is one convention that enters into the count. Namely, the error $Z_aZ_bZ_cZ_d$ (see Fig. \[SEC\]) is a non-trivial error cycle such that the errors $Z_aZ_b$ and $Z_cZ_d$ have the same weight and the same syndrome but different effect on the computation, $X_s$ vs. $I_s$. When the corresponding syndrome occurs, we assert that a logical $X$-error occurred and correct for it. We obtain $$\label{Cene}
E_\text{central}=\left(\frac{2}{5}p_2 + \frac{1}{3}p_S +\frac{1}{3}p_M
\right)\left([X_s]+[Y_s]\right)+
\left(\frac{2}{3}p_P+\frac{1}{3}p_S+\frac{1}{3}p_M+\frac{58}{15}p_2\right)
[Z_s].$$ The sources (\[Defe\]) and (\[Cene\]) combined, $E_\text{central}+2\times E_\text{defect}$, lead to the local error channel (\[effSEC\]).
Conversion of $X$- and $Y$-errors on $S$-qubits {#E3}
===============================================
Here we show that an $X$- or $Y$-error on an individual $S$-qubit $s$ with probability $p$ is equivalent to a $Z$-error on that qubit with probability $p/2$, $p [X_s] \cong p[Y_S] \cong p/2\,
[Z_s]$. The qubit $s$ may be measured in the eigenbasis of $\frac{X+Y}{\sqrt{2}}$ or of $\frac{X-Y}{\sqrt{2}}$. W.l.o.g. assume the qubit $s$ is measured in the eigenbasis of $\frac{X+Y}{\sqrt{2}}$. Then, $X_s=\frac{X_s+Y_s}{\sqrt{2}}
\frac{I_s - iZ_s}{\sqrt{2}} \cong \frac{I_s - i Z_s}{\sqrt{2}} $. The $X$-error is equivalent to a coherent $Z$-error and we need to check whether the coherences matter. More generally, for the described scenario with the subsequent measurement a probabilistic local error channel $(1-p_X-p_Y-p_Z)[I_s]+p_X[X_s]+p_Y[Y_s]+p_Z[Z_s]$ is equivalent to a channel with coherent errors $$\label{CohE}
\rho \longrightarrow (1-q) \rho + q Z_s \rho Z_s + i \tilde{q}
\left(\rho Z_s - Z_s \rho \right),$$ with $$\label{hp}
q = p_Z+ \frac{p_X+p_Y}{2},\;\;\; \tilde{q} = \frac{p_X - p_Y}{2}.$$ Now assume that all $S$-qubits are affected individually by the error channel (\[CohE\]). The Reed-Muller error correction at successive levels maps these channels to channels of the same form, one coding level higher up. The parameters $q_l$, $\tilde{q_l}$ at coding level $l$ obey recursion relations which, up to fourth order, read $$\label{MRC}
\begin{array}{lcl}
q_{l+1} &=& \displaystyle{105\, q_l^2\, (1-q_l)^{13} + 35\, q_l^3\,
(1-q_l)^{12}+ 1260\,
q_l^4\,(1-q_l)^{11}+ 630\, \tilde{q}_l^4\,(1-q_l)^{11}},\vspace{1mm}\\
\tilde{q}_{l+1} &=& \displaystyle{70 \,\tilde{q}_l^3
\,(1-q_l)^{12}-1680\, \tilde{q}_l^3 q_l \, (1-q_l)^{11}}.
\end{array}$$ If we compare (\[MRC\]) to the recursion relation of $q$ for probabilistic $Z$-error, a deviation first shows up at fourth order. The discussion of Reed-Muller error correction in this paper is confined to leading order. The leading order result for the threshold, $q_\text{c}=1/105$, is not affected by the coherences in the error (\[CohE\]). Probabilistic $X$-and $Y$-errors influence the threshold by contributing half their weight to the probability of an effective $Z$-error; see (\[hp\]).
[^1]: There may be situations in which the error Model 1 is in fact a good approximation. For example, consider a scenario in which the cluster state is purified before being measured for computation. Of course, the gates in a purification protocol would be erroneous, too, such that the purified state is not perfect. In effect, the errors of the initial state were replaced by the errors of the purification protocol. There exist purification protocols [@HA] in which the gates act transversally on two copies of the cluster state (one of which is subsequently measured). As a result, the errors introduced by the purification are approximately local, as in Error Model 1. The purification protocol [@HA] in its current form has a problem of its own, though; due to the exponentially decreasing efficiency of post-selection, it is not scalable in the size of the state. But chances are that this can be repaired.
[^2]: For the creation of the cluster state this makes little or no difference: fewer gate operations are needed than for the creation of $|\phi\rangle_{\cal{C}}$. For parallelized procedures that make use of the translation invariance of ${\cal{C}}$, it should not be too difficult to remove the superfluous $D$-qubits from the lattice before the remaining qubits are entangled.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
-
title: 'A Collaborative Framework for In-network Video Caching in Mobile Networks'
---
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
By assuming that the $\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }(2940)$ is a $pD^{\ast 0}$ molecular state with spin-parity $J^{P}=\frac{1}{2}^{+}$ and $J^{P}=\frac{1}{%
2}^{-}$, the photoproduction of charmed $\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }(2940)$ baryon in the $\gamma n\rightarrow D^{-}\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }(2940)^{+}$ process is investigated with an effective Lagrangian approach. It is found that the contributions from $t$-channel with $D^{\ast }$ exchange are dominant, while the $s$-channel with nucleon pole exchange give a sizeable contribution around the threshold. The contributions from the $u$-channel and contact term are very small. The total cross section of the $\gamma n\rightarrow
D^{-}\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }(2940)^{+}$ reaction is estimated, which indicate it is feasible to searching for the charmed $\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }(2940)$ baryon at the COMPASS experiment.
author:
- 'Xiao-Yun Wang$^{1,2,3}$'
- 'Alexey Guskov$^{4}$'
- 'Xu-Rong Chen$^{1,3}$'
title: '$\Lambda _{c}^{+}(2940)$ photoproduction off the neutron'
---
[^1]
[^2]
Introduction
============
Searching and explaining the exotic states which may consist of the non $q%
\bar{q}$ and $qqq$ configurations, have becoming a very interesting topic in hadron physics. Actually, the structure of baryon is more intriguing than that of the meson. Recently, some charmed baryons have been experimentally identified [@pdg; @ek10], which provide an ideal place to investigate the dynamics of the light quarks in the environment of a heavy quark. For example, the charmed baryon $\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }(2940)$ has aroused intensive studies on its nature.
The charmed baryon $\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }(2940)$ was first announced by the *BABAR* Collaboration [@babar07] by analyzing the $pD^{0}$ invariant mass spectrum. Later, the Belle Collaboration [@belle07] confirmed it as a resonant structure in the final state $\Sigma
_{c}(2455)^{0,++}\pi ^{\pm }\rightarrow \Lambda _{c}^{+}\pi ^{+}\pi ^{-}$. The values for the mass and width of the $\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }(2940)$ state were reported by both Collaborations [@babar07; @belle07], which are consistent with each other:$$\begin{aligned}
\text{\textit{BABAR }}\text{: } &M&=2939.8\pm 1.3\pm 1.0\text{ MeV,} \\
&\Gamma& =17.5\pm 5.2\pm 5.9\text{ MeV,} \\
\text{Belle}\text{: }&M& =2938.0\pm 1.3_{-4.0}^{+2.0}\text{ MeV,} \\
\text{ \ \ \ \ } &\Gamma& =13_{-5-7}^{+8+27}\text{ MeV.}\end{aligned}$$
However, the spin-parity of the $\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }(2940)$ state have still not been determined in experiment. Different theoretical groups [dong14,dong10,dong101,xg07,sc81,cc07,de08,xh08,hy07,sm08,wr08,cg09,dg11,he10,pg13]{} have performed theoretical studies of $\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }(2940)$ by assuming different assignment for its spin-parity $J^{P}=\frac{1}{2}^{\pm },%
\frac{3}{2}^{\pm },\frac{5}{2}^{\pm }$. For example, by assuming the $%
\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }(2940)$ as a $pD^{\ast 0}$ molecular state, the spin-parity of $\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }(2940)$ was assigned to be $\frac{1}{2}%
^{\pm }$ in Refs. [@dong10; @dong101; @he10]. Besides supposing $\Lambda
_{c}^{\ast }(2940)$ to be a hadronic molecular state, the $\Lambda
_{c}^{\ast }(2940)$ also is explained as a conventional charmed baryon [sc81]{} with $J^{P}=\frac{3}{2}^{+}$ or $J^{P}=\frac{5}{2}^{-}$. Since the the nature of $\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }(2940)$ is still unclear, more work is needed to determine its real inner structure.
Until now, all experimental observations of $\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }(2940)$ have been from the $e^{+}e^{-}$ collision [@babar07; @belle07]. Thus it is interesting to study the production of $\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }(2940)$ in other process. In Refs. [@dong14; @he11], the production of $\Lambda _{c}^{\ast
}(2940)$ by $\bar{p}p$ annihilation are proposed, while the production of $%
\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }(2940)$ via $\pi $ meson induced nucleon is discussed in Ref. [@xie15]. However, one notice that there is no any relevant informations about the photoproduction of $\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }(2940)$. Thus the studies on the photoproduction of $\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }(2940)$ are highly necessary.
In this work, with an effective Lagrangian approach, the photoproduction of $%
\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }(2940)$ in the $\gamma n\rightarrow D^{-}\Lambda
_{c}^{\ast }(2940)^{+}$ process is investigated. Moreover, the feasibility of searching for the charmed $\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }(2940)$ resonance is also discussed. [It is shown that modern experiments based on energetic lepton beams of high intensity like the COMPASS experiment at CERN [Abbon:2007pq]{}[@compass] could be the promising platform for searching for photoproduction of the charmed baryon $\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }(2940)$ and study of its properties.]{}
This paper is organized as follows. After an Introduction, the formalism and the main ingredients are presented. The numerical results and discussions are given in Sec. III. In Sec. IV, the [$\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }(2940)$ production at COMPASS are discussed.]{} Finally, the paper ends with a brief summary.
Formalism
=========
In the present work, an effective Lagrangian approach in terms of hadrons is adopted, which is an important theoretical method in investigating various processes in the resonance region [dong14,he11,xie15,zou03,xyw15,xy,epl15,prc15,epja15]{}.
Feynman diagrams and effective Lagrangian densities
---------------------------------------------------
Fig. 1 describes the basic tree level Feynman diagrams for the production of $\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }(2940)$ ($\equiv \Lambda _{c}^{\ast }$) in $\gamma
n\rightarrow D^{-}\Lambda _{c}^{\ast +}$ reaction. These including the $t$-channel with $D^{+}$ and $D^{\ast +}$ exchange, $s$-channel with nucleon pole exchange, $u$-channel with $\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }$ exchange and contact term. Fig. 2 is the Feynman diagrams for the $\gamma n\rightarrow
D^{-}D^{0}p $ reaction.
![(Color online) Feynman diagrams for the $\protect\gamma %
n\rightarrow D^{-}\Lambda _{c}^{\ast +}$ reaction. (a) $t$-channel; (b) $s$-channel; (c) $u$-channel; (d) contact term.[]{data-label="Fig:fyd"}](fig1a.eps "fig:") ![(Color online) Feynman diagrams for the $\protect\gamma %
n\rightarrow D^{-}\Lambda _{c}^{\ast +}$ reaction. (a) $t$-channel; (b) $s$-channel; (c) $u$-channel; (d) contact term.[]{data-label="Fig:fyd"}](fig1b.eps "fig:") ![(Color online) Feynman diagrams for the $\protect\gamma %
n\rightarrow D^{-}\Lambda _{c}^{\ast +}$ reaction. (a) $t$-channel; (b) $s$-channel; (c) $u$-channel; (d) contact term.[]{data-label="Fig:fyd"}](fig1c.eps "fig:") ![(Color online) Feynman diagrams for the $\protect\gamma %
n\rightarrow D^{-}\Lambda _{c}^{\ast +}$ reaction. (a) $t$-channel; (b) $s$-channel; (c) $u$-channel; (d) contact term.[]{data-label="Fig:fyd"}](fig1d.eps "fig:")
   
In Ref. [@dong10; @dong101], by assuming the $\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }(2940)$ as a molecular $D^{\ast 0}p$ state, the spin-parity ($J^{P}$) quantum number of $\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }(2940)$ was assigned to be $\frac{1}{2}^{+}$, while the quantum number $J^{P}=\frac{1}{2}^{-}$ is completely excluded because the calculated partial widths are much larger than the experimental width of $\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }(2940)$ state. In this present work, two cases of $%
\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }(2940)$ with $J^{P}=\frac{1}{2}^{\pm }$ are calculated for a comparison. Thus we take the normally used effective Lagrangians for $%
\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }ND$, $\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }ND^{\ast }$ and $\gamma
\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }$ couplings as [@dong14; @xie15],
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_{ND\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }(\frac{1}{2}^{\pm })} &=&ig_{_{\Lambda
_{c}^{\ast }ND}}^{\pm }\bar{\Lambda}_{c}^{\ast }\Gamma ^{\pm }ND+h.c., \\
\mathcal{L}_{ND^{\ast }\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }(\frac{1}{2}^{\pm })}
&=&g_{\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }ND^{\ast }}^{\pm }\bar{\Lambda}_{c}^{\ast }\Gamma
_{\mu }^{\pm }ND_{\mu }^{\ast }+h.c., \\
\mathcal{L}_{\gamma \Lambda _{c}^{\ast }\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }(\frac{1}{2}%
^{\pm })} &=&-e\bar{\Lambda}_{c}^{\ast }(Q_{\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }}%
\rlap{$\slash$}A-\frac{\kappa _{\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }}^{\pm }}{4m_{\Lambda
_{c}^{\ast }}}\sigma ^{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu })\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }+h.c.,\end{aligned}$$
with $$\Gamma ^{\pm }=\binom{\gamma _{5}}{1},\text{ }\Gamma _{\mu }^{\pm }=\binom{%
\gamma ^{\mu }}{\gamma _{5}\gamma ^{\mu }}.\text{\ }$$The $Q_{\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }}$ is the electric charge (in the unite of $e$), while the anomalous magnetic momentum[^3] $\kappa _{\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }}^{+}=0.38$ for the $%
\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }$ with $J^{P}=\frac{1}{2}^{+}$ [@af06]. The anomalous magnetic moment $\kappa _{\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }}^{-}$ for $\Lambda
_{c}^{\ast }$ with $J^{P}=\frac{1}{2}^{-}$ amounts to $0.44$ in the SU(3) quark model [@ra91]. We take the coupling constants $g_{_{\Lambda
_{c}^{\ast }ND}}^{+}=-0.45$, $g_{_{\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }ND}}^{-}=-0.97$, $%
g_{\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }ND^{\ast }}^{+}=6.64$ and $g_{\Lambda _{c}^{\ast
}ND^{\ast }}^{-}=3.75$ as used in Refs. [@dong14; @xie15].
Moreover, the effective Lagrangians for the $\gamma DD,\gamma DD^{\ast },$and $\gamma NN$ couplings are$$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_{\gamma DD} &=&ieA_{\mu }(D^{+}\partial ^{\mu }D^{-}-\partial
^{\mu }D^{+}D^{-}), \\
\mathcal{L}_{\gamma DD^{\ast }} &=&g_{\gamma DD^{\ast }}\epsilon _{\mu \nu
\alpha \beta }(\partial ^{\mu }A^{\nu })(\partial ^{\alpha }D^{\ast \beta
})D+h.c., \\
\mathcal{L}_{\gamma NN} &=&-e\bar{N}(Q_{N}\rlap{$\slash$}A-\frac{\kappa _{N}%
}{4m_{N}}\sigma ^{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu })N,\end{aligned}$$where $F^{\mu \nu }=\partial ^{\mu }A^{\nu }-\partial ^{\nu }A^{\mu }$ with $%
A^{\mu }$, $D$, $D^{\ast \mu }$ and $N$ are the photon, $D$-meson, $D^{\ast
} $-meson and nucleon fields, respectively. $m_{D}$ and $m_{N}$ are the masses of the $D$-meson and nucleon, while $\epsilon _{\mu \nu \alpha \beta
} $ is the Levi-Civit$\grave{a}$ tensor. $Q_{N}$ is the charge of the hadron in the unit of $e=\sqrt{4\pi \alpha }$ with $\alpha $ being the fine-structure constant. The anomalous magnetic moment $\kappa _{N}=-1.913$ for the neutron [@yh13].
The coupling constant $g_{\gamma DD^{\ast }}$ are determined by the radiative decay widths of $D^{\ast },$$$\Gamma _{D^{\ast \pm }\rightarrow D^{\pm }\gamma }=\frac{g_{\gamma DD^{\ast
}}^{2}(m_{D^{\ast }}^{2}-m_{D}^{2})^{2}}{32\pi m_{D^{\ast }}^{2}}\left\vert
\vec{p}_{D}^{~\mathrm{c.m.}}\right\vert ,$$where $\vec{p}_{D}^{~\mathrm{c.m.}}$ is the three-vector momentum of the $D$ in the $D^{\ast }$ meson rest frame. With $m_{D^{\ast }}=2.01$ GeV, $%
m_{D}=1.87$ GeV and $\Gamma _{D^{\ast \pm }\rightarrow D^{\pm }\gamma }=1.35$ keV, one obtains $g_{\gamma DD^{\ast }}=0.117$ GeV$^{-1}$.
Considering the internal structure of hadrons, a form factor is introduced to describe the possible off-shell effects in the amplitudes. For the exchange baryons, we adopt the following form factors as used in Refs. [dong14,mosel98,mosel99]{},$$\mathcal{F}_{B}(q_{ex}^{2})=\frac{\Lambda _{B}^{4}}{\Lambda
_{B}^{4}+(q_{ex}^{2}-m_{ex}^{2})^{2}},$$while for the $D$ and $D^{\ast }$ exchange, we take
$$\mathcal{F}_{D/D^{\ast }}(q_{ex}^{2})=\frac{\Lambda _{D/D^{\ast
}}^{2}-m_{ex}^{2}}{\Lambda _{D/D^{\ast }}^{2}-q_{ex}^{2}}$$
where $q_{ex}$ and $m_{ex}$ are the four-momenta and the mass of the exchanged hadron, respectively. The values of cutoff parameters $\Lambda
_{B} $ and $\Lambda _{D/D^{\ast }}$ will be discussed in the next subsection.
For the propagators of spin-1/2 baryon, we adopt the Breit-Wigner form [dong14,xie15]{}$$G_{1/2}(q_{ex})=i\frac{\rlap{$\slash$}q_{ex}+m_{ex}}{%
q_{ex}^{2}-M_{ex}^{2}+im_{ex}\Gamma }$$where $\Gamma $ is the total decay width of baryon. We take $\Gamma =17$ MeV [@pdg] for the $\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }(2940)$ state and $\Gamma =0$ for other intermediate baryons.
The propagator for $D$ exchange is written as$$G_{D}(q_{ex})=\frac{i}{q_{ex}^{2}-m_{D}^{2}}$$
For the $D^{\ast }$ exchange, we take the propagator as $$G_{D^{\ast }}^{\mu \nu }(q_{ex})=i\frac{-g^{\mu \nu }+q_{ex}^{\mu
}q_{ex}^{\nu }/m_{D^{\ast }}^{2}}{q_{ex}^{2}-m_{D^{\ast }}^{2}},$$where $\mu $ and $\nu $ denote the polarization indices of vector meson $%
D^{\ast }.$
Cross section for the $\protect\gamma n\rightarrow D^{-}\Lambda
_{c}^{\ast }(2940)^{+}$ reaction
---------------------------------------------------------------
After the above preparations, the invariant scattering amplitude of $\gamma
(k_{1})n(k_{2})\rightarrow D^{-}(k_{3})\Lambda _{c}^{\ast +}(k_{4})$ process as shown in Fig. 1 can be constructed as,$$-i\mathcal{M}_{j}^{\frac{1}{2}^{\pm }}=\bar{u}(k_{4},\lambda _{\Lambda
_{c}^{\ast }})A_{j}^{\nu (\frac{1}{2}^{\pm })}u(k_{2},\lambda _{n})\epsilon
_{\nu }(k_{1},\lambda _{\gamma }),$$where $j$ denotes the $s$-, $t$-, $u$-channel or contact term process that contribute to the total amplitude, while $\epsilon $ and $u$ are the photon polarization vector and Dirac spinor, respectively. $\lambda _{\Lambda
_{c}^{\ast }}$, $\lambda _{n}$ and $\lambda _{\gamma }$ are the helicities for the $\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }(2940)$, the neutron, and the photon, respectively.
The reduced $A_{j}^{v(\frac{1}{2}^{\pm })}$ amplitudes read as$$\begin{aligned}
A_{s}^{\nu (\frac{1}{2}^{\pm })} &=&-ie\frac{g_{_{\Lambda _{c}^{\ast
}ND}}^{\pm }}{2m_{N}}\frac{\kappa _{N}}{s-m_{N}^{2}}\Gamma ^{\pm }(%
\rlap{$\slash$}q_{n}+m_{N})\gamma ^{\nu }\rlap{$\slash$}k_{1}\mathcal{F}_{B},
\\
A_{t,D}^{\nu (\frac{1}{2}^{\pm })} &=&-eg_{_{\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }ND}}^{\pm
}\Gamma ^{\pm }\frac{(2k_{3}-k_{1})^{\nu }}{t-m_{D}^{2}}\mathcal{F}_{D}^{2},
\\
A_{t,D^{\ast }}^{\nu (\frac{1}{2}^{\pm })} &=&\frac{g_{\gamma DD^{\ast
}}g_{\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }ND^{\ast }}^{\pm }}{t-m_{D^{\ast }}^{2}}\epsilon
_{\mu \alpha \nu \beta }k_{1}^{\alpha }q_{D^{\ast }}^{\beta }\Gamma _{\mu
}^{\pm }\mathcal{F}_{D^{\ast }}^{2}, \\
A_{u}^{\nu (\frac{1}{2}^{\pm })} &=&-ie\frac{g_{_{\Lambda _{c}^{\ast
}ND}}^{\pm }}{u-m_{\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }}^{2}}\Gamma ^{\pm }[Q_{\Lambda
_{c}^{\ast }}(\rlap{$\slash$}q_{\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }}+m_{\Lambda _{c}^{\ast
}})\gamma ^{\nu } \notag \\
&&+\frac{\kappa _{\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }}}{2m_{\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }}}(%
\rlap{$\slash$}q_{\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }}+m_{\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }})\gamma
^{\nu }\rlap{$\slash$}k_{1}]\mathcal{F}_{B},\end{aligned}$$where $s=q_{n}^{2}=(k_{1}+k_{2})^{2}\equiv W^{2}$, $t=q_{D/D^{\ast
}}^{2}=(k_{1}-k_{3})^{2},u=q_{\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }}^{2}=(k_{2}-k_{3})^{2}$ are the Mandelstam variables.
To restor the gauge invariance, a generalized contact term is introduced as [@gao10; @hh06]$$A_{cont.}^{\nu (\frac{1}{2}^{\pm })}=ieg_{_{\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }ND}}^{\pm
}\Gamma ^{\pm }C^{\nu },$$with$$\begin{aligned}
C^{\nu } &=&(2k_{3}-k_{1})^{\nu }\frac{\mathcal{F}_{D}-1}{t-m_{D}^{2}}(1-h(1-%
\mathcal{F}_{B})) \notag \\
&&+(2k_{4}-k_{1})^{\nu }\frac{\mathcal{F}_{B}-1}{u-m_{\Lambda _{c}^{\ast
}}^{2}}(1-h(1-\mathcal{F}_{D})),\end{aligned}$$where $h=1$ is taken [@gao10].
Thus the unpolarized differential cross section for the $\gamma n\rightarrow
D^{-}\Lambda _{c}^{\ast +}$ reaction at the center of mass (c.m.) frame is given by $$\frac{d\sigma }{d\cos \theta }=\frac{1}{32\pi s}\frac{\left\vert \vec{k}%
_{3}^{~\mathrm{c.m.}}\right\vert }{\left\vert \vec{k}_{1}^{{~\mathrm{c.m.}}%
}\right\vert }\left( \frac{1}{4}\sum\limits_{\lambda }\left\vert \mathcal{M}%
\right\vert ^{2}\right)$$where $\theta $ denotes the angle of the outgoing $D^{-}$ meson relative to beam direction in the c.m. frame, while $\vec{k}_{1}^{~\mathrm{c.m.}}$ and $%
\vec{k}_{3}^{~\mathrm{c.m.}}$ are the three-momenta of initial $\gamma $ and final $D^{-}$ meson, respectively.
Differential cross section $d\protect\sigma _{\protect\gamma %
n\rightarrow D^{-}D^{0}p}^{2}/dM_{pD^{0}}d\Omega $
--------------------------------------------------------------
Since the $\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }(2940)$ have a coupling with $pD^{0}$, it is interesting to discuss the $pD^{0}$ invariant mass or angle distributions for the Dalitz process $\gamma n\rightarrow D^{-}D^{0}p$. However, it is difficulty to distinguish the two spin-parity assignments of the $\Lambda
_{c}^{\ast }(2940)$ state from those first order differential cross section [@xie15]. Thus we shall concentrate only on the second order differential cross section of $d\sigma _{\gamma n\rightarrow
D^{-}D^{0}p}^{2}/dM_{pD^{0}}d\Omega $, which may provide useful information for clarifying the spin-parity of $\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }(2940)$ state.
The second order differential cross section for the $\gamma n\rightarrow
D^{-}D^{0}p$ reaction[^4] is written as:
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d\sigma _{\gamma n\rightarrow D^{-}D^{0}p}^{2}}{dM_{pD^{0}}d\Omega }
&=&\frac{m_{N}^{2}}{2^{10}\pi ^{5}\sqrt{s}(p_{1}\cdot p_{2})} \notag \\
&&\int \sum\limits_{spin}\left\vert \mathcal{M}\right\vert ^{2}\left\vert
\vec{p}_{3}\right\vert \left\vert \vec{p}_{5}^{~\mathrm{\ast }}\right\vert
d\Omega _{5}^{\ast },\end{aligned}$$
where $M_{pD^{0}}$ is the invariant mass of the final $pD^{0}$ system. $%
\left\vert \vec{p}_{3}\right\vert $ and $\Omega $ are the three-momentum and solid angle of the final $D^{-}$ meson in the center of mass frame of the initial $\gamma n$ system, while $\left\vert \vec{p}_{5}^{~\mathrm{\ast }%
}\right\vert $ and $\Omega _{5}^{\ast }$ are the three-momentum and solid angle of the outing proton in the final $pD^{0}$ system.
Results
=======
As shown in the previous section, for the $\gamma n\rightarrow D^{-}\Lambda
_{c}^{\ast +}$ process, the $s$-channel with nucleon pole exchange, the $t$-channel with $D$ and $D^{\ast }$ exchange as well as the $u$-channel with $%
\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }$ exchange and contact term are considered.
 
Since the cutoff parameter $\Lambda $ related to the form factor is the only free parameter, according to usual practice [@dong14; @xie15; @jh10], we take the cutoff parameter as $\Lambda =\Lambda _{N}=\Lambda _{D}=\Lambda
_{D^{\ast }}=\Lambda _{\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }}=3.0$ GeV in the sprit of minimizing the free parameters. For comparison, the numerical results of the full model with $\Lambda =1.5$ GeV are also presented in Fig. 3, which indicate the cross section with $\Lambda =1.5$ GeV is smaller than that of $%
\Lambda =3.0$ GeV. Moreover, from fig. 3 one notice that the contribution from the $t$-channel with $D^{\ast }$ exchange play dominant role[^5] in the $\gamma n\rightarrow D^{-}\Lambda _{c}^{\ast +}$ reaction, while the contribution from the $D$ exchange is very small. The $s$-channel with nucleon pole exchange give a considerable contribution near the threshold. Besides, the contributions from $u$-channel with $\Lambda
_{c}^{\ast }$ exchange and contact term are so small that can be negligible. With the comparison, it is found that the $s$-channel nucleon pole exchange have more influence on $\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }(2940)$ with $J^{P}=\frac{1}{2}%
^{-}$ than that of $J^{P}=\frac{1}{2}^{+}$.
Fig. 4 present the differential cross section for $\gamma n\rightarrow
D^{-}\Lambda _{c}^{\ast +}$ process for the cases of $\Lambda _{c}^{\ast
}(2940)$ with $J^{P}=\frac{1}{2}^{\pm }$. It is noticed that All the curves show strong forward-scattering enhancements, due to the $D^{\ast }$ exchange in the $t$-channel dominantly.
  
Fig. 5 present the differential cross section $d\sigma _{\gamma n\rightarrow
D^{-}D^{0}p}^{2}/dM_{pD^{0}}d\Omega $ at the mass $M_{pD^{0}}=2.94$ GeV for the cases of $\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }(2940)$ with $J^{P}=\frac{1}{2}^{\pm }$. It is found that the absolute value of the differential cross section $%
d\sigma _{\gamma n\rightarrow D^{-}D^{0}p}^{2}/dM_{pD^{0}}d\Omega $ for two spin-parity assignments are much different, which can be checked by further experiment.
 
$\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }(2940)$ production at COMPASS
==================================================
The COMPASS experiment at CERN runs since 2002 using positive muon beam of 160 GeV/c (2002-2010) or 200 GeV/c momentum (2011), scattered off solid $%
^{6} $LiD (2002-2004) or NH$_{3}$ targets (2006-2011). It covers the range of $W$ up to 19.4 GeV. The integrated luminosity of $\gamma N$ interaction multiplied by the general efficiency of the setup, corresponding the period of data taking between 2002 and 2011, can be estimated basing on the number of exclusively produced $J/\psi $ mesons [@compass_Zc]. We calculate it to be of about 10 pb$^{-1}$.
Basing on the integrated luminosity mentioned above and the calculated $%
\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }(2940)$ production cross section value of 0.02 $\mu $b ($%
J^{P}=\frac{1}{2}^{+}$, $\Lambda $=3.0 GeV, $\Gamma _{\Lambda _{c}^{\ast
}\rightarrow pD^{0}}=0.21$ MeV) we can expect to find in the COMPASS muon data sample collected between 2002 and 2011 up to 0.9$\times 10^{5}$ $%
\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }(2940)$ baryons produced via the reaction $\gamma
n\rightarrow D^{-}\Lambda _{c}^{\ast +}$. This estimation is done neglecting the nuclear collective effects and assuming the effective amount of neutrons in the target of about 45%. This number can be compared with the COMPASS open charm leptoproduction results based on the data collected between 2002 and 2007 [@compass_OCH] where the number of reconstructed $%
D^{0}\rightarrow K^{+}\pi ^{-}$ decays (BR=3.88%) exceeded $5\times 10^{4}$.
Since the t-channel is dominating, the energy transferred to the produced $%
\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }(2940)$ is small and it decays almost at rest with momentum of proton and $D^{0}$-meson in the centre-of-mass system of 0.42 GeV/c. Such low-momenta particles are almost invisible for the COMPASS tracking system while energetic $D^{-}$-meson can be easily detected. So in spite of impossibility to observe the $\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }(2940)$ decay directly, its production should manifest itself in the missing mass spectrum.
Summary
=======
Within the frame of the effective Lagrangian approach, the photoproduction of charmed $\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }(2940)$ baryon in the $\gamma n\rightarrow
D^{-}\Lambda _{c}^{\ast +}$ process via $s$-, $t$-, $u$-channel and contact term is investigated based on the conditions of the COMPASS experiment.
The numerical results indicate:
- The $t$-channel with $D^{\ast }$ exchange play dominant role in the $\gamma n\rightarrow D^{-}\Lambda _{c}^{\ast +}$ reaction, while the contributions from the $t$-channel $D$ exchange as well the $u$-channel $%
\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }$ exchange and contact term are very small. The $s$-channel with nucleon pole exchange give a considerable contribution at the threshold.
- According to our estimations, a sizable number of events related to the $\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }(2940)$ [is already]{} produced at COMPASS facility, which means it is feasible to searching for the charmed $\Lambda
_{c}^{\ast }(2940)$ baryon produced via $\gamma n$ interaction.[ In case of success it would be the first observation of direct production of $\Lambda
_{c}^{\ast }(2940)$.]{}
- The absolute value of the differential cross section $d\sigma
_{\gamma n\rightarrow D^{-}D^{0}p}^{2}/dM_{pD^{0}}d\Omega $ for the two assignments $J^{P}=\frac{1}{2}^{\pm }$ for the $\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }(2940)$ state are much different. Thus we suggest this observable can be measured in the further COMPASS experiment to clarify the nature of $\Lambda _{c}^{\ast
}(2940)$ state.
To sum up, we suggest that this experiment be carried out at COMPASS, which not only helps in testing the above theoretical predictions for the photoproduction of the $\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }(2940)$ state but also provides important information for clarifying the nature of the charmed $\Lambda
_{c}^{\ast }(2940)$ baryon. It is worth while pointing out that it is not possible to give a very precision theoretical result for the production of $%
\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }(2940)$ due to the partial decay width of $\Lambda
_{c}^{\ast }(2940)$ is only a theoretical value but not a real width measured by experiment. However, from the experimental point of view, the partial decay width of $\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }(2940)$ is a key factor to determine the spin-parity of $\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }(2940)$. Thus the experiment on measuring the partial decay width of $\Lambda _{c}^{\ast
}(2940)$ is also encouraged.
Acknowledgments
===============
The authors would like to acknowledge Valery Lyubovitskij and Amand Faessler for useful discussions. Meanwhile, X. Y. W. is grateful Dr. Ju-Jun Xie for the valuable discussions and help. This project is partially supported by the National Basic Research Program (973 Program Grant No. 2014CB845406), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grants No. 11175220) and the the one Hundred Person Project of Chinese Academy of Science (Grant No. Y101020BR0).
[99]{} K. A. Olive *et al.* (Particle Data Group), Chin. Phys. C, 38, 090001 (2014).
E. Klempt and J. M. Richard, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1095 (2010).
B. Aubert *et al*. (*BABAR* Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 012001 (2007).
K. Abe *et al*. (Belle Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 082001 (2007).
Y. Dong, A Faessler, T. Gutsche and V. E. Lyubovitskij, Phys. Rev. D 90, 094001 (2014).
Y. Dong, A Faessler, T. Gutsche and V. E. Lyubovitskij, Phys. Rev. D 81, 014006 (2010).
Y. Dong, A Faessler, T. Gutsche and V. E. Lyubovitskij, Phys. Rev. D 82, 034035 (2010).
X. G. He *et al*., Eur. Phys. J. C 51, 883 (2007).
S. Capstick and N. Isgur, Phys. Rev. D 34, 2809 (1986); L. A. Copley, N. Isgur, and G. Karl, Phys. Rev. D 20, 768 (1979); 23, 817(E) (1981).
C. Chen, X. L. Chen, X. Liu, W. Z. Deng, and S. L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 75, 094017 (2007).
D. Ebert, R. N. Faustov, and V. O. Galkin, Phys. Lett. B 659, 612 (2008).
X. H. Zhong and Q. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D 77, 074008 (2008).
H. Y. Cheng and C. K. Chua, Phys. Rev. D 75, 014006 (2007).
S. M. Gerasyuta and E. E. Matskevich, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 17, 585 (2008).
W. Roberts and M. Pervin, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 23, 2817 (2008).
C. Garcia-Recio *et al*., Phys. Rev. D 79, 054004 (2009).
D. Gamermann, C. E. Jimenez-Tejero, and A. Ramos, Phys. Rev. D 83, 074018 (2011).
J. He, X. Liu, Phys. Rev. D 82, 114029 (2010).
P. G. Ortega, D. R. Entem, and F. Fernandez, Phys. Lett. B 718, 1381 (2013).
J. He, Z. Ouyang, X. Liu, and X.-Q. Li, Phys. Rev. D 84, 114010 (2011).
J. J. Xie *et al*., arXiv:1506.01133 \[hep-ph\].
P. Abbon *et al.* (COMPASS Collaboration), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A577, 455 (2007).
Ph. Abbon *et al.* (COMPASS Collaboration), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 779 69 (2015).
B. S. Zou, F. Hussain, Phys. Rev. C 67, 015204 (2003).
X. Y. Wang, J. J. Xie and X. R. Chen, Phys. Rev. D 91, 014032 (2015).
X. Y. Wang, X. R. Chen and Alexey Guskov, arXiv:1503.02125 \[hep-ph\].
X. Y. Wang and X. R. Chen, Europhys. Lett. 109, 41001 (2015).
X. Y. Wang, *et al*., Phys. Rev. C 92, 015202 (2015).
X. Y. Wang and X. R. Chen, Eur. Phys. J. A 51 85 (2015).
A. Faessler, Th. Gutsche, M. A. Ivanov, J. G. Komer, V. E. Lyubovitskij, D Nicmorus and K. Pumsa-ard, Phys. Rev. D 73, 094013 (2006).
R. A. Williams, C. R. Ji and S. R. Cotanch, Phys. Rev. C 43, 452 (1991).
Y. H. Chen and B. S. Zou, Phys. Rev. C 88, 024304 (2013).
T. Feuster and U. Mosel, Phys. Rev. C 58, 457 (1998).
T. Feuster and U. Mosel, Phys. Rev. C 59, 460 (1999).
P. Gao, J. J. Wu and B. S. Zou, Phys. Rev. C 81, 055203 (2010).
H. Haberzettl, K. Nakayama and S. Krewald, Phys. Rev. C 74, 045202 (2006).
J. Haidenbauer and G. Krein, Phys. Lett. B 687, 314 (2010).
C. Adolph *et al.* (COMPASS Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 742, 330 (2015).
C. Adolph *et al.* (COMPASS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D87 (2013) 5, 052018.
[^1]: [email protected]
[^2]: [email protected]
[^3]: In Ref. [@af06], the magnetic moment of lighter state $\Lambda
_{c}(2286) $ is predicted to be 0.38. Since this predicted magnetic moment does not depend on mass of $\Lambda _{c}$ state, it is reasonable to take $%
\kappa _{\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }}^{+}=0.38$ for the $\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }$ with $J^{P}=\frac{1}{2}^{+}$.
[^4]: In some theoretical works, it is indicated that the ground state $\Lambda
_{c}(2286)$ also have a coupling with $pD^{0}$. However, it should be noted that the coupling constant of $\Lambda _{c}(2286)ND$ is determined from $%
SU(4)$ invariant Lagrangians with a great uncertainty. Besides, the mass of $%
\Lambda _{c}(2286)$ is about 650 MeV smaller than that of $\Lambda
_{c}^{\ast }(2940)$, which means that the effects from $\Lambda _{c}(2286)$ state around the $M_{pD^{0}}=m_{\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }}$ should be small because of the narrow total decay width of $\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }(2940)$ state. Thus the $\Lambda _{c}(2286)$ is not included in this present calculations.
[^5]: In this work, as mentioned above, the relevant coupling constants are taken from the Refs. [@dong10; @dong101] by assuming the charmed $\Lambda
_{c}^{\ast }(2940)$ as a molecular state of $D^{\ast 0}p$. Thus the dominant $t$-channel with $D^{\ast }$ exchange contribution can be understood easily since the $\Lambda _{c}^{\ast }(2940)$ have a strong coupling with the $%
D^{\ast 0}p$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We propose an automaton model which is a combination of symbolic and register automata, i.e., we enrich symbolic automata with memory. We call such automata Register Match Automata (RMA). RMA extend the expressive power of symbolic automata, by allowing formulas to be applied not only to the last element read from the input string, but to multiple elements, stored in their registers. RMA also extend register automata, by allowing arbitrary formulas, besides equality predicates. We study the closure properties of RMA under union, concatenation, Kleene$+$, complement and determinization and show that RMA, contrary to symbolic automata, are not determinizable when viewed as recognizers, without taking the output of transitions into account. However, when a window operator, a quintessential feature in Complex Event Processing, is used, RMA are indeed determinizable even when viewed as recognizers. We present detailed algorithms for constructing deterministic RMA from regular expressions extended with $n$-ary constraints. We show how RMA can be used in Complex Event Processing in order to detect patterns upon streams of events, using a framework that provides denotational and compositional semantics, and that allows for a systematic treatment of such automata.'
author:
- Elias Alevizos
- Alexander Artikis
- Georgios Paliouras
bibliography:
- 'refs.bib'
title: 'Symbolic Automata with Memory: a Computational Model for Complex Event Processing'
---
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'It is shown that under the action of rotating magnetic field an *immobile* vortex, contrary to a general belief, can nucleate a vortex-antivortex pair and switch its polarity. Two different kinds of micromagnetic modeling are used: (i) the original vortex is pinned by the highly–anisotropic easy-axes impurity at the disk center, (ii) the vortex is pinned by artificially fixing the magnetization inside the vortex core in the planar vortex distribution. In both types of simulations a dip creation with a consequent vortex-antivortex pair nucleation is observed. Polarity switching occurs in the former case only. Our analytical approach is based on the transformation to the rotating frame of reference, both in the real space and in the magnetization space, and on the observation that the physical reason for the dip creation is softening of the dipole magnon mode due to magnetic field rotation.'
author:
- 'Volodymyr P. Kravchuk'
- Yuri Gaididei
- 'Denis D. Sheka'
title: 'Can immobile magnetic vortex nucleate a vortex–antivortex pair?'
---
{width="\textwidth"}
A magnetic vortex forms a ground state of submicron sized magnetic particles, which provides high density storage and high speed magnetic RAM [@Cowburn02]. One bit of information corresponds to the upward or downward magnetization of the vortex core (vortex polarity). Exciting the vortex motion by a high-frequency magnetic fields or by a spin polarized currents, one can switch the vortex polarity on a picoseconds time scale. It is known that the switching process is mediated by a vortex-antivortex pair creation [@Waeyenberge06]. Typically to observe this switching phenomenon, one has to excite the low frequency gyroscopical mode, which causes the vortex gyromotion. To the best of our knowledge the vortex core switching was always observed experimentally and by simulations only for a moving vortex. Moreover, there is a strong belief that the switching occurs ‘whenever the velocity of vortex-core motion reaches its critical velocity’ $v_{\text{cri}}$ [@Lee08c], which is determined only by the exchange constant $A$; for typical soft materials is about $v_{\text{cri}}\sim300$ m/s [@Lee08c; @Vansteenkiste08a].
In the present Letter we predict the switching for the *immobile* vortex by a rotating magnetic field. The switching picture also involves the mechanism of a dip formation followed by a nucleation of vortex–antivortex pair. We found that the driving force for the dip formation is the in–plane magnetization inhomogeneity, created by a vortex together with the rotating magnetic field; the vortex out–of–plane structure and the vortex velocity are not principle for this mechanism. These conclusions are confirmed by the micromagnetic simulations and by a simple analytical picture.
Recently, we have reported about the vortex core switching by the homogeneous rotating field ${\bm{B}}(t) = \left(B\cos\omega t,
B\sin\omega t, 0\right)$ in the ten GHz range [@Kravchuk07c], which is much higher than the gyrofrequency and is in the frequency range of the higher azimuthal mode with $|m|=1$ [@Ivanov05; @Zaspel05; @Zivieri08]. Opposite to the pumping with the low gyrofrequency, which results in the visible gyroscopic motion of the vortex position, the high frequency field leads to small amplitude (few nm) oscillations of the vortex position, see the trajectories on Fig. 3 of Ref. [@Kravchuk07c]. Typical velocities when switching occurs are lower than reported in Ref. [@Lee08c]. There appears a question: is it necessary for vortex to move in order to switch its polarity?
To achieve switching of the immobile vortex we have performed numerically two different kinds of modeling using micromagnetic simulations [^1]
\(i) We have pinned the vortex by the highly–anisotropic easy-axes impurity at the disk center, see Fig. \[fig:imp\]. Since the magnetization is always hold perpendicular to the disk plane within the impurity, shifting of the vortex core from the impurity leads to the increasing of magnetostatic energy of the system. Therefore one can use such type of impurity for pinning of a vortex with out-of-plane core structure in conditions of a weak external influence. Initially, the vortex has a positive polarity $p=+1$. By applying the ac field, which rotates against the vortex polarity, $\omega p<0$ \[in a clockwise (CW) direction in our case\], one can easily resolve the formation of the dip near the pinned vortex, see Fig. \[fig:imp\](a). Under the action of the field the dip deepens, see Fig. \[fig:imp\](b). When the amplitude of the dip reaches its maximum value, a vortex–antivortex pair is created, see Fig. \[fig:imp\](c). The positions of the vortices and the antivortex can be identified by the cross–section of isosurfaces $m_x=0$ and $m_y=0$ [@Hertel06]. One can identify from Fig. \[fig:imp\](c) positions of new born vortex and antivortex as well as the position of the initial vortex, which is (as it is seen from the figure) still at origin. The further dynamics is well known [@Waeyenberge06; @Hertel06; @Hertel07; @Gaididei08b]: the new born antivortex annihilates with pinned original vortex, and eventually only the new born vortex with the opposite polarity survives (see Fig. \[fig:imp\](d)).
{width="\textwidth"}
\(ii) In the second kind of simulations we artificially pinned the vortex core by fixing the magnetization inside the vortex core in the planar vortex distribution, where the normalized magnetization ${\bm{m}}=\left(\sqrt{1-m_z^2}\cos\phi;
\sqrt{1-m_z^2}\sin\phi;m_z\right)$ takes a form $m_z=0$ and $\phi=\chi\pm\pi/2$ with $(r,\chi)$ being the polar coordinates in the disk plane. By this artificially pinned vortex state configuration, the central vortex is *a priori* immobile, and moreover, without out–of–plane structure. The direction of the dip magnetization is determined only by the direction of the field rotation: if we apply a CCW (CW) field, there appears a dip with $m_z>0\,\,(m_z<0)$, see Fig. \[fig:fixed\]. This high frequency field excites also magnon modes. One can resolve the mode with $m=1$ on Figs. \[fig:fixed\](a) and (c), and the mode with $m=2$ on Fig. \[fig:fixed\](b). During the pumping, the amplitude of the dip increases, and finally, the vortex–antivortex pair is created, see Fig. \[fig:fixed\](d). Note that the new–born antivortex can not annihilate with the initial vortex in the fixed core model: it either annihilates with the new born vortex and the scenario repeats again and again, or it stands near the original fixed vortex, while the new born vortex is involved by the field.
![(Color online) Diagram of the frequency range, where the dip formation occurs for a fixed diameter disks ($2R=150$ nm) under the influence of a fixed field amplitude ($B=20$ mT) rotating field. Colors indicate the depth of the dip. The circle over black symbol indicates that the vortex-antivortex pair creation occurs. Light–green symbols indicate frequencies of the azimuthal eigenmode with $m=1$.[]{data-label="fig:diagram"}](diagramme){width="0.75\columnwidth"}
The goal of our study is to reveal the mechanism of the dip formation. We follow the simplest model of fixed core planar vortex. Numerically, we found that the dip formation occurs in well defined range of the field parameters $(\omega,B)$, see Fig. \[fig:diagram\]. When the frequency of the field is less than a critical value $\omega_{c1}$, the dip is not formed. The same happens for the high frequency field ($\omega>\omega_{c2}$). More accurate, out of the borders of the range ($\omega_{c1},\,\omega_{c2}$), the depth of the dip rapidly decreases, what is indicated by colors on Fig. \[fig:diagram\]. Both critical values $\omega_{c1}$ and $\omega_{c2}$ depend on the disk thickness, which counts in favor of nonlocal magnetostatic nature of this phenomenon. An example of the temporal dependence of the dip depth is plotted on Fig. \[fig:dip\_vs\_t\] for a certain disk thickness (15nm), for which $\omega_{c1}$=8GHz and $\omega_{c2}$=12GHz. For $\omega<\omega_{c1}$ just as for $\omega>\omega_{c2}$ the dip depth does not reach its minimal value $m_z=-1$, unlike the case $\omega_{c1}<\omega<\omega_{c2}$, when the vortex-antivortex pair is born. The depth of the dip usually makes a number of oscillations while it reaches the limit value. Only for frequencies, which are close to the eigenfrequency of the mode with $|m|=1$, it changes monotonously.
![(Color online) Amplitude of $m(t)$ at the minimum (dip center) for the disk($2R=150$ nm, $h=15$ nm) under the influence of rotating field with a fixed amplitude $B=20$ mT and different frequencies. Numbers in rectangle frames denotes frequencies in GHz. The inset contains the time dependence of the dip depth $-\bar{m}(t)$ obtained from the effective Lagrangian (\[eq:L-eff\]) for $\omega_0=2,\omega_1=1, b_e=0.1,\eta=0.1, c_1=c_2=0.25,c_3=0.1$. Corresponding frequencies in dimensionless units are shown in oval frames.[]{data-label="fig:dip_vs_t"}](dip_vs_t){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
The magnetic energy of the system under consideration consists of three terms: $\mathscr{E}=\int\!\mathrm{d}^3{\bm{r}}\left(W_{\text{ex}}+W_{\text{ms}}+W_{\text{f}}\right)$, where $W_{\text{ex}}=\ell^2\left(\nabla{\bm{m}}\right)^2$ is the exchange energy density,$W_{\text{ms}}=\frac{1}{8\pi}\int\mathrm{d}^3{\bm{r}}'\bigl({\bm{m}}({\bm{r}})\cdot\nabla\bigr)\bigl({\bm{m}}({\bm{r}}')\cdot\nabla'\bigr)|{\bm{r}}-{\bm{r}}'|^{-1}$ is the density of magnetostatic interaction energy. And $W_{\text{f}}=-b\sqrt{1-m_z^2}\cos(\phi-\omega t)$ is the interaction with a magnetic field ${\bm{b}}=\left(b\cos\omega
t,b\sin\omega t,0\right)$. Here and below normalized quantities are used: $\mathscr{E}=E/(4\pi M_s^2)$, $b=B/(4\pi M_s)$, $\omega$ and $t$ are measured in units $\Omega$ and $1/\Omega$ respectively, where $\Omega=4\pi\gamma M_s$ and $\gamma$ is gyromagnetic ratio. In the no-driving case $b=0$ the magnetic energy $\mathscr{E}$ of *cylindrical* nanoparticles is invariant under transition into a rotated frame of reference: $\tilde\chi=\chi-\alpha$, $\tilde\phi(\tilde\chi)=\phi(\chi)-\alpha$. This means that the quantity $J=M_z+L_z$ with $M_z=\int\!\mathrm{d}^3{\bm{r}}(1-m_z)$ being the magnetization along the cylindrical axis $z$ and $L_z=-\int\!\mathrm{d}^3{\bm{r}}(1-m_z)\partial_{\chi}\phi$ being the $z$-component of the orbital momentum, is conserved. When the ac field is turned on, the total momentum $J$ is not conserved anymore but its existence allows to obtain that in the rotating frame of reference $\tilde{\chi}=\chi-\omega t$, $\tilde r=r$, $\tilde t=t$, $\tilde\phi(\tilde\chi)=\phi(\chi=\tilde\chi+\omega t)-\omega\tilde
t$ the magnetic energy is time-independent and has the form $$\label{eq:magn_energy}
\tilde{\mathscr{E}}=\mathscr{E}-\omega J,$$ where the last term represents the rotation energy. The dynamics of the system is governed by the Landau–Lifshitz–Gilbert equations which in the rotating frame of reference have the form $$\label{eq:LLG}
\frac{\delta \mathscr{L}}{\delta
m_z}+\frac{\eta}{1-m_z^2}\frac{\delta \mathscr{E}}{\delta
\tilde{\phi}}=0,\qquad\frac{\delta \mathscr{L}}{\delta
\tilde{\phi}}+\eta\,(1-m_z^2)\,\frac{\delta \mathscr{E}}{\delta m_z}
= 0,$$ where $\mathscr{L}=(1+\eta^2)\int\!\mathrm{d}^3x(m_z-1)\partial_t\tilde{\phi}-\tilde{\mathscr{E}}$ is the Lagrangian and $\eta$ is a damping constant.
To gain some insight how the interaction with the magnetic field (which is static in the rotating frame) together with the rotation provides the dip creation we use the Ansatz $$\label{eq:Ansatz}
\begin{split}
m_z&=\alpha_0(t)f_0(r)+ \left[\alpha_1(t)\cos\chi+\alpha_{-1}(t)\sin\chi\right]f_1(r),\\
\phi&=\chi+\frac{\pi}{2} +\beta_0(t)g_0(r)\\
&+ \left[\beta_1(t)\cos\chi+\beta_{-1}(t)\sin\chi\right]g_1(r),
\end{split}$$ where $\bigl(f_m(r), g_m(r)\bigr)e^{i m \chi}$ are the magnon eigenfunctions with the eigenfrequencies $\omega_m\,(m=0,1)$ on the planar vortex background (see [*e.g.*]{} [@Ivanov02a] for general case) and $\alpha_m,$ and $\beta_m,$ are time dependent coefficients. Inserting the Ansatz (\[eq:Ansatz\]) into the Lagrangian $\mathscr{L}$ and carrying out integrations over the spatial coordinates, we get an effective Lagrangian in the form $$\label{eq:L-eff}
\begin{split}
\mathscr{L}^{\text{eff}}&=\sum_{m=0,\pm 1}\Big(\alpha_m\dot{\beta}_m -m\,\omega\, \alpha_m\,\beta_{-m}\Big)-\mathscr{E}^{\text{eff}},\\
\mathscr{E}^{\text{eff}}&=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{m=0,\pm 1}\,\omega_{|m|}\,\left(\alpha_m^2+
\beta_m^2\right) - b_e\beta_1\\
&+c_0\,\alpha_0^4+c_1\alpha_0 \left(\alpha_1\beta_{-1}-
\alpha_{-1}\beta_1\right)+c_2 \left(\alpha_1^2 +\alpha_{-1}^2\right)^2\\
&+
c_3\left(\alpha_1^2+\alpha_{-1}^2\right)\left(\beta_1^2+
\beta_{-1}^2\right)+c_4\Big[\Big(\alpha_1\beta_1+\alpha_{-1}\beta_{-1}\Big)^2
\\
&-\Big(\alpha_{-1}\beta_1-\alpha_1\beta_{-1}\Big)^2
\Big]+c_5\alpha_0^2\left(\alpha_1^2+\alpha_{-1}^2\right)\\
&+
c_6\alpha_0^2\left(\beta_1^2+\beta_{-1}^2\right)+c_7\alpha_0\beta_0
\left(\alpha_1\beta_{1}-
\alpha_{-1}\beta_{-1}\right)\\
&+c_8\beta_0^2
\left(\alpha_1^2+\alpha_{-1}^2\right)+\Big(\text{higher order terms}\Big).
\end{split}$$ Here the coefficients $c_j$ with $j=\overline{0,\dots,8}$ are due to nonlinear terms in the magnetic energy $\mathscr{E}$ and $b_e$ is an effective strength of the magnetic field. Equations of motion for the parameters $\alpha_m,~\beta_m$ have the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqab}\dot{\alpha_m}=m\,\omega\,\alpha_{-m}-
\frac{\partial \mathscr{E}^{\text{eff}}}{\partial\beta_m}-
\eta\frac{\partial \mathscr{E}^{\text{eff}}}{\partial\alpha_m},\nonumber\\
\dot{\beta_m}=m\,\omega\,\beta_{-m}+
\frac{\partial \mathscr{E}^{\text{eff}}}{\partial\alpha_m}-
\eta\frac{\partial
\mathscr{E}^{\text{eff}}}{\partial\beta_m}.\end{aligned}$$Thus the problem under consideration is reduced to the set of three nonlinearly coupled oscillators. When $\omega\ll\omega_1$ the linear terms in Eq. (\[eq:L-eff\]) dominate and the out-of-plane component of the magnetization $\bar{m}=\sqrt{\alpha_0^2+\alpha_1^2+\alpha_{-1}^2}$ is small, see inset in Fig. \[fig:dip\_vs\_t\]. However, as a result of rotation the magnon frequencies in the rotating frame of reference are shifted, $\tilde{\omega}_m = \omega_m-m\omega$, and the dipole magnon mode (*i.e.* the azimuthal mode with $m=1$) becomes soft, which can be identified from Fig. \[fig:diagram\]. Near the threshold where $\tilde{\omega}_1$ is small, the nonlinear terms in the Lagrangian $\mathscr{L}$ become crucial and the system goes to a new regime with the finite value of $\bar{m}$, see the inset in Fig. \[fig:dip\_vs\_t\]. The appearance of the finite $\bar{m}$ we identify with the dip creation. The dip direction is determined by the product $b_e\,\omega$: when $b_e\,\omega>0(<0)$ the out–of–plane component of magnetization is negative (positive). This result is in a full agreement with the results of full–scale numerical simulations.
In conclusion, we showed that in the presence of [*immobile*]{} planar vortex the rotating magnetic field produces a vortex-antivortex pair. This process is the most efficient in a finite frequency interval which is determined by the aspect ratio and material properties of the nanoparticle. The physical reason of the dip creation with a consequent vortex-antivortex nucleation is softening the dipole magnon mode and magnetic field induced breaking cylindrical symmetry in the rotating frame of reference. In some respects such softness of modes due to rotation is similar to the problem of instability of BEC under rotation [@Isoshima99], and to the Zel$'$dovich–Starobinsky effect for a rotating black hole [@Takeuchi08]. Under the continuous pumping, the soft mode is excited, and the system goes to the nonlinear regime, which results in the dip formation.
The authors thank H. Stoll and B. Van Waeyenberge for helpful discussions. The authors thank the MPI Stuttgart, where part of this work was performed, for kind hospitality and acknowledge the support from Deutsches Zentrum f[ü]{}r Luft- und Raumfart e.V., Internationales B[ü]{}ro des BMBF in the frame of a bilateral scientific cooperation between Ukraine and Germany, project No. UKR 08/001.
[14]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , , , ****, (), ISSN .
, , , , , , , ****, (pages ) ().
, , , , , , , , , , , ** ().
, , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, ****, (pages ) ().
, ****, (pages ) ().
, , , , ****, (pages ) ().
, , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
[^1]: We used for all simulations material parameters adopted for the Py particle: the exchange constant $A=2.6\times10^{-6}$ erg/cm, the saturation magnetization $M_S=8.6\times10^{2}$ G, the damping coefficient $\eta
= 0.006$ and the anisotropy was neglected. This corresponds to the exchange length $\ell = \sqrt{A/4\pi M_S^2} \approx 5.3$nm. The mesh cells have sizes $3\times3\times h$ nm, where $h$ is thickness of the sample. The applied field was used in form ${\bm{b}}(t)=b(1-e^{-t^2/\Delta t^2})(\cos\omega t,\sin\omega t,0)$, with $\Delta t=50$ps.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
=10000
old@slash//["502F30Eold@slash]{}
\[subsection\][Proposition]{} \[subsection\][Lemma]{} \[subsection\][Corollary]{} \[subsection\][Theorem]{} \[subsection\]
\[subsubsection\][Proposition]{} \[subsubsection\][Lemma]{} \[subsubsection\][Corollary]{} \[subsubsection\][Theorem]{}
\[subsection\][Definition]{} \[subsection\][Example]{} \[subsection\][Remark]{} \[subsection\] \[subsection\][Assumption]{} \[subsection\][Notation]{}
\[subsubsection\][Definition]{} \[subsubsection\][Remark]{} \[subsubsection\][Example]{} \[subsubsection\] \[subsubsection\][Assumption]{}
\[paragraph\][Example]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'P. M. Vreeswijk'
- 'A. Smette'
- 'A. S. Fruchter'
- 'E. Palazzi'
- 'E. Rol'
- 'R. A. M. J. Wijers'
- 'C. Kouveliotou'
- 'L. Kaper'
- 'E. Pian'
- 'N. Masetti'
- 'F. Frontera'
- 'J. Hjorth'
- 'J. Gorosabel'
- 'L. Piro'
- 'J. P. U. Fynbo'
- 'P. Jakobsson'
- 'D. Watson'
- 'P. T. O’Brien'
- 'C. Ledoux'
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: 'Low-resolution VLT spectroscopy of GRBs 991216, 011211 and 021211[^1]'
---
ł[$\lambda$]{} \#1\#2[\#1$\;$[Roman[\#2]{}]{}]{} ł[$\lambda$]{}
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
Spectroscopy of the afterglows of long-duration Gamma-Ray Bursts (GRBs) has been essential for our understanding of the physical mechanism that produces these powerful explosions. Following the discovery of GRB afterglows [@1997Natur.387..783C; @1997Natur.386..686V], the first redshift determination by @1997Natur.387..878M provided conclusive evidence that the origin of the long-duration class of GRBs [@1993ApJ...413L.101K] is cosmological. Obviously, redshifts are required to deduce most meaningful quantities, such as the GRB energetics [@frailbeaming; @2001AJ....121.2879B; @2004ApJ...616..331G], the brightness of any underlying supernova component [e.g. @1999Natur.401..453B], and properties of the GRB host galaxies [e.g. @1999ApJ...520...54H]. So far, optical redshifts have been secured for four dozen GRBs, either through absorption-line spectroscopy of their bright early afterglow [e.g. @1997Natur.387..878M], or through the detection of host-galaxy emission lines [e.g. @1999Natur.398..389K]. The average observed GRB redshift is $z=1.3$ [see @030429dla; @bergerswift], with the highest being GRB 050904 at $z=6.29$ [@2005GCN..3937....1K].
Apart from the vital redshift, spectroscopic afterglow observations have also shown that GRB hosts are actively star-forming galaxies [e.g. @1998ApJ...508L..17D; @2001ApJ...546..672V], that the afterglow is often situated behind a very large neutral hydrogen column [e.g. @hjorth020124; @vrees030323] with relatively high metal column densities and dust depletions compared to damped systems observed along QSO sight lines [@2003ApJ...585..638S; @2004ApJ...614..293S], and have provided evidence for high-velocity outflows , presumably caused by the wind of the GRB massive-star progenitor. Finally, spectroscopic monitoring of GRB030329/SN2003dh [@stanek; @hjorth030329] has revealed a remarkable similarity with the spectral evolution of GRB980425/SN1998bw [@1998Natur.395..670G; @2001ApJ...555..900P], confirming the connection between GRBs and supernova explosions. This strongly suggests that long-duration GRBs are produced by collapsing massive stars [see @1993ApJ...405..273W; @2001ApJ...550..410M].
The GRB Afterglow Collaboration at ESO (GRACE) has an on-going program at the European Southern Observatory (ESO) to perform spectroscopic observations of GRB afterglows. In this paper, we present low-resolution Very Large Telescope (VLT) spectroscopy of three GRB afterglows: 991216, 011211 and 021211. For the spectroscopy is complemented by [*Hubble Space Telescope*]{} (HST) imaging. The organisation of this paper is as follows. After a description of the observations, data reduction and spectral analysis in Sect. \[sec:observations\], each GRB afterglow is presented in a separate section: in Sect. \[sec:grb991216\], in Sect. \[sec:grb011211\] and in Sect. \[sec:grb021211\]. Each of these sections starts with an introduction on the afterglow, followed by our results. We briefly conclude in Sect. \[sec:conclusions\].
$$
[ccrcllccclcc]{} GRB & UT date \^ & T & instr. & grism (filter) & coverage \^ & slit width & resolution \^ & dispersion & exptime & seeing & airmass\
& & (days) & & & (Å) & () & (Å) & (Å/pixel) & (min) & () &\
991216 & 1999Dec18.159 & 1.49 & FORS1 & 150I (OG590) & 3800$--$9500 & 1 & 24 & 5.3 & 610\^& 0.6 & 1.24$--$1.27\
011211 & 2001Dec13.253 & 1.45 & FORS2 & 300V & 3600$--$8900 & 1 & 10 & 2.6 & 910 & 1.1 & 1.20$--$1.94\
021211 & 2002Dec30.294 & 18.82 & FORS2 & 300V & 3600$--$9500 & 1 & 11 & 3.2 & 310 & 0.7 & 1.20$--$1.24\
$$
Start of the first exposure.
Without order sorting filter, the second order will start to contaminate the spectrum above $\sim7000$ Å.
The resolution is approximately constant across the entire spectrum.
The first three exposures are taken without order sorting filter, followed by three with filter.
Observations, data reduction and spectral analysis {#sec:observations}
==================================================
Table \[tab:obs\] shows the log of the VLT spectroscopic observations. All spectra have been reduced in the same manner within IRAF, using tasks within the [*kpnoslit*]{} package. After overscan subtraction and flat-fielding, the cosmic rays were removed from the images using the L.A. Cosmic routine written by @2001PASP..113.1420V. The spectra were then optimally extracted for each 2-dimensional (2-D) image separately, with an extraction aperture width of 2-4. The wavelength calibration was applied, again to each spectrum separately, using an HeNeAr lamp spectrum that was taken in the morning after the science observations. The formal error in the wavelength calibration fit (order 5) was roughly 0.3 Å for the 150I grism, and 0.2 Å for the 300V grism. The individual wavelength-calibrated spectra were averaged, and the corresponding Poisson error spectra, calculated by the [*apall*]{} task, were quadratically averaged.
The flux calibration was performed using observations of the standard HD 49798 for both and , and LTT 3218 for [^2]. These standards were taken with a 5 slit width during the same night as the GRB science observations. During the night of observations of , HD 49798 was also observed with a slit width of 1, i.e. the same width as that of the GRB afterglow spectra. The nights that and were observed were probably photometric, but the night that was observed was definitely not.
For the spectra of , we performed a correction for the slit loss, i.e. the fraction of the surface underneath the spectral profile that falls outside the slit width. The correction factor was estimated by fitting a Gaussian profile along the spatial direction (i.e. along the CCD columns) of the 2-D spectra, averaged over 4 pixels in the dispersion direction (i.e. averaging 4 columns before performing the fit). The resulting Gaussian full width at half maximum (FWHM) was then compared to the slit width to obtain the slit loss along the dispersion axis. The slit loss profile was then fit with a polynomial to correct the spectra. Note that this does not correct for any colour-dependent slit losses, but both FORS1 and 2 have a linear atmospheric dispersion compensator (LADC) in the light path, which minimises any colour-differential slit losses up to a zenith distance of 45. However, several spectra of were taken at an airmass above 1.4 (see Table \[tab:obs\]), and therefore these are likely to suffer from such colour-differential slit losses. For the spectra a slit-loss correction was not necessary, as we flux calibrated with the standard that was taken with the same slit width as the afterglow spectra. This should in principle result in a correct flux calibration, provided that the seeing was the same during the afterglow and standard star observations. This was more or less the case for , with a seeing of 06 during the afterglow observations, and 07 during the standard star observations. For the late-time spectra of , where the afterglow continuum is absent, we did not attempt a slit-loss correction.
Finally, each spectrum was corrected for Galactic extinction, assuming the $E_{B-V}$ from @1998ApJ...500..525S. The $E_{B-V}$ values used are 0.626 for , 0.043 for , and 0.028 for . The flux calibration, slit-loss correction, and dereddening were also applied to the combined wavelength-calibrated error spectrum.
The resulting spectra were analysed within IRAF as well. The equivalent width (EW) of the significant absorption and emission lines were measured using the [*splot*]{} routine in IRAF. By eye, we fit the continuum with a high-order polynomial function. After normalisation, we measure the EWs with the [*e*]{} option. The Poisson error in the EW is calculated from the formal error spectrum calculated within IRAF, using the same pixels that were used to measure the EW. We do not include a contribution in the error from the uncertainty in the location of the continuum.
GRB 991216 {#sec:grb991216}
==========
Following the [*Burst And Transient Source Experiment*]{} (BATSE) $\gamma$-ray detection of [see @1999GCN...463....1K], the X-ray afterglow was discovered by the [*Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer*]{} (RXTE) [@Takeshima99], and the optical/infrared afterglow by @1999GCN...472....1U. The afterglow of is one of a number of GRB afterglows to show evidence for a “beaming” break [@1997ApJ...487L...1R], suggesting that the gamma-ray, X-ray, and early optical emission was confined into jets [@2000ApJ...543..697H]. Although the optical through X-ray data can be explained with a jet fireball model, inclusion of the radio data calls for more exotic models [@2000ApJ...538L.129F]. [*Chandra X-ray Observatory*]{} spectral observations of the X-ray afterglow show two probable emission features [a 4.7$\sigma$ detection at $E\sim3.5$ keV, and a marginal one at $E\sim4.4$ keV; @2000Sci...290..955P], that are identified with an iron line and the recombination continuum at a redshift of $z=1.00\pm0.02$. These features suggest the presence of 0.01–1 M$_{\odot}$ of iron in the vicinity of the burst [@2000Sci...290..955P; @2001ApJ...550L..43V]. However, in an independent analysis of the same [*Chandra*]{} data, @sako only find a $\sim2.3\sigma$ fluctuation at a slightly higher energy (3.8 keV), and do not find any feature near 4.4 keV.
Absorption lines and redshift
-----------------------------
{width="15cm"}
$$
[crrcc]{} \_[obs]{} & W\_[obs]{} (Å) & ID & z\_[abs]{}\
4587 & 6.6 1.3 & Fe${\sc ii}$$\l$ 2600 & 0.764\
4689 & 6.2 1.0 & Fe${\sc ii}$$\l$ 2600 & 0.803\
4957 & 7.0 0.8 & Mg${\sc ii}$$\l$ 2800 & 0.770\
5047 & 11.0 0.7 & Mg${\sc ii}$$\l$ 2800 & 0.803\
5662 & 6.6 0.6 & Mg${\sc ii}$$\l$ 2800 & 1.022\
$$
The spectrum of the afterglow of is shown in Fig. \[fig:spectrum991216\]. The two strong features in the red part around 6900 Å and 7600 Å are caused by the earth’s atmosphere and are not intrinsic to the GRB host. The apparent lines above 9000 Å are due to bad sky subtraction. In the blue part of the spectrum, several significant absorption lines are detected. From inspection of the standard star spectrum at the same wavelengths we can conclude that the detected lines are not caused by the instrument, or by the earth’s atmosphere. The detected lines cannot be identified with typical interstellar medium (ISM) absorption features of a system at a single redshift; at least three systems need to be invoked. An alternative explanation is that the feature around 5700 Å is Ly$\alpha$ at $z=3.6$, and that the features shortward of it are Ly$\alpha$ forest lines. We have simulated such a spectrum, and the lines can appear quite similar to the lines in the observed spectrum. This is a very unlikely explanation, however, since the break is much too smooth, and the continuum emission around 4000 Åis only about 10-20% lower than the level beyond the supposed break. We therefore discard the latter possibility, and are left with the most probable explanation: several absorption systems.
Table \[tab:lines991216\] lists the identification of the significant lines in the spectrum of . These significant lines are indicated with the short solid lines in the lower panel of Fig. \[fig:spectrum991216\]. As the spectrum was taken with a very low-resolution grism (150I), we conservatively use 5$\sigma$ as the significance threshold. Typical ISM absorption lines that could be present at low significance, such as Mg[i]{} ł2852, Ca[ii]{} K and H, and other Fe lines, are shown with a short dashed line in the lower panel of Fig. \[fig:spectrum991216\].
On the basis of the strongest features we infer the possible presence of three absorption-line systems along the line of sight, with the following redshifts: $z=0.77$, $z=0.80$ and $z=1.02$. The identification of the $z=1.02$ system in the blue part of the spectrum is strengthened by the possible detection of Ca[ii]{} K (3933 Å) and H (3968 Å) around 8000 Å, respectively at $z=1.021$ and $z=1.022$. In order to increase the signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) around the possible Ca lines, we have added the blue spectrum (taken without the order sorting filter) to the red spectrum (taken with the OG590 order sorting filter), even though the blue spectrum can be contaminated by its second order above $\sim7000$ Å. This second order appears with twice the resolution and at twice the wavelength of the first order. However, if the two features around 8000 Å were due to this contamination, their first order counterparts would be located at 3976 Å and 4009 Å, where no lines are detected. The resulting combined spectrum around the Ca lines is also shown in Fig. \[fig:spectrum991216\], offset downward by 30 $\mu$Jy from the red-only spectrum for clarity. We measure the following equivalent widths for the two features in the combined spectrum: $W_{\rm
obs}$(Ca[ii]{} K ł3933) = ($1.7\pm0.4$) Å and $W_{\rm
obs}$(Ca[ii]{} H ł3968) = ($2.4\pm0.4$) Å. The expected ratio of this doublet on the basis of the oscillator strengths, $\frac{\rm
CaII~K~\lambda 3933}{\rm CaII~H~\lambda 3968}$, is roughly two if the lines are not saturated, but can be unity if they are saturated. The observed ratio, $0.7\pm0.2$, indicates that these lines are saturated.
A redshift of $z=1.02$ for is consistent with the inferred $z=1.00\pm0.02$ iron line detection in the [*Chandra*]{} spectrum of the X-ray afterglow of [@2000Sci...290..955P]. However, we note that in an independent analysis of the [*Chandra*]{} data, @sako find this iron line to be not significant. The $z=1.02$ system that we detect in our optical spectrum is most likely caused by the host-galaxy ISM. In all cases for which both GRB absorption and emission lines have been detected, the (most distant) absorption system is at the same redshift as the emission lines from the presumed host galaxy [e.g. for GRB980703 and GRB021004; @1998ApJ...508L..17D; @2003ApJ...595..935M]. Moreover, if the detection of Mg[i]{} at $z=1.02$ is real, this suggests a dense environment at this redshift, probably the ISM of the host galaxy. The probable detection of the Ca[ii]{} doublet supports this hypothesis, since this line is believed to require column densities that are typically an order of magnitude larger than seen in Mg[ii]{} absorbers [@1991MNRAS.251..649B; @1992ApJ...399..373C]. We note that the $z=0.80$ system shows the strongest Mg[ii]{} and Fe[ii]{} features.
The shape of the spectral continuum {#sec:991216shape}
-----------------------------------
The continuum flux level of optical afterglows, measured from spectroscopy or broad-band photometry, is generally well described by a single power law, with a slope of the order $\beta=-0.9$ (with F$_{\nu}\propto \nu^{\beta}$) [for a high S/N example, see @2004ApJ...614..293S]. This is consistent with the fireball afterglow theory [e.g. @1998ApJ...497L..17S]. Any departure from the pure power law is usually ascribed to extinction caused by the host-galaxy ISM [see @1998Natur.393...43R]. The flux-calibrated spectrum of contains two features that distinguish it from “normal” afterglow spectra: its shallow slope ($\beta=-0.19$ over the range 6000-9300 Å), and an apparent depression around 4700 Å.
In order to verify our absolute flux calibration, we first compare the spectrum with the photometry of @2000ApJ...543..697H. Their $VRI$ measurements are shown in Fig. \[fig:spectrum991216\]; the horizontal error bars represent the approximate FWHM of the filter transmission curves. In absolute terms, the spectral flux level is roughly 10% below that of the photometry; we have scaled the spectrum in Fig. \[fig:spectrum991216\] upward with this amount. Relatively, however, our flux calibration is in good agreement with the $VRI$ photometry. There are no published $U$ or $B$ photometry data to compare with. A cause for concern is that the spectrophotometric standard that was used for the flux calibration, HD 49798, has not been calibrated in the optical regime with an observed spectrum, but rather with a model extension from the observed 1150-3200 Å range [see @bohlin]. The same standard was also observed for (see Sect. \[sec:011211spectroscopy\]). Comparison of our spectrum (see Fig. \[fig:spectrum011211\]) with the photometry from indicates that the absolute flux calibration of the spectrum is too high by 70%. Indeed, the night when this spectrum was taken was definitely not photometric (alternating thin and thick cloud conditions). However, after scaling the spectral flux down by this 70%, the relative spectral flux calibration of our spectrum is in good agreement with the photometric calibration. In the B band, the spectral flux is $\sim10$% higher than the photometry. If this is due to an error in the model flux calibration of HD 49798, and we were to apply a correction to the spectrum based on this difference, it would only make the flux depression more pronounced.
Also, during the night that the afterglow spectra were taken, the standard HD 49798 was observed with a slit width of both 1 (in long-slit mode, or LSS) and 5 (in multi-object mode, or MOS; see the FORS manual[^3] for details). This allows us to check whether the depression could be due to colour-differential, or wavelength-dependent slit losses. Flux-calibration of the spectra with the 5 standard results in an absolute offset of about 13% with the 1-flux-calibrated spectra, with a lower flux level for the 5-calibrated spectra. Relatively, the spectra agree to within 4%, with the depression being more pronounced in the 5-calibrated spectra, i.e. there is no dependence on wavelength (e.g. due to colour-differential slit losses) beyond the 4% level. We note that Fig. \[fig:spectrum991216\] shows the 1-calibrated spectrum. Moreover, we have also performed the flux calibration using observations of three different 5standards taken during three different photometric nights, up to one week before the night of the GRB. The sensitivity curves of all these standards differ by at most 8% in absolute terms (wavelength range: 4000–6000 Å) with the 5-standard taken during the night. Therefore, we regard it unlikely that the blue flux depression in the spectrum of is caused by an error in the flux calibration.
Assuming that the relative flux calibration is acceptable, and that the redshift of is $z=1.02$, we investigate whether the depression in the blue part of the spectrum can be due to a redshifted 2175 Åabsorption feature, as observed in the Galactic extinction curve. With this aim, we fit the Milky Way (MW) extinction curve of @1992ApJ...395..130P to the regions of our spectrum void of identified absorption lines, and fixing the redshift at $z=1.02$. We assume that the intrinsic afterglow spectrum is a single power law, to obtain the intrinsic spectral slope ($\beta$) and host-galaxy extinction ($A_V$) that best matches the observed spectrum (i.e. minimum $\chi^2$). For the MW we obtain the following best-fit values: $\beta=-0.06\pm0.02$, corresponding to a rest-frame V-band extinction of $A_V=0.16\pm0.02$ mag. The resulting fit is shown by the smooth solid line in Fig. \[fig:spectrum991216\]. Fitting the red part (6000-9300 Å) of the spectrum with a single power law model results in a slope of $\beta=-0.187\pm0.014$. We have also fit the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds’ (LMC and SMC) extinction curves; these are shown by the dashed (LMC) and dotted (SMC) curves in Fig. \[fig:spectrum991216\]. These MC fits are less successful due to the 2175 Å feature being less prominent in the LMC as compared to the MW, and absent in the SMC. Although the MW fit is reasonable, the 2175 Å feature clearly does not correspond to the minimum depression in the spectrum. Placing the burst at a redshift of $z=1.19$, or alternatively, moving the peak of the bump from 2175 Åto 2360 Å results in the best fit. This fit is shown by the dash-dotted line in Fig. \[fig:spectrum991216\].
Although it seems likely that some form of graphitic carbon (possibly polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon – PAH – molecules) is responsible for the 2175 Å absorption feature in our Galaxy , its exact nature is still unclear after decades of research. Observations along different Galactic sight lines have shown that although the FWHM of the 2175 Å bump can vary considerably (in our fits we did not allow this width to change), the central wavelength of the bump is very stable . However, in a few particular cases where the UV component of the star used to measure the interstellar extinction is strong enough to reveal extinction by grains in its own circumstellar material, a broad bump is observed with a central wavelength in between 2300 Å and 2500 Å. Abell 30 [@1981ApJ...245..124G] and HD 213985 [@1989ApJ...347..977B] are two examples of such UV-strong, hydrogen-poor stars. It is tempting to make the connection with the UV-strong environment of a GRB, which may cause the extinction bump to be redder than 2175 Å as well. Also, laboratory experiments [see @1991ApJ...382L..97B; @1996ApJ...462.1020B], aimed at testing the physical grain models proposed by @1986ApJ...305..817H and @1990MNRAS.243..570S, have shown that, by decreasing the hydrogen content in carbon grains, the 2175 Å bump not only becomes more pronounced, but also shifts to higher wavelengths, up to 2600 Å [@1995ApJ...444..288M]. Beyond the Local Group, the best case for detection of the Galactic extinction feature is a $z=0.83$ gravitational lens system, where the best-fit central wavelength of the bump is found to be only slightly larger than the Galactic value: 2234$\pm$24 Å[@2002ApJ...574..719M]. Therefore, the flux depression in our spectrum may have been caused by such a red extinction bump along the line-of-sight to .
HST imaging
-----------
The field of GRB 991216 was observed with the Space Telescope Imaging Spectograph (STIS) approximately 4 months after the burst, on 17 April 2000, starting at 11:36 UT, through the clear (50CCD) and long pass (LP) filters, each for a total of 4790 seconds. The pipeline reduced images were drizzled [see @2002PASP..114..144F] onto output images with pixels one-half native scale, or approximately 0025 on a side. Figure \[fig:image991216\] shows the central 5$\times$5 square arcseconds of the sum of the 50CCD and LP images.
![The sum of the HST/STIS 50CCD and LP images of the field of . The position of the early optical transient is marked with a black circle, with an error radius of 005 (2 drizzled HST pixels). The regions A and B could be part of the same galaxy at $z=1.02$, or two systems in the process of merging. Based on the identification of at least two absorption-line systems in the spectrum, an alternative configuration is that A is the host galaxy of at $z=1.02$, and that B is responsible for the absorption lines at $z=0.80$. Either one of the galaxies that are located 2 to the SE and NW of the transient position could be the counterpart of the tentative $z=0.77$ system. \[fig:image991216\]](vreeswijk_fig2.ps){width="8.5cm"}
We have projected the optical afterglow (OA) position from an early VLT image, taken 1.5 days after the burst, to the frame of the HST drizzled images. Four bright nearby reference stars were used, and the estimated 1$\sigma$ error in the resulting position is 005, corresponding to 2 drizzled pixels. The position and its error are indicated with a circle in Fig. \[fig:image991216\]. The error circle coincides with one of two faint regions of light (A and B), which are separated by 06. The two regions are about equally bright in the 50CCD as in the LP image, showing that they have similar colours with most of the light coming out longward of 5500 Å. A and B are possibly part of the same galaxy, or they could be two systems that are interacting. Several other host galaxies also show a complex morphology, e.g. the hosts of GRBs 980613, 990123, 000926, and 011211. The likely detection of the Ca[ii]{} doublet at $z=1.02$ argues slightly in favour of this merger scenario, since (at low redshifts) the Ca[ii]{} lines are detected mainly in disrupted environments [@1991MNRAS.251..649B; @1992ApJ...399..373C]. Another possibility is that B is actually a foreground system at $z=0.80$, corresponding to the absorption-line system detected in the VLT spectrum, and that A is the host galaxy of at $z=1.02$. The detection of emission lines from A and B would determine which of these possibilities is correct. Either one of the two other galaxies that are located roughly 2 away from the OA position could be responsible for the tentative absorption system at $z=0.77$. At a redshift of 0.77, 2 corresponds to about 14 kiloparsec (assuming $H_0=65$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$, $\Omega _{\rm m}=0.3$, and $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$), which is smaller than the typical galaxy halo size, and so one would indeed expect to detect Mg[ii]{} in absorption.
Using an aperture radius of 02, we measured the following fluxes in photons per second in the drizzled 50CCD and LP images: $0.36\pm0.03$ for A in 50CCD, $0.71\pm0.03$ (B, 50CCD), $0.33\pm0.02$ (A, LP), and $0.45\pm0.02$ (B, LP). We also measured the total flux of A and B combined, with an aperture radius of 11: $1.90\pm0.15$ (A+B, 50CCD), and $1.23\pm0.13$ (A+B, LP). This aperture size is the same as used by @2000ApJ...543..697H, who obtained $R_C=24.8\pm0.2$ for the host galaxy from a Keck II image taken on 4 April 2000, i.e. about two weeks before the HST imaging reported here. To convert the HST fluxes to standard magnitudes, a spectral energy distribution has to be assumed for the source. Using [*synphot*]{} within IRAF, combined with the Kinney-Calzetti atlas of galaxy spectra [@1994ApJ...429..582C; @1996ApJ...467...38K], we found that the best-fitting galaxy template is the Sc template (redshifted to $z=1.02$). The redshifted starburst templates also provide reasonably consistent magnitudes for both passbands and a total magnitude corresponding with the value of $R_{\rm C}=24.8\pm0.2$ of Halpern and colleagues. Adopting the Sc galaxy template, the fluxes above can be converted to the following magnitudes: $R_{\rm C}(\rm
A)=26.5$, $R_{\rm C}(\rm B)=26.0$ and $R_{\rm C}(\rm A+B)=24.9$, and colours: $V-R_{\rm C}(\rm A)=1.1$, $V-R_{\rm C}(\rm B)=1.0$, and $V-R_{\rm C}(\rm A+B)=1.0$. We estimate the uncertainty in the transformation of fluxes to magnitudes to be of the order of 0.2 mag. We note that these magnitudes (including the one of Halpern et al.) and colours have not been corrected for the Galactic extinction along the sight line ($A_V$=2.1 and $A_R$=1.7).
The transient afterglow may still be present in these observations, but the low S/N does not allow an unambiguous identification of the bright patch at the edge of the galaxy as a point source. We estimate that any remaining OA is not brighter than $R=27.6$. Assuming the single power law decay index, $\alpha=-1.36$, of @2000ApJ...543...61G, the expected magnitude of the afterglow at the time of our observations is $R\sim27$. Our observations therefore tend to confirm the break in the light curve reported by @2000ApJ...543..697H. A supernova as bright as SN1998bw at a redshift of $z=1.02$ would have $R>30$ at the epoch of our observations, and would thus be too faint to be detected.
GRB 011211 {#sec:grb011211}
==========
Following the [*BeppoSAX*]{} localisation of [@2001GCN..1188....1G; @2002GCN..1215....1F], the afterglow was discovered by @2001GCN..1191....1G [see also @2004NewA....9..435J], and a preliminary redshift of $z=2.14$ was reported by @2001GCN..1200....1F, which was confirmed by @2001GCN..1209....1G. Rapid optical variability (1 hour variability time scale at 12 hours after the burst) is detected in the afterglow lightcurve; these variations could be caused by either density fluctuations in the external medium [@2002AJ....124..639H; @2004NewA....9..435J], or by a non-uniform jet structure [@2004NewA....9..435J]. @2002Natur.416..512R obtained an XMM-Newton spectrum of the X-ray afterglow and detect transient features that they identify as , , , , and at a redshift of $z=1.88\pm0.06$, i.e. blue-shifted by about $0.1c$ with respect to the optical redshift. The authors suggest this to be due to reprocessing of the burst flux in a shell expelled by a supernova explosion preceding the GRB by 4 days. However, @2003MNRAS.339..600R and @sako claim that the detection of these metal lines in the X-ray spectrum is not significant. The host galaxy has $R=24.95\pm0.11$, with a modest ($A_V\sim0.1$) SMC-like extinction, and the most likely afterglow model is that of a jet expanding into a constant mean density environment . @fynbolya detect in emission in the host galaxy, extending up to 1 to the North-North-East of the afterglow position.
{width="15cm"}
Absorption lines and redshift {#sec:011211spectroscopy}
-----------------------------
Figure \[fig:spectrum011211\] shows the spectrum of . As was discussed in Sect. \[sec:991216shape\], the night in which the afterglow spectroscopy was performed was not photometric. Comparison with the photometric calibration of shows our calibration to be off by 70%, and we have scaled the spectrum down by this amount in Fig. \[fig:spectrum011211\]. The photometric observations of , scaled in time to the epoch of the spectrum, are shown by the open circles in Fig. \[fig:spectrum011211\]. The horizontal error bars reflect the FWHM of the filter transmission. Relatively, the spectral and photometric flux calibration match reasonably well. Fitting a single power law to our spectrum over the range 4000–8000 Å results in a spectral slope of $\beta=-0.86\pm0.02$.
Table \[tab:lines011211\] lists the lines detected with a significance above 3$\sigma$ in the spectrum. The redshift as determined from the detected low-ionisation metal lines is: $z=2.1418\pm0.0018$. @2002AJ....124..639H have reported the detection of 8 metal absorption lines at a mean redshift of $z=2.140\pm0.001$, in a spectrum taken with the LDSS-2 imaging spectrograph at the Magellan 6.5m telescope. Although the S/N of our spectra is superior, we are able to confirm the detection of only 4 of the lines that @2002AJ....124..639H identify. Their ł1368, łł1406, 1422 are misidentifications, and the line at 6875.2 Å identified as ł2189 by Holland and colleagues, is a well-known atmospheric absorption feature. Also, we clearly do not detect the broad absorption feature that they detect at 4600 Å.
$$
[crrc]{} \_[obs]{} & W\_[obs]{} (Å) & ID & z\_[abs]{}\
3820.0 & 16.6 2.1 & $\lya$ 1215 & 2.1423\
3957.0 & 4.7 1.1 & 1260 & 2.1394\
& blendedwith & 1259 &\
4096.9 & 4.6 0.7 & 1304 & 2.1409\
& blendedwith & 1302 &\
4195.6 & 5.6 0.8 & 1334 & 2.1439\
& blendedwith & \^\*1335 &\
4381.7 & 2.9 0.6 & 1393 & 2.1438\
4405.9 & 2.0 0.6 & 1402 & 2.1409\
4797.8 & 3.6 0.5 & 1526 & 2.1426\
4863.4 & 2.2 0.4 & 1548 & 2.1413\
4870.9 & 3.7 0.5 & 1550 & 2.1410\
5053.7 & 1.7 0.5 & 1608 & 2.1420\
5251.7 & 3.5 0.5 & 1670 & 2.1432\
5828.3 & 1.7 0.4 & 1854 & 2.1424\
6114.2 & 1.3 0.4 & &\
7362.8 & 3.1 1.0 & 2344 & 2.1408\
7485.5 & 6.5 0.8 & 2382 & 2.1415\
8131.4 & 3.8 1.0 & 2586 & 2.1436\
8171.4 & 3.5 1.0 & 2600 & 2.1426\
$$
The column density, and metallicity
-----------------------------------
Figure \[fig:lya011211\] shows the fit to the line in the spectrum of , performed within the LYMAN context in Midas. The resulting neutral hydrogen column density is log $N$()=$20.4\pm0.2$, with the line center at ($3819.7\pm2.1$) Å, corresponding to a redshift of $z=2.142\pm0.002$. The fit region is limited to around the core of the line, 3810–3833 Å. If this is extended to the red, the continuum around 3850 Å is very poorly fit, and to the blue of 3810 Å the forest starts to contaminate the line.
The column density in the host of is at the low end of the GRB afterglow column densities obtained so far. Of the 7 afterglows to date for which it was possible to detect in absorption at the host-galaxy redshift, 6 turn out to be damped systems and therefore have log N() $>$ 20.3. The host of GRB021004 is the exception, with a column density $N$() $\sim
5\times10^{19}$ atoms cm$^{-2}$.
![The fit (solid continuous line) of the line to the normalised spectrum of (solid histogram), resulting in log $N$()=$20.4\pm0.2$. The dotted lines show the 1$\sigma$ errors of the fit, and the long-dashed line indicates the 1$\sigma$ Poisson error spectrum. \[fig:lya011211\]](vreeswijk_fig4.ps){width="8.5cm"}
The low resolution of our spectrum makes it difficult to fit an absorption profile to the detected metal lines to obtain the corresponding column density and metallicity. However, we can derive a strict lower limit on these quantities by simply assuming that the lines are not saturated, even though most lines are in fact saturated. In this optically thin approximation there is a linear correspondence between the equivalent width of a line, and its column density: log $(W_{\rm rest}/\lambda)= $log $(Nf\lambda) - 20.053$, where $f$ is the oscillator strength [see @2003ApJS..149..205M], and the unit of $\lambda$ is Å. Applying this relation to the detected low-ionisation lines that are not blended, we obtain: log $N(\ion{Si}{ii}) \ge 14.6$, log $N(\ion{Fe}{ii}) \ge 14.6$, and log $N(\ion{Al}{ii}) \ge
13.4$. Assuming that these ions are the dominant ionisation state for the corresponding element, these column density limits can be translated to the following metallicity limits: \[Si/H\]$\ge -1.3$, \[Fe/H\]$\ge -1.3$, and \[Al/H\]$\ge -1.5$, where we have used the solar abundances from @1998SSRv...85..161G [see also @2003ApJS..149..205M], and the column density derived above. Neither ł2026 nor ł2062 are detected, for which we measure: $W_{\rm
obs}(\ion{Zn}{ii}~2026)=0.7\pm0.7$ Å and $W_{\rm
obs}(\ion{Zn}{ii}~2062) = -0.1\pm0.5$ Å. These values correspond to the 2$\sigma$ column density limit: log $N(\ion{Zn}{ii})<13.4$ and the metallicity limit: \[Zn/H\]$<+0.3$.
![The curve of growth for the absorption lines measured in the afterglow of . \[fig:cog\]](vreeswijk_fig5.ps){width="8.5cm"}
Taking this a step further, the abundances can be estimated through the curve-of-growth (COG) technique [see @1978ppim.book.....S]. Our COG analysis is very similar to the one that @2003ApJ...585..638S applied to three GRB host galaxies. Figure \[fig:cog\] shows the resulting curve of growth for the absorption lines measured in the afterglow of . The straight line corresponds to the linear part, where the lines are optically thin. The bent curve shows the deviation from the optically thin regime due to saturation of the absorption lines, the so-called flat part. The degree of bending depends on the amount of Doppler broadening ($b$ in ) in the medium in which the lines originate. The best fit curve is obtained by varying the column density of each element separately (i.e. sliding the data points horizontally), and finding the value for the Doppler width $b$ that fits best with the overall shape of all elements together. We have assumed a Gaussian shape for the line profiles, i.e. we have neglected damping or natural line broadening, which is important for high column density absorbers. We only use the low-ionisation lines from Table \[tab:lines011211\] which are not obviously blended, i.e. łł1526, łł1608, 2344, 2382, 2586, 2600, and ł1670. We also included the measurement of ł2374, even though this line is detected at the 2.5$\sigma$ level only; for this reason it is not listed in Table \[tab:lines011211\]. Minimising $\chi^2$, we find the following values for the Doppler width ($b$) and the , and column densities: $b$=[$70^{+20}_{-10}$]{} , log $N$()=[$15.1^{+0.6}_{-0.3}$]{}, log $N$()=$14.7\pm0.2$, and log $N$()=[$13.9^{+0.5}_{-0.3}$]{}. The errors in these values are obtained by varying each parameter (while fitting the others), up to the point where the chi-squared becomes the minimum chi-squared plus one, i.e. where $\chi^2$=$\chi^2_{\rm min}$+1. The full range that the parameter can adopt within this chi-squared restriction is taken as the 1$\sigma$ error range. These metal column densities correspond to the following metallicities: \[Si/H\]=[$-0.9^{+0.6}_{-0.4}$]{}, \[Fe/H\]=$-1.3\pm0.3$, and \[Al/H\]=[$-1.0^{+0.5}_{-0.3}$]{}. Again, we have made the common assumption that these low-ionisation species are the dominant ionisation states for the corresponding element.
Finally, we do not see the in emission that was detected by @fynbolya, either in the 2-dimensional spectra or in the extracted spectra. This is due to the poor S/N of our spectrum around 3800 Å.
GRB 021211 {#sec:grb021211}
==========
The [*High Energy Transient Explorer 2*]{} (HETE-2) satellite detected (HETE-2 trigger \#2493) at 11:18:34 UT on 2002 December 11, as a bright and X-ray-rich burst [@2003ApJ...599..387C]. The optical afterglow was imaged as early as 65 seconds after the GRB [@2002GCN..1757....1W], and was reported by @2003ApJ...586L...5F to the GRB community within an hour of the burst. The afterglow was fainter than nearly all known afterglows to that date at an epoch of 1 day after the GRB [see Fig. 2 of @2003ApJ...586L...5F]. @2003ApJ...586L...9L find evidence for a light-curve break at $t\sim10$ minutes, with the decay index becoming more shallow from –1.82 to –0.82, which they suggest is due to the emission before the break being dominated by the reverse shock. @2004MNRAS.353..511P calculate the shock microphysical parameters, and find that the reverse-forward shock scenario provides a more natural explanation than the wind-bubble scenario for the steep early decay. Finally, present spectroscopic evidence for a supernova component in the late-time afterglow of .
Emission line and redshift
--------------------------
Our team first reported a redshift of $z=0.800$ for the putative host galaxy of , based on the identification of the \[\] and \[\] emission lines [@2002GCN..1756....1V]. However, we later found that, due to saturation of the offset star, the slit position did in fact not cover the afterglow position [@2002GCN..1767....1V]. Instead, the slit mostly contained the galaxy 15 to the North-East of the afterglow, first noted by @2002GCN..1750....1M, whose redshift is then $z=0.800$, and which is unrelated to the GRB as shown below.
In follow-up spectroscopy of , we positioned the slit to cover both the position of the early afterglow and that of the galaxy at $z=0.800$, as well as a nearby reference star. Using this reference star and the slit position angle, the exact location of both the galaxy and the projected position of the early-time afterglow on the 2-dimensional spectrum can be inferred. Figure \[fig:spectrum021211\] shows the spectrum extracted at the position of the early afterglow; we find one clear emission line at 7478 Å. This line most likely corresponds to \[\] ł3727 emission from the host galaxy of at a redshift of $z=1.006$ [@2002GCN..1767....1V]. This redshift was later confirmed by @2003GCN..1809....1V who besides \[\] also detect H$\beta$ ł4861 and \[\] łł4959, 5007. The limited spectral coverage in the red part of our spectrum does not allow us to detect these lines. For completeness, we show in Fig. \[fig:galaxy021211\] the wavelength-calibrated spectrum of the galaxy that is located 15 to the North-East of the afterglow, with a redshift of $z=0.800$.
{width="15cm"}
obtained a total of 8 hours of spectroscopy with the VLT/FORS2 and the 150I grism and OG590 filter combination, which covers the optical spectrum above 6000 Å with a resolution of 19 Å. focus on the possible evidence for a supernova component in the late-time afterglow of , and briefly mention the detection of H$\beta$ ł4861 and \[\] łł4959, 5007. Since the host-galaxy metallicity can be measured from the combination of \[\], H$\beta$ ł4861 and \[\] łł4959, 5007 [see @1999ApJ...514..544K], we decided to reduce and extract these archival spectra as well. However, we are unable to detect any significant line apart from the line at 7478 Å mentioned above. This is probably due to a combination of the very low spectral resolution, which complicates the subtraction of the numerous sky emission lines in the red, and the low sensitivity around 10,000 Å, where the \[\] and H$\beta$ lines are expected.
Figure \[fig:spectrum021211\] shows that the continuum level just redward of the significant line at 7478 Å is similar to that on the blue side, suggesting that the line is not at $z=4.15$. The most likely identification is \[\] ł3727 at a redshift of $z=1.006$. This line is actually a doublet with components at 3727.09 Å and 3729.88 Å (vacuum wavelengths), but our spectral resolution is too low to resolve these. At a redshift of $z=1.006$, other prominent emission lines such as H$\beta$ ł4861, and \[\] łł4959, 5007 are not covered by our spectral range. If the significant line were H$\alpha$ at $z=0.139$, we would have expected to detect \[OII\] (at 4246 Å) and the \[OIII\] lines (at 5649 Å and 5705 Å) in the blue part of the spectrum, for which we do not find any evidence. And finally, if the line were \[\] ł5007 at $z=0.49$, we would have expected to detect \[\] ł4959 (at 7406 Å) with roughly one-third of the strength of \[\] ł5007, and \[\] at 5566 Å, even though this latter detection would have been made slightly difficult due to the presence of a strong sky line at 5577 Å. The \[\] ł3727 at $z=1.006$ identification is strengthened by the observed drop between the 8000–9000 Å continuum and that blueward of the emission line. This is consistent with the red HST $V-I$ colour reported by @2002GCN..1781....1F, and with the possibility that this colour is caused by the 4000 Å break.
{width="15cm"}
Star-formation rate
-------------------
Assuming that the detected emission line indeed is \[\], we can estimate the corresponding star-formation rate using the relation $SFR_{\rm [OII]} = 1.4 \times 10^{-41} L_{\rm [OII]}$ Myr$^{-1}$ from , where $L_{\rm [OII]}$ is in erg s$^{-1}$. We measure an \[OII\] flux of ($1.92\pm0.15$)$\times10^{-17}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$, where the error is dominated by the uncertainty in the continuum level. As the continuum level is close to zero, the measurement of the observed equivalent width is highly uncertain: $W_{\rm [OII]\,obs}$ = [$90^{+110}_{-40}$]{} Å. At the luminosity distance of of $2.06\times10^{28}$ cm, the \[\] flux corresponds to a star-formation rate of $SFR_{\rm [OII]}=1.4$ M yr$^{-1}$, which is a typical value of GRB host galaxies [ranging from 0.3 to 24 M yr$^{-1}$, e.g. see Table 1 of @vrees1]. We note that this value has not been corrected for host-galaxy extinction, and is therefore a strict lower limit to the actual star-formation rate.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
We have determined the redshift for three GRBs: $z=1.02$ for , $z=2.142$ for and $z=1.006$ for . For , we also find evidence for a foreground absorption system at $z=0.80$, and possibly another at $z=0.77$. We argue that the flux depression from 4000–5500 Å in the spectrum is unlikely to be due to an error in the flux calibration, and find that it could be explained by a host-galaxy extinction bump similar to the Galactic 2175 Å feature, but at a wavelength of 2360 Å. In the Galaxy, similar extinction bumps, with a central wavelength between 2300 Å and 2500Å, have been observed toward UV-strong, hydrogen-poor stars. Fitting the absorption line that we detect in the afterglow spectrum of , we obtain a neutral hydrogen column density of log $N$()=$20.4\pm0.2$, indicating that it is a damped (DLA) system. This is at the low end of the column densities detected in GRB afterglows. Using a curve-of-growth analysis, we find the following metallicity estimates at the redshift of : \[Si/H\]=[$-0.9^{+0.6}_{-0.4}$]{}, \[Fe/H\]=$-1.3\pm0.3$, and \[Al/H\]=[$-1.0^{+0.5}_{-0.3}$]{}. Assuming that the identification of \[\] ł3727 in the spectrum is correct, we derive a star-formation rate of $SFR_{\rm [OII]}=1.4$ M yr$^{-1}$, which is a typical value for GRB host galaxies.
PMV thanks Thomas Szeifert for an enlightening discussion on the flux-calibration of FORS spectra. The rapid follow-up VLT spectroscopic observations discussed in this paper would not have been possible without the GRB Coordinates Network (GCN), set up by Scott Barthelmy at NASA’s GSFC. We are grateful to Jochen Greiner and the University of Texas GRBlog team led by Robert Quimby for their extremely useful GRB webpages. We acknowledge benefits from collaboration within the Research Training Network “Gamma-Ray Bursts: An Enigma and a Tool”, funded by the EU under contract HPRN-CT-2002-00294. PMV was partly supported by the NWO Spinoza grant 08-0 to E.P.J. van den Heuvel. LK has been supported by a fellowship of the Royal Academy of Arts & Sciences in the Netherlands. JG acknowledges the support of a Ramón y Cajal Fellowship from the Spanish Ministry of Education and Science. The Dark Cosmology Centre is supported by the DNRF.
[91]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}
, E., [Kulkarni]{}, S. R., [Fox]{}, D. W., [et al.]{} 2005, , accepted, astro-ph/0505107
, A., [Bussoletti]{}, E., [Colangelli]{}, L., [Fonti]{}, S., & [Stephens]{}, J. R. 1991, , 382, L97
, A., [Fonti]{}, S., & [Orofino]{}, V. 1996, , 462, 1020
, J. S., [Frail]{}, D. A., & [Sari]{}, R. 2001, , 121, 2879
, J. S., [Kulkarni]{}, S. R., [Djorgovski]{}, S. G., [et al.]{} 1999, , 401, 453
, R. & [Lindler]{}, D. 1992, STSCI Newsletter, 9, 19
, D. V. 1991, , 251, 649
, R. H., [Snow]{}, T. P., & [Lamers]{}, H. J. G. L. M. 1989, , 347, 977
, D., [Kinney]{}, A. L., & [Storchi-Bergmann]{}, T. 1994, , 429, 582
, C. L. & [Van Gorkom]{}, J. H. 1992, , 399, 373
, E., [Frontera]{}, F., [Heise]{}, J., [et al.]{} 1997, , 387, 783
, G. B., [Lamb]{}, D. Q., [Ricker]{}, G. R., [et al.]{} 2003, , 599, 387
, M., [Benetti]{}, S., [Malesani]{}, D., [et al.]{} 2003, GCN, 1809
, M., [Malesani]{}, D., [Benetti]{}, S., [et al.]{} 2003, , 406, L33
, S. G., [Kulkarni]{}, S. R., [Bloom]{}, J. S., [et al.]{} 1998, , 508, L17
, B. T. 2003, , 41, 241
, E. L. & [Massa]{}, D. 1986, , 307, 286
, D. W., [Price]{}, P. A., [Soderberg]{}, A. M., [et al.]{} 2003, , 586, L5
, D. A., [Berger]{}, E., [Galama]{}, T., [et al.]{} 2000, , 538, L129
, D. A., [Kulkarni]{}, S. R., [Sari]{}, R., [et al.]{} 2001, , 562, L55
, F., [Amati]{}, L., [Guidorzi]{}, C., [et al.]{} 2002, GCN, 1215
, A., [Levan]{}, A., [Vreeswijk]{}, P., [Holland]{}, S. T., & [Kouveliotou]{}, C. 2002, GCN, 1781
, A., [Vreeswijk]{}, P., [Rhoads]{}, J., & [Burud]{}, I. 2001, GCN, 1200
, A. S. & [Hook]{}, R. N. 2002, , 114, 144
, J. P. U., [Jakobsson]{}, P., [M[ø]{}ller]{}, P., [et al.]{} 2003, , 406, L63
, T. J., [Vreeswijk]{}, P. M., [Van Paradijs]{}, J., [et al.]{} 1998, , 395, 670
, G. 2001, GCN, 1188
, P. M., [Jha]{}, S., [Pahre]{}, M. A., [et al.]{} 2000, , 543, 61
, G., [Ghisellini]{}, G., & [Lazzati]{}, D. 2004, , 616, 331
, M., [Holland]{}, S., [Garnavich]{}, P. M., [et al.]{} 2001, GCN, 1209
, T., [Hansen]{}, M. W., [Pedersen]{}, H., [et al.]{} 2001, GCN, 1191
, J. L. 1981, , 245, 124
, N. & [Sauval]{}, A. J. 1998, Space Science Reviews, 85, 161
, J. P., [Uglesich]{}, R., [Mirabal]{}, N., [et al.]{} 2000, , 543, 697
, F. A., [Bloom]{}, J. S., [Frail]{}, D. A., [et al.]{} 1999, , 523, L121
, J. H. 1986, , 305, 817
, J., [M[ø]{}ller]{}, P., [Gorosabel]{}, J., [et al.]{} 2003, , 597, 699
, J., [Sollerman]{}, J., [M[ø]{}ller]{}, P., [et al.]{} 2003, , 423, 847
, D. W. & [Fruchter]{}, A. S. 1999, , 520, 54
, S. T., [Soszy[' n]{}ski]{}, I., [Gladders]{}, M. D., [et al.]{} 2002, , 124, 639
, P., [Hjorth]{}, J., [Fynbo]{}, J. P. U., [et al.]{} 2003, , 408, 941
, P., [Hjorth]{}, J., [Fynbo]{}, J. P. U., [et al.]{} 2004, , 427, 785
, P., [Hjorth]{}, J., [Ramirez-Ruiz]{}, E., [et al.]{} 2004, New Astronomy, 9, 435
, B. L., [Fynbo]{}, J. P. U., [Gorosabel]{}, J., [et al.]{} 2001, , 370, 909
, N., [Yamada]{}, T., [Kosugi]{}, G., [Hattori]{}, T., & [Aoki]{}, K. 2005, GRB Circular Network, 3937
, R. C. 1998, , 36, 189
, A. L., [Calzetti]{}, D., [Bohlin]{}, R. C., [et al.]{} 1996, , 467, 38
, R. M., [Preece]{}, R. D., & [Giblin]{}, T. 1999, GCN, 463
, H. A., [Kennicutt]{}, R. C., & [Pizagno]{}, J. L. 1999, , 514, 544
, C., [Meegan]{}, C. A., [Fishman]{}, G. J., [et al.]{} 1993, , 413, L101
, S. R., [Djorgovski]{}, S. G., [Odewahn]{}, S. C., [et al.]{} 1999, , 398, 389
, W., [Filippenko]{}, A. V., [Chornock]{}, R., & [Jha]{}, S. 2003, , 586, L9
, A. I., [Woosley]{}, S. E., & [Heger]{}, A. 2001, , 550, 410
, B., [Caldwell]{}, N., [Grav]{}, T., [et al.]{} 2002, GCN, 1750
, V., [Colangeli]{}, L., [Blanco]{}, A., [et al.]{} 1995, , 444, 288
, M. R., [Djorgovski]{}, S. G., [Kulkarni]{}, S. R., [et al.]{} 1997, , 387, 878
, N., [Halpern]{}, J. P., [Chornock]{}, R., [et al.]{} 2003, , 595, 935
, P., [Fynbo]{}, J. P. U., [Hjorth]{}, J., [et al.]{} 2002, , 396, L21
, D. C. 2003, , 149, 205
, V., [Mediavilla]{}, E., [Mu[\~ n]{}oz]{}, J. A., [et al.]{} 2002, , 574, 719
, A. & [Kumar]{}, P. 2004, , 353, 511
, F., [Cappellaro]{}, E., [Danziger]{}, J., [et al.]{} 2001, , 555, 900
, Y. C. 1992, , 395, 130
, E., [Soffitta]{}, P., [Alessi]{}, A., [et al.]{} 2001, , 372, 456
, L., [Garmire]{}, G., [Garcia]{}, M., [et al.]{} 2000, Science, 290, 955
, A. N., [Kulkarni]{}, S. R., [Frail]{}, D. A., [et al.]{} 1998, , 393, 43
, J. N., [Watson]{}, D., [Osborne]{}, J. P., [Pounds]{}, K. A., & [O’Brien]{}, P. T. 2003, , 403, 463
, J. N., [Watson]{}, D., [Osborne]{}, J. P., [et al.]{} 2002, , 416, 512
, J. E. 1997, , 487, L1
, R. E. & [Sako]{}, M. 2003, , 339, 600
, M., [Harrison]{}, F. A., & [Rutledge]{}, R. E. 2005, , 623, 973
, R., [Piran]{}, T., & [Narayan]{}, R. 1998, , 497, L17
, S. & [Fall]{}, S. M. 2004, , 614, 293
, S., [Fall]{}, S. M., & [Fiore]{}, F. 2003, , 585, 638
, B. E., [Gerardy]{}, C. L., [H[" o]{}flich]{}, P., [et al.]{} 2003, , 588, 387
, D. J., [Finkbeiner]{}, D. P., & [Davis]{}, M. 1998, , 500, 525
, W. H. 1990, , 243, 570
, L. 1978, [Physical processes in the interstellar medium]{} (New York Wiley-Interscience, 1978. 333 p.)
, K. Z., [Matheson]{}, T., [Garnavich]{}, P. M., [et al.]{} 2003, , 591, L17
, T., [Markwardt]{}, C., [Marshall]{}, F., [Giblin]{}, T., & [Kippen]{}, R. M. 1999, 478
, R., [Mirabal]{}, N., [Halpern]{}, J., [Kassin]{}, S., & [Novati]{}, S. 1999, GCN, 472
, P. G. 2001, , 113, 1420
, J., [Groot]{}, P. J., [Galama]{}, T., [et al.]{} 1997, , 386, 686
, M., [Ghisellini]{}, G., [Lazzati]{}, D., [Fiore]{}, F., & [Stella]{}, L. 2001, , 550, L43
, P., [Burud]{}, I., [Fruchter]{}, A., & [Levan]{}, A. 2002, GCN, 1767
, P., [Burud]{}, I., [Fruchter]{}, A., & [Levan]{}, A. 2002, GCN, 1756
, P. M., [Ellison]{}, S. L., [Ledoux]{}, C., [et al.]{} 2004, , 419, 927
, P. M., [Fender]{}, R. P., [Garrett]{}, M. A., [et al.]{} 2001, , 380, L21
, P. M., [Fruchter]{}, A., [Kaper]{}, L., [et al.]{} 2001, , 546, 672
, S. E. 1993, , 405, 273
, P., [Vestrand]{}, W. T., [Starr]{}, D., [et al.]{} 2002, GCN, 1757
[^1]: Based on observations collected at the European Southern Observatory, Chile; proposals no. 64.H-0313, 165.H-0464, 70.D-0523
[^2]: see http://www.eso.org/observing/standards/spectra/
[^3]: see http://www.eso.org/instruments/fors/
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We deduce continuity and Schatten-von Neumann properties for operators with matrices satisfying mixed quasi-norm estimates with Lebesgue and Schatten parameters in $(0,\infty ]$. We use these results to deduce continuity and Schatten-von Neumann properties for pseudo-differential operators with symbols in quasi-Banach modulation spaces, or in appropriate H[ö]{}rmander classes.'
address: 'Department of Mathematics, Linn[æ]{}us University, V[ä]{}xj[ö]{}, Sweden'
author:
- Joachim Toft
title: 'Continuity and compactness for pseudo-differential operators with symbols in quasi-Banach spaces or H[ö]{}rmander classes'
---
Introduction {#sec0}
============
The singular values for a linear operator is a non-increasing sequence of non-negative numbers which are strongly linked to questions on continuity and compactness for the operator in the following sense:
- the operator is continuous, if and only if its singular values are bounded.
- the operator is compact, if and only if its singular values decay towards zero at infinity. Moreover, fast decays of the singular values permit efficient finite rank approximations.
- the operator has rank $j\ge 0$, if and only if its singular values of order $j+1$ and higher are zero.
(See [@Ho1; @Gc2] and Section \[sec1\] for definitions.)
In particular, there is a strong connection between the decay of the singular values and finding pseudo-inverses in convenient ways, since such questions are linked to efficient finite rank approximations.
One way to measure the decay of singular values is to consider Schatten-von Neumann classes. More precisely, let $T$ be a linear operator. Then $T$ belongs to ${\mathscr I}_p$, the set of Schatten-von Neumann operators of order $p\in (0,\infty ]$, if and only if its singular values $\sigma _1(T),\sigma _2(T),\dots$ belong to $\ell ^p$. Since the singular values are non-negative and non-increasing, it follows that $$\label{SiVaSchattProp}
\begin{alignedat}{3}
\sigma _j(T) &= o (j^{-1/p}),&
\quad &\text{when} &\quad
T&\in {\mathscr I}_p,\ p<\infty ,
\\[1ex]
\sigma _j(T) &\neq o (j^{-1/p}),&
\quad &\text{when} &\quad
T&\notin {\mathscr I}_{p+{\varepsilon}},\ p<\infty ,\ {\varepsilon}>0,
\end{alignedat}$$ which indicates the link between Schatten-von Neumann classes and the decays of singular values.
It is in general a difficult task to find exact and convenient characterizations of Schatten-von Neumann classes. One is therefore left to find suitable necessary or sufficient conditions when characterizing such classes. For example a Toeplitz operator, acting on $L^2$ belongs to ${\mathscr I}_p$, $p\in [1,\infty]$, when its symbol belongs to $L^p$ (cf. [@HeWo; @BaCoIs; @BaIs]). For pseudo-differential operators ${\operatorname{Op}}(a)$, the situation is slightly different since ${\operatorname{Op}}(a)$ might not be in ${\mathscr I}_p$, $p\neq 2$, when its symbol $a$ belongs to $L^p$. On the other hand, by adding further restrictions on the symbols it is possible to deduce similar sufficient conditions as for Toeplitz operators. For example, if $S(m,g)$ is an appropriate H[ö]{}rmander class parameterized with the Riemannian metric $g$ and weight function $m$ on the phase space, then $$\label{HormSchattenEquiv}
{\{ \, {\operatorname{Op}}_t(a)\, ;\, a\in S(m,g)\, \} }\subseteq {\mathscr I}_p
\qquad \Longleftrightarrow \qquad
m\in L^p.$$ (Cf. Theorems 2.1 and 2.9 in [@BuTo]. See also [@Ho0; @Ho1; @Toft4] for pre-results.)
There are several Schatten-von Neumann results for pseudo-differential operators with symbols in modulation spaces, Besov spaces and Sobolev spaces (cf. [@Toft5] and the references therein). In particular, let $M^{p,q}$ be the classical modulation space with parameters $p,q\in [1,\infty ]$, introduced by Feichtinger in [@Fei1]. Then $$\begin{gathered}
{\operatorname{Op}}(a) \in {\mathscr I}_p
\quad \text{when} \quad
a\in M^{p,p}, \ p\in [1,2],\label{ModSchatten1}
\\[1ex]
{\operatorname{Op}}(a) \, :\, M^{p_1,q_1}\to M^{p_1,q_1}
\quad \text{when} \quad
a\in M^{\infty ,1},\ p_1,q_1\in [1,\infty ],
\label{ModCont1}
\intertext{and}
{\operatorname{Op}}(a) \, :\, M^{\infty ,\infty }\to M^{1,1}
\quad \text{when} \quad
a\in M^{1 ,1}.
\label{ModCont1B}\end{gathered}$$ The relation was essentially deduced by Gr[ö]{}chenig and Heil, although it seems to be well-known earlier by Feichtinger (cf. [@GH1 Proposition 4.1]). The relation was first proved in [@Gc2], with certain pre-results given already in [@GH1; @Sj1], and is in some sense obtained by Feichtinger already in [@Fei1].
There are also several extensions and modifications of these results. For example, in [@GH2; @Toft2] it was proved that $$\label{ModCont1C}
\begin{gathered}
{\operatorname{Op}}(a)\, :\, M^{p_1,q_1}\to M^{p_2,q_2}
\quad \text{when} \quad
a\in M^{p,q}, \ q\le \min (p,p')
\\[1ex]
\quad \text{and} \quad
\frac 1{p_1} - \frac 1{p_2} = \frac 1{q_1} - \frac 1{q_2} = 1-\frac 1{p} - \frac 1{q},
\ q\le p_2,q_2\le p,
\end{gathered}$$ which covers both and . See also [@Toft3; @Toft5; @Toft8; @Toft11] for extensions of the latter result to weighted spaces, and [@MoPf; @Wa] for related results with other types of modulation spaces as symbol classes. Furthermore, in [@DeRu1; @DeRu2; @DeRu3; @FiRu], related analysis in background of compact or local-compact Lie groups can be found.
In the literature, it is usually assumed that $p$ and $q$ here above belong to $[1,\infty ]$ instead of the larger interval $(0,\infty ]$. An important reason for excluding the cases $p<1$ or $q<1$ is that the involved spaces fail to be local convex, leading in general to several additional difficulties compared to the situation when $p,q\in [1,\infty ]$. On the other hand, in view of it is valuable to decide whether an operator belongs to ${\mathscr I}_p$ or not, also in the case $p<1$. Here we remark that convenient Schatten-$p$ results with $p<1$ can be found for Hankel and Toeplitz operators in e.g. [@Is], and for pseudo-differential operators on compact Lie groups in e.g. [@DeRu1; @DeRu2; @DeRu3].
In the paper we deduce weighted extensions of –, where in contrast to [@Toft3; @Toft5; @Toft8; @Toft11], the case $p<1$ is included. First we deduce continuity and Schatten-von Neumann properties for suitable types of matrix operators. Thereafter we carry over these results to the case of pseudo-differential operators with symbols in modulation spaces, using Gabor analysis as link, in analogous ways as in e.g. [@GH1; @Gc3; @Gc4; @GrSt; @Toft5; @WaSc].
Here we remark that our analysis is comprehensive compared to [@GH1; @Gc3; @Gc4; @GrSt; @Toft5; @WaSc] because of the absent of local-convexity. The situation is handled by using the Gabor analysis in [@GaSa; @Toft12], for non-local convex modulation spaces, in combination of suitable factorization techniques for matrix operators.
In order to shed some more light we explain some consequences of our investigations. As a special case of Theorem \[thmOpSchatten\] we have $$\tag*{(\ref{ModSchatten1})$'$}
{\operatorname{Op}}(a) \in {\mathscr I}_p
\quad \text{when} \quad
a\in M^{p,p}, \ p\in (0,2],$$ i.e. still holds after $[1,2]$ is replaced by the larger interval $(0,2]$. Furthermore, we prove that $'$ is sharp in the sense that any modulation space (with trivial weight), and not contained in $M^{p,p}({\mathbf R^{2d}})$, contains symbols, whose corresponding pseudo-differential operators fail to belong to ${\mathscr I}_p$ (cf. Theorem \[SchattenConverse\]).
In Section \[sec3\] we also deduce general continuity results for pseudo-differential operators with symbols in modulation spaces. In particular, is extended in Theorem \[thmOpCont\] extend in several ways, and as special case, and are extended into $$\begin{gathered}
\tag*{(\ref{ModCont1})$'$}
{\operatorname{Op}}(a) \, :\, M^{p_1,q_1}\to M^{p_1,q_1}
\\[1ex]
\text{when} \quad
a\in M^{\infty ,q},\ p_1,q_1\in [q,\infty ],\ q\in (0,1],\end{gathered}$$ and $$\tag*{(\ref{ModCont1B})$'$}
{\operatorname{Op}}(a) \, :\, M^{\infty ,\infty }\to M^{q,q}
\quad \text{when} \quad
a\in M^{q ,q},\ q\in (0,1].$$
In Section \[sec4\] we apply $'$ to deduce Schatten-von Neumann properties for pseudo-differential operators with symbols in $S(m,g)$ in H[ö]{}rmander-Weyl calculus. In particular we show that the sufficiency part of still holds for $p\in (0,1]$ (cf. Theorem \[thm:WeylHorm1\]). That is, for suitable $m$ and $g$, we have $${\{ \, {\operatorname{Op}}_t(a)\, ;\, a\in S(m,g)\, \} }\subseteq {\mathscr I}_p
\quad \text{when} \quad
m\in L^p.$$
An important part behind the analysis concerns Theorem \[factorizationprop\], which in the non-weighted case, essentially state that any matrix $A\in \mathbb U^{p_0}$ can be factorized as $$\label{MatrixFaktor0}
A=A_1\cdot A_2,
\quad \text{when}\quad
A_j\in \mathbb U^{p_j},\quad
\frac 1{p_1}+\frac 1{p_2}= \frac 1{p_0}.$$ From these relations we obtain $$\label{embSimpleCase}
\mathbb U^{p}\subseteq {\mathscr I}_{p},\quad
\text{when}\quad p\in (0,2].$$
In fact, the set of Hilbert-Schmidt operators on $\ell ^2$ agrees with $\mathbb U^2$, and with ${\mathscr I}_2$ (also in norms). Consequently, $\mathbb U^{2}
={\mathscr I}_2$, and H[ö]{}lder’s inequality for Schatten-von Neumann classes together with give that for every $A\in \mathbb U^{2/N}$, with integer $N\ge 1$, there are matrices $A_1,\dots ,A_N\in \mathbb U^{2}$ such that $$A = A_1\cdots A_N \in \mathbb U^{2}\circ \cdots \circ \mathbb U^{2}
= {\mathscr I}_2\circ \cdots \circ {\mathscr I}_2 = {\mathscr I}_{2/N}.$$ Hence $\mathbb U^{2/N}\subseteq {\mathscr I}_{2/N}$ for every integer $N\ge 1$. A (real) interpolation argument between the cases $$\mathbb U^{2/N}\subseteq {\mathscr I}_{2/N}\quad
\text{and}\quad
\mathbb U^{2} = {\mathscr I}_{2}$$ now shows that that $\mathbb U^{p}\subseteq {\mathscr I}_{p}$ when $p\in [2/N,2]$. Since $2/N$ can be chosen arbitrarily close to $0$, follows.
In Section \[sec2\], the previous arguments are used to deduce more general versions of involving weighted spaces. (See Theorem \[MatrixSchatten\].)
In Section \[sec5\] we show some applications and other results for Schatten-von Neumann symbols. Here we introduce the set $s_{t,p}^q$ consisting of all symbols $a$ such that ${\operatorname{Op}}_t(a)$ belongs to ${\mathscr I}_p$ and such that the orthonormal sequences of the eigenfunctions to $|{\operatorname{Op}}_t(a)|$ and $|{\operatorname{Op}}_t(a)^*|$ are bounded sets in the modulation space $M^{2q}$. It follows that $s_{t,p}^q$ is contained in $s_{t,p}$ the set of all symbols $a$ such that ${\operatorname{Op}}_t(a)\in {\mathscr I}_p$.
We prove that ${\mathscr S}$ is continuously embedded in $s_{t,p}^q$, and that $$s_{t,p}^p \cap {\mathscr E}' \subseteq {\mathscr F}L^p\cap {\mathscr E}' \subseteq s_{t,p} \cap {\mathscr E}'$$ for every $p>0$.
Finally we remark that in [@DeRu1; @DeRu2; @DeRu3; @FiRu], Delgado, Fischer, Ruzhansky and Turunen deal with various kinds of continuity and compactness questions for pseudo-differential operators acting on functions defined on suitable Lie groups. In their approach, matrix-valued symbols appear naturally, and several interesting results on matrices are deduced. A part of these investigations are related to the analysis in Section \[sec2\].
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
The author is very grateful to K. H. Gr[ö]{}chenig, for valuable advices and comments, leading to several improvements of the content and the style. He is also grateful to P. Wahlberg for valuable comments.
Preliminaries {#sec1}
=============
In this section we recall some facts on Gelfand-Shilov spaces, modulation spaces and Schatten-von Neumann classes. The proofs are in general omitted.
Weight functions
----------------
We start by discussing general properties on weight functions. A *weight* on ${\mathbf R^{d}}$ is a positive function $\omega
\in L^\infty _{loc}({\mathbf R^{d}})$ such that $1/\omega \in L^\infty _{loc}({\mathbf R^{d}})$. We usually assume that $\omega$ is *moderate*, or *$v$-moderate* for some positive function $v \in
L^\infty _{loc}({\mathbf R^{d}})$. This means that $$\label{moderate}
\omega (x+y) \lesssim \omega (x)v(y),\qquad x,y\in {\mathbf R^{d}}.$$ Here $A\lesssim B$ means that $A\le cB$ for a suitable constant $c>0$, and for future references, we write $A\asymp B$ when $A\lesssim B$ and $B\lesssim A$. We note that implies that $\omega$ fulfills the estimates $$\label{moderateconseq}
v(-x)^{-1}\lesssim \omega (x)\lesssim v(x),\quad x\in {\mathbf R^{d}}.$$ Furthermore, if $v$ in can be chosen as a polynomial, then $\omega$ is called a weight of *polynomial type*. We let ${\mathscr P}({\mathbf R^{d}})$ and ${\mathscr P}_E({\mathbf R^{d}})$ be the sets of all weights of polynomial type and moderate weights on ${\mathbf R^{d}}$, respectively.
It can be proved that if $\omega \in {\mathscr P}_E({\mathbf R^{d}})$, then $\omega$ is $v$-moderate for some $v(x) = e^{r|x|}$, provided the positive constant $r>0$ is chosen large enough (cf. [@Gc2.5]). In particular, shows that for any $\omega \in {\mathscr P}_E({\mathbf R^{d}})$, there is a constant $r>0$ such that $$\label{WeightExpEst}
e^{-r|x|}\lesssim \omega (x)\lesssim e^{r|x|},\quad x\in {\mathbf R^{d}}$$ (cf. [@Gc2.5]).
We say that $v$ is *submultiplicative* if $v$ is even and holds with $\omega =v$. In the sequel, $v$ and $v_j$ for $j\ge 0$, always stand for submultiplicative weights if nothing else is stated.
Gelfand-Shilov spaces
---------------------
Next we recall the definition of Gelfand-Shilov spaces.
Let $h,s\in \mathbf R_+$ be fixed. Then $\mathcal S_{s,h}({\mathbf R^{d}})$ is the set of all $f\in C^\infty ({\mathbf R^{d}})$ such that $${\Vert f\Vert _{\mathcal S_{s,h}}}\equiv \sup \frac {|x^\beta \partial ^\alpha
f(x)|}{h^{|\alpha + \beta |}(\alpha !\, \beta !)^s}$$ is finite. Here the supremum is taken over all $\alpha ,\beta \in
\mathbf N^d$ and $x\in {\mathbf R^{d}}$.
Obviously $\mathcal S_{s,h}({\mathbf R^{d}})$ is a Banach space which increases as $h$ and $s$ increase, and is contained in ${\mathscr S}({\mathbf R^{d}})$, the set of Schwartz functions on ${\mathbf R^{d}}$. Furthermore, if $s>1/2$, or $s=1/2$ and $h$ is sufficiently large, then is dense in $\mathscr S$. Hence, the dual $(\mathcal S_{s,h})'({\mathbf R^{d}})$ of $\mathcal S_{s,h}({\mathbf R^{d}})$ is a Banach space which contains $\mathscr S'({\mathbf R^{d}})$.
The *Gelfand-Shilov spaces* $\mathcal S_{s}({\mathbf R^{d}})$ and $\Sigma _s({\mathbf R^{d}})$ are the inductive and projective limits respectively of $\mathcal S_{s,h}({\mathbf R^{d}})$ with respect to $h$. This implies that $$\label{GSspacecond1}
\mathcal S_s({\mathbf R^{d}}) = \bigcup _{h>0}\mathcal S_{s,h}({\mathbf R^{d}})
\quad \text{and}\quad \Sigma _{s}({\mathbf R^{d}}) =\bigcap _{h>0}\mathcal
S_{s,h}({\mathbf R^{d}}),$$ and that the topology for $\mathcal S_s({\mathbf R^{d}})$ is the strongest possible one such that each inclusion map from $\mathcal S_{s,h}({\mathbf R^{d}})$ to $\mathcal S_s({\mathbf R^{d}})$ is continuous. The space $\Sigma _s({\mathbf R^{d}})$ is a Fr[é]{}chet space with semi norms ${\Vert {\, \cdot \, }\Vert _{\mathcal S_{s,h}}}$, $h>0$. Moreover, $\mathcal S _s({\mathbf R^{d}})\neq \{ 0\}$, if and only if $s\ge 1/2$, and $\Sigma _s({\mathbf R^{d}})\neq \{ 0\}$, if and only if $s>1/2$.
For every ${\varepsilon}>0$ and $s>0$, we have $$\Sigma _s ({\mathbf R^{d}})\subseteq \mathcal S_s({\mathbf R^{d}})\subseteq
\Sigma _{s+{\varepsilon}}({\mathbf R^{d}}).$$
The *Gelfand-Shilov distribution spaces* $\mathcal S_s'({\mathbf R^{d}})$ and $\Sigma _s'({\mathbf R^{d}})$ are the projective and inductive limit respectively of $\mathcal S_{s,h}'({\mathbf R^{d}})$. Hence $$\tag*{(\ref{GSspacecond1})$'$}
\mathcal S_s'({\mathbf R^{d}}) = \bigcap _{h>0}\mathcal
S_{s,h}'({\mathbf R^{d}})\quad \text{and}\quad \Sigma _s'({\mathbf R^{d}})
=\bigcup _{h>0} \mathcal S_{s,h}'({\mathbf R^{d}}).$$ By [@Pil], $\mathcal S_s'$ and $\Sigma _s'$ are the duals of $\mathcal S_s$ and $\Sigma _s$, respectively.
The Gelfand-Shilov spaces are invariant or posses convenient mapping properties under several basic transformations. For example they are invariant under translations, dilations, and under (partial) Fourier transformations.
From now on we let $\mathscr F$ be the Fourier transform, given by $$(\mathscr Ff)(\xi )= \widehat f(\xi ) \equiv (2\pi )^{-d/2}\int _{{\mathbf R^{d}}} f(x)e^{-i{\langle x,\xi\rangle} }\, dx$$ when $f\in L^1({\mathbf R^{d}})$. Here ${\langle {\, \cdot \, },{\, \cdot \, }\rangle}$ denotes the usual scalar product on ${\mathbf R^{d}}$. The map $\mathscr F$ extends uniquely to homeomorphisms on $\mathscr S'({\mathbf R^{d}})$, $\mathcal
S_s'({\mathbf R^{d}})$ and $\Sigma _s'({\mathbf R^{d}})$, and restricts to homeomorphisms on $\mathscr S({\mathbf R^{d}})$, $\mathcal S_s({\mathbf R^{d}})$ and $\Sigma _s({\mathbf R^{d}})$, and to a unitary operator on $L^2({\mathbf R^{d}})$.
Next we recall some mapping properties of Gelfand-Shilov spaces under short-time Fourier transforms. Let $\phi \in \mathscr S({\mathbf R^{d}})$ be fixed. For every $f\in
\mathscr S'({\mathbf R^{d}})$, the *short-time Fourier transform* $V_\phi
f$ is the distribution on ${\mathbf R^{2d}}$ defined by the formula $$\label{defstft}
(V_\phi f)(x,\xi ) =\mathscr F(f\, \overline{\phi ({\, \cdot \, }-x)})(\xi ) =
(f,\phi ({\, \cdot \, }-x)e^{i{\langle {\, \cdot \, },\xi\rangle}}).$$ We recall that if $T(f,\phi )\equiv V_\phi f$ when $f,\phi \in {\mathcal S}_{1/2}({\mathbf R^{d}})$, then $T$ is uniquely extendable to sequentially continuous mappings $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
T\, &:\, & {\mathcal S}_s'({\mathbf R^{d}})\times {\mathcal S}_s({\mathbf R^{d}}) &\to
{\mathcal S}_s '({\mathbf R^{2d}})\bigcap C^\infty ({\mathbf R^{2d}}),
\\[1ex]
T\, &:\, & {\mathcal S}_s'({\mathbf R^{d}})\times {\mathcal S}_s'({\mathbf R^{d}}) &\to
{\mathcal S}_s '({\mathbf R^{2d}}),\end{aligned}$$ and similarly when ${\mathcal S}_s$ and ${\mathcal S}_s'$ are replaced by $\Sigma _s$ and $\Sigma _s'$, respectively, or by ${\mathscr S}$ and ${\mathscr S}'$, respectively (cf. [@CPRT10; @Toft8]). We also note that $V_\phi f$ takes the form $$\tag*{(\ref{defstft})$'$}
V_\phi f(x,\xi ) =(2\pi )^{-d/2}\int _{{\mathbf R^{d}}}f(y)\overline {\phi
(y-x)}e^{-i{\langle y,\xi\rangle}}\, dy$$ when $f\in L^p_{(\omega )}({\mathbf R^{d}})$ for some $\omega \in
{\mathscr P}_E({\mathbf R^{d}})$, $\phi \in \Sigma _1({\mathbf R^{d}})$ and $p\ge 1$. Here $L^p_{(\omega )}({\mathbf R^{d}})$, when $p\in (0,\infty ]$ and $\omega \in {\mathscr P}_E({\mathbf R^{d}})$, is the set of all $f\in L^p_{loc} ({\mathbf R^{d}})$ such that $f\cdot \omega \in L^p({\mathbf R^{d}})$.
Mixed quasi-normed space of Lebesgue types
------------------------------------------
Let $p,q\in (0,\infty ]$, and let $\omega \in {\mathscr P}_E({\mathbf R^{2d}})$. Then $L^{p,q}_{(\omega )}({\mathbf R^{2d}})$ and $L^{p,q}_{*,(\omega )}({\mathbf R^{2d}})$ consist of all measurable functions $F$ on ${\mathbf R^{2d}}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
{3}
{\Vert g_1\Vert _{L^q({\mathbf R^{d}})}}&<\infty ,&
\quad &\text{where} &\quad
g_1(\xi ) &\equiv {\Vert F({\, \cdot \, },\xi )\omega ({\, \cdot \, },\xi )\Vert _{L^p({\mathbf R^{d}})}}
\intertext{and}
{\Vert g_2\Vert _{L^p({\mathbf R^{d}})}}&<\infty ,&
\quad &\text{where} &\quad
g_2(x) &\equiv {\Vert F(x,{\, \cdot \, })\omega (x,{\, \cdot \, })\Vert _{L^q({\mathbf R^{d}})}},\end{aligned}$$ respectively.
More generally, let $${{\boldsymbol p}}=(p_1,\dots , p_d)\in (0,\infty ]^d,
\quad {\boldsymbol q}=(q_1,\dots , q_d)\in (0,\infty ]^d,$$ $\operatorname {S}_d$ be the set of permutations on $\{ 1,\dots ,d\}$, ${{\boldsymbol p}}\in
(0,\infty ]^d$, $\omega \in {\mathscr P}_E({\mathbf R^{d}})$, and let $\sigma
\in \operatorname {S}_d$. Moreover, let $\Omega _j\subseteq
\mathbf R$ be Borel-sets, $\mu _j$ be positive Borel measures on $\Omega _j$, $j=1,\dots ,d$, and let $\Omega =\Omega _1\times \cdots \times \Omega _d$ and $\mu = \mu _1\otimes \cdots \otimes \mu _d$. For every measurable and complex-valued function $f$ on $\Omega$, let $g_{j,\omega ,\mu}$, $j=1,\dots ,d-1$, be defined inductively by $$\begin{aligned}
g_{0,\omega ,\mu}(x_1,\dots ,x_d)
&\equiv |f (x_{\sigma ^{-1}(1)},\dots ,x_{\sigma ^{-1}(d)})
\omega (x_{\sigma ^{-1}(1)},\dots ,x_{\sigma ^{-1}(d)})|,
\\[1ex]
g_{k,\omega ,\mu}(x_{k+1},\dots ,x_d) &\equiv {\Vert g_{k-1,\omega ,\mu}({\, \cdot \, },
x_{k+1},\dots ,x_d) \Vert _{L^{p_k}(\mu _k)}},
\quad k=1,\dots ,d-1 ,
\intertext{and let }
{\Vert f\Vert _{L^{{{\boldsymbol p}}}_{\sigma ,(\omega )}(\mu)}} &\equiv
{\Vert g_{d-1,\omega ,\mu}\Vert _{L^{p_d}(\mu _d)}}.\end{aligned}$$ The mixed quasi-norm space $L^{{{\boldsymbol p}}}_{\sigma ,(\omega )}(\mu)$ of Lebesgue type is defined as the set of all $\mu$-measurable functions $f$ such that ${\Vert f\Vert _{L^{{{\boldsymbol p}}}_{\sigma ,(\omega )}(\mu )}}<\infty$.
In the sequel we have $\Omega ={\mathbf R^{d}}$ and $d\mu = dx$, or $\Omega =\Lambda$ and $\mu (j)=1$ when $j \in \Lambda$, where $$\label{LambdaDef}
\begin{aligned}
\Lambda &= \Lambda _{[\theta ]} = T_\theta {\mathbf Z^{d}} \equiv
{\{ \, (\theta _1j_1,\dots ,\theta _dj_d)\, ;\, (j_1,\dots ,j_d)\in {\mathbf Z^{d}}\, \} } ,
\\[1ex]
\theta &=(\theta _1,\dots ,\theta _d)\in {\mathbf R_*^{d}},
\end{aligned}$$ and $T_\theta$ denotes the diagonal matrix with diagonal elements $\theta _1,\dots ,\theta _d$. In the former case we set $L^{{{\boldsymbol p}}}_{\sigma ,(\omega )}(\mu)=L^{{{\boldsymbol p}}}_{\sigma ,(\omega )}=
L^{{{\boldsymbol p}}}_{\sigma ,(\omega )}({\mathbf R^{d}})$, and in the latter case we set $L^{{{\boldsymbol p}}}_{\sigma ,(\omega )}(\mu) =
\ell ^{{{\boldsymbol p}}}_{\sigma ,(\omega )}(\Lambda )$.
For conveniency we also set $L^{{{\boldsymbol p}}}_{(\omega )}=L^{{{\boldsymbol p}}}_{\sigma ,(\omega )}$ and $\ell ^{{{\boldsymbol p}}} _{(\omega )}=\ell ^{{{\boldsymbol p}}} _{\sigma ,(\omega )}$ when $\sigma$ is the identity map, and we let $\ell (\Lambda )$ be the set of all (complex-valued) sequences on $\Lambda$ and $\ell _0
(\Lambda )$ be the set of all $f\in \ell (\Lambda )$ such that $f(j)\neq 0$ for at most finite numbers of $j$. Furthermore, if $\omega$ is equal to $1$, then we set $$L^{{{\boldsymbol p}}}_{\sigma } =L^{{{\boldsymbol p}}}_{\sigma ,(\omega )},
\quad
\ell ^{{{\boldsymbol p}}} _{\sigma }=\ell ^{{{\boldsymbol p}}} _{\sigma ,(\omega )},
\quad
L^{{{\boldsymbol p}}} = L^{{{\boldsymbol p}}}_{(\omega )}
\quad \text{and} \quad
\ell ^{{{\boldsymbol p}}} = \ell ^{{{\boldsymbol p}}} _{(\omega )}.$$
Let ${{\boldsymbol p}}= (p_1,\dots ,p_d)\in [0,\infty ]^d$, ${\boldsymbol q}=(q_1,\dots ,q_d)\in [0 ,\infty ]^d$ and $t\in [-\infty ,\infty ]$. Then we use the conventions $${{\boldsymbol p}}\le {\boldsymbol q}\quad \text{and}\quad {{\boldsymbol p}}\le t \quad \text{when}\quad
p_j\le q_j\ \text{and}\ p_j\le t,$$ respectively, for every $j=1,\dots ,d$, and $${{\boldsymbol p}}= {\boldsymbol q}\quad \text{and}\quad {{\boldsymbol p}}= t \quad \text{when}\quad
p_j= q_j\ \text{and}\ p_j= t,$$ respectively, for every $j=1,\dots ,d$. The relations ${{\boldsymbol p}}< {\boldsymbol q}$ and ${{\boldsymbol p}}< t$ are defined analogously. We also let $${{\boldsymbol p}}\pm {\boldsymbol q}=(p_1\pm q_1,\dots ,p_d\pm q_d)
\quad \text{and}\quad
{{\boldsymbol p}}\pm t=(p_1\pm t,\dots ,p_d\pm t),$$ provided the right-hand sides are well-defined and belongs to $[-\infty ,\infty ]^d$. Moreover, we set $1/0=\infty$, $1/\infty =0$ and $1/{{\boldsymbol p}}=(1/p_1,\dots ,1/p_d)$.
We also let $$\max ({{\boldsymbol p}}) \equiv \max (p_1,\dots ,p_d)
\quad \text{and}\quad
\min ({{\boldsymbol p}}) \equiv \min (p_1,\dots ,p_d),$$ and note that if $\max ({{\boldsymbol p}}) <\infty$, then $\ell _0 (\Lambda )$ is dense in $\ell ^{{\boldsymbol p}}_{\sigma ,(\omega )} (\Lambda )$.
Modulation spaces {#subsec1.2}
-----------------
Next we define modulation spaces. Let $\phi \in {\mathcal S}_{1/2}({\mathbf R^{d}})\setminus 0$. For any $p,q\in (0.\infty ]$ and $\omega \in {\mathscr P}_E({\mathbf R^{2d}})$, the modulation spaces $M^{p,q}_{(\omega )}({\mathbf R^{d}})$ and $W^{p,q}_{(\omega )}({\mathbf R^{d}})$ are the sets of all $f\in {\mathcal S}_{1/2}'({\mathbf R^{d}})$ such that $V_\phi f\in
L^{p,q}_{(\omega )}({\mathbf R^{2d}})$ and $V_\phi f\in
L^{p,q}_{*,(\omega )}({\mathbf R^{2d}})$, respectively. We equip these spaces with the quasi-norms $${\Vert f\Vert _{M^{p,q}_{(\omega )}}}\equiv {\Vert V_\phi f\Vert _{L^{p,q}_{(\omega )}}}
\quad \text{and}\quad
{\Vert f\Vert _{W^{p,q}_{(\omega )}}}\equiv {\Vert V_\phi f\Vert _{L^{p,q}_{*,(\omega )}}},$$ respectively. One of the most common types of modulation spaces concerns $M^{p,q}_{(\omega )}({\mathbf R^{d}})$ with $\omega \in {\mathscr P}({\mathbf R^{2d}})$, and are sometimes called standard modulation spaces. They were introduced by Feichtinger in [@Fei1] for certain choices of $\omega$.
More generally, for any $\sigma \in \operatorname S_{2d}$, ${{\boldsymbol p}}\in (0,\infty ]^{2d}$ and $\omega \in {\mathscr P}_E({\mathbf R^{2d}})$, the modulation space $M^{{\boldsymbol p}}_{\sigma ,(\omega )}({\mathbf R^{d}})$ is the set of all $f\in {\mathcal S}_{1/2}'({\mathbf R^{d}})$ such that $V_\phi f\in
L^{{{\boldsymbol p}}}_{\sigma ,(\omega )}({\mathbf R^{2d}})$, and we equip $M^{{{\boldsymbol p}}}_{\sigma (\omega )}({\mathbf R^{d}})$ with the quasi-norm $$\label{modnorm2}
{\Vert f\Vert _{M^{{{\boldsymbol p}}}_{\sigma , (\omega )} }}\equiv
{\Vert V_\phi f\Vert _{L^{{{\boldsymbol p}}}_{\sigma ,(\omega )}}}.$$
For conveniency we set $M^p_{(\omega )}=M^{p,p}_{(\omega)}$, and if $\omega =1$ everywhere, then set $$M^{{\boldsymbol p}}=M^{{\boldsymbol p}}_{\sigma ,(\omega )},\quad
M^{p,q} = M^{p,q}_{(\omega )},\quad
W^{p,q} = W^{p,q}_{(\omega )}
\quad \text{and}\quad
M^{p} = M^{p}_{(\omega )}.$$
In the following propositions we list some properties for modulation spaces, and refer to [@Fei1; @FG1; @Gc2; @Toft5] for proofs.
\[p1.4A\] Let $\sigma \in \operatorname S_{2d}$ and ${{\boldsymbol p}}\in (0,\infty ]^{2d}$. Then the following is true:
1. if $\omega \in {\mathscr P}_{E}({\mathbf R^{2d}})$, then $\Sigma _1({\mathbf R^{d}})
\subseteq M^{{{\boldsymbol p}}}_{\sigma ,(\omega )}({\mathbf R^{d}}) \subseteq \Sigma _1'({\mathbf R^{d}})$;
2. if $\omega \in {\mathscr P}_{E}({\mathbf R^{2d}})$ satisfies for every $r >0$, then ${\mathcal S}_1({\mathbf R^{d}})\subseteq M^{{{\boldsymbol p}}}_{\sigma ,(\omega )}({\mathbf R^{d}})
\subseteq {\mathcal S}_1'({\mathbf R^{d}})$;
3. if $\omega \in {\mathscr P}({\mathbf R^{2d}})$, then $\mathscr S({\mathbf R^{d}})\subseteq M^{{{\boldsymbol p}}}_{\sigma ,(\omega )}({\mathbf R^{d}})
\subseteq \mathscr S '({\mathbf R^{d}})$.
\[p1.4B\] Let $\sigma \in \operatorname S_{2d}$, $r\in (0,1]$, ${{\boldsymbol p}},{{\boldsymbol p}}_j\in
(0,\infty ] ^{2d}$ and $\omega ,\omega _j,v\in {\mathscr P}_{E}({\mathbf R^{2d}})$, $j=1,2$, be such that $r\le {{\boldsymbol p}}$, ${{\boldsymbol p}}_1\le {{\boldsymbol p}}_2$, $\omega _2\lesssim \omega _1$, and $\omega$ is $v$-moderate. Then the following is true:
1. if $\phi \in M^r_{(v)}({\mathbf R^{d}})\setminus 0$, then $f\in M^{{{\boldsymbol p}}}_{\sigma ,(\omega )}({\mathbf R^{d}})$, if and only if is finite. In particular, $M^{{{\boldsymbol p}}}_{\sigma ,(\omega )}({\mathbf R^{d}})$ is independent of the choice of $\phi \in M^r_{(v)}({\mathbf R^{d}})\setminus 0$. Moreover, $M^{{{\boldsymbol p}}}_{\sigma ,(\omega )}({\mathbf R^{d}})$ is a quasi-Banach space under the quasi-norm in , and different choices of $\phi$ give rise to equivalent quasi-norms.
If in addition ${{\boldsymbol p}}\ge 1$, then $M^{{{\boldsymbol p}}}_{\sigma ,(\omega )}
({\mathbf R^{d}})$ is a Banach space with norm ;
2. $M^{{{\boldsymbol p}}_1}_{\sigma ,(\omega _1)}({\mathbf R^{d}})\subseteq
M^{{{\boldsymbol p}}_2}_{\sigma ,(\omega _2)}({\mathbf R^{d}})$.
Next we discuss Gabor expansions, and start by recalling some notions. It follows from the analysis in Chapters 11–14 in [@Gc2] that the operators in the following definition are well-defined and continuous.
\[DefAnSynGabOps\] Let $\Lambda =\Lambda _{[\theta ]}$ be as in , $\omega ,v\in {\mathscr P}_E({\mathbf R^{2d}})$ be such that $\omega$ is $v$-moderate, and let $\phi ,\psi \in M^1_{(v)}({\mathbf R^{d}})$.
1. The *analysis operator* $C^{\Lambda}_\phi$ is the operator from $M^\infty _{(\omega )}({\mathbf R^{d}})$ to $\ell ^{\infty}_{(\omega)}(\Lambda )$, given by $$C^\Lambda _\phi f \equiv \{ V_\phi f(j,\iota ) \} _{j,\iota \in \Lambda} \text ;$$
2. The *synthesis operator* $D^{\Lambda}_\psi$ is the operator from $\ell ^\infty _{(\omega )}(\Lambda )$ to $M^\infty _{(\omega)}({\mathbf R^{d}})$, given by $$D^\Lambda _\psi c \equiv \sum _{j,\iota \in \Lambda} c_{j,\iota}
e^{i{\langle {\, \cdot \, },\iota \rangle}}\phi ({\, \cdot \, }-j)\text ;$$
3. The *Gabor frame operator* $S^{\Lambda}_{\phi ,\psi}$ is the operator on $M^\infty _{(\omega )}({\mathbf R^{d}})$, given by $D^\Lambda _\psi \circ
C^\Lambda _\phi$, i.e. $$S^{\Lambda}_{\phi ,\psi}f \equiv \sum _{j,\iota \in \Lambda} V_\phi f(j,\iota )
e^{i{\langle {\, \cdot \, },\iota \rangle}}\psi ({\, \cdot \, }-j).$$
We usually assume that $\theta _1= \cdots =\theta _d={\varepsilon}>0$, and then we set $\Lambda _{\varepsilon}= \Lambda _{[\theta ]}$.
The proof of the following result is omitted since the result follows from Theorem 13.1.1 and other results in [@Gc2] (see also Theorem S in [@Gc1]).
\[ThmS\] Let $\Lambda$ be as in , $v\in {\mathscr P}_E({\mathbf R^{2d}})$ be submultiplicative, and $\phi \in
M^1_{(v)}({\mathbf R^{d}})\setminus 0$. Then the following is true:
1. if $$\label{DualFrames}
\{ e^{i{\langle {\, \cdot \, },\iota \rangle}}\phi ({\, \cdot \, }-j) \} _{j,\iota \in \Lambda}
\quad \text{and}\quad
\{ e^{i{\langle {\, \cdot \, },\iota \rangle}}\psi ({\, \cdot \, }-j) \} _{j,\iota \in \Lambda}$$ are dual frames to each others, then $\psi \in M^1_{(v)}({\mathbf R^{d}})$;
2. there is a constant ${\varepsilon}_0>0$ such that the frame operator $S_{\phi ,\phi}^\Lambda$ is a homeomorphism on $M^1_{(v)}({\mathbf R^{d}})$ and are dual frames, when $\Lambda ={\varepsilon}{\mathbf Z^{d}}$, ${\varepsilon}\in (0,{\varepsilon}_0]$ and $\psi = (S_{\phi ,\phi}^\Lambda )^{-1}\phi$.
We also recall the following restatement of [@Toft12 Theorem 3.7] (see also Corollaries 12.2.5 and 12.2.6 in [@Gc2] and Theorem 3.7 in [@GaSa]). Here and in what follows we let $\Lambda ^2=\Lambda \times \Lambda$.
\[ConseqThmS\] Let $\Lambda$ be as in , ${{\boldsymbol p}}\in
(0,\infty ]^{2d}$, $r\in (0,1]$ be such that $r\le \min ({{\boldsymbol p}})$, $\sigma
\in \operatorname {S}_{2d}$, and let $\omega ,v\in {\mathscr P}_E({\mathbf R^{2d}})$ be such that $\omega$ is $v$-moderate. Also let $\phi ,\psi \in M^r_{(v)}({\mathbf R^{d}})$ be such that are dual frames to each other. Then the following is true:
1. The operators $S_{\phi ,\psi} ^\Lambda \equiv D_\psi \circ C_\phi$ and $S_{\psi ,\phi} ^\Lambda \equiv D_\phi \circ C_\psi$ are both the identity map on $M^{{\boldsymbol p}}_{\sigma ,(\omega )}({\mathbf R^{d}})$, and if $f\in M^{{\boldsymbol p}}_{(\omega )}({\mathbf R^{d}})$, then $$\begin{aligned}
f &= \sum _{j,\iota \in \Lambda} (V_\phi f)(j,\iota )
e^{i{\langle {\, \cdot \, },\iota \rangle}}\psi ({\, \cdot \, }-j)\notag
\\[1ex]
&=
\sum _{j,\iota \in \Lambda } (V_\psi f)(j,\iota )
e^{i{\langle {\, \cdot \, },\iota \rangle}}\phi ({\, \cdot \, }-j),\label{GabExpForm}\end{aligned}$$ with unconditional norm-convergence in $M^{{\boldsymbol p}}_{\sigma ,(\omega )}$ when $\max ({{\boldsymbol p}}) <\infty$, and with convergence in $M^\infty _{(\omega)}$ with respect to the weak$^*$ topology otherwise;
2. if $f\in M^\infty _{(1/v)}({\mathbf R^{d}})$, then $$\displaystyle{{\Vert f\Vert _{M^{{\boldsymbol p}}_{\sigma ,(\omega )}}}
\asymp
{\Vert V_\phi f\Vert _{\ell ^{{\boldsymbol p}}_{\sigma ,(\omega )} (\Lambda ^2) }}
\asymp
{\Vert V_\psi f\Vert _{\ell ^{{\boldsymbol p}}_{\sigma ,(\omega )} (\Lambda ^2)}} }.$$
Let $v$, $\phi$ and $\Lambda$ be as in Proposition \[ThmS\]. Then $(S_{\phi ,\phi}^\Lambda )^{-1}\phi$ is called the *canonical dual window of $\phi$*, with respect to $\Lambda$. We have $$S_{\phi ,\phi}^\Lambda (e^{i{\langle {\, \cdot \, },\iota \rangle}}f({\, \cdot \, }-j)) =
e^{i{\langle {\, \cdot \, },\iota \rangle}}(S_{\phi ,\phi}^\Lambda f)({\, \cdot \, }-j),$$ when $f\in M^\infty _{(1/v)}({\mathbf R^{d}})$ and $j,\iota \in \Lambda$. The series in are called *Gabor expansions of $f$* with respect to $\phi$ and $\psi$.
\[RemThmS\] There are several ways to achieve dual frames satisfying the required properties in Proposition \[ConseqThmS\]. In fact, let $v,v_{0}\in {\mathscr P}_E({\mathbf R^{2d}})$ be submultiplicative such that $\omega $ is $v$-moderate and $L^1_{(v_0)}({\mathbf R^{2d}})\subseteq
L^r({\mathbf R^{2d}})$. Then Proposition \[ThmS\] guarantees that for some choice of $\phi ,\psi \in M^1_{(v_0v)}({\mathbf R^{d}})\subseteq
M^r_{(v)}({\mathbf R^{d}})$ and lattice $\Lambda$ in , the sets in are dual frames to each others, and that $\psi = (S_{\phi ,\phi}^\Lambda )^{-1}\phi$.
In the sequel we usually assume that $\Lambda =\Lambda _{\varepsilon}$, with ${\varepsilon}>0$ small enough such that the hypotheses in Propositions \[ThmS\] and \[ConseqThmS\] are fulfilled, and that the window functions and their duals belong to $M^r_{(v)}$ for every $r>0$. This is always possible, in view of Remark \[RemThmS\].
Classes of matrices {#subsec1.5}
-------------------
In what follows we let $\Lambda$ be a in , $A$ be the complex matrix $(a(j,k))_{j,k\in \Lambda}$, $p,q\in
(0,\infty ]$, $\omega$ be a map from $\Lambda ^2$ to $\mathbf R_+$, and $$\begin{gathered}
\label{haomegadef}
h_{A,p,\omega }(k) \equiv {\Vert H_{A,\omega}({\, \cdot \, },k)\Vert _{\ell ^p}},
\\[1ex]
\text{where}
\quad
H_{A,\omega}(j,k)=a(j,j-k)\omega (j,j-k).\end{gathered}$$
\[matrixset1\] Let $0<p,q\le \infty$, $\Lambda$ be as in and let $\omega$ be a map from $\Lambda ^2$ to $\mathbf R_+$.
1. The set $\mathbb U_0(\Lambda )$ consists of matrices $(a(j,k))_{j,k\in \Lambda}$ such that at most finite numbers of $a(j,k)$ are non-zero;
2. The set $\mathbb U^{p,q}(\omega ,\Lambda )$ consists of all matrices $A=(a(j,k))_{j,k\in \Lambda}$ such that $${\Vert A\Vert _{\mathbb U^{p,q}(\omega ,\Lambda )}} \equiv {\Vert h_{A,p,\omega }\Vert _{\ell ^q(\Lambda )}},$$ is finite, where $h_{A,p,\omega }$ is given by . Furthermore, $\mathbb U^{p,q}_0(\omega ,\Lambda )$ is the completion of $\mathbb U_0(\Lambda )$ under the quasi-norm ${\Vert {\, \cdot \, }\Vert _{\mathbb
U^{p,q}(\omega ,\Lambda )}}$.
For conveniency we set $\mathbb U^p(\omega ,\Lambda )=\mathbb
U^{p,p}(\omega ,\Lambda )$, and if $\omega =1$ everywhere, then we set $\mathbb U^{p,q}(\Lambda )= \mathbb U^{p,q}(\omega ,
\Lambda )$ and $\mathbb U^{p}(\Lambda )=
\mathbb U^{p}(\omega ,\Lambda )$.
Pseudo-differential operators
-----------------------------
Next we recall some properties in pseudo-differential calculus. Let $s\ge 1/2$, $a\in {\mathcal S}_s
({\mathbf R^{2d}})$, and $t\in \mathbf R$ be fixed. Then the pseudo-differential operator ${\operatorname{Op}}_t(a)$ is the linear and continuous operator on ${\mathcal S}_s ({\mathbf R^{d}})$, given by $$\label{e0.5}
({\operatorname{Op}}_t(a)f)(x)
=
(2\pi ) ^{-d}\iint a((1-t)x+ty,\xi )f(y)e^{i{\langle x-y,\xi\rangle} }\,
dyd\xi .$$ For general $a\in {\mathcal S}_s'({\mathbf R^{2d}})$, the pseudo-differential operator ${\operatorname{Op}}_t(a)$ is defined as the continuous operator from ${\mathcal S}_s({\mathbf R^{d}})$ to ${\mathcal S}_s'({\mathbf R^{d}})$ with distribution kernel $$\label{atkernel}
K_{a,t}(x,y)=(2\pi )^{-d/2}({\mathscr F}_2^{-1}a)((1-t)x+ty,x-y).$$ Here ${\mathscr F}_2F$ is the partial Fourier transform of $F(x,y)\in
{\mathcal S}_s'({\mathbf R^{2d}})$ with respect to the $y$ variable. This definition makes sense, since the mappings $$\label{homeoF2tmap}
{\mathscr F}_2\quad \text{and}\quad F(x,y)\mapsto F((1-t)x+ty,y-x)$$ are homeomorphisms on ${\mathcal S}_s'({\mathbf R^{2d}})$. In particular, the map $a\mapsto K_{a,t}$ is a homeomorphism on ${\mathcal S}_s'({\mathbf R^{2d}})$.
The standard (Kohn-Nirenberg) representation, $a(x,D)={\operatorname{Op}}(a)$, and the Weyl quantization ${\operatorname{Op}}^w(a)$ of $a$ are obtained by choosing $t=0$ and $t=1/2$, respectively, in and .
\[BijKernelsOps\] By Fourier’s inversion formula, and the kernel theorem [@LozPerTask Theorem 2.2] for operators from Gelfand-Shilov spaces to their duals, it follows that the map $a\mapsto {\operatorname{Op}}_t(a)$ is bijective from ${\mathcal S}_s'({\mathbf R^{2d}})$ to the set of all linear and continuous operators from ${\mathcal S}_s({\mathbf R^{d}})$ to ${\mathcal S}_s'({\mathbf R^{2d}})$.
By Remark \[BijKernelsOps\], it follows that for every $a_1\in {\mathcal S}_s '({\mathbf R^{2d}})$ and $t_1,t_2\in \mathbf R$, there is a unique $a_2\in {\mathcal S}_s '({\mathbf R^{2d}})$ such that ${\operatorname{Op}}_{t_1}(a_1) = {\operatorname{Op}}_{t_2} (a_2)$. By Section 18.5 in [@Ho1], the relation between $a_1$ and $a_2$ is given by $$\label{calculitransform}
{\operatorname{Op}}_{t_1}(a_1) = {\operatorname{Op}}_{t_2}(a_2)
\quad \Longleftrightarrow \quad
a_2(x,\xi )=e^{i(t_1-t_2){\langle D_x ,D_\xi\rangle}}a_1(x,\xi ).$$
We also recall that ${\operatorname{Op}}_t(a)$ is a rank-one operator, i.e. $$\label{trankone}
{\operatorname{Op}}_t(a)f=(2\pi )^{-d/2}(f,f_2)f_1, \qquad f\in {\mathcal S}_s({\mathbf R^{d}}),$$ for some $f_1,f_2\in {\mathcal S}_s '({\mathbf R^{d}})$, if and only if $a$ is equal to the *$t$-Wigner distribution* $$\label{wignertdef}
W_{f_1,f_2}^{t}(x,\xi ) \equiv {\mathscr F}(f_1(x+t{\, \cdot \, })\overline{f_2(x-(1-t){\, \cdot \, })} )(\xi ),$$ of $f_1$ and $f_2$. If in addition $f_1,f_2\in L^2({\mathbf R^{d}})$, then $W_{f_1,f_2}^{t}$ takes the form $$\label{wignertdef2}
W_{f_1,f_2}^{t}(x,\xi ) = (2\pi )^{-d/2}\int _{{\mathbf R^{d}}} f_1(x+ty)
\overline{f_2(x-(1-t)y)}e^{-{\langle y,\xi\rangle}} \, dy.$$ (Cf. [@BoDoOl1].) Since the Weyl case is of peculiar interests, we also set $W_{f_1,f_2}=W_{f_1,f_2}^{t}$, when $t=1/2$.
Schatten-von Neumann classes
----------------------------
Let ${\mathcal B}(V_1,V_2)$ denote the set of all linear and continuous operators from the quasi-normed space $V_1$ to the quasi-normed space $V_2$, and let ${\Vert {\, \cdot \, }\Vert _{{\mathcal B}(V_1,V_2)}}$ denote corresponding quasi-norm. Let ${\mathscr H}_k$, $k=1,2,3$, be Hilbert spaces and $T\in {\mathcal B}({\mathscr H}_1, {\mathscr H}_2)$. Then the *singular value* of $T$ of order $j\ge 1$ is defined by $$\sigma _j(T) = \sigma _j(T ,{\mathscr H}_1, {\mathscr H}_2)
\equiv \inf {\Vert T-T_0\Vert _{{\mathcal B}({\mathscr H}_1, {\mathscr H}_2))}},$$ where the infimum is taken over all linear operators $T_0$ from ${\mathscr H}_1$ to ${\mathscr H}_2$ of rank at most $j-1$. The set ${\mathscr I}_p({\mathscr H}_1, {\mathscr H}_2)$ of Schatten-von Neumann operators from ${\mathscr H}_1$ to ${\mathscr H}_2$ of order $p\in (0,\infty ]$ is the set of all $T\in {\mathcal B}({\mathscr H}_1, {\mathscr H}_2)$ such that $$\label{SchattenNormBanach}
{\Vert T\Vert _{{\mathscr I}_p({\mathscr H}_1, {\mathscr H}_2)}}
\equiv {\Vert \{Ê\sigma _j(T)Ê\}Ê_{j\ge 1}\Vert _{\ell ^p}}$$ is finite. We observe that ${\mathscr I}_p({\mathscr H}_1, {\mathscr H}_2)$ is contained in the set of compact operators from ${\mathscr H}_1$ to ${\mathscr H}_2$, when $p<\infty$.
We recall that if $p_0,p_1,p_2\in (0,\infty ]$, then $$\label{YoungSchatten}
\begin{gathered}
{\Vert T_2\circ T_1\Vert _{{\mathscr I}_{p_0}({\mathscr H}_1,{\mathscr H}_3)}}
\le
{\Vert T_1\Vert _{{\mathscr I}_{p_1}({\mathscr H}_1,{\mathscr H}_2)}}
{\Vert T_2\Vert _{{\mathscr I}_{p_2}({\mathscr H}_2,{\mathscr H}_3)}}
\quad \text{when}
\\[1ex]
T_1\in {\mathscr I}_{p_1}({\mathscr H}_1,{\mathscr H}_2),
\quad T_2\in {\mathscr I}_{p_2}({\mathscr H}_2,{\mathscr H}_3),\quad
\frac 1{p_1}+\frac 1{p_2}= \frac 1{p_0},
\end{gathered}$$ and refer to [@Si; @BS] for more facts about Schatten-von Neumann classes.
For convenience we set $${\mathscr I}_p(\omega _1,\omega _2) \equiv
{\mathscr I}_p({\mathscr H}_1, {\mathscr H}_2),$$ when ${\mathscr H}_k=M^2_{(\omega _k)}({\mathbf R^{d}})$, for some $\omega _k\in
{\mathscr P}_E({\mathbf R^{2d}})$, $k=1,2$. Moreover, if $t\in \mathbf R$ and then $s_{t,p}(\omega _1,\omega _2)$ is the set of all $a\in {\mathcal S}_{1/2}'({\mathbf R^{2d}})$ such that ${\operatorname{Op}}_{t}(a)\in {\mathscr I}_p(\omega _1,\omega _2)$, and we set $${\Vert a\Vert _{s_{t,p}(\omega _1,\omega _2)}}\equiv {\Vert {\operatorname{Op}}_{t}(a)\Vert _{{\mathscr I}_p(\omega _1,\omega _2)}}.$$ We also set $s_p^w(\omega _1,\omega _2)=s_{t,p}(\omega _1,\omega _2)$ in the Weyl case, i.e. when $t=1/2$. Moreover, if $\omega _1=\omega _2=1$, then we set $s_{t,p}({\mathbf R^{2d}})=s_{t,p}(\omega _1,\omega _2)$ and $s_p^w({\mathbf R^{2d}})=s_p^w(\omega _1,\omega _2)$.
We recall that $s_{t,p}(\omega _1,\omega _2)$ is a quasi-Banach space under the quasi-norm $a\mapsto
{\Vert a\Vert _{s_{t,p}(\omega _1,\omega _2)}}\equiv {\Vert {\operatorname{Op}}_t(a)\Vert _{{\mathscr I}_{p}
(\omega _1,\omega _2)}}$. Furthermore, if in addition $p\ge 1$, then $s_{t,p}(\omega _1,\omega _2)$ is a Banach space.
By Remark \[BijKernelsOps\] it follows that the map $a\mapsto {\operatorname{Op}}_t(a)$ from $s_{t,p}(\omega _1,\omega _2)$ to ${\mathscr I}_p(\omega _1, \omega _2)$ is bijective and norm preserving.
Symplectic vector spaces and H[ö]{}rmander symbol classes {#subsec1.8}
---------------------------------------------------------
A real vector space $W$ of dimension $2d$ is called *symplectic* if there is a non-degenerate and anti-symmetric bilinear form $\sigma$ (the symplectic form). By choosing symplectic coordinates $e_1,\dots ,e_d,{\varepsilon}_1,\dots ,{\varepsilon}_d$ in $W$, it follows that $$\sigma (X,Y) = {\langle y,\xi\rangle} -{\langle x,\eta\rangle} ,$$ with $$X=(x,\xi )= \sum _{k=1}^d(x_je_j+\xi _j{\varepsilon}_j)\in W,
\quad
Y=(y,\eta )= \sum _{k=1}^d(y_je_j+\eta _j{\varepsilon}_j)\in W,$$ which allows us to identify $W$ with the phase space $T^*V$ for some vector space $V$ of dimension $d$, or by $T^*{\mathbf R^{d}}\simeq {\mathbf R^{2d}}$.
The symplectic Fourier transform ${\mathscr F}_\sigma$ is the linear and continuous map on ${\mathcal S}_{1/2}'(W)$, given by $$({\mathscr F}_\sigma a)(X) = \pi ^{-d}\int _W a(Y)e^{2i\sigma (X,Y)}\, dY$$ when $a\in {\mathscr S}(W)$. If $X=(x,\xi )\in T^*{\mathbf R^{d}}=W$, then it follows that $({\mathscr F}_\sigma a)(X) = 2^d\widehat a(-2\xi ,2x)$.
Next we recall some notions on H[ö]{}rmander symbol classes, $S(m,g)$, parameterized by the Riemannian metric $g$ and the weight function $m$ on the $2d$ dimensional symplectic vector space $W$ (see e.g. [@BoCh; @BuTo; @Ho0; @Ho1; @Le; @Toft4]). The reader who is not interested of the Schatten-von Neumann results in Section \[sec4\] of pseudo-differential operators with symbols in $S(m,g)$ may pass to the next section.
The H[ö]{}rmander class $S(m,g)$ consists of all $a\in C^\infty (W)$ such that $${\Vert a\Vert _{m,N}}^g \equiv \sum _{k=0}^N \sup _{X\in W}(|a|_k^g(X)/m(X)),
\quad \text{where}\quad
|a|_k^g(X) = \sup |a^{(k)}(X;Y_1,\dots ,Y_k)|.$$ Here the latter supremum is taken over all $Y_1,\dots ,Y_k\in W$ such that $g_X(Y_j)\le 1$, $j=1,\dots ,k$, and $|a|_0^g(X)$ is interpreted as $|a(X)|$.
We need to add some conditions on $m$ and $g$. The metric $g$ is called *slowly varying* if there are positive constants $c$ and $C$ such that $$\label{Eq:SlowlyVar}
C^{-1}g_X \le g_Y \le Cg_X,\quad \text{when}\quad X,Y\in W$$ satisfy $g_X(X-Y)\le c$, and $m$ is called $g$-continuous when holds with $m(X)$ and $m(Y)$ in place of $g_X$ and $g_Y$, respectively, provided $g_X(X-Y)\le c$.
For the Riemannian metric $g$ on $W$, the *dual* metric $g^\sigma$ with respect to the symplectic form $\sigma$, and the *Planck’s function* $h_g$ are defined by $$g_X^\sigma (Z) \equiv \sup _{g_X(Y)\le 1}\sigma (Y,Z)^2
\qquad \text{and}\qquad
h_g(X) \equiv \sup _{g_X^\sigma (Y)\le 1}g_X(Y)^{1/2}.$$ Moreover, if $g$ is slowly varying and $m$ is $g$-continuous, then $g$ is called $\sigma$-temperate if there are positive constants $C$ and $N$ such that $$\label{Eq:Sigmatemp}
g_Y(Z)\le Cg_X(Z) (1+g_Y(X-Y))^N,\qquad X,Y,Z\in W,$$ and $m$ is called $(\sigma ,g)$-temperate if it is $g$-continuous and holds with $m(X)$ and $m(Y)$ in place of $g_X(Z)$ and $g_Y(Z)$, respectively.
Let $g$ be a Riemannian metric on W. Then $g$ is called *feasible* if it is slowly varying and $h_g\le 1$ everywhere. Furthermore, $g$ is called *strongly feasible* if it is feasible and $\sigma$-temperate.
We remark that the H[ö]{}rmander class $S^r_{\rho ,\delta}$ in [@Ho1], the ${\operatorname{SG}}$-class in [@Co; @Pa], the Shubin classes in [@Sh Definition 23.1] and other well-known families of symbol classes are given by $S(m.g)$ for suitable choices of strongly feasible metrics $g$ and $(\sigma ,g)$-temperate weights $m$.
Estimates for matrices {#sec2}
======================
In this section we deduce continuity and Schatten-properties for matrices in the classes $\mathbb U^{p ,q}(\omega ,\Lambda )$. In the first part we achieve convenient factorization results for matrices in the case when $p=q$ (cf. Theorem \[factorizationprop\]). Thereafter we establish the continuity properties (cf. Theorem \[matrixcont2\]). In the last part of the section we combine these factorizations and continuity results to establish Schatten properties for matrix operators (cf. Theorem \[MatrixSchatten\]).
Theorem \[factorizationprop\] below allows factorizations of matrices in $\mathbb U^{p}(\omega ,\Lambda )$ in suitable ways, when $\Lambda$ is given by . Here the involved weights should fulfill $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
\omega _1(j,j)\omega _2(j,k)&\le \omega _0(j,k),&
\qquad j,k &\in \Lambda \label{weightcond1}
\intertext{or}
\omega _1(j,k)\omega _2(k,k)&\le \omega _0(j,k),&
\qquad j,k &\in \Lambda \label{weightcond2}\end{aligned}$$ and the involved Lebesgue exponents should satisfy the H[ö]{}lder condition $$\label{holdercond}
\frac 1{p_0} \le \frac 1{p_1} + \frac 1{p_2},$$
\[factorizationprop\] Let $\Lambda$ be as in , $p _l\in (0, \infty ]$ be such that hold, $\omega _l$, $l=0,1,2$, be weights on ${\mathbf R^{2d}}$ , and let $A_0\in
\mathbb U^{p_0}(\omega _0,\Lambda )$. Then the following is true:
1. if holds, then $A_0=A_1\cdot A_2$ for some $A_l\in \mathbb U^{p_l}(\omega _l,\Lambda )$, $l=1,2$. Furthermore, $A_1$ can be chosen as a diagonal matrix;
2. if holds, then $A_0=A_1\cdot A_2$ for some $A_l\in \mathbb U^{p_l}(\omega _l,\Lambda )$, $l=1,2$. Furthermore, $A_2$ can be chosen as a diagonal matrix.
Moreover, the matrices in [[(1)]{}]{} and [[(2)]{}]{} can be chosen such that $$\label{multcont}
{\Vert A_1\Vert _{\mathbb U^{p_1}(\omega _1,\Lambda )}}
{\Vert A_2\Vert _{\mathbb U^{p_2}(\omega _2,\Lambda )}} \le {\Vert A_0\Vert _{\mathbb U^{p_0}(\omega _0,\Lambda )}}.$$
It is no restrictions to assume that equality is attained in , and by transposition it also suffices to prove (1).
We only prove the result for $p_0<\infty$. The small modifications to the case when $p_0=\infty$ are left for the reader. Let $a(j,k)$ be the matrix elements for $A_0$, and let $A_1 =(b(j,k))$ and $A_2=(c(j,k))$ be the matrices such that $$b(j,k) =
\begin{cases}
\big (\omega _1(j,j)\big )^{-1}
\displaystyle{\left (\sum _{m}|a(j,m)\omega _0(j,m)|^{p_0}\right
)^{1/{p_1}}},&\quad j=k
\\[3ex]
0,&\quad j\neq k
\end{cases}$$ and $c(j,k)=a(j,k)/b(j,j)$ when $b(j,j)\neq 0$, and $c(j,k)=0$ otherwise.
Since $$b(j,j)\ge (\omega _1(j,j))^{-1}|a(j,k)\omega _0(j,k)|^{p_0/p_1},
\quad \text{and}\quad
\frac 1{p_0} - \frac 1{p_1} = \frac 1{p_2},$$ gives $$\begin{gathered}
|c(j,k)\omega _2(j,k)|\le |a(j,k)|^{p_0/p_2}\omega _1(j,j)\omega _2(j,k)
/\omega _0(j,k)^{p_0/p_1}
\\[1ex]
\le |a(j,k)|^{p_0/p_2}\omega _0(j,k)^{p_0/p_2}.\end{gathered}$$ This in turn gives $$\begin{gathered}
{\Vert A_1\Vert _{\mathbb U^{p_1}(\omega _1,\Lambda )}} = \left ( \sum _{j,k}|b(j,k)
\omega _1(j,k)|^{p_1}\right )^{1/{p_1}}
\\[1ex]
=
\left ( \left ( \sum _j \left ( \sum _{m} |a(j,m)\omega _0(j,m)|^{p_0}
\right )^{1/p_1} \right )^{p_1} \right )^{1/p_1} =
{\Vert A_0\Vert _{\mathbb U^{p_0}(\omega _0,\Lambda )}}^{p_0/p_1},\end{gathered}$$ and $$\begin{gathered}
{\Vert A_2\Vert _{\mathbb U^{p_2}(\omega _2,\Lambda )}} =
\left (\sum _{j,k} |c(j,k)\omega _2(j,k)| ^{p_2}\right )^{1/{p_2}}
\\[1ex]
\le
\left ( \sum _{j,k} |a(j,k)\omega _0(j,k)|^{p_0}\right )^{1/{p_2}} =
{\Vert A_0\Vert _{\mathbb U^{p_0}(\omega _0,\Lambda )}}^{p_0/p_2}.\end{gathered}$$ Hence $A_l\in \mathbb U^{p_l}(\omega _l,\Lambda )$, $l=1,2$. Since $A_0=A_1\cdot
A_2$ and $p_0/p_1+p_0/p_2=1$, the result follows.
If the weights $\omega _l$, $l=0,1,2$, fulfill $$\label{weightcond3}
\omega _1(j,m)\omega _2(m,k)\le \omega _0(j,k),\qquad
\text{for every}\ j,k,m\in \Lambda ,$$ then it is evident that both and are fulfilled. Hence the following result is a special case of Theorem \[factorizationprop\].
\[factorizationprop2\] Let $\Lambda$ be as in , $p _l\in (0, \infty ]$ and let $\omega _l$, $l=0,1,2$, be weights on ${\mathbf R^{2d}}$ such that and hold, and let $A_0\in \mathbb U^{p_0}(\omega _0,\Lambda )$. Then $A_0=A_1\cdot A_2$ for some $A_l\in \mathbb U^{p_l}(\omega _l,\Lambda )$, $l=1,2$. Moreover, the matrices $A_1$ and $A_2$ can be chosen such that holds.
Next we deduce continuity results for matrix operators. We recall that if $A=(a(j,k))_{j,k\in \Lambda}$ is a matrix, then $Af$ is uniquely defined as an element in $\ell (\Lambda )$ when $f\in \ell _0(\Lambda )$, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
A\, &:\, & \ell _0(\Lambda ) &\mapsto \ell (\Lambda ). \label{Abmap1}
\intertext{Furthermore, if in addition $A$ belongs to $\mathbb U_0(\Lambda )$,
then $Af$ is uniquely defined as an element in $\ell _0(\Lambda )$ when $f\in l(\Lambda )$,
i.{\,}e.}
A\, &:\, & \ell (\Lambda ) &\mapsto \ell _0(\Lambda )\phantom ,\qquad \text{when}\quad
A\in \mathbb U_0(\Lambda ). \label{Abmap2}\end{aligned}$$
For $p\in [1,\infty ]$, its conjugate exponent $p'\in [1,\infty ]$ is usually defined by $1/p+1/p'=1$. For $p$ belonging to the larger interval $(0,\infty ]$ it is convenient to extend the definition of $p'$ as $$p'=
\begin{cases}
\ \ 1, & p=\infty
\\[1ex]
\displaystyle{\frac p{p-1}}, & 1<p<\infty
\\[1ex]
\ \ \infty , & 0<p\le 1 .
\end{cases}$$
The next theorem is the main result concerning the continuity for matrix operators.
\[matrixcont2\] Let $\sigma \in S_d$, $\theta \in \mathbf R^d_*$, $\Lambda =T_\theta {\mathbf Z^{d}}$, $\omega _l$ be weights on $\Lambda$, $l=1,2$, and $\omega _0$ be a weight on $\Lambda \times \Lambda$ such that holds. Also let ${{\boldsymbol p}}_1,{{\boldsymbol p}}_2\in (0,\infty]^n$, and $p,q\in (0,\infty]$ be such that $$\label{pqconditions}
\frac 1{{{\boldsymbol p}}_2}-\frac 1{{{\boldsymbol p}}_1} = \frac 1{p}+\min \left ( 0,\frac 1{q}-1\right ) ,
\quad q \le \min ({{\boldsymbol p}}_2)\le
\max ({{\boldsymbol p}}_2) \le p,
$$ and let $A\in \mathbb U^{p,q}(\omega _0,\Lambda )$. Then $A$ from $\ell _0(\Lambda )$ to $\ell (\Lambda )$ is uniquely extendable to a continuous map from $\ell ^{{{\boldsymbol p}}_1} _{\sigma ,(\omega _1)}(\Lambda )$ to $\ell ^{{{\boldsymbol p}}_2}
_{\sigma ,(\omega _2)}(\Lambda )$, and $$\label{Anormest}
{\Vert A\Vert _{{\mathcal B}(\ell ^{{{\boldsymbol p}}_1}_{\sigma ,(\omega _1)} (\Lambda )
, \ell ^{{{\boldsymbol p}}_2}_{\sigma ,(\omega _2)}(\Lambda ))}}\le
{\Vert A\Vert _{\mathbb U^{p,q}(\omega _0,\Lambda )}}.$$
We note that is the same as $$\label{Anormest2}
{\Vert Af\Vert _{\ell ^{{{\boldsymbol p}}_2}_{\sigma ,(\omega _2)}(\Lambda )}}\le {\Vert A\Vert _{\mathbb U^{p,q}(\omega _0,\Lambda )}}
{\Vert f\Vert _{\ell ^{{{\boldsymbol p}}_1}_{\sigma ,(\omega _1)} (\Lambda )}},\quad
f\in \ell ^{{{\boldsymbol p}}_1}_{\sigma ,(\omega _1)} (\Lambda ).$$
By permutation of the Lebesgue exponents, we reduce ourself to the case when $\sigma$ is the identity map. We consider the cases $q\le 1$ and $q\ge 1$ separately. Let $f\in \ell ^{{{\boldsymbol p}}_1}_{(\omega _1)}$, $h=h_{A,\infty ,\omega}$ be the same as in Definition \[matrixset1\], with $\omega =\omega _0$, and set $$c(k) = |f(k)\omega _1(k)|,
\quad
a_0 (j,k) = |a(j,j-k)\omega _0(j,j-k)|
\quad \text{and}\quad
g = Af.$$
First we consider the case when $p=\infty$, $q\le 1$, and in addition $A\in \mathbb U_0(\Lambda )$. Then ${{\boldsymbol p}}_1={{\boldsymbol p}}_2$, and we get $$\begin{gathered}
\label{MatrixComp1}
|g(j)\omega _2(j)|\le \sum _k |a(j,k)\omega _0(j,k)| \, c(k)
\\[1ex]
= \sum _k a_0(j,k) \, c(j-k)
\\[1ex]
\le \sum _k h(k) c(j-k) =(h*c)(j).\end{gathered}$$ Hence, Corollary 2.2 in [@Toft12] gives $$\label{MatrixComp2}
{\Vert Af\Vert _{\ell ^{{{\boldsymbol p}}_2}_{(\omega _2)}}} = {\Vert g\cdot \omega _2\Vert _{\ell ^{{{\boldsymbol p}}_2}}}\le {\Vert h\Vert _{\ell ^q}}{\Vert c\Vert _{\ell ^{{{\boldsymbol p}}_1}}}
= {\Vert A\Vert _{\mathbb U^{\infty ,q}(\omega _0,\Lambda )}}
{\Vert f\Vert _{\ell ^{{{\boldsymbol p}}_1}_{(\omega _1)}}},$$ and the result follows in this case.
For general $A\in \mathbb U^{\infty ,q}(\omega _0,\Lambda )$ we decompose $A$ and $f$ into $$A=A_1-A_2 +i(A_3-A_4)
\quad \text{and}\quad
f=f_1-f_2 +i(f_3-f_4),$$ where $A_j$ and $f_k$ only have non-negative entries, chosen as small as possible. By Beppo Levi’s theorem and the estimates above it follows that $A_jf_k$ is uniquely defined as an element in $\ell ^{{{\boldsymbol p}}_1}_{(\omega _1)}$. It also follows from these estimates holds, and we have proved the result in the case $p=\infty$ and $q\le 1$.
The case when $q\le 1$, $p<\infty$ and $A\in \mathbb U_0(\Lambda )$ is obtained by induction. Let $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
G_0(j) &\equiv |g(j)\omega _2(j)|, &
\quad
b_0(j,k)&\equiv a_0(j,k) = |a(j,j-k)\omega _0(j,j-k)|,
\\[1ex]
c_0(j) &\equiv c(j), & \quad
\Lambda _0 &\equiv \{ 0\}
\quad \text{and}\quad
\Lambda _0^* \equiv \Lambda = \theta _1\mathbf Z\times \cdots \times \theta _d\mathbf Z. \end{aligned}$$ Also let $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
{{\boldsymbol p}}_{l,m} &\equiv (p_{l,1},\dots ,p_{l,m}) &
\quad \text{when}\quad
{{\boldsymbol p}}_{l} &= (p_{l,1},\dots ,p_{l,d}),\ l=1,2,
\\[1ex]
\Lambda _m &\equiv \theta _1\mathbf Z \times \cdots \times \theta _m\mathbf Z, &
\quad
\Lambda _m^* &\equiv \theta _{m+1}\mathbf Z \times \cdots \times \theta _d\mathbf Z,
\\[1ex]
{\boldsymbol j}_m &= (j_{m+1},\dots ,j_d)\in \Lambda _m^* &
\quad \text{and}\quad
{\boldsymbol k}_m &= (k_{m+1},\dots ,k_d)\in \Lambda _m^*
\intertext{when}
j&=(j_1,\dots ,j_d)\in \Lambda &
\quad \text{and}\quad
k&=(k_1,\dots ,k_d)\in \Lambda ,\end{aligned}$$ and let $$b_m({\boldsymbol j}_m,{\boldsymbol k}_m) \equiv {\Vert a_{0,m}({\boldsymbol j}_m,{\, \cdot \, },{\boldsymbol k}_m)\Vert _{\ell ^q)(\Lambda _m)}}, \quad
m =1,\dots ,d,$$ where $$a_{0,m}({\boldsymbol j}_m,k) \equiv {\Vert a_0({\, \cdot \, },{\boldsymbol j}_m,k)\Vert _{\ell ^p(\Lambda _m)}}.$$ Define inductively $$\begin{gathered}
G_m({\boldsymbol j}_m) \equiv {\Vert G_{m-1}({\, \cdot \, },{\boldsymbol j}_m)\Vert _{\ell ^{p_{2,m}} (\theta _m\mathbf Z)}}
\quad \text{and}\quad
c_m({\boldsymbol j}_m) \equiv {\Vert c_{m-1}({\, \cdot \, },{\boldsymbol j}_m)\Vert _{\ell ^{p_{1,m}} (\theta _m\mathbf Z)}},\end{gathered}$$ when $m=1,\dots ,d$, where $\Lambda _d^*$, $G_d$ and $c_d$ are interpreted as $$\{ 0\} ,\quad
{\Vert G_{d-1}\Vert _{\ell ^{p_{2,d}}(\theta _d\mathbf Z)}} = {\Vert Af\Vert _{\ell ^{{{\boldsymbol p}}_2}_{(\omega _2)}}}
\quad \text{and} \quad
{\Vert c_{d-1}\Vert _{\ell ^{p_{1,d}}(\theta _d\mathbf Z)}} = {\Vert f\Vert _{\ell ^{{{\boldsymbol p}}_1}_{(\omega _1)}}},$$ respectively. We claim $$\label{Eq:GbcIneq}
G_m({\boldsymbol j}_m) \le
\left (
\sum _{{\boldsymbol k}_m\in \Lambda _m^*}\big ( b_m({\boldsymbol j}_m,{\boldsymbol k}_m)
c_m({\boldsymbol j}_m -{\boldsymbol k}_m)\big )^q,
\right )^{1/q}$$ for $m=0,\dots ,d$.
In fact, the case $m=0$ follows from the equality in and the fact that $q\le 1$. Suppose is true for $m-1$ in place of $m$, and let $r=p_{2,m}/q$. Then $r\in [1,\infty )$, since $p<\infty$ and $q\le p_{2,m}$. Hence, , and H[ö]{}lder’s and Minkowski’s inequalities in combination with the inductive assumptions give $$\begin{gathered}
G_m({\boldsymbol j}_m)^q
\le
\left (
\sum _{j_m\in \theta _m\mathbf Z}
\left (
\sum _{{\boldsymbol k}_{m-1}\in \Lambda _{m-1}^*}(b_{m-1}({\boldsymbol j}_{m-1},{\boldsymbol k}_{m-1})
c_{m-1}({\boldsymbol j}_{m-1}-{\boldsymbol k}_{m-1})
)^q
\right )^r
\right )^{1/r}
\\[1ex]
\le
\sum _{{\boldsymbol k}_{m-1}\in \Lambda _{m-1}^*}
\left (
\sum _{j_m\in \theta _m\mathbf Z}
(b_{m-1}({\boldsymbol j}_{m-1},{\boldsymbol k}_{m-1})
c_{m-1}({\boldsymbol j}_{m-1}-{\boldsymbol k}_{m-1})
)^{p_{2,m}}
\right )^{1/r}
\\[1ex]
\le
\sum _{{\boldsymbol k}_{m-1}\in \Lambda _{m-1}^*}
{\Vert b_{m-1}({\, \cdot \, },{\boldsymbol j}_m,{\boldsymbol k}_{m-1})\Vert _{\ell ^p(\theta _m\mathbf Z)}}^q
{\Vert c_{m-1}({\, \cdot \, },{\boldsymbol j}_{m}-{\boldsymbol k}_m)\Vert _{\ell ^{p_{1,m}}(\theta _m\mathbf Z)}}^q.\end{gathered}$$
We have $c_m({\boldsymbol j}_m)= {\Vert c_{m-1}({\, \cdot \, },{\boldsymbol j}_m)\Vert _{\ell ^{p_{1,m}}(\theta _m\mathbf Z)}}$, and $$\sum _{k_m\in \theta _m\mathbf Z}{\Vert b_{m-1}({\, \cdot \, },{\boldsymbol j}_m,k_m,{\boldsymbol k}_m)\Vert _{\ell ^p(\theta _m\mathbf Z)}}^q
\le
{\Vert a_{0,m}({\boldsymbol j}_m{\, \cdot \, },{\boldsymbol k}_m)\Vert _{\ell ^p(\theta _m\mathbf Z)}}^q,$$ by Minkowski’s inequality, and a combination of the previous inequalities give . Hence, by induction we have that holds for every $m=0,\dots ,d$, and by letting $m=d$ we obtain when $A\in \mathbb U_0(\Lambda )$. The result now follows for general $\mathbb U^{p,q}(\omega _0,\Lambda )$ when $p<\infty$ and $q\le 1$ by the fact that $\mathbb U_0(\Lambda )$ is dense in $\mathbb U^{p,q}(\omega _0,\Lambda )$.
Next we consider the case $q\in (1,\infty ]$, and assume first that $p=\infty$. Then $$\frac 1{{{\boldsymbol p}}_1}+\frac 1q = 1+\frac 1{{{\boldsymbol p}}_2}.$$ Hence, if $A\in \mathbb U^{\infty ,q}(\omega _0,\Lambda )$ and $f\in \ell _0(\Lambda)$, then and Young’s inequality give $${\Vert g\Vert _{\ell ^{{{\boldsymbol p}}_2}_{(\omega _2)}}} \le {\Vert h\Vert _{\ell ^q}}{\Vert c\Vert _{\ell ^{{{\boldsymbol p}}_1}}},$$ and follows in this case as well. Since $\max ({{\boldsymbol p}}_1)<\infty$ when $q>1$, the result follows for general $f\in \ell ^{{{\boldsymbol p}}_1}_{(\omega _1)}(\Lambda)$ from the fact that $\ell _0(\Lambda)$ is dense in $\ell ^{{{\boldsymbol p}}_1}_{(\omega _1)}(\Lambda)$.
For general $p$, the result now follows by multi-linear interpolation between the cases $(p,q)=(1,1)$ and $(p,q)=\{ \infty \} \times [1,\infty ]$, using Theorems 4.4.1 and 5.6.3 in [@BeLo]. The proof is complete.
The following consequence of the previous result is particularly important.
\[matrixcont1\] Let $\Lambda$ be as in , $p\in (0,\infty ]$, $\omega _l$, $l=1,2$ be weights on ${\mathbf R^{d}}$ and $\omega _0$ be a weight on ${\mathbf R^{2d}}$ such that $$\label{weightineq1}
\frac {\omega _2(j)}{\omega _1(k)} \le \omega _0(j,k),\qquad j,k\in \Lambda$$ holds. Also let $A\in \mathbb U^p (\omega _0,\Lambda )$. Then $A$ in is uniquely extendable to a continuous map from $\ell ^{p'} _{(\omega _1)}(\Lambda )$ to $\ell ^p_{(\omega _2)}(\Lambda )$, and $$\label{normest}
{\Vert A\Vert _{{\mathcal B}(\ell ^{p'} _{(\omega _1)}(\Lambda ), \ell ^p_{(\omega _2)}(\Lambda ))}}
\le {\Vert A\Vert _{\mathbb U^p(\omega _0,\Lambda )}}.$$
The next result deals with Schatten-von Neumann properties for matrix operators.
\[MatrixSchatten\] Let $\Lambda$ be as in , $\omega _l$, $l=1,2$ be weights on ${\mathbf R^{d}}$ and $\omega _0$ be a weight on ${\mathbf R^{2d}}$ such that holds. Also let $p\in (0,2]$, and let $A\in \mathbb U^p (\omega _0,\Lambda )$. Then $A\in {\mathscr I}_p(\ell ^2_{(\omega _1)}(\Lambda ),
\ell ^2_{(\omega _2)}(\Lambda ))$, and $$\label{Schattnormest1}
{\Vert A\Vert _{{\mathscr I}_p(\ell ^2_{(\omega _1)}(\Lambda ),\ell ^2_{(\omega _2)}(\Lambda ))}}
\le {\Vert A\Vert _{\mathbb U^p(\omega _0,\Lambda )}}.$$
We may assume that equality is attained in , and that ${\Vert A\Vert _{\mathbb U^p(\omega _0,\Lambda )}}=1$. Then it follows that $${\mathscr I}_2(\ell ^2_{(\omega _1)}(\Lambda ),\ell ^2_{(\omega _2)}(\Lambda )) =
\mathbb U^2 (\omega _0,\Lambda ),$$ with equality in norms.
First assume that $p=2/N$ for some integer $N\ge 3$, and let $A\in \mathbb U^{2/N} (\omega _0,\Lambda )$. Also let $\vartheta _1(j,k)=\omega _2(j)$, $\vartheta _m(j,k)=1$, $j=2,\dots ,N-1$ and $\vartheta _N(j,k)=\omega _1(k)$. By Theorem \[factorizationprop\] we have $$A=A_1\circ \cdots \circ A_N$$ for some $A_m \in \mathbb U^2 (\vartheta _m,\Lambda )$ which satisfy ${\Vert A_m\Vert _{\mathbb U^2 (\vartheta _m,\Lambda )}}\le 1$, $m=1,\dots ,N$.
By we get $$\begin{gathered}
{\Vert A\Vert _{{\mathscr I}_{2/N}(\ell ^2_{(\omega _1)},\ell ^2_{(\omega _2)})}} \le
{\Vert A_1\Vert _{{\mathscr I}_{2}(\ell ^2,\ell ^2_{(\omega _2)})}}
{\Vert A_N\Vert _{{\mathscr I}_{2}(\ell ^2_{(\omega _1)},\ell ^2)}}
\prod _{m=2}^{N-1} {\Vert A_m\Vert _{{\mathscr I}_{2}(\ell ^2,\ell ^2)}}
\\[1ex]
=
\prod _{m=2}^{N-1} {\Vert A_m\Vert _{\mathbb U^2 (\vartheta _m,\Lambda )}} \le 1,\end{gathered}$$ and the result follows in the case $p=2/N$.
The result is therefore true when $p=2/N$ for some integer $N\ge 3$, and when $p=2$. For $p\in [2/N,2]$, the result now follows by (real) interpolation between the cases $p=2$ and $p=2/N$, letting $q$, $p_\theta$, $p_k$, $q_k$ and $\theta \in [0,1]$, $k=0,1$, in Teorema 3.2, (3.11) and (3.13) in [@BS] be chosen such that $$q=p_\theta ,\quad q_0=p_0=\frac 2N ,\quad q_1=p_1=2
\quad \text{and}\quad
\frac 1{p_\theta} = \frac {1-\theta}{p_0}+\frac \theta{p_1}.$$
For general $p\in (0,2]$, the result now follows by choosing $N\ge 3$ such that $p>2/N$. The proof is complete.
Continuity and Schatten-von Neumann properties for pseudo-differential operators {#sec3}
================================================================================
In this section we deduce continuity and Schatten-von Neumann results for pseudo-differential operators with symbols in modulation spaces. In particular we extend results in [@GH1; @Gc2; @Toft2; @Toft5; @Toft11] to include Schatten and Lebesgue parameters less than one.
We start with the following result on continuity.
\[thmOpCont\] Let $t\in \mathbf R$, $\sigma \in \operatorname{S}_{2d}$, $\omega _1,\omega _2
\in \mathscr P_{E}({\mathbf R^{2d}})$ and $\omega _0\in \mathscr P_{E}({\mathbf R^{2d}}\oplus {\mathbf R^{2d}})$ be such that $$\frac {\omega _2(x,\xi )}{\omega _1
(y,\eta )} \lesssim \omega _0( (1-t)x+ty,t\xi +(1-t)\eta ,\xi -\eta ,y-x ).$$ Also let ${{\boldsymbol p}}_1,{{\boldsymbol p}}_2\in (0,\infty]^{2d}$, $p,q\in (0,\infty]$ be such that hold, and let $a\in M^{p,q}_{(\omega _0)}({\mathbf R^{2d}})$. Then ${\operatorname{Op}}_t(a)$ from $\mathcal S_{1/2}({\mathbf R^{d}})$ to $\mathcal S_{1/2}'({\mathbf R^{d}})$ extends uniquely to a continuous map from $M^{{{\boldsymbol p}}_1}
_{\sigma ,(\omega _1)}({\mathbf R^{d}})$ to $M^{{{\boldsymbol p}}_2}_{\sigma ,(\omega _2)}({\mathbf R^{d}})$, and $$\label{PsDOEst}
{\Vert {\operatorname{Op}}_t(a)\Vert _{{\mathcal B}(M^{{{\boldsymbol p}}_1}_{\sigma ,(\omega _1)},
M^{{{\boldsymbol p}}_2}_{\sigma ,(\omega _2)})}}
\lesssim
{\Vert a\Vert _{M^{p,q}_{(\omega _0)}}}.$$
We need some preparing lemmata for the proof. We recall that $\Lambda ^2=\Lambda \times \Lambda$ when $\Lambda$ is a lattice.
\[aFrames\] Let $v\in {\mathscr P}_E({\mathbf R^{4d}})$, $\phi _1,\phi _2\in \Sigma _1({\mathbf R^{d}})\setminus 0$, and let $$\Phi (x,\xi )=\phi _1(x)\overline {\widehat \phi _2(\xi )}e^{-i{\langle x,\xi\rangle} },$$ Then there is a lattice $\Lambda$ in such that $$\begin{aligned}
&\{ \Phi (x-j,\xi -\iota )e^{i({\langle x,\kappa\rangle} +{\langle k,\xi\rangle} )} \} _{(j, \iota ),(k, \kappa )
\in \Lambda ^2}
\intertext{is a Gabor frame with canonical dual frame}
&\{ \Psi (x-j,\xi -\iota )e^{i({\langle x,\kappa\rangle} +{\langle k,\xi\rangle} )} \}
_{(j,\iota ),(k,\kappa ) \in \Lambda ^2},\end{aligned}$$ where $\Psi = (S_{\Phi ,\Phi }^{\Lambda ^2\times \Lambda ^2})^{-1}\Phi$ belongs to $M^r _{(v)}({\mathbf R^{2d}})$ for every $r>0$.
Note that $\Phi$ in Lemma \[aFrames\] is the Rihaczek (cross)-distribution of $\phi _1$ and $\phi _2$ (cf. [@GrSt]).
The result follows from Remark \[RemThmS\], and the fact that $\Phi \in \Sigma _1({\mathbf R^{2d}})\setminus 0$ in view of [@CaTo Theorem 3.1] or [@CaWa Proposition 3.4] .
\[PsDoDisc\] Let $\Lambda$, $\phi _1$, $\phi _2$, $\Phi$ and $\Psi$ be as in Lemma \[aFrames\]. Also let $v\in {\mathscr P}_E ({\mathbf R^{4d}})$, $a\in M^\infty _{(1/v)}({\mathbf R^{2d}})$, $$\begin{gathered}
c_0({\boldsymbol j},{\boldsymbol k}) \equiv (V_\Psi a)(j,\kappa ,\iota -\kappa ,k-j)e^{i{\langle k-j,\kappa\rangle}},
\\[1ex]
\text{where}\quad {\boldsymbol j}=(j,\iota )\in \Lambda ^2 ,\ {\boldsymbol k}= (k,\kappa )\in \Lambda ^2.\end{gathered}$$ and let $A$ be the matrix $A=(c_0({\boldsymbol j},{\boldsymbol k})_{{\boldsymbol j},{\boldsymbol k}\in \Lambda ^2}$. Then the following is true:
1. if $p,q\in (0,\infty ]$ and $\omega ,\omega _0\in {\mathscr P}_E({\mathbf R^{4d}})$ satisfy $$\label{omega0omegaRel}
\omega (x,\xi ,y,\eta )\asymp \omega _0(x,\eta ,\xi -\eta ,y-x),$$ then $a\in M^{p,q}_{(\omega _0)}({\mathbf R^{2d}})$, if and only if $A\in \mathbb U^{p,q}(\omega ,\Lambda ^2 )$, and then $${\Vert a\Vert _{M^{p,q}_{(\omega _0)}}}\asymp
{\Vert A\Vert _{\mathbb U^{p,q}(\omega ,\Lambda ^2 )}}\text ;$$
2. ${\operatorname{Op}}(a)$ as a map from ${\mathcal S}_{1/2}({\mathbf R^{d}})$ to ${\mathcal S}_{1/2}'({\mathbf R^{d}})$, given by $$\label{OpaFactorization}
{\operatorname{Op}}(a) = D_{\phi _1} \circ A \circ C_{\phi _2}.$$
Some arguments in [@GrSt] appear in the proof of Lemma \[PsDoDisc\].
We have $$|c_0({\boldsymbol j},{\boldsymbol j}-{\boldsymbol k})| = | (V_\Psi a) (j,\iota -\kappa ,\kappa ,-k)|.$$ Hence, Proposition \[ConseqThmS\] (2) gives $${\Vert A\Vert _{\mathbb U^{p,q}(\omega ,\Lambda ^2 )}}
=
{\Vert V_\Psi a\Vert _{\ell ^{p,q}_{(\omega _0)}(\Lambda ^2 \times \Lambda ^2 )}}
\asymp
{\Vert a\Vert _{M^{p,q}_{(\omega _0)}}},$$ and (1) follows.
Next we prove (2). Let $f\in {\mathcal S}_{1/2}({\mathbf R^{d}})$, and let $$c({\boldsymbol j},{\boldsymbol k}) = (V_\Psi a)(j,\iota ,\kappa ,k).$$ By Proposition \[ConseqThmS\] we have $$a= \sum _{{\boldsymbol j},{\boldsymbol k}\in \Lambda ^2 }c({\boldsymbol j}, {\boldsymbol k})\Phi _{{\boldsymbol j}, {\boldsymbol k}},$$ where $$\Phi _{{\boldsymbol j}, {\boldsymbol k}}(x,\xi )= e^{i({\langle x,\kappa\rangle} +{\langle k,\xi\rangle})}\Phi (x-j,\xi -\iota ).$$ This gives $${\operatorname{Op}}(a) = \sum _{{\boldsymbol j},{\boldsymbol k}\in \Lambda ^2 }c({\boldsymbol j}, {\boldsymbol k})
{\operatorname{Op}}(\Phi _{{\boldsymbol j}, {\boldsymbol k}}),$$ and we shall evaluate ${\operatorname{Op}}(\Phi _{{\boldsymbol j}, {\boldsymbol k}})f$.
We have $$\Phi _{{\boldsymbol j}, {\boldsymbol k}}(x,\xi ) = \phi _1(x-j)\overline
{\widehat \phi _2(\xi -\iota )}e^{-i{\langle x-j,\xi -\iota \rangle}}e^{i({\langle x,\kappa\rangle} +{\langle k,\xi\rangle} )},$$ and by straight-forward computations we get $$({\operatorname{Op}}(\Phi _{{\boldsymbol j}, {\boldsymbol k}})f)(x) = \phi _1(x-j)e^{i{\langle x,\iota +\kappa \rangle}}e^{-i{\langle j,\iota\rangle}}
F_0({\boldsymbol j}, {\boldsymbol k}),$$ where $$F_0({\boldsymbol j}, {\boldsymbol k})
=
(2\pi )^{-d/2}\int \widehat f(\xi ) \overline {\widehat \phi _2(\xi -\iota )}
e^{i{\langle j+k,\xi\rangle}}\, d\xi = (V_{\widehat \phi _2}\widehat f)(\iota , -(j+k)).$$ Since $$(V_{\widehat \phi _2}\widehat f)(\xi ,-x) = e^{i{\langle x,\xi\rangle} }V_{\phi _2} f(x,\xi ),$$ we get $$({\operatorname{Op}}(\Phi _{{\boldsymbol j}, {\boldsymbol k}})f)(x) = \big (e^{i{\langle k,\iota\rangle}} V_{\phi _2} f(j+k,\iota )\big )
\phi _1(x-j)e^{i{\langle x,\iota +\kappa \rangle}}.$$
This gives $$\begin{gathered}
\label{OpaComp}
({\operatorname{Op}}(a)f)(x) = \sum _{{\boldsymbol j},{\boldsymbol k}\in \Lambda ^2} (V_\Psi a)(j,\iota ,\kappa ,k)
e^{i{\langle k,\iota\rangle}} V_{\phi _2} f(j+k,\iota )\phi _1(x-j)e^{i{\langle x,\iota +\kappa \rangle}}
\\[1ex]
= \sum _{{\boldsymbol j},{\boldsymbol k}\in \Lambda ^2} (V_\Psi a)(j,\kappa ,\iota -\kappa ,k-j)
e^{i{\langle k-j,\kappa\rangle}} V_{\phi _2} f({\boldsymbol k})\phi _1(x-j)e^{i{\langle x,\iota\rangle}}
\\[1ex]
= \sum _{{\boldsymbol j}\in \Lambda ^2} h({\boldsymbol j})\phi _1(x-j)e^{i{\langle x,\iota\rangle}},\end{gathered}$$ where $$h({\boldsymbol j}) = \sum _{{\boldsymbol k}\in \Lambda ^2} c_0({\boldsymbol j},{\boldsymbol k})
V_{\phi _2} f({\boldsymbol k}).$$ The result now follows from the facts that $h=A\cdot (C_{\phi _2}f)$ and that the right-hand side of is equal to $(D_{\phi _1}h)(x)$.
By Proposition 1.7 in [@Toft12] and its proof, it suffices to prove the result for $t=0$. Let $\omega$, $\omega _0$, $\Lambda$, $\phi _1$, $\phi _2$ and $A$ be as in Lemma \[PsDoDisc\]. Then $$\label{SynthOps}
C_{\phi _2}\, :\, M^{{{\boldsymbol p}}_1}_{(\omega _1)}({\mathbf R^{d}}) \to
\ell ^{{{\boldsymbol p}}_1}_{(\omega _1)}(\Lambda ^2)
\quad \text{and}\quad
D_{\phi _1}\, :\, \ell ^{{{\boldsymbol p}}_2}_{(\omega _2)}(\Lambda ^2 )
\to M^{{{\boldsymbol p}}_2}_{(\omega _2)}({\mathbf R^{d}})$$ are continuous.
Furthermore, since $$\frac {\omega _2(x,\xi )}{\omega _1(y,\eta )}\lesssim
\omega _0(x,\eta ,\xi -\eta ,y-x),$$ it follows from that $$\frac {\omega _2(X)}{\omega _1(Y)}\lesssim
\omega (X ,Y),\quad X=(x,\xi )\in {\mathbf R^{2d}},\ Y=(y,\eta )\in {\mathbf R^{2d}}.$$ holds. Hence Theorem \[matrixcont2\] shows that $$A \, :\, \ell ^{{{\boldsymbol p}}_1}_{(\omega _1)}(\Lambda ^2 ) \to
\ell ^{{{\boldsymbol p}}_2}_{(\omega _2)}(\Lambda ^2 )$$ is continuous. Hence, if ${\operatorname{Op}}(a)$ is defined by , it follows that ${\operatorname{Op}}(a)$ from ${\mathcal S}_{1/2}({\mathbf R^{d}})$ to ${\mathcal S}_{1/2}'({\mathbf R^{d}})$ extends to a continuous map from $M^{{{\boldsymbol p}}_1}_{(\omega _1)}({\mathbf R^{d}})$ to $M^{{{\boldsymbol p}}_2}_{(\omega _2)}({\mathbf R^{d}})$.
It remains to prove the uniqueness of the extension, If $\max ({{\boldsymbol p}}_1 )<\infty$, then the uniqueness follows from the fact that ${\mathcal S}_{1/2}({\mathbf R^{d}})$ is dense in $M^{{{\boldsymbol p}}_1}_{(\omega _1)}({\mathbf R^{d}})$. If instead $p<\infty$, then $q<\infty$, and ${\mathcal S}_{1/2}({\mathbf R^{2d}})$ is dense in $M^{p,q}_{(\omega _0)}({\mathbf R^{2d}})$. The uniqueness now follows in this case from $'$, and the fact that ${\operatorname{Op}}(a)$ is uniquely defined as an operator from ${\mathcal S}_{1/2}'({\mathbf R^{d}})$ to ${\mathcal S}_{1/2}({\mathbf R^{d}})$, when $a\in {\mathcal S}_{1/2}({\mathbf R^{2d}})$.
Finally assume that $p=\infty$ and $\max ({{\boldsymbol p}}_1 ) =\infty$. Then $'$ shows that $q\le 1$. In particular, if $f\in M^{{{\boldsymbol p}}_1}_{(\omega _1)}({\mathbf R^{d}})$ then $f\in M^\infty _{(\omega _1)}({\mathbf R^{d}})$. The uniqueness now follows from the fact that ${\operatorname{Op}}(a)f$ is uniquely defined as an element in $M^\infty _{(\omega _2)}({\mathbf R^{d}})$, in view of Theorem A.2 in [@Toft11].
We have also the following result on Schatten-von Neumann properties for pseudo-differential operators.
\[thmOpSchatten\] Let $t\in \mathbf R$, $\omega _1,\omega _2\in \mathscr P_{E}({\mathbf R^{2d}})$ and $\omega _0\in \mathscr P_{E}({\mathbf R^{2d}}\oplus {\mathbf R^{2d}})$ be such that $$\label{Eq:omegajCond}
\frac {\omega _2(x,\xi )}{\omega _1
(y,\eta )} \asymp \omega _0( (1-t)x+ty,t\xi +(1-t)\eta ,\xi -\eta ,y-x )$$ Also let $p,p_j,q,q_j\in (0,\infty ]$ be such that $$p_1\le p,\quad q_1\le \min (p,p'),\quad p_2\ge \max (p,1),
\quad q_2\ge \max (p,p').$$ Then $$\label{ModSchattenEmb}
M^{p_1,q_1}_{(\omega _0)}({\mathbf R^{2d}})
\subseteq
s_{t,p}(\omega _1,\omega _2)
\subseteq
M^{p_2,q_2}_{(\omega _0)}({\mathbf R^{2d}})$$ and $$\label{PsDOEstSchatt}
{\Vert a\Vert _{M^{p_2,q_2}_{(\omega _0)}}}\lesssim
{\Vert a\Vert _{s_{t,p}(\omega _1,\omega _2)}}\lesssim
{\Vert a\Vert _{M^{p_1,q_1}_{(\omega _0)}}}.$$
We use the same notations as in the proof of Theorem \[thmOpCont\]. The result is true for $p\in [1,\infty ]$ in view of Theorem A.3 in [@Toft11] and Proposition \[p1.4A\]. Hence it suffices to prove the assertion for $p\in (0,1)$.
By Proposition 1.7 in [@Toft12] and its proof, it suffices to prove the result for $t=0$.
It follows from and that $$\begin{gathered}
{\Vert {\operatorname{Op}}(a)\Vert _{\mathscr I_p(\omega _1, \omega _2)}}
=
{\Vert D_{\phi _1} \circ A \circ C_{\phi _1}\Vert _{{\mathscr I}_p(\omega _1, \omega _2)}}
\\[1ex]
\lesssim
{\Vert D_{\phi _1}\Vert _{{\mathscr I}_\infty {(\ell ^2_{(\omega _2)}(\Lambda ^2 ),M^2_{(\omega _2)})}}}
{\Vert A\Vert _{{\mathscr I}_p {(\ell ^2_{(\omega _1)}(\Lambda ^2 ),
\ell ^2_{(\omega _2)}(\Lambda ^2 ) ) }}}
{\Vert C_{\phi _2}\Vert _{{\mathscr I}_\infty {(M^2_{(\omega _1)},\ell ^2_{(\omega _1)} (\Lambda ^2 ) )}}}
\\[1ex]
\asymp
{\Vert A\Vert _{{\mathscr I}_p {(\ell ^2_{(\omega _1)}(\Lambda ^2 ),
\ell ^2_{(\omega _2)}(\Lambda ^2 ) ) }}}
\lesssim {\Vert A\Vert _{\mathbb U^{p,p}(\omega ,\Lambda ^2 )}}
\asymp {\Vert a\Vert _{M^{p,p}_{(\omega _0)}}},\end{gathered}$$ and the result follows.
Theorems \[thmOpCont\] and \[thmOpSchatten\] are related to certain results [@MoPf; @Pf] when the involved weights are trivial, and the involved Lebesgue exponents belong the subset $[1,\infty ]$ of $(0,\infty ]$. More precisely, let ${{\boldsymbol p}}\in [1,\infty ]^{4d}$ be given by $${{\boldsymbol p}}=(p_1,\dots ,p_1,p_2,\dots ,p_2,q_1,\dots ,q_1,q_2,\dots ,q_2),$$ and each $p_j$ and $q_j$ occur $d$ times. Then S. Molahajloo and G. E. Pfander investigate in [@MoPf; @Pf], continuity of pseudo-differential operators with symbols in $M^{{{\boldsymbol p}}}({\mathbf R^{2d}})$, when acting between $M^{r_1,s_1}({\mathbf R^{d}})$ and $M^{r_2,s_2}({\mathbf R^{d}})$, for some $r_j,s_j\in [1,\infty ]$ (cf. Theorem 1.3 in [@MoPf]).
We note that there are some overlaps between Theorems \[thmOpCont\] and \[thmOpSchatten\] and the results in [@MoPf; @Pf]. On the other hand, the results in [@MoPf; @Pf], and Theorems \[thmOpCont\] and \[thmOpSchatten\] do not contain each others, since the assumptions on the symbols are more restrictive in Theorems \[thmOpCont\] and \[thmOpSchatten\], while the assumptions on domains and image spaces are more restrictive in [@MoPf; @Pf].
Next we show that Theorem \[thmOpSchatten\] is optimal with respect to $p$. More precisely, we have the following result
\[SchattenConverse\] Let $t\in \mathbf R$, $\omega _k\in \mathscr P_{E}({\mathbf R^{2d}})$, $k=1,2$, and $\omega _0\in \mathscr P_{E}({\mathbf R^{2d}}\oplus {\mathbf R^{2d}})$ be such that holds. Also let $p,q,r\in (0,\infty ]$, and suppose $$\label{SchattenModIncl}
M^{p,q}_{(\omega _0)}({\mathbf R^{2d}})\subseteq s_{t,r}
(\omega _1, \omega _2).$$ Then the following is true:
1. $p\le r$ and $q\le \min (2,r)$;
2. if in addition $\omega _1,\omega _2 \in {\mathscr P}({\mathbf R^{2d}})$ and $r\ge 2$, then $q\le p'$.
We need some preparations for the proof. The following result concerning Wigner distributions extends [@Toft11 Proposition A.4] to involve Lebesgue exponents smaller than one (cf. ). We omit the proof since the arguments are the same as in the proof of [@Toft11 Proposition A.4]. (See also [@Gc2; @Toft5] and the references therein for related results.)
\[t-WignerMod\] Let $t\in \mathbf R$, and let $p_j,q_j,p,q\in (0,\infty ]$ be such that $p\le p_j,q_j\le q$, for $j=1,2$, and $$\label{(A.8)}
1/p_1+1/p_2=1/q_1+1/q_2=1/p+1/q.$$ Also let $\omega _1,\omega _2\in {\mathscr P}_E({\mathbf R^{2d}})$ and $\omega \in {\mathscr P}_E({\mathbf R^{2d}}\oplus {\mathbf R^{2d}})$ be such that $$\label{(A.9)}
\omega _0( (1-t)x+ty,t\xi +(1-t)\eta ,\xi -\eta ,y-x )
\lesssim
\omega _1(x,\xi )\omega _2(y,\eta ).$$ Then the map $(f_1,f_2)\mapsto W_{f_1,f_2}^t$ from ${\mathcal S}_{1/2}'({\mathbf R^{d}})\times {\mathcal S}_{1/2}'({\mathbf R^{d}})$ to ${\mathcal S}_{1/2}'({\mathbf R^{2d}})$ restricts to a continuous mapping from $M^{p_1,q_1}_{(\omega _1)}({\mathbf R^{d}})\times
M^{p_2,q_2}_{(\omega _2)}({\mathbf R^{d}})$ to $M^{p,q}_{(\omega _0
)}({\mathbf R^{2d}})$, and $$\label{(A.10)}
{\Vert W_{f_1,f_2}^t\Vert _{M^{p,q}_{(\omega _0)}}}
\lesssim
{\Vert f_1\Vert _{M^{p_1,q_1}_{(\omega _1)}}} {\Vert f_2\Vert _{M^{p_2,q_2}_{(\omega _2)}}}$$ when $f_1,f_2\in {\mathcal S}_{1/2}'({\mathbf R^{d}})$.
We have now the following extension of Corollary 4.2 (1) in [@Toft2].
\[cor4.2\] Let $p\in (0,\infty ]$, $q\in (2,\infty ]$, $t\in \mathbf R$, and let $\omega _2\in {\mathscr P}_E({\mathbf R^{2d}})$ and $\omega _0\in {\mathscr P}_E({\mathbf R^{4d}})$ be such that $$\omega _0((1-t)x,t\xi ,\xi ,-x)\lesssim \omega _2(x,\xi ).$$ Then there is an element $a$ in $M^{p,q}_{(\omega _0)}({\mathbf R^{2d}})$ such that ${\operatorname{Op}}_t(a)$ is not continuous from ${\mathcal S}_{1/2}({\mathbf R^{d}})$ to $M^{2,2}_{(\omega _2)}({\mathbf R^{d}})$.
Let $a=W ^t_{f_2,f_1}$, where $f_1\in \Sigma _1({\mathbf R^{d}})\setminus 0$ and $f_2\in
M^{q,p}_{(\omega _2)}({\mathbf R^{d}})\setminus M^{2,2}_{(\omega _2)}({\mathbf R^{2d}})$. Such choices of $f_2$ are possible in view of Proposition \[ConseqThmS\].
By using the fact that $\omega _0$ and $\omega _2$ are moderate weights, it follows that holds when $\omega _1(x,\xi )
=e^{c(|x|+|\xi |)}$, and the constant $c>0$ is chosen large enough. By Proposition \[p1.4A\], it follows that $f_1\in
M^{p,q}_{(\omega _1)}({\mathbf R^{d}})$. Hence $a\in M^{p,q}_{(\omega _0)}({\mathbf R^{2d}})$ in view of Proposition \[t-WignerMod\].
On the other hand, if $f\in {\mathcal S}_{1/2}({\mathbf R^{d}})\setminus 0$ is chosen such that $f$ and $f_1$ are not orthogonal, then $${\operatorname{Op}}_t(a)f = (f,f_1)\cdot f_2\in
M^{q,p}_{(\omega _2)}({\mathbf R^{d}})\setminus M^{2,2}_{(\omega _2)}({\mathbf R^{2d}}),$$ and the result follows.
We also need the following lemma. We omit the proof since the result is a special case of Proposition 4.3 in [@Toft12]. Here $\check f$ is defined as $\check f(x) = f(-x)$ when $f\in {\mathcal S}_{1/2}'({\mathbf R^{d}})$, and recall from Subsection \[subsec1.8\] that $({\mathscr F}_\sigma a)(X) = 2^d\widehat a(-2\xi ,2x)$ when $X=(x,\xi )
\in {\mathbf R^{2d}}$.
\[identification1\] Let $\omega _1,\omega _2\in {\mathscr P}_E({\mathbf R^{2d}})$, $a\in
\mathscr S'({\mathbf R^{2d}})$, and that $p\in (0,\infty ]$. Then $${\mathscr F}_\sigma (s_p^w(\omega _1,\omega _2))
=
s_p^w(\omega _1,\check \omega _2).$$
We may assume that $t=1/2$, and consider first the case when $1\le r$. Let ${\EuScript M}^{p,q}_{(\omega )}({\mathbf R^{2d}})$ and ${\EuScript W}^{p,q}_{(\omega )}({\mathbf R^{2d}})$ be the modulation spaces when the symplectic Fourier transform is used instead of the ordinary Fourier transform in the definition of modulation space norms of $M^{p,q}_{(\omega )}({\mathbf R^{2d}})$ and $W^{p,q}_{(\omega)}({\mathbf R^{2d}})$, respectively. Then is equivalent to $${\operatorname{Op}}^w({\EuScript M}^{p,q}_{(\omega )}) \subseteq {\mathscr I}_r
(\omega _1,\omega _2),
\quad \text{when}\quad
\frac {\omega _2(X-Y)}{\omega _1(X+Y)} \asymp \omega (X,Y)$$ (see e.g. [@Toft11]). Let $\phi \in \Sigma ({\mathbf R^{2d}})$ and $\Lambda$ in be chosen such that $\{ \phi ( {\, \cdot \, }-{\boldsymbol j})e^{-2i\sigma ({\, \cdot \, },{\boldsymbol k})}\}
_{{\boldsymbol j},{\boldsymbol k}\in \Lambda ^2}$ is a Gabor frame. Also let $\vartheta ({\boldsymbol k})=\omega (0,{\boldsymbol k})$, $c\in \ell ^\infty _{(\vartheta )}(\Lambda ^2)$, $c_0(0,{\boldsymbol k})
=c({\boldsymbol k})$ and $c_0({\boldsymbol j},{\boldsymbol k}) = 0$ when ${\boldsymbol j}\neq 0$, and let $$a(X) \equiv \sum _{{\boldsymbol k}\in \Lambda ^2}c({\boldsymbol k})\phi (X)
e^{-2i\sigma (X,{\boldsymbol k})}
=
\sum _{{\boldsymbol j},{\boldsymbol k}\in \Lambda ^2}c_0({\boldsymbol j},{\boldsymbol k})
\phi (X-{\boldsymbol j})e^{-2i\sigma (X,{\boldsymbol k})}.$$ Then $a\in {\EuScript M}^{p,\infty}_{(\omega )}({\mathbf R^{2d}})$ for every $p\in (0,\infty ]$. Furthermore, $$\label{aDiffModEq}
a\in {\EuScript M}^{p,q}_{(\omega )}
\quad \Longleftrightarrow \quad
a\in {\EuScript W}^{p,q}_{(\omega )}
\quad \Longleftrightarrow \quad
c\in \ell ^q_{(\vartheta )}$$ holds for every $p,q\in (0,\infty ]$.
Now if $q>r$, then choose $c\in \ell ^q_{(\vartheta )}\setminus \ell
^r_{(\vartheta )}$, and it follows from and that $a\in {\EuScript M}^{p,q}_{(\omega )}
\setminus s^w_r(\omega _1,\omega _2)$. This shows that $q\le r$ when holds.
Assume instead that $p>r$, let $q\in (0,\infty ]$ be arbitrary, choose $c\in \ell ^p_{(\vartheta )}\setminus \ell ^r_{(\vartheta )}$, and consider $$b=\mathscr F_\sigma a \in \mathscr F_\sigma {\EuScript W}^{q,p}_{(\omega )}
= {\EuScript M}^{p,q}_{(\omega _{T})},\qquad \omega _{T}(X,Y)= \omega (Y,X).$$ By Lemma \[identification1\], and it follows that $b\notin s^w_r(\omega _1,\check \omega _2)$. This shows that $p\le r$ when holds, and the result follows in the case $r\ge 1$.
Next assume that $r<1$. If holds for some $q>r$, then it follows by (real) interpolation between the cases and $${\operatorname{Op}}^2({\EuScript M}^{2,2}_{(\omega )}({\mathbf R^{2d}}))= {\mathscr I}_2(M^2_{(\omega _1)}({\mathbf R^{d}}),
M^2_{(\omega _2)}({\mathbf R^{d}}))$$ that holds for $r=1$ and some $q>1$. This contradicts the first part of the proof. If instead holds for some $p>r$, then it again follows by interpolation that holds for $r=1$ and some $p>1$, which again contradicts the first part of the proof. This shows that $p,q\le r$ if should hold. Furthermore, by Corollary it follows that $q\le 2$ when holds, and (1) follows.
It remains to prove (2). By [@GH1 Corollary 3.5] it follows that the result is true for trivial weights in the modulation space norms, and the result is carried over to the case with non-trivial weights by using lifting properties, established in [@GrochToft1]. The proof is complete.
Applications to the H[ö]{}rmander-Weyl calculus {#sec4}
===============================================
In this section we apply the results in the previous section to deduce Schatten-von Neumann properties in the H[ö]{}rmander-Weyl calculus. (See e.g. [@Le; @Toft4], Sections 18.4–18.6 in [@Ho1] and Subsection \[subsec1.8\] for approaches or notations.)
The following result is a consequence of Theorem 4.4 (1) in [@Toft4] in the case $p\ge 1$, while the latter result do not touch the case when $p<1$.
\[thm:WeylHorm1\] Let $p\in (0,2]$, $g$ be feasible on $W$, and let $m$ be a $g$-continuous weight on $W$ such that $m\in L^p(W)$. Then $S(m,g)\subseteq s_p^w(W)$.
We need some preparations for the proofs. First we recall that for any feasible metric $g$ and any $X\in W$, there are symplectic coordinates, and numbers $$0<\lambda _d(X)\le \dots \le \lambda _1(X)\le 1$$ such that $$g_X(Y) = \sum _{k=1}^d \lambda _k(X)(y_k^2+\eta _k^2),
\quad
g_X^\sigma (Y) = \sum _{k=1}^d \lambda _k(X)^{-1}(y_k^2+\eta _k^2),$$ where $Y=(y,\eta )\in W$ in these coordinates. The intermediate metric $$g^{{}_0}_X(Y) = \sum _{k=1}^d (y_k^2+\eta _k^2)$$ is symplectically invariant defined and is *symplectic*, i.e. $(g^{{}_0})^\sigma =g^{{}_0}$.
We have the following lemma.
\[prop:sumOpsSchatten\] Let $p\in (0,1]$, ${\mathscr H}_1$ and ${\mathscr H}_2$ be Hilbert spaces, and let $T_j\in {\mathcal B}({\mathscr H}_1,{\mathscr H}_2)$, $j\ge 1$. Then $${\Vert T\Vert _{{\mathscr I}_p({\mathscr H}_1,{\mathscr H}_2)}}
\le
\left (\sum _{k=1}^\infty {\Vert T_k\Vert _{{\mathscr I}_p({\mathscr H}_1,{\mathscr H}_2)}}^p \right )^{1/p},
\qquad
T=\sum _{k=1}^\infty T_k ,$$ provided the right-hand side makes sense as an element in ${\mathcal B}({\mathscr H}_1,{\mathscr H}_2)$.
We refer to [@Pe Appendix 1.1] for the proof of Lemma \[prop:sumOpsSchatten\].
\[prop:sumOpsSchatten2\] Let $p\in (0,1]$, $t\in \mathbf R$ and $a\in {\mathscr S}'({\mathbf R^{2d}})$. Also let $\{ÊÊ{\varphi}_j Ê\} _{j\in I}$ be a sequence in ${\mathscr S}({\mathbf R^{2d}})$ such that $0\le {\varphi}_j\le 1$ for every $j$ and $$\sum _{j\in I}{\varphi}_j =1.$$ Then $$\label{stpSumEst}
{\Vert a\Vert _{s_{t,p}({\mathbf R^{2d}})}}
\le
\left ( \sum _{j\in I} {\Vert {\varphi}_ja\Vert _{s_{t,p}({\mathbf R^{2d}})}}^p \right )^{1/p}.$$
Let $a_j={\varphi}_ja$, $I_k\subseteq I$, $k\ge 1$ be a sequence of increasing and finite sets such that $\bigcup _{k=1}^\infty I_k=I$, and set $b_k=\sum _{j\in I_k}a_j$. We may assume that $$\label{Eq:SumajEst}
\sum _{j\in I} {\Vert a_j\Vert _{s_{t,p}}}^p<\infty ,$$ since otherwise there is nothing to prove.
If $k_1\le k_2$, then Lemma \[prop:sumOpsSchatten\] gives $$\label{Eq:bkEsts}
{\Vert b_{k_2}-b_{k_1}\Vert _{s_{t,p}}}^p \le \sum _{j\in I_{k_2}\setminus I_{k_1}}
{\Vert a_j\Vert _{s_{t,p}}}^p
\quad\text{and}\quad
{\Vert b_k\Vert _{s_{t,p}}}^p \le \sum _{j\in I_k} {\Vert a_j\Vert _{s_{t,p}}}^p.$$ By we get ${\Vert b_{k_2}-b_{k_1}\Vert _{s_{t,p}}}\to 0$ as $k_1,k_2\to \infty$, and by completeness, there is a unique element $b\in {s_{t,p}}$ such that ${\Vert b_k-b\Vert _{s_{t,p}}}\to 0$ as $k\to \infty$.
Since $s_{t,p}\subseteq s_{t,2}=L^2$, we get $b\in L^2$ and $b_k\to b$ in $L^2$ as well when $k\to \infty$. Furthermore, since $|b_k|\le |a|$ and $b_k\to a$ pointwise, Beppo Levi’s theorem gives that $a\in L^2$ and $a=b$. The result now follows by letting $k$ tends to $\infty$ in .
Since $S(m,g)\subseteq
S(m,g^{{}_0})$ when $g^{{}_0}$ is the symplectic metric of $g$, and that $m$ is $g^{{}_0}$-continuous when $m$ is $g$-continuous, we may assume that $g$ is symplectic. (Cf. [@Toft4].)
Let $c>0$, $C>0$, $I$, $X_j$, $U_j$ and ${\varphi}_j$ be chosen as in Remarks 2.3 and 2.4 in [@Toft4], except that we may assume that $c>0$ and $C>0$ was chosen such that $$\begin{gathered}
C^{-1}m(X)\le m(Y)\le Cm(X)
\quad \text{and}\quad
C^{-1}g_X\le g_Y\le Cg_X
\\[1ex]
\text{when}\quad g_Y(X-Y)<2c\end{gathered}$$ Also set $a_j={\varphi}_ja$. Then ${\operatorname{supp}}a_j\subseteq U_j$, and the set of $a_j$ is bounded in $S(m,g)$. We first estimate ${\Vert a_j\Vert _{s_p^w}}$ for a fixed $j\in I$.
Let $B_r(X_0)$ denotes the open ball with center at $X_0$ and radius $r$, $\Phi \in C_0^\infty (B_1(0))\setminus 0$ be such that $0\le \Phi \le 1$, and choose symplectic coordinates $X=(x,\xi )\in {\mathbf R^{d}}\times {\mathbf R^{d}}\simeq
{\mathbf R^{2d}}$ such that $g_{X_j}$ takes the form $$g_{X_j}(X) = g_{X_j}(x,\xi ) = |X|^2=|x|^2 + |\xi |^2,$$ in these coordinates. Then for every multi-index $\alpha$, we have $\partial _g^\alpha = \partial _x^{\alpha _1}\partial _\xi ^{\alpha _2}$ for some $\alpha _1$ and $\alpha _2$ such that $\alpha _1+\alpha _2=\alpha$, and the support of $a_j$ is contained in $B_c(X_j)$. Let $N\ge 0$ be an integer such that $Np>d$. By Theorem 3.1 in [@GaSa] and Theorem \[thmOpSchatten\] we get $$\begin{gathered}
\label{ajSchattenEst1}
{\Vert a_j\Vert _{s_p^w}}^p \le C_1\iiiint | V_\Phi a_j(x,\xi ,\eta ,y)|^p\, dxd\xi d\eta dy
\\[1ex]
\le C_2\sum _{|\alpha +\beta|=2N} \iiiint | V_{\partial ^\beta \Phi} (\partial
^\alpha a_j)(x,\xi ,\eta ,y){\langle (y,\eta )\rangle}^{-2N}|^p\, dxd\xi d\eta dy
\\[1ex]
\le C_3\sum _{|\alpha \le 2N} \iiiint | V_\Phi (\partial
^\alpha a_j)(x,\xi ,\eta ,y)|^p{\langle (y,\eta )\rangle}^{-2Np}\, dxd\xi d\eta dy,\end{gathered}$$ for some constants $C_1,\dots ,C_3$ which are independent of $j\in I$.
We shall estimate the last integrand in . Let $\chi _{0,j}$ be the characteristic function of $U_j=B_c(X_j)$, and let $\chi _j$ be the characteristic function of $U_j=B_{1+c}(X_j)$. Then $$|(\partial ^\alpha a_j)(X)|\le C_{1,\alpha}m(X)\chi _{0,j}(X)
\le C_{2,\alpha}m(X_j)\chi _{0,j}(X),$$ for some constants $C_{1,\alpha}$ and $C_{2,\alpha}$, which only depend on $\alpha$. Here the last step follows from the fact that $m$ is $g$-continuous. This gives $$\begin{gathered}
| V_\Phi (\partial ^\alpha a_j)(x,\xi ,\eta ,y)|
\le
(2\pi )^{-d/2}\int _{{\mathbf R^{2d}}} |(\partial ^\alpha a_j)(Z-X)|\Phi (Z)\, dZ
\\[1ex]
\le
C_{3,\alpha}m(X_j)\int _{{\mathbf R^{2d}}} |\chi _{0,j}(Z-X)|\Phi (Z)\, dZ
\le
C_{4,\alpha}m(X_j)\chi _j(X)
\\[1ex]
=
C_{5,\alpha}\left (m(X_j)^p\int {\varphi}_j(Z)\, dZ \right )^{1/p} \chi _j(X)
\\[1ex]
\le
C_{6,\alpha}\left ( \int m(Z)^p{\varphi}_j(Z)\, dZ \right )^{1/p} \chi _j(X),\end{gathered}$$ for some constants $C_{3,\alpha},\dots ,C_{6,\alpha}$, which only depend on $\alpha$.
By combining the last estimate with , we get $$\begin{gathered}
{\Vert a_j\Vert _{s_p^w}}^p\le C_1 \left ( \iint \chi _j(X)^p{\langle Y\rangle}^{-2Np}\, dXdY \right )
\cdot \left ( \int m(Z)^p{\varphi}_j(Z)\, dZ \right )
\\[1ex]
\le
C_2\int m(Z)^p{\varphi}_j(Z)\, dZ,\end{gathered}$$ for some constants $C_1$ and $C_2$, which are independent of $j$.
A combination of the last estimate and Corollary \[prop:sumOpsSchatten2\] now gives $${\Vert a\Vert _{s_p^w}}^p \le \sum _j {\Vert a_j\Vert _{s_p^w}}^p
\lesssim \sum _j \int m(Z)^p{\varphi}_j(Z)\, dZ = {\Vert m\Vert _{L^p}}^p,$$ and the result follows.
By similar arguments as in the proof of [@Toft4 Theorem 2.11], Theorem \[thm:WeylHorm1\] gives the following results involving suitable Sobolev type spaces, introduced in by Bony and Chemin in [@BoCh] (see also [@Le]). The details are left for the reader. Here recall that the Riemannian metric $g$ on $W$ is called *split* if there are symplectic coordinates such that $$g_X(y,\eta ) = g_X(y,-\eta ),\qquad X\in W,\ Y=(y,\eta )\in W,$$ in these coordinates.
\[thm:WeylHorm3\] Let $t=1/2$, $a\in {\mathscr S}'(W)$, $p\in (0,\infty ]$, $g$ be strongly feasible on $W$, and let $m,m_1,m_2$ be $g$-continuous and $(\sigma ,g)$-temperate weights on $W$ such that $m_2m/m_1\in L^p(W)$. Then $S(m,g)\subseteq s_{t,p}(m_1,m_2,g)$.
Furthermore, if in addition $g$ is split, then $S(m,g)\subseteq s_{t,p}(m_1,m_2,g)$ holds for general $t\in \mathbf R$.
We note that [@Toft4 Theorem 2.11] covers Theorem \[thm:WeylHorm3\] when $p\ge 1$. We also note that the assumption $a\in S(m,g)$ is missing, and that $s_{t,p}^w$ and $s_{t,\sharp}^w$ should be $s_{t,p}$ and $s_{t,\sharp}$, respectively, in (3) and (4) in [@Toft4 Theorem 2.11].
Applications to compactly supported Schatten-von Neumann symbols {#sec5}
================================================================
In this section we introduce a subset $s_{t,p}^q({\mathbf R^{2d}})$ of $s_{t,p}({\mathbf R^{2d}})$ when $p,q\in (0,\infty ]$. We show that the set of compactly supported elements in $s_{t,p}^q({\mathbf R^{2d}})$ with $q=\min (p,1)$ and $q=1$ is a subspace and superspace, respectively, of compactly supported elements in $\mathscr F L^p$. This result goes back to [@Toft0; @Toft1] in the case $p\ge 1$ and $t=1/2$. The proof is based on Theorem \[thmOpSchatten\] and certain characterizations given here, which might be of independent interests.
First we make the following definition. Here ${\operatorname{ON}}_d$ is the set of all orthonormal sequences in $L^2({\mathbf R^{d}})$.
Let $t\in \mathbf R$ and $p,q\in (0,\infty ]$. Then $s_{t,p}^q({\mathbf R^{2d}})$ consists of all $a\in {\mathscr S}'({\mathbf R^{2d}})$ of the form $$a=\sum _{j=0}^\infty \lambda _j W^t_{f_j,g_j},$$ for some non-negative and non-increasing sequence $\{\lambda _j \} _{j=0}^\infty \in \ell ^p(\mathbf N)$, and some $\{ f_j \} _{j=0}^\infty \in {\operatorname{ON}}_d$ and $\{ g_j \}
_{j=0}^\infty \in {\operatorname{ON}}_d$ which at the same time are bounded in $M^{2q}({\mathbf R^{d}})$. For any $a\in s_{t,p}^q({\mathbf R^{2d}})$ we set $${\Vert a\Vert _{s_{t,p}^q}} \equiv {\Vert \{ \lambda _j {\Vert f_j\Vert _{M^{2q_0}}}
{\Vert g_j\Vert _{M^{2q_0}}} \} _{j=0}^\infty \Vert _{\ell ^p}},\qquad q_0=\min (1,q).$$
In the following lemma we present some basic facts for $s_{t,p}^q({\mathbf R^{2d}})$.
\[basicLemmaspp\] Let $p,q,p_j,q_j\in (0,\infty ]$, $j=0,1,2$ be such that $p_1\le p_2$, $q_1\le q_2$ and $q_0\ge 1$. Then the following is true:
1. $s_{t,p}^{q_0}({\mathbf R^{2d}})=s_{t,p}({\mathbf R^{2d}})$ and ${\Vert a\Vert _{s_{t,p}^{q_0}}}
={\Vert a\Vert _{s_{t,p}}}$ when $a \in s_{t,p}({\mathbf R^{2d}})$;
2. ${\mathscr S}({\mathbf R^{2d}})\subseteq s_{t,p}^q({\mathbf R^{2d}})$;
3. $s_{t,p_1}^{q_1}({\mathbf R^{2d}})\subseteq s_{t,p_2}^{q_2}({\mathbf R^{2d}})$;
4. if in addition $t=1/2$, then $a\in s_{t,p}^{q}({\mathbf R^{2d}})$, if and only if ${\mathscr F}_\sigma a\in s_{t,p}^{q}({\mathbf R^{2d}})$, and $${\Vert {\mathscr F}_\sigma a\Vert _{s_{t,p}^q}} = {\Vert a\Vert _{s_{t,p}^q}} .$$
The assertion (1) follows from the fact that $L^2({\mathbf R^{d}})$ is continuously embedded in $M^{2q_0}({\mathbf R^{d}})$, since $2q_0\ge 2$, (2) follows from Proposition \[SchattenExp\] below, and (3) is a straight-forward consequence of the definitions.
Finally, (4) follows from the facts that ${\mathscr F}_\sigma W_{f,g}=W_{\check f,g}$ and that ${\Vert \check f\Vert _{M^{2q}}}\asymp {\Vert f\Vert _{M^{2q}}}$. This gives the result.
The following result characterizes the set of compactly supported elements in $s_{t,p}({\mathbf R^{2d}})$.
\[CompSuppSchatten\] Let $t\in \mathbf R$ and $p,q\in (0,\infty ]$ be such that $r\le q$. Then $$\begin{gathered}
\label{CompSuppSchattenEq}
s^q_{t,q}({\mathbf R^{2d}})\bigcap \mathscr E'({\mathbf R^{2d}})
\subseteq \mathscr FL^q({\mathbf R^{2d}}) \bigcap \mathscr E'({\mathbf R^{2d}})
\\[1ex]
= M^{p,q}({\mathbf R^{2d}})\bigcap \mathscr E'({\mathbf R^{2d}})
\subseteq s_{t,q}({\mathbf R^{2d}})\bigcap \mathscr E'({\mathbf R^{2d}}).\end{gathered}$$
We need some preparations for the proof. First we recall the following facts for the harmonic oscillator $H=H_d=|x|^2-\Delta$ on ${\mathscr S}'({\mathbf R^{d}})$. We omit the proof since the result is a special case of [@BoTo Theorem 3.5].
\[LemmaHarmOscBij\] Let $p,q\in [1,\infty ]$ and let $\omega ,\vartheta _N\in {\mathscr P}({\mathbf R^{2d}})$ be such that $\vartheta _N(x,\xi )= {\langle (x,\xi )\rangle}^N$, where $N$ is an integer. Then $H_d^N$ is a homeomorphism on ${\mathscr S}({\mathbf R^{d}})$, on ${\mathscr S}'({\mathbf R^{d}})$, and from $M^{p,q}_{(\vartheta _{2N} \omega )}({\mathbf R^{d}})$ to $M^{p,q}_{(\omega )}({\mathbf R^{d}})$.
The next result concerns Schwartz kernels of linear operators.
\[SchwartzKernels\] Let $T$ be a linear and continuous operator from $L^2({\mathbf R^{d_1}})$ to $L^2({\mathbf R^{d_2}})$ and such that the kernels of $T^*\circ T$ and $T\circ T^*$ belong to ${\mathscr S}({\mathbf R^{2d_1}})$ and ${\mathscr S}({\mathbf R^{2d_2}})$, respectively. Then the kernel of $T$ belongs to ${\mathscr S}({\mathbf R^{d_2+d_1}})$.
The result should be available in the literature. In order to be self-contained we here present a proof, obtained in collaboration with A. Holst at Lund University, Sweden.
Let $N\in \mathbf N$, $\omega _{j,r}(x,\xi )= {\langle (x,\xi )\rangle}^{r}$ when $x,\xi \in
{\mathbf R^{d_j}}$ and $r\in \mathbf R$, and let $f_j\in {\mathscr S}({\mathbf R^{d_j}})$, $j=1,2$. Then $H^N\circ S\circ H^N$ is an operator with kernel in ${\mathscr S}$, if and only if $S$ is an operator with kernel in ${\mathscr S}$.
By the assumptions and Lemma \[LemmaHarmOscBij\] we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{\Vert Tf_1\Vert _{L^2({\mathbf R^{d_2}})}}^2 &= ((T^*\circ T)f_1,f_1)_{L^2({\mathbf R^{d_1}})}
\lesssim {\Vert f_1\Vert _{M^2_{(\omega _{1,-2N})}}}^2
\intertext{and}
{\Vert T^*f_2\Vert _{L^2({\mathbf R^{d_1}})}}^2 &= ((T\circ T^*)f_2,f_2)_{L^2({\mathbf R^{d_2}})}
\lesssim {\Vert f_2\Vert _{M^2_{(\omega _{2,-2N})}}}^2.\end{aligned}$$ Hence $$T\in {\mathcal B}(M^2_{(\omega _{1,-2N})}({\mathbf R^{d_1}}),
L^2({\mathbf R^{d_2}}))
\quad \text{and} \quad T^* \in {\mathcal B}(M^2_{(\omega _{2,-2N})}
({\mathbf R^{d_2}}),L^2({\mathbf R^{d_1}})).$$
By duality it also follows that $T\in {\mathcal B}(L^2({\mathbf R^{d_1}}),
M^2_{(\omega _{2,2r})}({\mathbf R^{d_2}}))$, since the dual of $M^2_{(\omega _{j,-N})}({\mathbf R^{d_j}})$ equals $M^2_{(\omega _{j,N})}({\mathbf R^{d_j}})$ when the $L^2$ form is used (cf. e.g. [@Gc2 Theorem 11.3.6]).
By interpolation between these results we get $$T\in {\mathcal B}(M^2_{(\omega _{1,-N})}({\mathbf R^{d_1}}),
M^2_{(\omega _{2,N})}({\mathbf R^{d_2}})).$$ and since $$\bigcap _{r\in \mathbf R} M^2_{(\omega _{j,N})}({\mathbf R^{d_j}})
={\mathscr S}({\mathbf R^{d_j}})
\quad \text{and}\quad
\bigcup _{r\in \mathbf R} M^2_{(\omega _{j,r})}({\mathbf R^{d_j}})
={\mathscr S}'({\mathbf R^{d_j}})$$ when $j=1,2$ also in topological sense in view of e.g. [@Toft3], we obtain $T\in {\mathcal B}({\mathscr S}'({\mathbf R^{d_1}}) , {\mathscr S}({\mathbf R^{d_2}}))$. This implies that the kernel of $T$ belongs to ${\mathscr S}({\mathbf R^{d_2+d_1}})$.
The next result extends in several ways Lemma 4.1.2 in [@Toft0] and concerns suitable Wigner distribution expansions (see ).
\[SchattenExp\] Let $a\in {\mathscr S}({\mathbf R^{2d}})$, $t\in \mathbf R$, $p,q\in (0,\infty ]$ and let $H=|x|^2-\Delta$ be the harmonic oscillator on ${\mathbf R^{d}}$. Then $$\label{SymbolSpectralExpansion}
a=\sum _{j=0}^\infty \lambda _j W^t_{f_j,g_j},$$ for some non-negative and non-increasing $\{\lambda _j\} _{j=0}^\infty \subseteq
\mathbf R$, $\{ f_j \} _{j=0}^\infty \in {\operatorname{ON}}(L^2({\mathbf R^{d}}))$ and $\{ g_j \} _{j=0}^\infty \in {\operatorname{ON}}(L^2({\mathbf R^{d}}))$ such that $$\begin{gathered}
\lambda _j \ge 0,\quad f_j,g_j\in {\mathscr S}({\mathbf R^{d}}),\quad
j\ge 0,\notag
\intertext{and}
\sum _{j=0}^\infty \lambda _j^p {\Vert H^Nf_j\Vert _{M^q}}
{\Vert H^Ng_j\Vert _{M^q}}<\infty ,
\quad \text{when}\quad
N\ge 0.\label{SymbSpecExpEst}\end{gathered}$$
By the spectral theorem of compact operators, holds true for some non-negative and non-increasing sequence $\{\lambda _j\} _{j=0}^\infty$, and some $\{ f_j \} _{j=0}^\infty$ and $\{ g_j \} _{j=0}^\infty$ in ${\operatorname{ON}}_d$. Since $$e^{i(t-1/2){\langle D_\xi,D_x\rangle}}W^t_{f,g}=W_{f,g}$$ and $e^{i(t-1/2){\langle D_\xi,D_x\rangle}}$ is continuous on ${\mathscr S}({\mathbf R^{2d}})$, it suffices to consider the Weyl case, $t=1/2$.
First we assume that $T\equiv {\operatorname{Op}}^w(a)\ge 0$, giving that holds with $g_j=f_j$. The result is true for $p=1$ and $q=2$ in view of [@Toft0 Lemma 4.1.2]. Since the kernel of $T$ belongs to ${\mathscr S}$, Proposition \[SchwartzKernels\] shows that the kernel of $T_N = T^{1/2N}$ belongs to ${\mathscr S}$ for every $N\ge 1$. Furthermore, if $a_N$ is the Weyl symbol of $T_N$, then $a_N\in {\mathscr S}({\mathbf R^{2d}})$, and by straight-forward computations we get $$a_N = \sum _j \lambda _j^{1/2N}W_{f_j,f_j}.$$ By [@Toft0 Lemma 4.1.2] we get $$\sum _j \lambda _j^{1/2N}{\Vert H^Nf_j\Vert _{L^2}}^2<\infty$$ for every $N\ge 0$, and the result follows in the case $p>0$ and $q=2$.
Next assume that $q\in (0,2)$, and let $\omega _r ={\langle {\, \cdot \, }\rangle} ^r
\in {\mathscr P}({\mathbf R^{2d}})$, $q_0=(2q)/(2-q)$ and $N_0>dq_0$ be an integer. Then $\omega _{-2N_0}\in L^{q_0}({\mathbf R^{2d}})$, and H[ö]{}lder’s inequality gives $${\Vert H^Nf\Vert _{M^q}}\lesssim {\Vert \omega _{-2N_0}\Vert _{L^{q_0}}}
{\Vert H^Nf\Vert _{M^2_{(\omega _{2N_0})}}} \asymp {\Vert H^{N+N_0}f\Vert _{L^2}},$$ when $f\in {\mathscr S}({\mathbf R^{d}})$, and the result follows in this case from the case $q=2$.
If instead $q\ge2$, then ${\Vert H^Nf\Vert _{M^q}}\lesssim {\Vert H^Nf\Vert _{L^2}}$ for every admissible $f$, and the result again follows from the case when $q=2$.
The assertion therefore follows if in the case ${\operatorname{Op}}_t(a)\ge 0$.
Finally assume that $a\in {\mathscr S}({\mathbf R^{2d}})$ is general. The Weyl symbol of the operators $T^*\circ T$ and $T\circ T^*$ are given by $$b=\sum \lambda _j^2W_{f_j,f_j}\quad \text{and}\quad
c=\sum \lambda _j^2W_{g_j,g_j},$$ respectively, and belong to ${\mathscr S}({\mathbf R^{2d}})$, in view of Proposition \[SchwartzKernels\]. Since $T^*\circ T$ and $T\circ T^*$ are positive semi-definite, it follows from the first part of the proof that $$\sum _j \lambda _j^p{\Vert H^Nf_j\Vert _{M^q}}^2<\infty
\quad \text{and}\quad
\sum _j \lambda _j^p{\Vert H^Ng_j\Vert _{M^q}}^2<\infty$$ hold for every $p,q\in (0,\infty ]$ and $N\ge 0$. The estimate now follows from these estimates and Cauchy-Schwartz inequality.
We also need the following result related to Theorem 3.1 in [@GaSa].
\[STFTWindows\] Let $p\in (0,2]$ and let $\omega ,\omega _1,\omega _2\in {\mathscr P}_E({\mathbf R^{2d}})$ be such that $$\omega (X_1-X_2)\lesssim \omega _1(X_1)\omega _2(X_2),\qquad X_1,X_2\in {\mathbf R^{2d}}.$$ Then the map $(f,\phi )\mapsto V_\phi f$ is continuous from $M^p_{(\omega _1)}({\mathbf R^{d}})
\times M^p_{(\omega _2)}({\mathbf R^{d}})$ to $L^p_{(\omega )}({\mathbf R^{2d}})$, and $$\label{NormsEsts}
{\Vert V_\phi f\Vert _{L^p_{(\omega )}}} \le C {\Vert f\Vert _{M^p_{(\omega _1)}}}
{\Vert \phi\Vert _{M^p_{(\omega _2)}}},$$ where the constant $C$ is independent of $f\in M^p_{(\omega _1)}({\mathbf R^{d}})$ and $\phi \in M^p_{(\omega _2)}({\mathbf R^{d}})$.
First assume that $p\le 1$. Let $\psi \in \Sigma _1({\mathbf R^{d}})$, ${\varepsilon}>0$, $\Lambda ={\varepsilon}{\mathbf Z^{2d}}$, $\{ c({\boldsymbol j})\} _{{\boldsymbol j}\in \Lambda}\in \ell
^p_{(\omega _1)}(\Lambda )$ and $\{ d({\boldsymbol k})\} _{{\boldsymbol k}\in \Lambda}
\in \ell ^p_{(\omega _2)}(\Lambda )$ be chosen such that $$f(x) = \sum _{j,\iota \in {\varepsilon}{\mathbf Z^{d}}}c(j,\iota )\psi (x-j)e^{i{\langle x,\iota\rangle}}
\quad \text{and}\quad
\phi (x) = \sum _{k,\kappa \in {\varepsilon}{\mathbf Z^{d}}}d(k,\kappa )\psi (x-k)e^{i{\langle x,\kappa\rangle}}$$ (cf. Proposition \[ConseqThmS\]).
By straight-forward computations it follows that $$V_\phi f(X) = \sum _{{\boldsymbol j},{\boldsymbol k}\in \lambda} c({\boldsymbol j})\overline{d({\boldsymbol k})}
\Psi (X+{\boldsymbol k}-{\boldsymbol j}) R_{{\boldsymbol j},{\boldsymbol k}}(X),$$ where $\Psi =V_\psi \psi \in \Sigma _1({\mathbf R^{2d}})$ and $R_{{\boldsymbol j},{\boldsymbol k}}$ is a function of exponential type such that $|R_{{\boldsymbol j},{\boldsymbol k}}| =1$, for every ${\boldsymbol j}$ and ${\boldsymbol k}$. This gives $$\begin{gathered}
{\Vert V_\phi f\Vert _{L^p_{(\omega )}}} ^p
\le
\sum _{{\boldsymbol j},{\boldsymbol k}\in \Lambda} |c({\boldsymbol j})|^p |d({\boldsymbol k})|^p
{\Vert \Psi ({\, \cdot \, }+{\boldsymbol k}-{\boldsymbol j})\omega \Vert _{L^p}}^p
\\[1ex]
\le
\sum _{{\boldsymbol j},{\boldsymbol k}\in \Lambda} |c({\boldsymbol j})|^p |d({\boldsymbol k})|^p
{\Vert \Psi v \Vert _{L^p}}^p\omega ({\boldsymbol j}-{\boldsymbol k})^p
\\[1ex]
\lesssim
\sum _{{\boldsymbol j},{\boldsymbol k}\in \Lambda} |c({\boldsymbol j})\omega _1({\boldsymbol j})|^p
|d({\boldsymbol k})\omega _2({\boldsymbol j})|^p
\asymp {\Vert f\Vert _{M^p_{(\omega _1)}}}{\Vert \phi\Vert _{M^p_{(\omega _2)}}},\end{gathered}$$ when $v\in {\mathscr P}_E({\mathbf R^{2d}})$ is chosen such that $\omega$ is $v$-moderate. Here the first inequality follows from the fact that $p\le 1$ and the last inequality follows from the assumptions. This gives the result in the case $p\le 1$.
A slight modification of the proof of (2.8) in [@Toft11] gives the result in the remaining case where $p\in [1,2]$. The details are left for the reader.
The next result concerns extensions of certain convolution relations in [@Toft0; @Toft1] between Schatten-von Neumann symbols and Lebesgue spaces to the case when the Lebesgue parameters are allowed to be smaller than $1$.
\[SchattenConv\] Let $p\in (0,1]$ and $t=1/2$. Then the map $(a,b)\mapsto a*b$ is continuous from $s^p_{t,p}({\mathbf R^{2d}})\times s^p_{t,p}({\mathbf R^{2d}})$ to $L^p({\mathbf R^{2d}})$.
Let $a,b\in s^p_{t,p}$. Since $s^p_{t,p}\subseteq s_{t,1}$, it follows that $a*b$ is well-defined and belongs to $L^1$, in view of Theorem 2.1 in [@Toft1].
Now let $$\begin{gathered}
\{ \lambda _j \} _{j=0}^\infty \in \ell ^p (\mathbf N),
\quad
\{ \mu _j \} _{j=0}^\infty \in\ell ^p (\mathbf N),\quad \{ f_{l,j} \} _{j=0}^\infty \in {\operatorname{ON}}(L^2({\mathbf R^{d}}))
\intertext{and}
\{ g_{l,j} \} _{j=0}^\infty \in {\operatorname{ON}}(L^2({\mathbf R^{d}})),\quad l=1,2,\end{gathered}$$ be such that $\lambda _j\ge 0$ and $\mu _j\ge 0$ for every $j\ge 0$, $$\sup _{j,l}{\Vert f_{l,j}\Vert _{M^{2p}}}<\infty
\quad \text{and}\quad
\sup _{j,l}{\Vert g_{l,j}\Vert _{M^{2p}}}<\infty ,$$ and $$a=\sum _{j=0}^\infty \lambda _j W_{f_{1,j},f_{2,j}}
\quad \text{and}\quad
b=\sum _{j=0}^\infty \mu _j W_{g_{1,j},g_{2,j}} .$$ Then $$\begin{gathered}
\label{convLebSchattEst}
{\Vert a*b\Vert _{L^p}}^p = \int \left | \sum _{j,k} \lambda _j\mu _k
(W_{f_{1,j},f_{2,j}}*W_{g_{1,k},g_{2,k}} )(X)\right |^p \, dX
\\[1ex]
\le
\sum _{j,k} \lambda _j^p\mu _k^p
{\Vert W_{f_{1,j},f_{2,j}}*W_{g_{1,k},g_{2,k}}\Vert _{L^p}}^p.\end{gathered}$$
By straight-forward computations we get $$|(W_{f_{1,j},f_{2,j}}*W_{g_{1,k},g_{2,k}} ) (x,\xi )|
=
C|(V_{\check f_{2,j}}g_{1,k})(x,\xi )(V_{\check f_{1,j}}g_{2,k})(x,\xi )|,$$ for some constant $C$. Hence Cauchy-Schwartz inequality and Lemma \[STFTWindows\] give $$\begin{gathered}
{\Vert W_{f_{1,j},f_{2,j}}*W_{g_{1,k},g_{2,k}}\Vert _{L^p}} =
{\Vert V_{\check f_{2,j}}g_{1,k}\cdot V_{\check f_{1,j}}g_{2,k}\Vert _{L^p}}
\\[1ex]
\le
{\Vert V_{\check f_{2,j}}g_{1,k}\Vert _{L^{2p}}}{\Vert V_{\check f_{1,j}}g_{2,k}\Vert _{L^{2p}}}
\lesssim {\Vert f_{1,j}\Vert _{M^{2p}}}{\Vert f_{2,j}\Vert _{M^{2p}}}{\Vert g_{1,k}\Vert _{M^{2p}}}{\Vert g_{2,k}\Vert _{M^{2p}}}.\end{gathered}$$
By inserting this into we get $$\begin{gathered}
{\Vert a*b\Vert _{L^p}} \lesssim \left ( \sum _{j,k} \lambda _j^p\mu _k^p
{\Vert f_{1,j}\Vert _{M^{2p}}}^p {\Vert f_{2,j}\Vert _{M^{2p}}}^p
{\Vert g_{1,k}\Vert _{M^{2p}}}^p {\Vert g_{2,k}\Vert _{M^{2p}}}^p \right )^{1/p}
\\[1ex]
= {\Vert a\Vert _{s_p^p}}{\Vert b\Vert _{s_p^p}},\end{gathered}$$ and the result follows.
The equality and the last embedding in follow from [@Toft12 Proposition 4.3] and Theorem \[thmOpSchatten\]. The first embedding in follows from Corollary 2.12 in [@Toft1] in the case $p\ge 1$. It remains to prove the first embedding in in the case $p<1$.
Therefore, assume that $p<1$, let $a\in {\mathscr E}'({\mathbf R^{2d}})$ and choose ${\varphi}\in C_0^\infty ({\mathbf R^{2d}})$ such that ${\varphi}=1$ on ${\operatorname{supp}}a$. Then ${\mathscr F}_\sigma
{\varphi}\in s_{t,p}^p({\mathbf R^{2d}})$ by Proposition \[SchattenExp\]. Hence Lemma \[basicLemmaspp\] and Proposition \[SchattenConv\] give $$\begin{gathered}
{\Vert a\Vert _{{\mathscr F}L^p}} = {\Vert {\varphi}a\Vert _{{\mathscr F}L^p}} \asymp {\Vert ({\mathscr F}_\sigma {\varphi})
* ({\mathscr F}_\sigma a)\Vert _{L^p}}
\\[1ex]
\lesssim {\Vert {\mathscr F}_\sigma {\varphi}\Vert _{s_{t,p}^p}} {\Vert {\mathscr F}_\sigma a\Vert _{s_{t,p}^p}}
\lesssim {\Vert a\Vert _{s_{t,p}^p}},\end{gathered}$$ which gives the result.
[150]{}
W. Bauer, L. A. Coburn, J. Isralowitz *Heat flow, BMO, and the compactness of Toeplitz operators*, J. Funct. Anal. **259** (2010), 57–78.
W. Bauer, J. Isralowitz *Compactness characterization of operators in the Toeplitz algebra of the Fock space $F_\alpha ^p$*, J. Funct. Anal. **263** (2012), 1323–1355.
*Interpolation Spaces, An Introduction*, Springer-Verlag, [Berlin Heidelberg NewYork]{}, 1976.
*Estimates for the singular numbers of integral operators (Russian)*, Usbehi Mat. Nauk. **32**, (1977), 17–84.
P. Boggiatto, G. De Donno, A. Oliaro *Time-frequency representations of Wigner type and pseudo-differential operators*, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. **362** (2010), 4955–4981.
*Embeddings and compactness for generalized Sobolev-Shubin spaces and modulation spaces*, Appl. Anal. (3) **84** (2005), 269–282.
J. M. Bony, J. Y. Chemin *Espaces functionnels associ[é]{}s au calcul de Weyl-H[ö]{}rmander*, Bull. Soc. Math. France **122** (1994), 77–118.
E. Buzano, J. Toft *Schatten-von Neumann properties in the Weyl calculus*, J. Funct. Anal. **259** (2010), 3080–3114.
M. Cappiello, J. Toft *Pseudo-differential operators in a Gelfand-Shilov setting*, Math. Nachr. (to appear), also available at arXiv:1505.04096v2.
E. Carypis, P. Wahlberg *Propagation of exponential phase space singularities for Schršdinger equations with quadratic Hamiltonians*, J. Fourier Anal. Appl. (to appear), also available at arXiv:1510.00325.
H. O. Cordes *The Technique of Pseudodifferential Operators*, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1995.
E. Cordero, S. Pilipović, L. Rodino, N. Teofanov *Quasianalytic Gelfand-Shilov spaces with applications to localization operators*, Rocky Mt. J. Math. **40** (2010), 1123–1147.
J. Delgado, M. Ruzhansky *Schatten classes on compact manifolds: kernel conditions*, J. Funct. Anal. **267** (2014), 772–798.
J. Delgado, M. Ruzhansky *Kernel and symbol criteria for Schatten classes and $r$-nuclearity on compact manifolds* C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Paris **352** (2014), 779–784.
J. Delgado, M. Ruzhansky *$L^p$-nuclearity, traces, and Grothendieck-Lidskii formula on compact Lie groups*, J. Math. Pures Appl. **102** (2014) 153–172.
H. G. Feichtinger *Modulation spaces on locally compact abelian groups. Technical report*, [University of Vienna]{}, Vienna, 1983; also in: M. Krishna, R. Radha, S. Thangavelu (Eds) Wavelets and their applications, Allied Publishers Private Limited, NewDehli Mumbai Kolkata Chennai Hagpur Ahmedabad Bangalore Hyderbad Lucknow, 2003, pp. 99–140.
*Banach spaces related to integrable group representations and their atomic decompositions, I*, J. Funct. Anal., **86** (1989), 307–340.
V. Fischer, M. Ruzhansky *A pseudo-differential calculus on the Heisenberg group*, C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Paris **352** (2014), 197–204.
Y. V. Galperin, S. Samarah *Time-frequency analysis on modulation spaces $M^{p,q}_m$, $0<p,q\le \infty$*, Appl. Comput. Harmon. Anal. **16** (2004), 1–18.
*Describing functions: atomic decompositions versus frames*, [Monatsh. Math.]{},**112** (1991), 1–42.
*Foundations of Time-Frequency Analysis*, Birkh[ä]{}user, Boston, 2001.
*Composition and spectral invariance of pseudodifferential operators on modulation spaces*, J. Anal. Math. **98** (2006), 65–82.
*Time-frequency analysis of Sj[ö]{}strand’s class*, Rev. Mat. Iberoam. **22** (2006), 703–724.
K. Gr[ö]{}chenig *Weight functions in time-frequency analysis [in: L. Rodino, M. W. Wong (Eds) Pseudodifferential Operators: Partial Differential Equations and Time-Frequency Analysis]{}*, Fields Institute Comm., **52** 2007, pp. 343–366.
*Modulation spaces and pseudo-differential operators*, Integral Equations Operator Theory (4) **34** (1999), 439–457.
*Modulation spaces as symbol classes for pseudodifferential operators [[in: M. Krishna, R. Radha, S. Thangavelu (Eds) Wavelets and their applications]{}]{}*, Allied Publishers Private Limited, NewDehli Mumbai Kolkata Chennai Hagpur Ahmedabad Bangalore Hyderbad Lucknow, 2003, pp. 151–170.
K. Gr[ö]{}chenig, T. Strohmer *Pseudodifferential operators on locally compact abelian groups and Sj[ö]{}strand’s symbol class*, J. Reine Angew. Math. **613** (2007), 121–146.
K. H. Gr[ö]{}chenig, J. Toft, *Isomorphism properties of Toeplitz operators and pseudo-differential operators between modulation spaces*, J. Anal. Math. **114** (2011), 255–283.
Z. He and M. W. Wong *Localization operators associated to square integrable group representations*, Panamer. Math. J. **6** (1996), 93–104.
L. H[ö]{}rmander *On the asymptotic distributions of the eigenvalues of pseudodifferential operators in $\mathbb R^n$*, Ark. Mat. **17** (1979), 297–313.
L. H[ö]{}rmander *The Analysis of Linear Partial Differential Operators*, vol [I–III]{}, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg NewYork Tokyo, 1983, 1985.
J. Isralowitz *Schatten $p$ class Hankel operators on the Segal-Bargmann space $H^2(\mathbb C^n,d\mu )$ for $0<p<1$*, J. Operator Theory **66** (2011), 145–160.
N. Lerner *Metrics on the Phase Space and Non-Selfadjoint Pseudo-Differential Operators*, Birkh[ä]{}user Verlag, Basel, 2010.
Z. Lozanov-Crvenkovi[ć]{}, D. Peri[š]{}i[ć]{}, M. Taskovi[ć]{} *Gelfand-Shilov spaces structural and kernel theorems*, (preprint), arXiv:0706.2268v2.
S. Molahajloo, G. E. Pfander *Boundedness of pseudo-differential operators on $L^p$, Sobolev and modulation spaces*, Math. Model. Nat. Phenom. **8** (2013), 175–192.
C. Parenti *Operatori pseudodifferenziali in ${\mathbf R^{n}}$ e applicazioni*, [Ann. Mat. Pura Appl.]{}, **93** (1972), 359–389.
V. Peller *Hankel operators and their applications*, Springer Monographs in Mathematics, Springer-Verlag, New York, 2003.
G. E. Pfander *Sampling of operators*, J. Fourier Anal. Appl. **19** (2013), 612–650.
S. Pilipovic *Generalization of Zemanian spaces of generalized functions which have orthonormal series expansions*, SIAM J. Math. Anal. **17** (1986), 477–484.
, *[Pseudodifferential Operators and Spectral Theory]{}*, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1987.
*Trace ideals and their applications*, I, London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Series, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge London New York Melbourne, 1979.
*An algebra of pseudodifferential operators*, [Math. Res. L.]{} **1** (1994), 185–192.
*Continuity and Positivity Problems in Pseudo-Differential Calculus, Thesis*, [Department of Mathematics, University of Lund]{}, Lund, 1996.
*Continuity properties for non-commutative convolution algebras with applications in pseudo-differential calculus*, [Bull. Sci. Math. (2)]{} **126** (2002), 115–142.
*Continuity properties for modulation spaces with applications to pseudo-differential calculus, I*, [J. Funct. Anal. (2)]{}, **207** (2004), 399–429.
*Continuity properties for modulation spaces with applications to pseudo-differential calculus, II*, [Ann. Global Anal. Geom.]{}, **26** (2004), 73–106.
J. Toft *Schatten-von Neumann properties in the Weyl calculus, and calculus of metrics on symplectic vector spaces*, Ann. Glob. Anal. and Geom. **30** (2006), 169–209.
*Continuity and Schatten properties for pseudo-differential operators on modulation spaces [[in: J. Toft, M. W. Wong, H. Zhu (eds)]{}]{} Modern Trends in Pseudo-Differential Operators,* Operator Theory: Advances and Applications, Birkh[ä]{}user Verlag, Basel, 2007, 173–206.
J. Toft *The Bargmann transform on modulation and Gelfand-Shilov spaces, with applications to Toeplitz and pseudo-differential operators*, J. Pseudo-Differ. Oper. Appl. **3** (2012), 145–227.
J. Toft *Multiplication properties in Gelfand-Shilov pseudo-differential calculus [[in: S. Molahajlo, S. Pilipovi[ć]{}, J. Toft, M. W. Wong (eds)]{}]{} Pseudo-Differential Operators, Generalized Functions and Asymptotics,* Operator Theory: Advances and Applications Vol 231, Birkh[ä]{}user, Basel Heidelberg NewYork Dordrecht London, 2013, pp. 117–172.
J. Toft *Gabor analysis for a broad class of quasi-Banach modulation spaces, [[in: S. Pilipovi[ć]{}, J. Toft (eds)]{}]{} Pseudo-Differential Operators and Generalized Functions,* Operator Theory: Advances and Applications Vol 245, Birkh[ä]{}user, Basel Heidelberg NewYork Dordrecht London, 2015, pp. 249–278.
P. Wahlberg *Vector-valued modulation spaces and localization operators with operator-valued symbols*, Integr. equ. oper. theory **59** (2007), 99–128.
P. Wahlberg, P. J. Schreier *Gabor discretization of the Weyl product for modulation spaces and filtering of nonstationary stochastic processes*, Appl. Comput. Harmon. Anal. **26** (2009), 97–120.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we show that the $\Delta$-genus $\Delta(X,\mathcal{L})\ge 0$ for any connected polarized demi-normal scheme $(X,\mathcal{L})$. As a direct corollary, we obtain $\Delta(X,K_X+\Lambda)\ge 0$ for any Gorenstein stable log scheme $(X,\Lambda)$, which is an inequality of Noether’s type.'
address: 'Department of Mathematics, Peking University,Beijing 100871'
author:
- Jingshan Chen
title: ' Positivity of $\Delta$-genera for connected polarized demi-normal schemes'
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
A scheme $X$ is demi-normal if it satisfies $S_2$ and is at worst ordinary double at any generic point of codimension 1. The term demi-normal was coined by Kollár in [@KollarSMMP]. Demi-normal schemes are higher-dimensional analogues of nodal curves.
It is natural to consider a polarization on a demi-normal scheme $X$, i.e. an ample invertible sheaf $\mathcal{L}$ on $X$. Fujita introduced an invariant, $\Delta$ genus $\Delta(X, \mathcal{L}):=\mathcal{L}^{\dim X}-h^0(X, \mathcal{L})+\dim X$ for polarized varieties. He showed that $\Delta(X,\mathcal{L})\ge 0$ for any irreducible polarized normal variety. In this paper we showed that this is also true for connected polarized demi-normal schemes.
This invariant applies to the study of Gorenstein stable (log) schemes. Recall a stable log scheme $(X,\Lambda)$ is a demi-normal scheme $X$ with a reduced boundary divisor $\Lambda$ such that it admits only slc singularities and $K_X+\Lambda$ is an ample $\mathbb{Q}$-Cartier divisor. A stable scheme is a stable log scheme with empty boundary. A stable log scheme is Gorenstein if $K_X+\Lambda$ is Cartier. We can deduce directly that $\Delta(X,K_X+\mathcal{L})\ge 0$ for any Gorenstein stable log scheme $(X,\Lambda)$ . This inequality is just the stable log Noether’s inequality, which has been proven in two dimensional case (see [@LR13]). The paper is organised as follows. In 2, we state some facts about polarized demi-normal schemes. In 3, we review Fujita’s work on $\Delta$-genus of polarized varieties. In 4, we prove that $\Delta(X,\mathcal{L})\ge 0$ for connected polarized demi-normal schemes.
Notations and conventions
-------------------------
We work exclusively with schemes of finite type over the complex numbers $\mathbb{C}$.
- By abuse of notation, we sometimes do not distinguish a Cartier divisor $D$ and its associated invertible sheaf $\mathcal{O}_X(D)$.
- We use ’$\equiv$’ to denote linear equivalent relation of divisors.
- If $D$ is a Cartier divisor on $X$, then we denote $\Phi_{|D|}:X\dashrightarrow \mathbb{P}:=|D|^*$ as the rational map defined by the sections of $|D|$.
- A hyperplane $H$ on a scheme $X$ with respect to $\mathcal{O}_X(1)$ is a subscheme isomorphic to $\mathbb{P}^{\dim X}$ such that $\mathcal{O}_X(1)|_{H}\cong \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{\dim X}}(1)$.
Demi-normal schemes
===================
A scheme $X$ is [**demi-normal**]{} if it satisfies $S_2$ and is at worst ordinary double at any generic point of codimension 1. The scheme we consider is always assumed to be connected. Denote $\pi: \bar X \to X$ as the normalization map of $X$. The conductor ideal $ \mathcal{H}om_{\mathcal{O}_X}(\pi_*\mathcal{O}_{\bar{X}}, \mathcal{O}_X)$ is an ideal sheaf both on $X$ and $\bar{X}$ and hence defines subschemes $D\subset X \text{ and } \bar D\subset \bar X,$ both reduced and of pure codimension 1; we often refer to $D$ as the non-normal locus of $X$.
A [**polarized demi-normal scheme**]{} is a pair $(X, \mathcal{L})$, where $X$ is a demi-normal scheme and $\mathcal{L}$ is an ample invertible sheaf on $X$. Let $(X,\mathcal{L})$ be a connected polarized demi-normal scheme such that $X=X_1\cup X_2$, where $X_1,X_2$ are two connected components of $X$. $C:=X_1\cap X_2$ is the connecting subscheme of codimension 1. We have the Mayer-Vietoris exact sequence: $$\begin{aligned}
0\to \mathcal{L} \to \mathcal{L}|_{X_1}\oplus\mathcal{L}|_{X_2}\to \mathcal{L}|_{C}\to 0.\end{aligned}$$ Taking the associated long exact sequence, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{3}
0 \to H^0(X,\mathcal{L}) \to H^0(X_1,\mathcal{L}|_{X_1})\oplus H^0(X_2,\mathcal{L}|_{X_2}) \xrightarrow{\phi} H^0(C,\mathcal{L}|_{C}).\end{aligned}$$
The morphism $\phi$ is defined by $(\mathcal{R}_{X_1\to C},\mathcal{R}_{X_2\to C})$, where $\mathcal{R}_{X_i\to C}$ is the restriction map.
Denote $\dim\mathrm{im}\,\mathcal{R}_{X_i\to C}$ by $r_{X_i\to C}(\mathcal{L}|_{X_i})$ or $r_{X_i\to C}$ for simplicity. We have $$\label{sectiongluing}
\begin{split}
h^0(X, \mathcal{L})&=
h^0(X_1,\mathcal{L}|_{X_1})+h^0(X_2,\mathcal{L}|_{X_2})-\dim\mathrm{im}\,\phi\\
&\le h^0(X_1,\mathcal{L}|_{X_1})+h^0(X_2,\mathcal{L}|_{X_2})-max\{\dim\mathrm{im}\mathcal{R}_{X_1\to C},\dim\mathrm{im}\mathcal{R}_{X_2\to C}\}\\
&=h^0(X_1,\mathcal{L}|_{X_1})+h^0(X_2,\mathcal{L}|_{X_2})-max\{r_{X_1\to C},r_{X_2\to C}\}.
\end{split}$$
Fujita’s $\Delta$-genus of polarized varieties
==============================================
Next we recall some definitions of Fujita.
Let $(X,\mathcal{L})$ be a polarized variety of dimension $n$ and $D\in|\mathcal{L}|$. Fujita’s $\Delta$-genus is defined as $\Delta(X, \mathcal{L}):=\mathcal{L}^{\dim X}-h^0(X, \mathcal{L})+\dim X$.
\[fujita\] Let $(X, \mathcal{L})$ be a normal polarized variety, then $\Delta(X, \mathcal{L})\ge 0$.
Moreover, $\Delta(X, \mathcal{L})\ge \dim Bs|\mathcal{L}|+1$, where $Bs|\mathcal{L}|$ is the base locus of $|\mathcal{L}|$.
$D$ is called a [**rung**]{} of $(X,\mathcal{L})$ if $D\in|\mathcal{L}|$ is reduced and irreducible as a subscheme of $X$.
A sequence $D_1\subset D_2\subset ... \subset D_n\subset X$ of subvarieties of $X$ is called a [**ladder**]{} of $(X,\mathcal{L})$ if $D_{j}$ is a rung of $(D_{j+1},\mathcal{L}_{j+1})$ for each $j\ge1$, where $\mathcal{L}_{j+1}=\mathcal{L}|_{D_{j+1}}$.
Let $\chi(t\mathcal{L})$ be the Euler-Poincaré characteristic of $\mathcal{L}^t$. Then we put $$\chi(t\mathcal{L})=\sum\limits^{n}_{j=0}\chi_j(X,\mathcal{L})\frac{t^{[j]}}{j!},$$ where $t^{[j]}=t(t+1)...(t+j-1)$ for $j\ge1$ and $t^{[0]}=1$.
Then the [**sectional genus** ]{} is defined as $g(X,\mathcal{L}):=1-\chi_{n-1}(X,\mathcal{L})$.
If $\dim X=1$, $g(X,\mathcal{L})=h^1(X,\mathcal{O}_X)=g(X)$. If $\dim X\ge2$ and $X$ is non-singular, $g(X,\mathcal{L})=(K_X+(n-1)\mathcal{L})\mathcal{L}^{n-1}/2+1$.
([@Fuj75 Prop 1.3]) Let $D$ be a rung of $(X,\mathcal{L})$. Then $\chi_r(D,\mathcal{L}|_D)=\chi_{r+1}(X,\mathcal{L})$ for $r\ge0$.
In particular, $g(D,\mathcal{L}|_D)=g(X,\mathcal{L})$.
\[sectionalgenus\] ([@Fuj90 Prop 3.4]) Let $(X,\mathcal{L})$ be a polarized variety with $g(X,\mathcal{L})=0$. Suppose that $(X,\mathcal{L})$ has a ladder $\{D_j\}$ such that each rung $V_j$ (including $X$ itself) is a normal variety. Then $\Delta(X,\mathcal{L})=0$.
\[bpf\] ([@Fuj90 Thm 3.5]) Let $(X,\mathcal{L})$ be a polarized variety having a ladder. Assume that $g:=g(X,\mathcal{L})\ge \Delta(X,\mathcal{L})=\Delta$.
Then $Bs|\mathcal{L}|=\emptyset$ if $d:=\mathcal{L}^n \ge 2\Delta$.
\[bpf2\] Let $(X, \mathcal{L})$ be a normal polarized variety with $\dim X=2$ and $\Delta(X, \mathcal{L})=1$. If $|\mathcal{L}|$ is not composed with a pencil, then it is base-point free.
We may assume $\mathcal{L}^2\ge2$. $|\mathcal{L}|$ has no base part as $1=\Delta(X, \mathcal{L})\ge \dim Bs|\mathcal{L}|+1$. Then by Bertini’ theorem a generic element $D\in |\mathcal{L}|$ is reduced and irreducible. Hence $D\subset X$ is a ladder of $(X, \mathcal{L})$. $g=g(X, \mathcal{L})=g(D, \mathcal{L}|_D)=h^1(D,\mathcal{O}_D)=g(D)\ge 0$.
For the case $g=0$, $D$ is a smooth rational curve. Then by Prop \[sectionalgenus\] we have $\Delta(X, \mathcal{L})=0$. Hence $|\mathcal{L}|$ is base-point free by Thm \[bpf\]. For the case $g> 0$, $|\mathcal{L}|$ is base-point free by Thm \[bpf\].
reducible polarized demi-normal schemes
=======================================
\[restsecions\] Let $X$ be a connected $S_2$ scheme of pure dimension, $\mathcal{L}$ be an invertible sheaf such that $\dim \mathrm{Bs} |\mathcal{L}|<\dim X-1$ and $C$ be a reduced subscheme of codimension 1. Then $$\begin{aligned}
r_{X\to C}(\mathcal{L})=\dim <\Phi_{|\mathcal{L}|}(C)>+1,\end{aligned}$$ where $<\Phi_{|\mathcal{L}|}(C)>$ is the projective subspace of $|\mathcal{L}|^*$ spanned by $\Phi_{|\mathcal{L}|}(C)$.
Denote $\mathbb{P}:=|\mathcal{L}|^*$. We have the following commutative diagram: $$\xymatrix{
H^0(\mathbb{P},\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}}(1))\ar[rr]^{\mathcal{R}_{\mathbb{P}\to \Phi_{|\mathcal{L}|}(C)}}\ar[d]^{\cong}_{\Phi_{|\mathcal{L}|}^*} & & H^0(\Phi_{|\mathcal{L}|}(C),\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}}(1)|_{\Phi_{|\mathcal{L}|}(C)})\ar@{^{(}->}[d]_{\Phi_{|\mathcal{L}|}^*} \\
H^0(X,\mathcal{L})\ar[rr]^{\mathcal{R}_{X\to C}}& & H^0(C,\mathcal{L}|_C)
}.$$ Therefore $r_{X\to C}(\mathcal{L})=r_{\mathbb{P}\to \Phi_{|\mathcal{L}|}(C)}(\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}}(1))=\dim <\Phi_{|\mathcal{L}|}(C)>+1$.
\[normal&divisor\] Let $(X, \mathcal{L})$ be a normal polarized variety and $C$ is a reduced subscheme of codimension 1.
Then $$\Delta(X, \mathcal{L})+r_{X\to C}(\mathcal{L})-\dim X\ge 0.$$
Denote $n:=\dim X>0$. We only need to consider the case $\Delta(X, \mathcal{L})<n$. Then $\dim Bs|\mathcal{L}|\le n-2$ by Thm \[fujita\]. We may assume further $h^0(X,\mathcal{L})\ge2$ (otherwise $\Delta(X, \mathcal{L})+r_{X\to C}(\mathcal{L})-\dim X\ge\Delta(X, \mathcal{L})-n=\mathcal{L}^n-h^0(X,\mathcal{L})\ge 0$).
Let $\pi:\tilde{X}\rightarrow X$ be a composition of minimal resolution of singularities and blowups such that $\pi^*\mathcal{L}\equiv |M|+F$, where $F$ is the fixed part and $|M|$ is the movable part which is base-point free.
Let $W$ be the image of $\Phi_{|M|}$ and $\phi$ be the induced map of $\Phi_{|M|}$ onto $W$, then we have the following commutative diagram: $$\xymatrix{
\tilde{X} \ar[r]^{\pi}\ar[d]_{\phi}\ar[dr]^{\Phi_{|M|}} & X \ar@{-->}[d]^{\Phi_{|\mathcal{L}|}}\\
W\ar@{^{(}->}[r]& \mathbb{P}^{h^0(X,\mathcal{L})-1}
}.$$
We claim that $\mathcal{L}^n\ge \deg W$. First we have $\pi_*(F\pi^*\mathcal{L})=\pi_*(F)\mathcal{L}=0$, since $\pi(F)=Bs|\mathcal{L}|$ is of codimension at least 2. If $\dim W=\dim X=n$, $\mathcal{L}^n=\pi^*\mathcal{L}^n=M^n+M^{n-1}F\ge M^n=\deg\phi \,\, \deg W
\ge \deg W$. If $m:=\dim W<\dim X$, $\mathcal{L}^n=M^m\pi^*\mathcal{L}^{n-m}=(\deg W \cdot Z)\, \pi^*\mathcal{L}^{n-m}\ge \deg W$, where $Z$ is a generic fiber of $\phi$. Hence the claim is true.
Therefore $\Delta(X, \mathcal{L})=\mathcal{L}^n-h^0(X,\mathcal{L})+n\ge \deg W-h^0(W,\mathcal{O}_W(1))+n=\Delta(W,\mathcal{O}_W(1))+n-\dim W$. Hence $\Delta(X, \mathcal{L})+r_{X\to C}(\mathcal{L})-n\ge \Delta(W,\mathcal{O}_W(1))+r_{X\to C}(\mathcal{L})-\dim W$. Next we show that $r_{X\to C}(\mathcal{L})\ge \dim W$.
We claim that the birational image $\Phi_{|\mathcal{L}|}(C)$ of $C$ is of codimension at least 1 in $W$. For the case $n=2$ and $|\mathcal{L}|$ is composed with a pencil, the claim is trivial. For the case $n=2$ and $|\mathcal{L}|$ is not composed with a pencil, $|\mathcal{L}|$ is base-point free by Thm \[bpf\] and Cor \[bpf2\]. Then $\Phi_{|\mathcal{L}|}$ is a finite morphism and it contracts no curve as $\mathcal{L}$ is ample. Therefore $\Phi_{|\mathcal{L}|}(C)$ is of codimension 1 in $W$. For the case $n\ge3$, suppose for a contradiction that $\Phi_{|\mathcal{L}|}(C)$ is of codimension greater than 1 in $W$. Then $\phi_*(\bar C)=0$. We would have $0< C\mathcal{L}^{n-1}=\bar C (\pi^*\mathcal{L})^{n-1}=\bar{C}M(\pi^*\mathcal{L})^{n-2}+\bar{C}F(\pi^*\mathcal{L})^{n-2}=0$, a contradiction. Thus we have proven the claim.
By Lemma \[restsecions\] we have $r_{X\to C}(\mathcal{L})=\dim \langle\Phi_{|\mathcal{L}|}(C)\rangle +1$. It is easy to see that $\dim\langle\Phi_{|\mathcal{L}|}(C)\rangle\ge \dim \Phi_{|\mathcal{L}|}(C)$. Therefore $r_{X\to C}(\mathcal{L})\ge \dim \Phi_{|\mathcal{L}|}(C)+1\ge \dim W$.
We conclude that $\Delta(X, \mathcal{L})+r_{X\to C}(\mathcal{L})-n\ge \Delta(W,\mathcal{O}_W(1))\ge0$.
Let $(X,\mathcal{L})$ and $C$ be as in Thm \[normal&divisor\]. Assume further $\Delta(X,\mathcal{L})=0$ and $r_{X\to C}(\mathcal{L})=\dim X$. Then $C$ is a hyperplane of $X$.
First we know that $|\mathcal{L}|$ and $|\mathcal{L}|_C|$ are both very ample. $r_{X\to C}(\mathcal{L})=\dim X$ implies that $C$ spans a projective subspace $\mathbb{P}^{\dim X-1}\subset \mathbb{P}^{h^0(X,\mathcal{L})-1}$. However $\dim C=\dim X-1$ implies that $C=\langle C\rangle\cong \mathbb{P}^{\dim X-1}$ and $\mathcal{L}|_C\cong \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{\dim X-1}}(1)$. Therefore $C$ is a hyperplane of $X$.
\[deminormal&divisor\] Let $(X, \mathcal{L})$ be an irreducible polarized demi-normal variety which is not normal, then $$\Delta(X, \mathcal{L})\ge 0.$$ Moreover, if $C$ is a reduced subscheme of codimension 1 which does not contain the non-normal locus, we have $$\Delta(X, \mathcal{L})+r_{X\to C}(\mathcal{L})-\dim X\ge 0.$$
Let $\pi:\bar{X}\rightarrow X$ be the normalization map. $\bar C$ be the proper transformation of $C$ in $\bar X$.
Since $H^0(X,\mathcal{L})\cong \pi^*H^0(X,\mathcal{L})\subset H^0(\bar{X},\pi^*\mathcal{L})$ and $\mathcal{L}^{\dim X}=(\pi^*\mathcal{L})^{\dim \bar X}$, we have $\Delta(X,\mathcal{L})\ge \Delta(\bar{X},\pi^*\mathcal{L})\ge 0$.
Next we have the following commutative diagram:
$$\xymatrix{
0 \ar[r] & H^0(\bar X,\pi^*\mathcal{L}-\bar C)\ar[r]
& H^0(\bar X,\pi^*\mathcal{L})\ar[r]^{\mathcal{R}_{\bar X\to\bar C}}& H^0(\bar C,\pi^*\mathcal{L}|_{\bar C})\\
0 \ar[r] & H^0(X,\mathcal{L}-C)\ar[r]\ar@{_(->}[u]_{\pi^*} & H^0(X,\mathcal{L})\ar[r]^{\mathcal{R}_{X\to C}}\ar@{_(->}[u]_{\pi^*}& H^0(C,\mathcal{L}|_C).
}$$
Hence $h^0(X,\mathcal{L})-r_{X\to C}(\mathcal{L}) =h^0(X,\mathcal{L}-C)\le h^0(\bar X,\pi^*\mathcal{L}-\bar C)=h^0(\bar X,\pi^*\mathcal{L})-r_{\bar X\to \bar{C}}(\pi^*\mathcal{L})$. Then $\Delta(X, \mathcal{L})+r_{X\to C}(\mathcal{L})-\dim X\ge \Delta(\bar X, \pi^*\mathcal{L})+r_{\bar X\to \bar{C}}(\pi^*\mathcal{L})-\dim \bar{X}\ge 0$.
Let $(X,\mathcal{L})$ be a connected polarized demi-normal scheme. Assume $X=X_1\cup X_2$ where $X_1$ is connected and $X_2$ is irreducible. Then $$\Delta(X, \mathcal{L})\ge \Delta(X_1, \mathcal{L}|_{X_1}).$$
By , we have $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta(X, \mathcal{L})&\ge \Delta(X_1, \mathcal{L}|_{X_1})+\Delta(X_2, \mathcal{L}|_{X_2})+max\{r_{X_1\to C}(\mathcal{L}|_{X_1}),r_{X_2\to C}(\mathcal{L}|_{X_2})\}-\dim X\\
&\ge \Delta(X_1, \mathcal{L}|_{X_1})+\Delta(X_2, \mathcal{L}|_{X_2})+r_{X_2\to C}(\mathcal{L}|_{X_2})-\dim X.\end{aligned}$$ By Thm \[normal&divisor\] and Thm \[deminormal&divisor\], $\Delta(X_2, \mathcal{L}|_{X_2})+r_{X_2\to C}(\mathcal{L}|_{X_2}))-\dim X\ge 0$ whenever $X_2$ is normal or not. Therefore $\Delta(X, \mathcal{L})\ge \Delta(X_1, \mathcal{L}|_{X_1})$.
Let $(X,\mathcal{L})$ be a connected polarized demi-normal scheme. Then $$\Delta(X, \mathcal{L})\ge 0.$$ Moreover, if the equality holds, then $X$ is a tree of subschemes with $\Delta(X_i,\mathcal{L}|_{X_i})=0$ glued along hyperplanes.
Let $(X,\Lambda)$ be a Gorenstein stable log scheme. Then $$\Delta(X, K_X+\Lambda)\ge 0.$$ Moreover, if the equality holds, then $X$ is a tree of log varieties with $\Delta(X_i,(K_X+\Lambda)|_{X_i})=0$ glued along hyperplanes.
[plain]{}
Takao Fujita . On the structure of polarized varieties with $\Delta$-genera zero. J.fac.sci.univ.tokyo Sect.ia Math 22(1975):103-115.
Takao Fujita . On Polarized Varieties of Small жд-genera\[J\]. Tohoku Mathematical Journal, 1982, 34(3).
Takao Fujita . Classification Theories of Polarized Varieties. Cambridge University Press, 1990.
J[á]{}nos Koll[á]{}r. , volume 200 of [ *Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics*]{}. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2013. With a collaboration of S[á]{}ndor Kov[á]{}cs.
Wenfei Liu and S[ö]{}nke Rollenske. Geography of Gorenstein stable log surfaces\[J\]. , 2013, 368(4).
[^1]: Thanks to my advisor Prof. Jinxing Cai and Wenfei Liu.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present some examples of locally conformal symplectic structures of the first kind on compact nilmanifolds which do not admit Vaisman metrics. One of these examples does not admit locally conformal Kähler metrics and all the structures come from left-invariant locally conformal symplectic structures on the corresponding nilpotent Lie groups. Under certain topological restrictions related with the compactness of the canonical foliation, we prove a structure theorem for locally conformal symplectic manifolds of the first kind. In the non compact case, we show that they are the product of a real line with a compact contact manifold and, in the compact case, we obtain that they are mapping tori of compact contact manifolds by strict contactomorphisms. Motivated by the aforementioned examples, we also study left-invariant locally conformal symplectic structures on Lie groups. In particular, we obtain a complete description of these structures (with non-zero Lee $1$-form) on connected simply connected nilpotent Lie groups in terms of locally conformal symplectic extensions and symplectic double extensions of symplectic nilpotent Lie groups. In order to obtain this description, we study locally conformal symplectic structures of the first kind on Lie algebras.'
author:
- |
Giovanni Bazzoni$^*$ Juan Carlos Marrero$^\dagger$\
`[email protected]` `[email protected]`\
[*$^*$Mathematisches Institut der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München,* ]{}\
[*Theresienstraße 39, 80333 München*]{}\
[*$^\dagger$Universidad de La Laguna, Facultad de Ciencias,*]{}\
[*Dpto. de Matemáticas, Estad[í]{}stica e IO*]{}\
[*Avda. Astrofísico Francisco Sánchez s/n. 38071, La Laguna*]{}\
title: On locally conformal symplectic manifolds of the first kind
---
0.5pt
Introduction
============
A locally conformal symplectic structure on a manifold $M$ consists of a pair $(\Phi,\omega)$, where $\Phi$ and $\omega$ are a $2$-form and a $1$-form, respectively, with $\Phi$ non degenerate, $\omega$ closed, subject to the equation $d\Phi=\omega\wedge\Phi$. $\omega$ is known as the Lee form. This implies that, locally, $\Phi$ is conformal to a genuine symplectic form, hence the name. If $\omega=d f$, then the global conformal change $\Phi\mapsto e^{-f}\Phi$ endows $M$ with a symplectic structure. We use the name globally conformal symplectic structure in this case. Notice that a manifold endowed with a locally conformal symplectic structure is orientable and almost complex. A locally conformal symplectic manifold is one endowed with a locally conformal symplectic structure.
Locally conformal symplectic structures were introduced by Lee in [@Lee] and then studied extensively by Vaisman (see [@VaismanF]), Banyaga (see [@Banyaga1; @Banyaga2; @Banyaga3]) and many others (see [@BK1; @GL; @LV; @MMTP]). Vaisman pointed out in [@VaismanF Section 1] that locally conformal symplectic structures play an important role in Hamiltonian mechanics, generalizing the usual description of the phase space in terms of symplectic geometry.
In this paper we are mainly concerned with locally conformal symplectic structures of the first kind; this means that there exists an automorphism $U$ of $(\Phi,\omega)$ with $\omega(U)=1$; $U$ is then called an anti-Lee vector field. This is equivalent to the existence of a 1-form $\eta$, with $d\eta$ of rank $2n-2$, such that $\Phi=d\eta-\omega\wedge\eta$; here $2n=\dim M$. In order to obtain examples of locally conformal symplectic manifolds, one can take the product of a contact manifold and an interval; more generally, locally conformal symplectic structures of the first kind exist on the suspension (or mapping torus) of a strict contactomorphism[^1] of a contact manifold. We refer to Section \[section:Preliminaries\] for all the details. Banyaga proved a sort of converse to this result: in [@Banyaga1 Theorem 2], he showed that a compact manifold endowed with a locally conformal symplectic structure of the first kind fibres over the circle and that the fibre inherits a contact structure. This result, which shows an interplay between locally conformal symplectic geometry and contact geometry, is a non-metric version of a result of Ornea and Verbitski. In fact, in [@OV1], they proved that compact Vaisman manifolds (see the definition below) are diffeomorphic to mapping tori with Sasakian fiber.
Our first result is the following (see Theorem \[global-descrip-lcs\]):
[**Theorem A**]{}
We refer to the discussion after the proof of Theorem \[global-descrip-lcs\] (in Section \[lcs-can-fol\]) for a comparison between Banyaga’s result and the previous theorem.
Continuing our parallel between contact and locally conformal symplectic structures of the first kind, a theorem of Martinet (see [@Mar]) asserts that every oriented closed manifold of dimension $3$ has a contact form. Hence every orientable closed 3-manifold admits a contact structure. We provide a Martinet-type result for locally conformal symplectic structures of the first kind on 4-manifolds.
In fact, if $M$ is an oriented connected manifold of dimension $4$, $\omega$ is a closed $1$-form on $M$ without singularities and $L$ is a compact leaf of the foliation ${\mathcal{F}}=\{\omega = 0\}$ then we obtain sufficient conditions for $M$ to admit a locally conformal symplectic structure of the first kind (see Corollary \[Martinet\_type\]).
Locally conformal symplectic structures also appear in the context of almost Hermitian geometry. An almost Hermitian structure on a manifold $M$ of dimension $2n$ consists of a Riemannian metric $g$ and a compatible almost complex structure $J$, that is, an endomorphism $J\colon TM\to TM$ with $J^2=-\mathrm{Id}$, such that $g(JX,JY)=g(X,Y)$ for every $X,Y\in{\mathfrak{X}}(M)$. If $(g,J)$ is an almost Hermitian structure on $M$, one can consider the following tensors:
- a 2-form $\Phi$, the Kähler form, defined by $\Phi(X,Y)=g(JX,Y)$, $X,Y\in{\mathfrak{X}}(M)$;
- a 1-form $\omega$, the Lee form, defined by $\omega(X)=\frac{-1}{n-1}\delta\Phi(JX)$, where $\delta$ is the codifferential and $X\in{\mathfrak{X}}(M)$.
In [@GH], Gray and Hervella classified almost Hermitian structures $(g,J)$ by studying the covariant derivative of the Kähler form $\Phi$ with respect to the Levi-Civita connection $\nabla$ of $g$. Of particular interest for us are the following classes:
- the class of Kähler structures, for which $\nabla\Phi=0$. In this case, $g$ is said to be a Kähler metric. A Kähler manifold is a manifold endowed with a Kähler structure. The Lee form is zero on a Kähler manifold. We refer to [@Hu] for an introduction to Kähler geometry.
- the class of locally conformal Kähler (lcK) structures, for which $d\Phi=\omega\wedge\Phi$; in this case we call $g$ a locally conformal Kähler metric. A locally conformal Kähler manifold is a manifold endowed with a locally conformal Kähler structure. Locally conformal Kähler manifolds were introduced by Vaisman in [@VaismanA]. A remarkable example of locally conformal Kähler manifold is the Hopf surface. The study of locally conformal Kähler metrics on compact complex surfaces was undertaken in [@Belgun]. Homogeneous locally conformal Kähler and Vaisman structures have been studied in [@ACHK; @GMO; @HK; @HK2]. The standard reference for locally conformal Kähler geometry is [@DO]; see also the recent survey [@OV].
In the Kähler and locally conformal Kähler case, the almost complex structure $J$ is integrable, hence these are complex manifolds. One can interpret Kähler structure as a “degenerate” case of locally conformal Kähler structures. Indeed, it turns out that the Lee form of a locally conformal Kähler structure is closed; if it is exact, then one can show that there is a Kähler metric in the conformal class of $g$. In such a case, one says that the structure is globally conformal Kähler. In general, if a manifold admits a genuine locally conformal Kähler structure, i.e. one for which the Lee form is not exact, then it admits an open cover such that the Lee form is exact on each open set, hence the locally conformal Kähler metric is locally conformal to a Kähler metric.
The non-metric version of Kähler manifolds are symplectic manifolds (see [@McDS]). A manifold $M^{2n}$ is symplectic if there exists a 2-form $\Phi$ such that $d\Phi=0$ and $\Phi^n$ is a volume form. Clearly, the Kähler form of a Kähler structure is symplectic. It is well known that the existence of a Kähler metric on a compact manifold deeply influences its topology. In fact, suppose $M$ is a compact Kähler manifold of dimension $2n$ and let $\Phi$ be the Kähler form; then:
- the odd Betti numbers of $M$ are even;
- the Lefschetz map $H^{p}(M)\to H^{2n-p}(M)$, $[\alpha]\mapsto [\alpha\wedge\Phi^{n-p}]$ is an isomorphism for $0\leq p\leq n$;
- $M$ is formal.
For a long time, the only known examples of symplectic manifolds came from Kähler (or even projective) geometry. In [@Th], Thurston constructed the first example of a compact, symplectic 4-manifold which violates each of the three conditions given above. Since then, the problem of constructing compact symplectic manifolds without Kähler structures has inspired beautiful Mathematics (see, for instance, [@FM; @Go; @McD; @OT]).
Following this train of thought, the Kähler form and the Lee form of a locally conformal Kähler structure define a locally conformal symplectic structure. In contrast to the Kähler case, however, not much is known about the topology of compact locally conformal Kähler manifolds. In [@DO Conjecture 2.1] it was conjectured that a compact locally conformal Kähler manifold which satisfies the topological restrictions of a Kähler manifold admits a (global) Kähler metric. A stronger conjecture (see [@VaismanD]) is that a compact locally conformal Kähler manifold which is not globally conformal Kähler must have at least one odd degree Betti number which is odd. It was shown in [@BMO; @KS; @VaismanE] that a compact Vaisman manifold, i.e. a locally conformal Kähler manifold with non-zero parallel Lee form (see [@VaismanB]), has odd $b_1$. Hence the stronger conjecture holds for Vaisman structures. However, it does not hold in general: in [@OeTo], Oeljeklaus and Toma constructed a locally conformal Kähler manifold of complex dimension 3 with $b_1=b_5=2$, $b_0=b_2=b_4=b_6=1$ and $b_3=0$.
In [@OV], the authors proposed the following problem:
> *Is there a compact manifold with locally conformal symplectic structures but no locally conformal Kähler metric?*
A first answer to this question was given by Bande and Kotschik: in [@Bande-Kotschick] they described a locally conformal symplectic structure on a 4-manifold of the form $M\times S^1$, which does not carry any complex structure, hence no locally conformal Kähler metric.
The second goal of this paper is to give a different answer to the question above. In fact, we prove the following result (see Corollary \[Main:3\]):
[**Theorem B**]{} *There exists a compact, 4-dimensional nilmanifold, not diffeomorphic to the product of a compact 3-manifold and a circle, which has a locally conformal symplectic structure but no locally conformal Kähler metric.*
This result is contained in the preprint [@BMA], of which this paper represents a substantial expansion. The example of Thurston that we mentioned above is also a nilmanifold. This makes the parallel between the symplectic and the locally conformal symplectic case particularly transparent. The product of the Heisenberg manifold and the real line admits a compact quotient, which turns out to be a nilmanifold which admits a Vaisman structure. It was conjectured by Ugarte in [@U] that this is basically the only possibility, i.e. that a compact nilmanifold endowed with a locally conformal Kähler structure with non-zero Lee form is a compact quotient of the Heisenberg group multiplied by ${\mathbb{R}}$. This conjecture was proved by Sawai in [@Sawai], assuming that the locally conformal Kähler structure has a left-invariant complex structure, but remains open in general. In Section \[sec:examples\] we provide different examples of compact nilmanifolds with locally conformal symplectic structures.
On the other hand, in last years, special attention has been devoted to the study of symplectic Lie algebras (see [@BaCo; @DaMe; @LiMe; @MeRe; @Ovando]). In particular, in [@MeRe] (see also [@DaMe]), the authors introduce the notion of a symplectic double extension of a symplectic Lie algebra. In fact, if ${\mathfrak{s}}_1$ is a symplectic Lie algebra of dimension $2n-2$ then, in the presence of a derivation on ${\mathfrak{s}}_1$ and an element of ${\mathfrak{s}}_1$ which satisfy certain conditions, one may produce a new symplectic Lie algebra of dimension $2n$. In addition, in [@MeRe] (see also [@DaMe]), the authors prove a very interesting result: [*every symplectic nilpotent Lie algebra of dimension $2n$ may be obtained as a sequence of $(n-1)$ symplectic double extensions from the abelian Lie algebra $\mathbb{R}^2$*]{}.
We remark that a symplectic structure on a Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{s}}$ induces a left-invariant symplectic structure on a Lie group with Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{s}}$ and, conversely, a left-invariant symplectic structure on a Lie group induces a symplectic structure on its Lie algebra. Furthermore, symplectic structures may be considered as locally conformal symplectic structures with zero Lee $1$-form. In addition, all the locally conformal symplectic structures on the examples of compact nilmanifolds in Section \[sec:examples\] come from left-invariant locally conformal symplectic structures (with non-zero Lee $1$-form) on connected simply connected Lie groups.
Therefore, the following problem we tackle in this paper is the study of left-invariant locally conformal symplectic structures on Lie groups with non-zero Lee $1$-form and, more precisely, left-invariant locally conformal symplectic structures of the first kind. In this direction, our first result relates locally conformal symplectic Lie groups of the first kind with contact Lie groups (that is, Lie groups endowed with left-invariant contact structures). In fact, we prove that (see Section \[relacion-contact\]):
[**Theorem C**]{} *The extension of a contact Lie group $H$ by a contact representation of the abelian Lie group $\mathbb{R}$ on $H$ is a locally conformal symplectic Lie group of the first kind. Conversely, every connected simply connected locally conformal symplectic group of the first kind is an extension of a connected simply connected contact Lie group $H$ by a contact representation of $\mathbb{R}$ on $H$.*
We also introduce the definition of a locally conformal symplectic extension of a symplectic Lie group $S$ by a symplectic $2$-cocycle and a symplectic representation of $\mathbb{R}$ on $S$ and, then, we prove the following result (see Section \[rel\_symplectic\]):
[**Theorem D**]{} *The locally conformal symplectic extension of a symplectic Lie group $S$ of dimension $2n$ is a locally conformal symplectic Lie group of the first kind with bi-invariant Lee vector field and dimension $2n+2$. Conversely, every connected simply connected locally conformal symplectic Lie group of the first kind with bi-invariant Lee vector field is the locally conformal symplectic extension of a connected simply connected symplectic Lie group.*
The last part of the paper is devoted to the study of locally conformal symplectic nilpotent Lie groups with non-zero Lee $1$-form. We completely describe the nature of these Lie groups in terms of locally conformal symplectic extensions and double symplectic extensions. In fact, we prove the following result (see Theorem \[structure\_nilpotent\]):
[**Theorem E**]{} *Every connected simply connected locally conformal symplectic nilpotent Lie group of dimension $2n+2$ with non-zero Lee $1$-form is the locally conformal symplectic nilpotent extension of a connected simply connected symplectic nilpotent Lie group $S$ and, in turn, $S$ may be obtained as a sequence of $(n-1)$ double symplectic nilpotent extensions from the abelian Lie group $\mathbb{R}^2$.*
We show that all the compact locally conformal symplectic nilmanifolds in Section \[sec:examples\] may be described using the previous result. On the other hand, in order to obtain the above results on locally conformal symplectic Lie groups, we discuss Lie algebras endowed with locally conformal symplectic structures.
This paper is organized as follows:
- in Section \[section:Preliminaries\] we recall the main definitions and known results about locally conformal symplectic geometry, Lie algebra cohomology, multiplicative vector fields, central extensions of Lie algebras and groups and compact nilmanifolds;
- in Section \[sec:examples\] we obtain some examples of compact locally conformal symplectic nilmanifolds of the first kind (symplectic or not) which do not admit Vaisman metrics; in particular, we present an example of a compact, 4-dimensional nilmanifold, not diffeomorphic to the product of a compact 3-manifold and a circle, which has a locally conformal symplectic structure but no locally conformal Kähler metric;
- in Section \[sec:foliation\] we provide some general results about foliations of codimension 1, we describe the global structure of a connected locally conformal symplectic manifold of the first kind with a compact leaf in its canonical foliation (see ) and we deduce some consequences (see Corollary \[Martinet\_type\]);
- in Section \[sec:lcs\_Lie\_algebras\] we study locally conformal symplectic structures on Lie algebras, with a particular emphasis on the nilpotent case.
- in Section \[sec:lcs\_Lie\_groups\] we consider left-invariant locally conformal symplectic structures on Lie groups emphasizing again the nilpotent case. We show how to recover the examples of Section \[sec:examples\] from the general description.
Preliminaries {#section:Preliminaries}
=============
In this section we review the basics in locally conformal symplectic geometry as well as some definitions, constructions and results on Lie algebra cohomology, multiplicative vector fields, central extensions of Lie algebras and groups and compact nilmanifolds.
Locally conformal symplectic structures {#LCS_Manifolds}
---------------------------------------
A *locally conformal symplectic (lcs)* structure on a smooth manifold $M^{2n}$ ($n \geq 2$) consists of a 2-form $\Phi\in\Omega^2(M)$ and a closed 1-form $\omega\in\Omega^1(M)$, called the Lee form, such that $\Phi^n$ is a volume form on $M$ and $$\label{eq:1}
d\Phi=\omega\wedge\Phi.$$ The lcs structure is *globally conformal symplectic (gcs)* if $\omega$ is exact.
Notice in particular that if $H^1(M;{\mathbb{R}})=0$, every lcs structure on $M$ is gcs. We require $n\geq 2$, since in dimension 2 a 2-form is automatically closed, hence lcs geometry in dimension 2 is nothing but symplectic geometry.
Here is an equivalent definition: a manifold $M^{2n}$ has a lcs structure if there exist a 2-form $\Phi\in\Omega^2(M)$ with $\Phi^n\neq 0$, an open cover $M=\cup_\alpha U_\alpha$ and smooth functions $\sigma_\alpha\colon U_\alpha\to {\mathbb{R}}$ such that $\Phi_\alpha=e^{\sigma_\alpha}\Phi\big|_{U_\alpha}$ satisfies $d\Phi_\alpha=0$. The lcs structure is globally conformal symplectic if the domain of $\sigma_\alpha$ can be chosen to be all of $M$. In this case, the global conformal change $\Phi\mapsto \Phi'=e^\sigma\Phi$ produces a *closed* and non-degenerate 2-form $\Phi'$, hence $(M,\Phi')$ is a symplectic manifold.
Since $\Phi$ is a non-degenerate 2-form, it provides an isomorphism ${\mathfrak{X}}(M)\to \Omega^1(M)$ given by $$X\mapsto \imath_X\Phi.$$ We define $V\in{\mathfrak{X}}(M)$ by the condition $\imath_V\Phi=\omega$. $V$ is the *Lee vector field* of the lcs structure. Clearly $\omega(V)=0$, since $\Phi$ is skew-symmetric.
As usual, a good approach to the study of a geometric structure is to consider its automorphisms. If $(\Phi,\omega)$ is a lcs structure on $M$, an *infinitesimal automorphism* of $(\Phi,\omega)$ is a vector field $X\in{\mathfrak{X}}(M)$ such that ${\mathcal{L}}_X\Phi=0$. Since $n \geq 2$, ${\mathcal{L}}_X\omega =0.$ Infinitesimal automorphisms of $(\Phi,\omega)$ form a Lie subalgebra ${\mathfrak{X}}_\Phi(M)$ of ${\mathfrak{X}}(M)$. Moreover, if $X\in{\mathfrak{X}}_\Phi(M)$ then $\omega(X)$ is a constant function whenever $M$ is connected. Hence the *Lee morphism* $\ell\colon {\mathfrak{X}}_\Phi(M)\to{\mathbb{R}}$, $\ell(X)=\omega(X)$, is well defined. Viewing ${\mathbb{R}}$ as an abelian Lie algebra, $\ell$ becomes a Lie algebra morphism (see [@VaismanF] or [@Banyaga3 Proposition 2]). Notice that the Lee vector field $V$ is in ${\mathfrak{X}}_\Phi(M)$ and that $\ell(V)=0$. Since the image of $\ell$ has dimension at most 1, the Lee morphism is either surjective or identically zero. The lcs structure $(\Phi,\omega)$ is said to be *of the first kind* if the Lee morphism is surjective, *of the second kind* otherwise (see [@VaismanF]).
In this paper, we shall restrict ourselves to lcs structures of the first kind. Also, in general, when we say *lcs structure* we explicitly exclude the possibility that the structure is actually globally conformal symplectic. Let $(\Phi,\omega)$ be a lcs structure of the first kind on $M$. Let $U\in{\mathfrak{X}}_\Phi(M)$ be a vector field such that $\omega(U)=1$. Define $\eta\in\Omega^1(M)$ by the equation $\eta=-\imath_U\Phi$. If $U$ and $\eta$ are as above and $V$ is the Lee vector field then $$\eta(U) = 0, \; \; \eta(V) = 1, \; \;
{\mathcal{L}}_U\eta={\mathcal{L}}_U\omega={\mathcal{L}}_V\eta={\mathcal{L}}_V\omega=0.$$ In particular, $\imath_U d\eta=\imath_V d\eta=0$.
The next proposition gives an alternative characterization of lcs structures of the first kind in terms of the existence of a certain 1-form. For a proof, see [@VaismanF Proposition 2.2].
\[lcs\_1\_kind\] Let $M^{2n}$ be manifold endowed with a lcs structure of the first kind $(\Phi,\omega)$. Then there exists a 1-form $\eta\in\Omega^1(M)$ such that $$\label{eq:2}
\Phi= d\eta-\omega\wedge\eta,$$ $d\eta$ has rank $2n-2$ and $\omega \wedge \eta \wedge (d\eta)^{n-1}$ is a volume form. Conversely, let $M^{2n}$ be a manifold endowed with two nowhere zero 1-forms $\omega$ and $\eta$, with $d\omega=0$, $\textrm{rank}(d\eta)<2n$ and such that $\omega\wedge\eta\wedge(d\eta)^{n-1}$ is a volume form. Then $M$ admits a lcs structure of the first kind.
The conditions given in Proposition \[lcs\_1\_kind\] imply that there exist two vector fields $U$ and $V$ on $M$ which are characterized by the following conditions $$\begin{aligned}
\omega(U) =1, & \eta(U) = 0, & i_Ud\eta = 0,\nonumber \\
\omega(V) =0, & \eta(V) = 1, & i_Vd\eta = 0.\end{aligned}$$
Here $V$ is the Lee vector field, $U$ is an *anti-Lee vector field* and $\eta$ is an *anti-Lee $1$-form*.
Note that different anti-Lee vector fields (and, thus, different anti-Lee $1$-forms) may exist for a lcs structure of the first kind. However, from now on, when we refer to a lcs structure of the first kind, we will assume that the anti-Lee vector field (and, therefore, the anti-Lee $1$-form) is fixed. Consequently, in what follows, a lcs structure of the first kind will be a couple of 1-forms which satisfy the conditions in Proposition \[lcs\_1\_kind\].
Lcs structures can be told apart according to another criterion, which we now review briefly. Let $M$ be a smooth manifold and let $\omega\in\Omega^1(M)$ be a closed 1-form. In [@GL], a twisted de Rham differential $d_\omega$ was defined: given $\alpha\in\Omega^p(M)$, one sets $$d_\omega(\alpha)=d\alpha-\omega\wedge\alpha.$$ One sees that $(d_\omega)^2=0$, hence the cohomology $H^\bullet_\omega(M)$ of the complex $(\Omega^\bullet(M),d_\omega)$ is defined. $H^\bullet_\omega(M)$ is called the *Lichnerowicz* or *Morse-Novikov* cohomology of $M$ relative to $\omega$. Notice that $d_\omega$ is not a derivation with respect to the algebra structure given by the wedge product on $\Omega^\bullet(M)$, i.e. it does not satisfy the Leibniz rule. If $\omega$ is an exact 1-form, then $(\Omega^\bullet(M),d_\omega)$ is homotopic to the standard de Rham complex $(\Omega^\bullet(M),d)$, hence $H^\bullet_\omega(M)\cong H^\bullet(M;{\mathbb{R}})$. But this is not the case if $\omega$ is not exact; for instance, when $M$ is connected, oriented and $n$-dimensional, $H^n_\omega(M)= 0$, see [@GL Page 429]. However, as pointed out in [@BK1], the Euler characteristic of the Lichnerowicz cohomology equals the usual Euler characteristic. Also, $H^\bullet_\omega(M)$ is isomorphic to the cohomology of $M$ with values in the sheaf $\mathcal{F}_\omega$ of local functions $f$ on $M$ such that $d_\omega f=0$ (see [@VaismanC Proposition 3.1]).
Let $(\Phi,\omega)$ be a lcs structure on a manifold $M$. Equation above tells us that $\Phi$ is a 2-cocycle in $(\Omega^\bullet(M),d_\omega)$, hence it defines a cohomology class $[\Phi]_\omega\in H^2_\omega(M)$. The lcs structure $(\Phi,\omega)$ is called *exact* if $[\Phi]_\omega=0\in H^2_\omega(M)$, *non exact* otherwise.
Equation above shows that a lcs structure of the first kind is automatically exact. The converse, however, need not be true. Indeed, by [@Banyaga3 Proposition 3], out of an exact lcs structure $(\Phi,\omega)$ we get a vector field $X$ which satisfies ${\mathcal{L}}_X\Phi=(\omega(X)-1)\Phi$ and we can not assure that $\omega(X)=1$. See also Example \[solv\_ex\_not\_first\_kind\] below.
According to [@Banyaga1 Corollary 1], the study of non exact lcs structures and of their automorphisms on a manifold $M$ is strictly related to the study of symplectic structures on the minimum cover $\tilde{M}\to M$ on which the Lee form becomes exact and of their corresponding automorphisms. Examples of non exact lcs structures on the 4-dimensional solvmanifold constructed in [@ACFM] are given in [@Banyaga1].
We describe now two methods to construct manifolds endowed with lcs structures of the first kind from contact manifolds. These examples play a very important role in this paper.
\[ex:1\] Let $(L,\theta)$ be a contact manifold of dimension $2n-1$; hence $\theta\wedge(d\theta)^{n-1}$ is a volume form and the *Reeb field* $R\in{\mathfrak{X}}(M)$ is uniquely determined by the conditions $\imath_Rd\theta=0$ and $\imath_R\theta=1$. Let $I\subset{\mathbb{R}}$ be an open interval (we do not exclude the case $I={\mathbb{R}}$). Then $M=L\times I$ admits a gcs structure, which we describe using Proposition \[lcs\_1\_kind\]. Let $\pi_i$ denote the projection from $M$ to the $i$-th factor, $i=1,2$. We have two 1-forms $\omega_\theta$ and $\eta_\theta$ on $M$, $$\omega_\theta=\pi_2^*dt \quad \mathrm{and} \quad \eta_\theta=\pi_1^*\theta,$$ where $t$ is the standard coordinate on ${\mathbb{R}}$. The anti-Lee vector field is $U_\theta=\left(0, \frac{\partial}{\partial t}\right)$ while the Lee vector field is $V_\theta=(R, 0)$. Clearly, $M$ is globally conformal symplectic to the standard symplectization of the contact manifold $L$.
In the compact case, one can start with a compact contact manifold $(L,\theta)$ and consider the product $M\coloneq L\times S^1$. The two 1-forms $$\omega_\theta=\pi_2^*\tau \quad \mathrm{and} \quad \eta_\theta=\pi_1^*\theta,$$ where $\tau$ is the angular form on $S^1$, give a lcs structure of the first kind on $M$.
\[ex:2\] More generally, let $(L,\theta)$ be a contact manifold and let $\phi\colon L\to L$ be a strict contactomorphism: this means that $\phi$ is a diffeomorphism and $\phi^*\theta=\theta$. Let $c$ be a positive real number and denote by $M$ the *suspension* of $L$ by $\phi$ and $c > 0$, i.e. $$M= L \times_{(\phi, c)} {\mathbb{R}}=\frac{L \times {\mathbb{R}}}{\sim_{(\phi, c)}},$$ where $(x,t)\sim_{(\phi, c)}(x',t')$ if and only if $x=\phi^k(x')$ and $t'=t+ck$, $k\in{\mathbb{Z}}$. $M$ is also known as the *mapping torus* $L_{(\phi, c)}$ of $L$ by $c$ and $\phi$; it can alternatively be described as the quotient space $$M=\frac{L \times [0,c]}{(\phi(x), 0)\sim (x, c)}.$$ The standard gcs structure $(\omega_\theta,\eta_\theta)$ on $ L \times {\mathbb{R}}$ induces a lcs structure of the first kind on $M$, which we denote by $(\omega_{(\theta,\phi,c)},\eta_{(\theta,\phi,c)})$. We also have a canonical projection $\pi\colon M\to S^1={\mathbb{R}}/c{\mathbb{Z}}$ satisfying $\omega_{(\theta,\phi,c)} =
\pi^*(\tau)$, where $\tau$ is the angular form on $S^1$. Furthermore, if $L$ is compact, so is $M$.
Lie algebra cohomology {#Lie_alg_cohom}
----------------------
Let ${\mathfrak{g}}$ be a real Lie algebra of dimension $n$ and let $W$ be a finite dimensional ${\mathfrak{g}}$-module. For $1\leq p\leq n$ we consider the space $$C^p({\mathfrak{g}};W)=\{f\colon\Lambda^p{\mathfrak{g}}\to W\};$$ we also set $C^0({\mathfrak{g}};W)=W$. For $0\leq p\leq n$ we define a map ${\delta}\colon C^p({\mathfrak{g}};W)\to C^{p+1}({\mathfrak{g}};W)$ by $$\begin{aligned}
({\delta}f)(x_1,\ldots,x_{p+1})&=\sum_{i=1}^{p+1}(-1)^{i+1}x_i\cdot f(x_1,\ldots,\hat{x}_i,\ldots,x_{p+1})\\
&+\sum_{i<j}(-1)^{i+j}f([x_i,x_j],x_1,\ldots,\hat{x}_i,\ldots,\hat{x}_j,\ldots,x_{p+1}),\end{aligned}$$ where $\cdot$ denotes the ${\mathfrak{g}}$-module structure on $W$ and $\hat{x}_i$ means that $x_i$ is omitted. We set $$Z^p({\mathfrak{g}};W)=\ker({\delta}\colon C^p({\mathfrak{g}};W)\to C^{p+1}({\mathfrak{g}};W)) \quad \mathrm{and} \quad B^p({\mathfrak{g}};W)=\mathrm{im}({\delta}\colon C^{p-1}({\mathfrak{g}};W)\to C^p({\mathfrak{g}};W)).$$ Elements in $Z^p({\mathfrak{g}};W)$ (resp. $B^p({\mathfrak{g}};W)$) are called *p-cocycles* (resp. *p-coboundaries*). One has that ${\delta}^2=0$, hence the degree $p$ cohomology of the complex $(C^*({\mathfrak{g}};W),d)$ can be defined as $$H^p({\mathfrak{g}};W)=\frac{Z^p({\mathfrak{g}};W)}{B^p({\mathfrak{g}};W)}.$$
When $W={\mathbb{R}}$, the trivial ${\mathfrak{g}}$-module, then $(C^*({\mathfrak{g}};W),{\delta})$ is isomorphic to the Chevalley-Eilenberg complex $(\Lambda^\bullet{\mathfrak{g}}^*,d)$, where ${\mathfrak{g}}^*=\hom({\mathfrak{g}},{\mathbb{R}})$. In this case, $b_p({\mathfrak{g}})\coloneq\dim H^p({\mathfrak{g}};{\mathbb{R}})$ are the *Betti numbers* of ${\mathfrak{g}}$.
\[1\_dim\_rep\] Given a Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{g}}$, suppose that there exists a non-zero $\omega\in{\mathfrak{g}}^*$ with $d\omega=0$. Consider the 1-dimensional non-trivial ${\mathfrak{g}}$-module $W_\omega$ with ${\mathfrak{g}}$-representation given by $$\label{eq:representation}
X\cdot w=-\omega(X)w,$$ where $w\in W_\omega$. Since $d\omega=0$, is indeed a Lie algebra representation. In this peculiar situation, a computation shows that $\delta=d_\omega$, where $d_\omega(\alpha)=d\omega-\omega\wedge\alpha$. Thus the Lie algebra cohomology of $W_\omega$ coincides with the so-called *Lichnerowicz* or *Morse-Novikov* cohomology of ${\mathfrak{g}}$ (see [@Millionschikov])
Recall that, for a nilpotent Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{g}}$, $b_1({\mathfrak{g}})\geq 2$, hence we can always find a non-zero element $\omega\in{\mathfrak{g}}^*$ with $d\omega=0$. In this case, $W_\omega$ is a non-trivial 1-dimensional ${\mathfrak{g}}$-module. We need the following result of Dixmier:
\[Dixmier\] Let ${\mathfrak{g}}$ be a nilpotent $n$-dimensional Lie algebra and let $W$ be a ${\mathfrak{g}}$-module such that every ${\mathfrak{g}}$-module contained in $W$ is non-trivial. Then $H^p({\mathfrak{g}};W)=0$ for $0\leq p\leq n$.
\[cor:Dixmier\] Suppose ${\mathfrak{g}}$ is an $n$-dimensional nilpotent Lie algebra and pick a non-zero $\omega\in{\mathfrak{g}}^*$ with $d\omega=0$. Then $H^p({\mathfrak{g}};W_\omega)=0$ for $0\leq p\leq n$.
Multiplicative vector fields on Lie groups {#multiplicative}
------------------------------------------
In this section we review some definitions and constructions on multiplicative vector fields in a Lie group and semidirect product of Lie groups and algebras (for more information see, for instance, [@MaXu]).
Let $H$ be a Lie group with Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{h}}$ and let $\phi\colon \mathbb{R} \to \operatorname{Aut}(H)$ be a representation of the abelian Lie group $\mathbb{R}$ on $H$. $\phi$ is the flow of a multiplicative vector field ${\mathcal{M}}\colon H \to TH$, that is, ${\mathcal{M}}$ satisfies the condition $${\mathcal{M}}(h h') = {\mathcal{M}}(h) \cdot {\mathcal{M}}(h'), \; \; \mbox{ for } h, h' \in H$$ where $\cdot$ denotes the multiplication in the Lie group $TH$. In other words, $${\mathcal{M}}(h h') = (T_hr_{h'})({\mathcal{M}}(h)) + (T_{h'} \ell_{h})({\mathcal{M}}(h')),$$ $r_{h'}\colon H \to H$ and $\ell_h\colon H \to H$ being right translation by $h'$ and left translation by $h$, respectively.
If ${\mathsf{e}}$ is the identity element in $H$, ${\mathcal{M}}({\mathsf{e}}) = 0$ and, in addition, ${\mathcal{M}}$ induces a derivation $D\colon{\mathfrak{h}}\to{\mathfrak{h}}$ in the Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{h}}$ which is defined by $$\label{der-induced}
{\overleftarrow{DX}} = [{\overleftarrow{X}}, {\mathcal{M}}],$$ for $X \in{\mathfrak{h}}$, where $[\cdot, \cdot ]$ is the standard Lie bracket of vector fields in $H$. Here, we use the following notation: if $K$ is a Lie group with Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{k}}$ and $X \in {\mathfrak{k}}$ then ${\overleftarrow{X}}$ is the left-invariant vector field on $K$ whose value at ${\mathsf{e}}$ is $X$. Recall that a derivation of a Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{h}}$ is a linear map $D\colon {\mathfrak{h}}\to{\mathfrak{h}}$ such that $$D([X,Y])=[D(X),Y]+[X,D(Y)] \quad \forall X,Y\in{\mathfrak{h}}.$$
The derivations of a Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{h}}$ form a Lie algebra, denoted $\mathrm{Der}({\mathfrak{h}})$. A derivation is a 2-cocycle in the complex $C^*({\mathfrak{h}},{\mathfrak{h}})$, where the ${\mathfrak{h}}$-module structure of ${\mathfrak{h}}$ is given by the adjoint representation. A derivation $D$ is *inner* if $D=\mathrm{ad}_X$ for some $X\in{\mathfrak{h}}$.
Using the representation $\phi$, we may consider the semidirect product Lie group $G = H \rtimes_\phi\mathbb{R}$, with multiplication defined by $$(h, t) (h', t') = (h\phi_t(h'), t + t'), \; \; \mbox{ for } (h, t), (h', t') \in G.$$
The Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{g}}$ of $G$ is the semidirect product ${\mathfrak{g}}={\mathfrak{h}}\rtimes_D \mathbb{R}$. This is simply ${\mathfrak{h}}\oplus{\mathbb{R}}$ with bracket $$\label{extension_derivation}
[(X,a), (Y,b)] = (aD(Y) - bD(X) + [X, Y]_{{\mathfrak{g}}},0), \; \; \mbox{ for } (X,a), (Y,b) \in {\mathfrak{h}}\oplus{\mathbb{R}}.$$
Conversely, let $D\colon{\mathfrak{h}}\to{\mathfrak{h}}$ be a derivation of ${\mathfrak{h}}$ and let $H$ be the connected simply connected Lie group with Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{h}}$. Then, there exists a unique multiplicative vector field ${\mathcal{M}}$ on $H$ whose flow induces a representation $$\phi\colon \mathbb{R} \to \operatorname{Aut}(H)$$ of the abelian Lie group $\mathbb{R}$ on $H$ and $${\overleftarrow{DX}} = [{\overleftarrow{X}},{\mathcal{M}}],$$ for $X \in {\mathfrak{h}}$. Hence we can consider the Lie group $G = H \rtimes_\phi \mathbb{R}$ whose Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{g}}$ is ${\mathfrak{h}}\rtimes_D{\mathbb{R}}$.
The semidirect product of a group $H$ and ${\mathbb{R}}$ with an automorphism $\phi\colon {\mathbb{R}}\to\operatorname{Aut}(H)$ sits in a short exact sequence $1\to H\to H\rtimes_\phi {\mathbb{R}}\to {\mathbb{R}}\to 1$ and $H$ is a normal subgroup of $H\rtimes_\phi{\mathbb{R}}$.
Central extensions of Lie algebras and groups by $\mathbb{R}$ {#central-ext-alg-group}
-------------------------------------------------------------
In this section we review some constructions on central extensions of Lie algebras (resp. groups) by the abelian Lie algebra (resp. group) $\mathbb{R}$ (see, for instance, [@MaMiOrPeRa; @TuWi]).
Let $S$ be a Lie group with Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{s}}$. A 2-cocycle on $S$ with values in $\mathbb{R}$ is a smooth map $\varphi\colon S \times S \to \mathbb{R}$ such that $$\varphi(s, s') - \varphi(s, s's'') + \varphi(ss', s'') - \varphi(s', s'') = 0, \quad \mathrm{for} \ s, s', s'' \in S.$$
If $\varphi$ is a $2$-cocycle on $S$ with values in $\mathbb{R}$, we can consider the central extension of $S$ by $\varphi$, denoted ${\mathbb{R}}{\circledcirc}_{\varphi}S$. As a set, this is ${\mathbb{R}}\times S$, with Lie group structure given $$(u,s)(u',s') = (u + u' + \varphi(s, s'),ss') \quad \mathrm{for} \ (u,s), (u',s') \in {\mathbb{R}}\times S.$$ On the other hand, the $2$-cocycle $\varphi$ induces a $2$-cocycle $\sigma$ on ${\mathfrak{s}}$ (compare with Section \[Lie\_alg\_cohom\]), defined by $$\label{sigma}
\sigma(X,Y) = \displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}\Big|_{t=0} \frac{d}{ds}\Big|_{s=0} (\varphi(\exp(tX),\exp(sY)) - \varphi(\exp(sY),\exp(tX))),$$ where $\exp\colon{\mathfrak{s}}\to S$ is the exponential map associated with the Lie group $S$.
Moreover, the Lie algebra of the central extension ${\mathbb{R}}{\circledcirc}_{\varphi}S$ is the central extension ${\mathbb{R}}{\circledcirc}_\sigma{\mathfrak{s}}$ of ${\mathfrak{s}}$ by $\sigma$; this is just ${\mathbb{R}}\oplus{\mathfrak{s}}$ with bracket $$\label{extension_central}
[(u,X),(u',X')] = (\sigma(X,X'),[X,X']), \; \; \mbox{ for } (u,X), (u',X') \in {\mathbb{R}}\oplus{\mathfrak{s}}.$$
Conversely, let $S$ be a connected simply connected Lie group with Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{s}}$ and let $\sigma\in\Lambda^2{\mathfrak{s}}^*$ be a $2$-cocycle. Then, one may find a $2$-cocycle $\varphi\colon S \times S \to \mathbb{R}$ on $S$ with values in $\mathbb{R}$ such that $\varphi$ and $\sigma$ are related by . In addition, the central extension ${\mathbb{R}}{\circledcirc}_{\varphi} S$ of $S$ by $\varphi$ is a Lie group with Lie algebra the central extension ${\mathbb{R}}{\circledcirc}_{\sigma}{\mathfrak{s}}$ of ${\mathfrak{s}}$ by $\sigma$ (for more details, see [@TuWi]). A central extension of a group $S$ by ${\mathbb{R}}$, given by a 2-cocycle $\varphi\colon S\times S\to{\mathbb{R}}$ sits in a short exact sequence $1\to {\mathbb{R}}\to {\mathbb{R}}{\circledcirc}_\varphi S\to S\to 1$ and ${\mathbb{R}}$ is a normal subgroup of ${\mathbb{R}}{\circledcirc}_\varphi S$.
Compact nilmanifolds
--------------------
Let $G$ be a connected, simply connected nilpotent Lie group and let ${\mathfrak{g}}$ be its Lie algebra. It is interesting to know when $G$ contains a discrete, co-compact subgroup (i.e. a lattice).
\[Maltsev\] $G$ contains a lattice if and only if there exists a basis of ${\mathfrak{g}}$ such that the structure constants of ${\mathfrak{g}}$ with respect to this basis are rational numbers.
Assume that $G$ contains a lattice $\Gamma$ and let $N=\Gamma\backslash G$ be the corresponding nilmanifold. One identifies elements of $\Lambda^\bullet{\mathfrak{g}}^*$ with left-invariant forms on $G$, which descend to $N$.
\[Nomizu\] The natural inclusion $(\Lambda^\bullet{\mathfrak{g}}^*,d)\hookrightarrow(\Omega^\bullet(N),d)$ induces an isomorphism on cohomology.
Notation for Lie algebras {#Notation_Lie_algebras}
-------------------------
We will adopt the following notation for Lie algebras, best explained by an example. ${\mathfrak{g}}=(0,0,0,12)$ means that ${\mathfrak{g}}^*$ has a basis $\{e^1,\ldots,e^4\}$ such that $de^1=de^2=de^3=0$ and $de^4=e^{12}$, where $d$ is the Chevalley-Eilenberg differential and $e^{12}\coloneq e^1\wedge e^2$.
Some examples of compact lcs manifolds of the first kind {#sec:examples}
========================================================
In this section we use nilmanifolds to construct examples of lcs manifolds of the first kind. In dimension 4, we construct a compact nilmanifold endowed with a lcs structure of the first kind which does not carry any lcK metric and, furthermore, is not the product of a 3-manifold and a circle, thus proving . In higher dimension we construct compact nilmanifolds with lcs structures of the first kind, symplectic or not, which do not carry any lcK metric (with left-invariant complex structure) and any Vaisman metric. We summarize our examples in Table \[table:0\] (the superscript ^$\dagger$^ means *left-invariant* complex or lcK structure).
=1.2mm
[lcccccccc]{} & dimension & symplectic & complex^$\dagger$^ & complex & lcs & lcK^$\dagger$^ & lcK & Vaisman\
& $4$ & & $\times$ & $\times$ & & $\times$ & $\times$ & $\times$\
& $6$ & & & && $\times$ & ? & $\times$\
& $6$ & $\times$ & $\times$ & ? & & $\times$ & ? & $\times$\
& $2n,n\geq 4$ & $\times$ & & & & $\times$ & ? & $\times$\
Dimension 4 {#Dimension:4}
-----------
In this section we present an example of a $4$-dimensional compact nilmanifold endowed with a lcs structure of the first kind, without complex structures, hence no lcK structures. We use the general construction in Example \[ex:2\], i.e. we consider the mapping torus of a compact contact manifold by a strict contactomorphism. The contact manifold is a compact quotient of the Heisenberg group of dimension 3. This is the connected simply connected nilpotent Lie group $$H=\left\{
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & y & z \\
0 & 1 & x\\
0 & 0 & 1
\end{pmatrix} \ | \ x,y,z\in{\mathbb{R}}\right\}.$$ We denote a point of $H$ by $(x,y,z)$. In these global coordinates, a basis of left-invariant 1-forms is given by $$\alpha=d x,\quad \beta=d y \quad \mathrm{and} \quad \theta=d z-yd x.$$ It is clear that $\theta$ is a contact 1-form on $H$. We look for a strict contactomorphism $\phi$ of $(H,\theta)$. The condition $$d(z\circ\phi) - dz = (y\circ\phi)d(x \circ\phi) - y dx$$ must hold and if we assume that $$z\circ\phi = z + f(y), \; \; y \circ\phi = y, \; \; x\circ\phi = x + g(y),$$ it follows that $$\displaystyle \frac{d f}{dy} = y \frac{d g}{dy}.$$ In particular, if $t \in {\mathbb{R}}$ we have that $$\phi_t\colon H\to H, \; \; \; \phi_t(x, y, z) = (x + ty, y, z + t y^2/2)$$ is a strict contactomorphism. In fact, it is easy to prove that
\[contact\_Lie\_iso\] In the above situation, $\{\phi_t\}_{t\in \mathbb{R}}$ is a $1$-parameter group of strict contactomorphisms for $(H, \theta)$ and each $\phi_t$ is a Lie group isomorphism.
Now, denote by $\phi$ the strict contactomorphism $\phi_1$. We want to find a lattice $\Gamma\subset H$ such that $\phi(\Gamma) = \Gamma$. It is sufficient to take $$\Gamma = \{(m,2n,2p) \in H \ | \ m, n, p \in \mathbb{Z} \}.$$ Indeed, we have that $\phi(\Gamma)=\Gamma$, hence $$\label{inv-discrete-sub}
\phi_r(\Gamma) = \Gamma, \; \; \; \mbox{ for every } r\in {\mathbb{Z}}.$$ This implies that $\phi$ induces a diffeomorphism ${\overline{\phi}}\colon L \to L$, where $L$ is the compact nilmanifold $L = \Gamma\backslash H$.
On the other hand, $\theta$ induces a contact 1-form ${\bar{\theta}}$ on $L$ and it is clear that ${\overline{\phi}}\colon L \to L$ is a strict contactomorphism of the contact manifold $(L,
{\bar{\theta}})$. Thus, the mapping torus $L_{({\overline{\phi}}, 1)}$ of $L$ by the couple $({\overline{\phi}}, 1)$ $$L_{({\overline{\phi}}, 1)} = \frac{L \times \mathbb{R}}{\sim_{({\overline{\phi}}, 1)}}$$ is a 4-dimensional compact lcs manifold of the first kind.
Next, we present a description of $L_{({\overline{\phi}}, 1)}$ as a compact nilmanifold. In fact, using Lemma \[contact\_Lie\_iso\], we deduce that $$\phi\colon \mathbb{R} \to \mathrm{Aut}(H), \quad t \mapsto \phi_t$$ is a representation of the abelian Lie group $\mathbb{R}$ on $H$. Therefore, we can consider the semidirect product $G = H \rtimes_{\phi} \mathbb{R}$ with multiplication given by $$((x, y, z),t)\cdot((x', y', z'),t') = ((x+x'+ty', y+y', z+z'+t(y')^2/2 + yx' + tyy'),t+t').$$ A basis of left-invariant vector fields on $G$ is $\{U,V,A,B\}$, with $$U = \frac{\partial}{\partial t}, \; V = \frac{\partial}{\partial z}, \; A = \frac{\partial}{\partial x} + y \frac{\partial}{\partial z}, \; B = \frac{\partial}{\partial y} + t
\frac{\partial}{\partial x} + ty \frac{\partial}{\partial z},$$ and we have that $$[A,B] = -V, \; \; [U,B] = A,$$ the rest of the basic Lie brackets being zero. Thus, $G$ is a connected simply connected nilpotent Lie group. The dual basis of left-invariant 1-forms on $G$ is $\{\omega,\eta, \alpha,\beta\}$, with $$\omega = dt, \; \; \eta = dz - ydx, \; \; \alpha = dx - t dy, \; \; \beta = dy,$$ and $$\label{diff-left-inv}
d\omega = d\beta = 0, \; \; d\alpha = \beta\wedge\omega, \; \; d\eta = \alpha \wedge \beta.$$ From , it follows that the lattice $\Gamma$ of $H$ is invariant under the restriction to $\mathbb{Z}$ of the representation $\phi$. This implies that $\Xi=\Gamma\rtimes_\phi{\mathbb{Z}}$ is a lattice in $G$ and $M = \Xi\backslash G$ is a compact nilmanifold.
Now, it is easy to prove that the map $$M \to L_{({\overline{\phi}},1)}, \; \; \; [((x, y, z), t)] \to [([(x,y, z)], t)]$$ is a diffeomorphism and, therefore, $L_{({\overline{\phi}}, 1)}$ is a compact nilmanifold.
Note that, under the identification between $L_{({\overline{\phi}}, 1)}$ and $M$, the lcs structure of the first kind on $L_{({\overline{\phi}}, 1)}$ is just the couple $({\bar{\omega}}, \bar{\eta})$, where ${\bar{\omega}}$ and $\bar{\eta}$ are the 1-forms on $M$ induced by the left-invariant 1-forms $\omega$ and $\eta$, respectively, on $G$.
Moreover, we may prove the following result.
\[lemma:1\] $L_{({\overline{\phi}}, 1)}$ is a compact nilmanifold of dimension $4$ which admits a lcs structure of the first kind and $b_1(L_{({\overline{\phi}}, 1)}) = 2$.
Let $H^1(L_{({\overline{\phi}}, 1)};{\mathbb{R}})$ be the first de Rham cohomology group of $L_{({\overline{\phi}}, 1)}$. Then, using and Theorem \[Nomizu\], we deduce that $$H^1(L_{({\overline{\phi}}, 1)};{\mathbb{R}}) = \langle {\bar{\beta}}, {\bar{\omega}}\rangle,$$ where ${\bar{\beta}}$ is the $1$-form on $M \simeq L_{({\overline{\phi}}, 1)}$ induced by the left-invariant 1-form $\beta$ on $G$.
\[first:example\] $L_{({\overline{\phi}}, 1)}$ is a compact nilmanifold of dimension $4$ which admits a lcs structure of the first kind; however, $L_{({\overline{\phi}}, 1)}$ does not carry any lcK metric.
Assume that $L_{({\overline{\phi}}, 1)}$ carries a lcK metric. Then $L_{({\overline{\phi}}, 1)}$ is a compact complex surface. By the Kodaira-Enriques classification, $L_{({\overline{\phi}}, 1)}$ also carries a Kähler metric, since its first Betti number is even by Lemma \[lemma:1\] (also, by [@BHPVdV IV. Theorem 3.1], a complex surface with even first Betti number admits a Kähler metric). Now $L_{({\overline{\phi}}, 1)}$ is a nilmanifold by Lemma \[lemma:1\]. It is well known (see [@BG; @Has]) that a compact Kähler nilmanifold is diffeomorphic to a torus. Hence $L_{({\overline{\phi}}, 1)}$ should be diffeomorphic to the 4-dimensional torus $T^4$, but this is absurd, since $b_1(T^4)=4$ and $b_1(L_{({\overline{\phi}}, 1)})=2$.
We also have the following result:
\[main:prop2\] The nilmanifold $L_{({\overline{\phi}}, 1)}$ is not the product of a compact 3-dimensional manifold and a circle.
By Lemma \[lemma:1\], we see that $b_1(L_{({\overline{\phi}}, 1)})=2$. Assume $L_{({\overline{\phi}}, 1)}$ is a product $M\times S^1$, where $M$ is a compact 3-dimensional manifold. Since $L_{({\overline{\phi}}, 1)}$ is a compact nilmanifold, $\pi_1(L_{({\overline{\phi}}, 1)})$ is nilpotent and torsion-free. Then $\pi_1(M)\subset\pi_1(L_{({\overline{\phi}}, 1)})$ is also nilpotent and torsion-free. In [@Mal'tsev], Mal’tsev showed that for such a group $\pi_1(M)$ there exists a real nilpotent Lie group $K$ such that $P=\pi_1(M)\backslash K$ is a nilmanifold. It is well known that a compact nilmanifold has first Betti number at least 2, hence $b_1(P)\geq 2$. Now $P$ is an aspherical manifold; in this case, $H^*(P;{\mathbb{Z}})$ is isomorphic to the group cohomology $H^*(\pi_1(M);{\mathbb{Z}})$ (see for instance [@Br page 40]). Hence $b_1(M) \geq 2$. Now $M$ is also an aspherical space with fundamental group $\pi_1(M)$, hence, by the same token, $b_1(\pi_1(M))\geq 2$. However, by the Künneth formula applied to $L_{({\overline{\phi}}, 1)}=M\times S^1$, we get $b_1(M)=1$. Alternatively, we could apply [@FHT Theorem 3] directly to our manifold $M$.
Now, from and Proposition \[main:prop2\], we deduce the following result.
\[Main:3\] There exists a compact, 4-dimensional nilmanifold, not diffeomorphic to the product of a compact 3-manifold and a circle, which has a locally conformal symplectic structure but no locally conformal Kähler metric.
The manifold $L_{({\overline{\phi}}, 1)}$ also admits a symplectic structure $\sigma$, coming from a left-invariant symplectic structure on $G$. In terms of the basis of ${\mathfrak{g}}^*$ given above, $\sigma=\omega\wedge\alpha+\eta\wedge\beta$. $L_{({\overline{\phi}}, 1)}$ can also be endowed with a left-invariant, non-integrable almost complex structure, given in terms of the basis $\{U,V,A,B\}$ of ${\mathfrak{g}}$, by $J(U)=A$, $J(V)=B$ and a left-invariant metric $g$ which makes such basis orthonormal. By the Gray-Hervella classification of almost Hermitian manifolds in dimension 4 (see Table II in [@GH]) there is a line $\mathcal{W}_2$ corresponding to the almost Kähler case and a line $\mathcal{W}_4$ corresponding to the complex case, intersecting in the origin, which is the Kähler case. With the almost Hermitian structure $(g,J,\sigma)$, $L_{({\overline{\phi}}, 1)}$ lies on the line $\mathcal{W}_2$.
As we remarked in the introduction, Bande and Kotschick ([@Bande-Kotschick]) gave a method to construct examples of compact manifolds with lcs structures of the first kind which carry no lcK metrics; we describe it briefly. Suppose that $M$ is an oriented compact manifold of dimension $3$. By a result of Martinet, see [@Mar], $M$ admits a contact structure and, then, the product manifold $M\times S^1$ is locally conformal symplectic of the first kind (see Example \[ex:1\]). On the other hand, using some results on compact complex surfaces, the authors show that $M$ may be chosen in such a way that the product manifold $M \times S^1$ admits no complex structures (this happens, for instance, if $M$ is hyperbolic) and, in particular, no lcK structures. Moreover, by the results of [@Friedl_Vidussi], only for special choices of $M$ (those who fiber over a circle) can $M\times S^1$ have a symplectic structure. Therefore, for suitably chosen $M$, one obtains examples of locally conformal symplectic structures on $M\times S^1$, with no symplectic structure. We can then ask:
> [*Is there a compact, almost Hermitian lcs 4-manifold, not the product of a 3-manifold and a circle, which admits no complex and no symplectic structure?*]{}
Concerning this question, we remark that certain Inoue surfaces, discovered by Belgun (see [@Belgun Theorem 7]), do not carry any lcK metric compatible with the *fixed* complex structure. One may, however, fix the underlying smooth manifold and vary the complex structure. For example, the smooth manifolds underlying Inoue surfaces are all diffeomorphic to a certain solvmanifold, quotient of the completely solvable Lie group $G$ whose Lie algebra is $(0,12,-13,23)$. For particular choices of the complex structure, such manifolds *do* carry lcK metrics.
Dimension 6 {#Dimension:6}
-----------
In this section, we describe two 6-dimensional examples of lcs nilmanifolds which were announced in lines 2 and 3 of Table \[table:0\].
We start by recalling a result of Sawai (see [@Sawai Main Theorem]) which completely characterizes lcK nilmanifolds with left-invariant complex structure. For a description of the Lie algebra of the Heisenberg group, we refer to the proof of Lemma \[Betti\_Heisenberg\] below.
\[Sawai\] Let $(M^{2n},J)$ be a non-toral compact nilmanifold with a left-invariant complex structure $J$. If $(M,J)$ carries a locally conformal Kähler metric, then it is biholomorphic to a quotient of $(\mathrm{Heis}_{2n-1}\times{\mathbb{R}},J_0)$, where $\mathrm{Heis}_{2n-1}$ is the Heisenberg group of dimension $2n-1$.
We consider the 5-dimensional Lie group $$H=\left\{
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & y & t & w \\
0 & 1 & x & z\\
0 & 0 & 1 & x\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1\\
\end{pmatrix} \ | \ x,y,z,t,w\in{\mathbb{R}}\right\},$$ which is diffeomorphic to ${\mathbb{R}}^5$ as a manifold; we denote a point of $H$ by $(x,y,z,t,w)$.
For the first example, we choose the following basis of left-invariant 1-forms: $$\alpha=d x,\quad \beta=d y,\quad \gamma= xdx-dz,\quad \delta=d t-ydx \quad \mathrm{and} \quad \eta=d w-yd z+(xy-t)dx$$ with differentials $$d\alpha=0,\quad d\beta=0,\quad d\gamma=0,\quad d\delta=\alpha\wedge\beta \quad \mathrm{and} \quad
d\eta=\alpha\wedge\delta+\beta\wedge\gamma.$$ In particular, $(H,\eta)$ is a contact manifold. The Lie algebra of $H$ is ${\mathfrak{h}}=(0,0,0,12,14+23)$. ${\mathfrak{h}}$ is nilpotent and isomorphic to $L_{5,3}$ (notation from [@BM]). Hence $H$ is a connected and simply connected nilpotent Lie group.
The subgroup $\Gamma=\{(m,n,p,q,r)\in H \ | \ m,n,p,q,r\in{\mathbb{Z}}\}\subset H$ is a lattice. Since $\eta$ is left-invariant, it descends to a contact form $\bar{\eta}$ on the compact nilmanifold $L=\Gamma\backslash H$. By Example \[ex:1\], the product $M= L\times S^1$ has a lcs structure of the first kind $({\bar{\omega}},\bar{\eta})$, where ${\bar{\omega}}$ is the angular form on $S^1$; here we are implicitly identifying $\bar{\eta}\in\Omega^1(L)$ with $\pi_1^*\bar{\eta}\in\Omega^1(M)$ and ${\bar{\omega}}\in\Omega^1(S^1)$ with $\pi_2^*{\bar{\omega}}\in\Omega^1(M)$.
\[dim:6\_first\] $M$ is a 6-dimensional lcs, complex and symplectic nilmanifold which admits no lcK structures (with left-invariant complex structures). Furthermore, $M$ carries no Vaisman metric.
$M$ is a nilmanifold, being the quotient of the connected, simply connected nilpotent Lie group $H\times{\mathbb{R}}$ by the lattice $\Gamma\times{\mathbb{Z}}$. The Lie algebra of $H\times{\mathbb{R}}$ is ${\mathfrak{h}}\oplus{\mathbb{R}}$, isomorphic to the Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{h}}_9$ of [@CFGU]; ${\mathfrak{h}}_9$ admits a complex structure by [@Sal Theorem 3.3] (compare also Table \[table:1\] below). In particular, $M$ admits a left-invariant complex structure. To show that $M$ is symplectic, it is enough to find a left-invariant symplectic form on $H\times{\mathbb{R}}$. Consider $\rho\coloneq \alpha\wedge\eta+\delta\wedge\gamma+\beta\wedge\omega\in\Omega^2(H\times{\mathbb{R}})$, with $\omega = dt$ the canonical $1$-form on $\mathbb{R}$. $\rho$ is left-invariant, closed and non-degenerate, hence descends to a symplectic form on $M$. By Theorem \[Nomizu\], $b_1(L)=b_1({\mathfrak{h}})=3$, hence $b_1(M)=4$ by the Künneth formula. By Lemma \[Betti\_Heisenberg\], a quotient of $\mathrm{Heis}_5\times{\mathbb{R}}$ has $b_1=5$, hence $M$ is not a quotient of $\mathrm{Heis}_5\times{\mathbb{R}}$. By Theorem \[Sawai\], $M$ does not carry any lcK metric (with left-invariant complex structure). If $M$ carried a Vaisman metric, then $b_1(M)$ should be odd by [@VaismanE Corollary 3.6].
\[Betti\_Heisenberg\] A $2n$-dimensional nilmanifold $N$, quotient of $\mathrm{Heis}_{2n-1}\times{\mathbb{R}}$, has $b_1(N)=2n-1$.
The Lie algebra $\mathfrak{heis}_{2n-1}$ of $\mathrm{Heis}_{2n-1}$ is spanned by vectors $\{X_1,Y_1,\ldots,X_{n-1},Y_{n-1},Z\}$ with brackets $[X_i,Y_i]=Z$ for every $i=1,\ldots,n-1$. If $\{x_1,y_1,\ldots,x_{n-1},y_{n-1},z\}$ is the dual basis of $\mathfrak{heis}_{2n-1}^*$, then the Chevalley-Eilenberg complex of the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{heis}_{2n-1}^*\oplus{\mathbb{R}}$ has differentials $$d x_i=d y_i=0 \ \forall \ i=1,\ldots,n-1, \quad d w=0 \quad \mathrm{and} \quad d z=-\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}x_i\wedge y_i,$$ where $w$ generates the ${\mathbb{R}}$-factor. This means that $\mathfrak{heis}_{2n-1}\oplus{\mathbb{R}}$ has $b_1=2n-1$. By Theorem \[Nomizu\], the same is true for every compact quotient of $\mathrm{Heis}_{2n-1}\times{\mathbb{R}}$.
For the second example, we take $$\alpha=d x, \quad \beta=d y, \quad \gamma= dz-xdx, \quad \delta=d t-ydx \quad \mathrm{and} \quad \theta=d w-yd z+(xy-t)dx$$ as a basis of left-invariant 1-forms on $H$; hence, $$d\alpha=0,\quad d\beta=0,\quad d\gamma=0,\quad d\delta=\alpha\wedge\beta \quad \mathrm{and} \quad
d\theta=\alpha\wedge\delta-\beta\wedge\gamma.$$ As before, $\theta$ is a contact form on $H$. A diffeomorphism $\phi\colon H\to H$ will be a strict contactomorphism provided $$\label{strict_contactomorphism}
d(w\circ\phi)-dw=(y\circ\phi)d(z\circ\phi)-ydz-((x\circ\phi)(y\circ\phi)-(t\circ\phi))d(x\circ\phi)+(xy-t)dx.$$ If we assume $y\circ\phi=y+f(x)$, $z\circ\phi=z+g(x)+h(y)$, $t\circ\phi=t+i(x)+j(y)+k(z)$ and $w\circ\phi=w+\ell(x)+m(y)+n(x,y)+o(x,z)$, then the functions $$\begin{aligned}
f(x) &= x & g(x) & =\frac{x}{2} & h(y) & = y & i(x) & = \frac{x}{6} & j(x) & = \frac{y}{2}\\
\ell(x) &= \frac{x^2-x^3}{3} & m(y) &= \frac{y^2}{2} & n(x,y) &=xy & o(x,z) &=xz\end{aligned}$$ verify and $\phi_s\colon H\to H$, mapping $(x,y,z,t,w)$ to $$\left(x,y+sx,z+sy+\frac{1}{2}s^2x,t+sz+\frac{1}{2}s^2y+\frac{1}{6}s^3x,w+sxz+\frac{1}{2}sy^2-\frac{1}{3}sx^3+s^2xy+\frac{1}{3}s^3x^2\right)$$ is a strict contactomorphism for every $s \in \mathbb{R}$. More precisely:
\[contact-Lie-iso:dim\_6\] In the above situation, $\{\phi_s\}_{s\in {\mathbb{R}}}$ is a $1$-parameter group of strict contactomorphisms of $(H,\theta)$ and each $\phi_s$ is a Lie group isomorphism.
The subgroup $$\Gamma=\{(6m,2n,p,q,r)\in H \ | \ m,n,p,q,r\in{\mathbb{Z}}\}\subset H$$ is a lattice and we have $\phi_s(\Gamma)=\Gamma$, for $s \in {\mathbb{Z}}$. Hence $L\coloneq\Gamma\backslash H$ is a compact nilmanifold, $\theta$ induces a contact form ${\bar{\theta}}$ on $L$ and $\phi_1$ descends to a strict contactomorphism ${\overline{\phi}}\colon L\to L$. By Example \[ex:2\], the mapping torus $L_{({\overline{\phi}},1)}$ of $L$ by the pair $({\overline{\phi}}, 1)$, $$L_{({\overline{\phi}}, 1)}=\frac{ L \times {\mathbb{R}}}{\sim_{({\overline{\phi}}, 1)}}$$ is a 6-dimensional compact lcs manifold of the first kind.
We show that $L_{({\overline{\phi}}, 1)}$ has the structure of a compact nilmanifold. In fact, by Lemma \[contact-Lie-iso:dim\_6\], we obtain a representation $\phi\colon {\mathbb{R}}\to\operatorname{Aut}(H)$, $s\mapsto \phi_s$, hence we can form the semidirect product $G= H \rtimes_{\phi}{\mathbb{R}}$, whose group structure is given by $$\begin{pmatrix}
x \\ y\\ z\\ t\\ w\\ s
\end{pmatrix}\cdot
\begin{pmatrix}
x' \\ y'\\ z'\\ t'\\ w'\\ s'
\end{pmatrix}=
\begin{pmatrix}
x+x' \\ y+y'+sx'\\ z+z'+xx'+sy'+\frac{1}{2}s^2x'\\ t+t'+yx'+sz'+\frac{1}{2}s^2y'+\frac{1}{6}s^3x'\\ w+w'+tx'+yz'+s(x'z'+yy'+\frac{1}{2}(y')^2-\frac{1}{3}(x')^3)+s^2(x'y'+\frac{1}{2}yx')+\frac{1}{3}s^3(x')^2\\ s+s'
\end{pmatrix}$$
A basis for left-invariant 1-forms on $G$ is given by
- $\omega=d s$;
- $\alpha=d x$;
- $\beta=d y-sdx$;
- $\gamma= dz-sdy+(\frac{s^2}{2}-x)dx$;
- $\delta=d t-sdz+\frac{s^2}{2}dy+(xs-y-\frac{s^3}{6})dx$;
- $\eta=d w-ydz-(t-xy)dx$;
with $$d\omega=0=d\alpha, \quad d\beta=-\omega\wedge\alpha, \quad d\gamma=-\omega\wedge\beta, \quad d\delta=-\omega\wedge\gamma+\alpha\wedge\beta \quad \mathrm{and} \quad
d\eta=\alpha\wedge\delta-\beta\wedge\gamma.$$ In particular, the Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{g}}$ of $G$ is isomorphic to the nilpotent Lie algebra $L_{6,22}$ (resp. ${\mathfrak{h}}_{32}$) in the notation of [@BM] (resp. [@CFGU]). Hence $G$ is a connected, simply connected nilpotent Lie group. Moreover, arguing as in Section \[Dimension:4\], $\Xi=\Gamma\rtimes_\phi{\mathbb{Z}}\subset G$ is a lattice, hence $M=\Xi\backslash G$ is a compact nilmanifold, diffeomorphic to the mapping torus $L_{({\overline{\phi}},1)}$.
Note that, under the identification between $L_{({\overline{\phi}}, 1)}$ and $M$, the lcs structure of the first kind on $L_{({\overline{\phi}}, 1)}$ is just the pair $({\bar{\omega}}, \bar{\eta})$, where ${\bar{\omega}}$ and $\bar{\eta}$ are the 1-forms on $M$ induced by the left-invariant 1-forms $\omega$ and $\eta$, respectively, on $G$.
\[dim:6\_second\] $M$ is a compact, complex and lcs nilmanifold which does not admit symplectic, lcK (with left-invariant complex structure) or Vaisman structures.
The lcs structure of $M$ is clear from the above discussion. By [@Sal Theorem 3.3] the Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{g}}$ of $G$ does not admit any complex structure. Hence $M$ does not admit any lcK structure with left-invariant complex structure. Next, assume that $M$ admits a symplectic structure. By [@Has Lemma 2], $M$ also admits a left-invariant symplectic structure, i.e. ${\mathfrak{g}}$ is a symplectic Lie algebra. But this is not the case, according to [@BM Section 7]. Hence $M$ does not admit any symplectic structure. Clearly $b_1({\mathfrak{g}})=2$, hence, again by Nomizu Theorem, $b_1(M)$ is also equal to 2. Therefore $M$ does not carry any Vaisman structure by [@VaismanE Corollary 3.6].
A higher dimensional example {#Dimension:higher}
----------------------------
In this section we construct, for each $n\geq 3$, a $2n$-dimensional nilmanifold $M_{2n}$. For $n=3$, $M_6$ is isomorphic to the nilmanifold described in . For $n\geq 4$, $M_{2n}$ admits a lcs structure of the first kind, a complex structure, but no symplectic structures, no lcK structures (with left-invariant complex structure) and no Vaisman structures.
Consider the $(2n-1)$-dimensional Lie group $$H_{2n-1}=\left\{
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & x_{n-2} & x_{n-3} & \ldots & x_1 & y_{n-1} & w \\
0 & 1 & 0 & \ldots & 0 & 0 & y_{n-2}\\
0 & 0 & 1 & \ldots & 0 & 0 & y_{n-3}\\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \ldots &\ldots & \vdots\\
0 & \ldots & \ldots & \ldots & 1 & x_{n-1} & y_1\\
0 & \ldots & \ldots & \ldots & 0 & 1 & x_{n-1}\\
0 & \ldots & \ldots & \ldots & 0 & 0 & 1\\
\end{pmatrix} \ | \ x_i,y_i,w\in{\mathbb{R}}, i=1,\ldots,n-1\right\}.$$ As a manifold, $H_{2n-1}$ is diffeomorphic to ${\mathbb{R}}^{2n-1}$. Taking global coordinates $(x_1,y_1,\ldots,x_{n-1},y_{n-1},w)$, the multiplication in $H_{2n-1}$ is given by $$\begin{array}{c}
(x_1, y_1, \dots, x_{n-1}, y_{n-1}, w)\cdot( x'_1, y'_1, \dots, x'_{n-1}, y'_{n-1}, w') \\
= (x_1 + x'_1, y_1 + y'_1 + x_{n-1}x'_{n-1}, x_2 + x'_2, y_2 + y'_2, \dots, x_{n-2} + x'_{n-2}, y_{n-2} + y'_{n-2}, \\
x_{n-1} + x'_{n-1}, y_{n-1} + y'_{n-1} + x_1x'_{n-1}, w + w' + x_{n-2}y'_{n-2} + x_{n-3}y'_{n-3} + \dots + x_1y'_1 + y_{n-1}x'_{n-1}).
\end{array}$$ Moreover, one may compute a basis of left-invariant forms on $H_{2n-1}$:
- $\alpha_i=-dx_i$, $i=1,\ldots,n-2$;
- $\alpha_{n-1}=dx_{n-1}$;
- $\beta_1=dy_1-x_{n-1}dx_{n-1}$;
- $\beta_i=dy_i$, $i=2,\ldots,n-2$;
- $\beta_{n-1}=dy_{n-1}-x_1dx_{n-1}$;
- $\eta=dw-x_1(dy_1-x_{n-1}dx_{n-1})-\sum_{i=2}^{n-2}x_idy_i-y_{n-1}dx_{n-1}$.
These satisfy:
- $d\alpha_i=0$, $i=1,\ldots,n-1$;
- $d\beta_i=0$, $i=1,\ldots,n-2$;
- $d\beta_{n-1}=\alpha_1\wedge\alpha_{n-1}$;
- $d\eta=\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}\alpha_i\wedge\beta_i$.
In particular, ${\mathfrak{h}}_{2n-1}$, the Lie algebra of $H_{2n-1}$, is a nilpotent Lie algebra. For $n=3$, it is isomorphic to the Lie algebra $L_{5,3}$ which appeared in Section \[Dimension:6\].
Notice that $(H_{2n-1},\eta)$ is a contact manifold. The subgroup $\Gamma_{2n-1}=\{(p_1,q_1,\ldots,p_{n-1},q_{n-1},r)\in H_{2n-1} \ | \ p_i,q_i,r\in{\mathbb{Z}}\}\subset H_{2n-1}$ is a lattice. Since $\eta$ is left-invariant, it descends to a contact form $\bar{\eta}$ on the nilmanifold $L_{2n-1}=\Gamma_{2n-1}\backslash H_{2n-1}$. By Example \[ex:1\], the product $M_{2n}=
L_{2n-1}\times S^1=(\Gamma_{2n-1}\times{\mathbb{Z}})\backslash(H_{2n-1}\times{\mathbb{R}})$ has a lcs structure of the first kind $({\bar{\omega}},\bar{\eta})$, where ${\bar{\omega}}$ is the angular form on $S^1$; as before, we are implicitly identifying $\bar{\eta}\in\Omega^1(L_{2n-1})$ with $\pi_1^*\bar{\eta}\in\Omega^1(M_{2n})$ and ${\bar{\omega}}\in\Omega^1(S^1)$ with $\pi_2^*{\bar{\omega}}\in\Omega^1(M_{2n})$.
Set ${\mathfrak{g}}_{2n}={\mathfrak{h}}_{2n-1}\oplus{\mathbb{R}}$ and let $\omega$ be the dual of a generator of the ${\mathbb{R}}$-factor. Notice that $d\omega=0$.
\[complex\_str\] The Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{g}}_{2n}$ admits a complex structure.
Let $\{X_1,Y_1,\ldots,X_{n-1},Y_{n-1},Z,T\}$ be the basis of ${\mathfrak{g}}_{2n}$ dual to $\{\alpha_1,\beta_1,\ldots,\alpha_{n-1},\beta_{n-1},\eta,\omega\}$. In this basis, the non-zero brackets are $$[X_i,Y_i]=-Z, \ i=1,\ldots,n-1 \quad \mathrm{and} \quad [X_1,X_{n-1}]=-Y_{n-1}.$$ We define an endomorphism $J\colon{\mathfrak{g}}_{2n}\to{\mathfrak{g}}_{2n}$ by setting $$J(X_1)=-X_{n-1}, \ J(Y_1)=-Y_{n-1}, \ J(X_i)=Y_i, i=2,\ldots,n-2, \ \mathrm{and} \ J(Z)=-T,$$ and imposing $J^2=-\mathrm{Id}$. A straightforward computation shows that the Nijenhuis tensor of $J$ vanishes, hence $J$ is a complex structure on ${\mathfrak{g}}_{2n}$.
\[sympl\_str\] For $n\geq 4$, the Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{g}}_{2n}$ admits no symplectic structure.
Consider the basis $\{\alpha_1,\beta_1,\ldots,\alpha_{n-1},\beta_{n-1},\eta,\omega\}$ of ${\mathfrak{g}}_{2n}^*$ and the vector space splitting $${\mathfrak{g}}_{2n}^*={\mathfrak{k}}^*\oplus \langle\eta\rangle\oplus \langle\omega\rangle,$$ where ${\mathfrak{k}}^*=\langle \alpha_1,\beta_1,\ldots,\alpha_{n-1},\beta_{n-1}\rangle$. Then $$\label{splitting:Lie}
\Lambda^2{\mathfrak{g}}_{2n}^*=\Lambda^2{\mathfrak{k}}^*\oplus{\mathfrak{k}}^*\wedge\langle\eta\rangle \oplus{\mathfrak{k}}^*\wedge\langle\omega\rangle\oplus\langle\omega\rangle\wedge\langle\eta\rangle$$ with
- $d(\Lambda^2{\mathfrak{k}}^*)\subset\langle\alpha_1\wedge\alpha_{n-1}\rangle\wedge{\mathfrak{k}}^*$
- $d({\mathfrak{k}}^*\wedge\langle\eta\rangle)\subset\langle\alpha_1\wedge\alpha_{n-1}\rangle\wedge\langle\eta\rangle
\oplus{\mathfrak{k}}^*\wedge\langle d\eta\rangle$
- $d({\mathfrak{k}}^*\wedge\langle\omega\rangle)\subset\langle\alpha_1\wedge\alpha_{n-1}\rangle\wedge\langle\omega\rangle$
- $d(\langle\omega\rangle\wedge\langle\eta\rangle)\subset\langle d\eta\rangle\wedge\langle
\omega \rangle$.
Given $\sigma \in \Lambda^2{\mathfrak{g}}_{2n}^*$, decompose it according to to get $$\sigma=\sigma_1+\sigma_2\wedge\eta+\sigma_3\wedge\omega+c\omega\wedge\eta.$$ Notice that $d\sigma_1\in \langle\alpha_1\wedge\alpha_{n-1}\rangle\wedge{\mathfrak{k}}^*$, $d(\sigma_2 \wedge \eta) \in \langle\alpha_1\wedge\alpha_{n-1}\rangle\wedge\langle\eta\rangle
\oplus{\mathfrak{k}}^*\wedge\langle d\eta\rangle $ and $d(\sigma_3\wedge\omega)\in\langle\alpha_1\wedge\alpha_{n-1}\rangle\wedge\langle\omega\rangle$. We have $d(c\omega\wedge\eta)=-c\omega\wedge d\eta$; since $d(c\omega\wedge\eta)$ is the only component of $d\sigma$ which can possibly be a multiple of $d\eta\wedge\omega$, $d\sigma=0$ implies $c=0$. By the same token, $d(\sigma_2\wedge\eta)$ is the only component of $d\sigma$ that can possibly lie in ${\mathfrak{k}}^*\wedge\langle
d\eta\rangle$. Hence $d\sigma=0$ implies $d(\sigma_2\wedge\eta)=0$. Write $\sigma_2=\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}(a_i\alpha_i+b_i\beta_i)$. The only possible non-zero component of $d\sigma$ in $\langle\alpha_1\wedge\alpha_{n-1}\rangle\wedge\langle\eta\rangle$ comes from a term $d(\beta_{n-1}\wedge\eta)$. Hence, $d\sigma=0$ implies $b_{n-1}=0$. We compute $$\begin{gathered}
d\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}a_i\alpha_i\wedge\eta+\sum_{i=1}^{n-2}b_i\beta_i\wedge\eta\right)=\\
-\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}\sum_{j\neq i}a_i\alpha_i\wedge\alpha_j\wedge\beta_j-\sum_{i=1}^{n-2}\sum_{j\neq i}b_i\beta_i\wedge\alpha_j\wedge\beta_j
-\sum_{i=1}^{n-2}b_i\beta_i\wedge\alpha_{n-1}\wedge\beta_{n-1};\end{gathered}$$ we see that $d\sigma=0$ implies $b_i=0$ for $i=1,\ldots,n-2$. We are left with $\sigma_2=\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}a_i\alpha_i$. If $n=3$, $$d(\sigma_2\wedge\eta)=-a_1\alpha_1\wedge\alpha_2\wedge\beta_2-a_2\alpha_2\wedge\alpha_1\wedge\beta_1\in \langle\alpha_1\wedge\alpha_2\rangle\wedge{\mathfrak{k}}^*$$ and choosing $a_1=0$ and $a_2=1$, for instance, we get $$d(\sigma_2\wedge\eta)=\alpha_1\wedge\alpha_2\wedge\beta_1=-d(\beta_1\wedge\beta_2);$$ this gives the symplectic structure $\sigma=\alpha_1\wedge\omega+\alpha_2\wedge\eta+\beta_1\wedge\beta_2$, which was implicitly used in the proof of . Hence ${\mathfrak{g}}_6$ is symplectic. However, if $n\geq 4$, $\langle\alpha_1\wedge\alpha_{n-1}\rangle\wedge{\mathfrak{k}}^*\cap {\mathfrak{k}}^*\wedge\langle d\eta\rangle=\emptyset$ and if $d(\sigma_2\wedge\eta)$ has non-zero component in ${\mathfrak{k}}^*\wedge\langle d\eta\rangle$, then $\sigma$ is not closed. This forces the $a_i$ to vanish. This implies that every 2-cocycle has rank $<n$, hence ${\mathfrak{g}}_{2n}$ has no symplectic structure.
\[third:example\] For every $n\geq 4$, $M_{2n}$ is a $2n$-dimensional nilmanifold which is complex, locally conformal symplectic but has no symplectic structure, carries no locally conformal Kähler metric (with left-invariant complex structure) and no Vaisman metric.
By construction, $M_{2n}=(\Gamma_{2n-1}\times{\mathbb{Z}})\backslash (H_{2n-1}\times{\mathbb{R}})$, hence it is a nilmanifold. We have already described the lcs structure on $M_{2n}$. By Proposition \[complex\_str\], $H_{2n-1}\times{\mathbb{R}}$ admits a left-invariant complex structure, which therefore endows $M_{2n}$ with a complex structure. Also, since $n\geq 4$, ${\mathfrak{g}}_{2n}$ admits no symplectic structure by Proposition \[sympl\_str\], hence $H_{2n-1}\times{\mathbb{R}}$ has no left-invariant symplectic structure. Therefore, using Lemma 2 in [@Has], we deduce that $M_{2n}$ carries no symplectic structures.
One computes readily that $b_1({\mathfrak{g}}_{2n})=2n-2$; hence, by Nomizu , $b_1(M_{2n})=2n-2$ and $M_{2n}$ is not a quotient of the Heisenberg group multiplied by ${\mathbb{R}}$, according to Lemma \[Betti\_Heisenberg\]. Again by , $M_{2n}$ does not carry any lcK structure (with left invariant complex structure). Finally, since $b_1(M)$ is even $M_{2n}$ carries no Vaisman structure by [@VaismanE Corollary 3.6].
By Sawai’s , if $M_{2n}$ carries a lcK metric, then the corresponding complex structure can not be left-invariant. This raises the question of studying nilmanifolds endowed with complex structures that are not left-invariant.
Local and global structure of a lcs manifold of the first kind with a compact leaf in its canonical foliation {#sec:foliation}
=============================================================================================================
In this section we present a description of the local and global structure of a compact lcs manifold of the first kind with a compact leaf in its canonical foliation. For this purpose, we use some results on a special class of foliations of codimension $1$. We will include basic proofs of them in the next subsection.
Some general results on a special class of foliations of codimension 1 {#fol-codim-1}
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Let $\omega$ be a closed $1$-form on a smooth manifold $M$, with $\omega(p) \neq 0$, for every $p \in M$. The codimension 1 foliation ${\mathcal F}$, whose characteristic space at $p
\in M$ is ${\mathcal{F}}(p) = \{ v \in T_pM \ | \ \omega(p)(v) = 0 \}$, is said to be *transversely parallelizable complete* if there exists a complete vector field $U$ on $M$ such that $\omega(U) = 1$.
Then, we may prove the following results:
(the local description)\[local-descrip-general\] Let $\omega$ be a closed $1$-form on a smooth manifold $M$ such that $\omega(p) \neq 0$, for every $p \in M$. Suppose that $L$ is a compact leaf of the foliation ${\mathcal F}=\{\omega = 0\}$ and that ${\mathcal F}$ is transversely parallelizable complete, $U$ being a complete vector field on $M$ such that $\omega(U) = 1$. If $\Psi_L\colon L\times\mathbb{R} \to M$ is the restriction to $L\times\mathbb{R}$ of the flow $\Psi\colon M \times \mathbb{R} \to M$ of $U$ then there exists $\epsilon > 0$ and an open subset $W$ of $M$, $L \subseteq W$, such that $\omega|_{W}$ is an exact $1$-form and $$\Psi^{\epsilon}_L \coloneq (\Psi_{L})\big|_{L\times (-\epsilon, \epsilon)}\colon L\times (-\epsilon, \epsilon) \to W$$ is a diffeomorphism. Moreover, $$\label{exact-omega}
(\Psi^{\epsilon}_L)^*(\omega|_{W}) = pr_2^*(dt), \; \; U|_{W} \circ \Psi_L^{\epsilon} = T\Psi_L^{\epsilon} \circ \frac{\partial}{\partial t}\Big|_{L\times (-\epsilon, \epsilon)}$$ $t$ being the standard coordinate on $\mathbb{R}$. In addition, the leaves of ${\mathcal F}$ over points of $W$ are of the form $\Psi_t(L)$, with $t \in (-\epsilon, \epsilon)$. In particular, they are contained in $W$ and they are diffeomorphic to $L$.
(the global description)\[global-descrip-general\] Under the same hypotheses as in Theorem \[local-descrip-general\] and if, in addition, $M$ is connected then all the leaves of the foliation ${\mathcal F}$ are of the form $\Psi_t(L)$ (with $t \in
\mathbb{R}$) and, therefore, diffeomorphic to $L$. Furthermore, we have two possibilities:
1. If $M$ is not compact then the map $
\Psi_L\colon L\times\mathbb{R} \to M
$ is a diffeomorphism and $$\label{omega-exact-global}
\Psi_{L}^*(\omega) = pr_2^*(dt), \; \; U \circ \Psi_L = T\Psi_L \circ \frac{\partial}{\partial t},$$ where $T\Psi_L\colon T(L\times\mathbb{R}) \to TM$ is the tangent map of $\Psi_L$.
2. If $M$ is compact then there exists $c > 0$ such that $\Psi_c\colon L \to L$ is a diffeomorphism and the map $\Psi_L\colon L\times\mathbb{R} \to M$ induces a diffeomorphism between $M$ and the mapping torus of $L$ by $\Psi_c$ and $c$.
3. Under the identification between $M$ and $L\times_{(\Psi_c,c)} \mathbb{R} $, $U$ is the vector field on $L\times_{(\Psi_c,c)}\mathbb{R} $ which is induced by the vector field $\frac{\partial}{\partial t}$ on $L\times\mathbb{R} $ and $\omega$ is the $1$-form on $M$ which is induced by the canonical exact $1$-form $dt$ on $L\times\mathbb{R} $. So, if $\pi\colon M = L\times_{(\Psi_c,c)}\mathbb{R} \to S^1 = \mathbb{R}/c\mathbb{Z}$ is the canonical projection and $\tau$ is the length element of $S^1$, we have that $\pi^*(\tau) = \omega$.
(of Theorem \[local-descrip-general\]) Let $p\in L$ be a point. The tangent space to $M$ at $p$ decomposes as $T_pM=T_pL\oplus\langle U(p)\rangle$. Since $\Psi$ is the flow of $U$, one has $$(T_{(p,0)}\Psi_L)\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial t}_{(p,0)}\right)=U(p),\quad
(T_{(p,0)} \Psi_L)(X(p))=X(p)$$ for every vector $X(p)\in T_pL$. Hence $T_{(p,0)} \Psi_L\colon T_pL\times{\mathbb{R}}\to T_pM$ is an isomorphism, thus there exist $\epsilon_p>0$, an open set $W_p^L\subset L$ with $p\in W_p^L$ and an open set $W_p\subset M$ with $p\in W_p$ such that $$\Psi\big|_{W_p^L\times (-\epsilon_p,\epsilon_p)}\colon W_p^L\times(-\epsilon_p,\epsilon_p)\to W_p$$ is a diffeomorphism. Clearly $L=\bigcup_{p\in L}W_p^L$, and since $L$ is compact there exist $p_1,\ldots p_k\in L$ such that $L=\bigcup_{i=1}^kW_{p_i}^L$. Set $\epsilon=\min\{\epsilon_{p_1},\ldots,\epsilon_{p_k}\}$ and $W=\Psi (L\times(-\epsilon,\epsilon))$. Then $W\subset M$ is an open set, $L\subset W$ and $$\Psi^{\epsilon}_L\coloneq\Psi\big|_{L\times(-\epsilon,\epsilon)}\colon L\times(-\epsilon,\epsilon)\to W$$ is a diffeomorphism. On the other hand, we have that $${\mathcal{L}}_U\omega= d(\omega(U)) + i_U(d\omega) = 0.$$ Hence $\Psi_t^*\omega=\omega$ and, as the pullback of $\omega|_{W}$ to $L$ under the inclusion $L\hookrightarrow W$ is zero, we get $(\Psi^{\epsilon}_L)^*(\omega|_{W})=pr_2^*(dt)$. Furthermore, using that $\Psi$ is the flow of $U$, we directly deduce the second relation in .
Finally, we show that if $t\in(-\epsilon,\epsilon)$ and $p\in L$, then $\Psi_t(L)$ is the leaf $L'$ of ${\mathcal{F}}$ over $\Psi_t(p)$. It is clear that $\Psi_t(L)$ is a submanifold of $M$ which is diffeomorphic to $L$. Moreover, since $\Psi_t^*\omega=\omega$, $\Psi_t(L)$ is a connected integral submanifold of $M$, hence $\Psi_t(L)\subset L'$. Thus $L\subset \Psi_{-t}(L')$, and $\Psi_{-t}(L')$ is an integral submanifold of ${\mathcal{F}}$. But this implies $L=\Psi_{-t}(L')$, and $L'=\Psi_t(L)$.
(of Theorem \[global-descrip-general\]) We will proceed in three steps.
**First step** We will see that $\Psi_L\colon L\times{\mathbb{R}}\to M$ is a surjective local diffeomorphism which maps the submanifolds $L\times \{t\}$, with $t\in{\mathbb{R}}$, to the leaves of the canonical foliation ${\mathcal{F}}$ of $M$. In particular, each leaf of ${\mathcal{F}}$ is of the form $\Psi_t(L)$, $t\in{\mathbb{R}}$, and it is diffeomorphic to $L$.
In fact, proceeding as in the proof of , we deduce that holds and that if $(p,t)\in L\times{\mathbb{R}}$ then $\Psi_t(L)$ is the leaf of ${\mathcal{F}}$ over the point $\Psi_t(p)$. This implies that $\Psi_L$ is a local diffeomorphism. Indeed, if $X\in T_pL$ and $\lambda\in{\mathbb{R}}$ satisfy $$0=(T_{(p,t)}\Psi_L)\left(X+\lambda\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\Big|_t\right)=(T_p\Psi_t)(X)+\lambda U(p)$$ we have that $$0=\omega_p((T_p\Psi_t)(X)+\lambda U(p))=\lambda,$$ (note that $(T_p\Psi_t)(X)\in {\mathcal{F}}(\Psi_t(p))$). Hence $(T_p\Psi_t)(X)=0$, which gives $X=0$.
We claim that $\Psi_L(L\times{\mathbb{R}})=M$. Since $\Psi_L$ is a local diffeomorphism, it is clear that $\Psi_L(L\times{\mathbb{R}})$ is an open subset of $M$. We will show that $\Psi_L(L\times{\mathbb{R}})$ is a closed subset of $M$; the claim will follow from this and from the assumption that $M$ is connected. Take $p'\in M - \Psi_L(L\times{\mathbb{R}})$ and denote by $L'$ the leaf of ${\mathcal{F}}$ over $p'$. Then there exist $\epsilon'>0$ and $W'$ an open subset of $M$ such that $L' \subseteq W'$ and $$\Psi\big|_{L'\times(-\epsilon',\epsilon')}\colon L'\times(-\epsilon',\epsilon')\to W'$$ is a diffeomorphism. We will show that $W'\subset M - \Psi_L(L\times{\mathbb{R}})$. Indeed, suppose that $q'\in W'$ and $q'=\Psi_t(p)$ for some $p\in L$. Then there exist $r'\in L'$ and $t'\in (-\epsilon',\epsilon')$ such that $q'=\Psi_t(p)=\Psi_{t'}(r')$. Thus $r'=\Psi_{t-t'}(p)\in L'\cap \Psi_{t-t'}(L)$. Since $L$ and $L'$ are leaves of ${\mathcal{F}}$, we conclude that $L'=\Psi_{t-t'}(L)$, a contradiction. We have proved so far that $\Psi_L(L\times{\mathbb{R}})=M$. This concludes the first step.\
**Second step** We will see that the space of leaves $M/{\mathcal{F}}=\widetilde{M}$ of the canonical foliation ${\mathcal{F}}$ is a smooth manifold such that the canonical projection $\pi\colon M\to\widetilde{M}$ is a submersion.
Let $p'\in M$ be a point and let $L'$ be the leaf of ${\mathcal{F}}$ through $p'$. By Theorem \[local-descrip-general\], there exist an open set $W'\subset M$, with $L'\subset W'$, and $\epsilon'>0$ such that $$\Psi\big|_{L'\times(-\epsilon',\epsilon')}\colon L'\times(-\epsilon',\epsilon')\to W'$$ is a diffeomorphism. Take coordinates on some open subset $W'_{L'}\subset L'$ with $p'\in W'_L$. Then $\hat{W}'=\Psi_{L'}( W'_{L'}\times(-\epsilon',\epsilon'))$ is an open subset of $M$ which admits a system of coordinates adapted to the foliation ${\mathcal{F}}$, and $p'\in \hat{W}'$. Moreover, if $t',s'\in(-\epsilon',\epsilon')$, $t' \neq s'$, then the plaques $\Psi_{t'}(W'_{L'})$ and $\Psi_{s'}(W'_{L'})$ in $\hat{W}'$ are contained in different leaves of ${\mathcal{F}}$. This is precisely the condition needed to ensure that the quotient space $\widetilde{M}=M/{\mathcal{F}}$ is a smooth manifold and that the canonical projection $\pi\colon M\to \widetilde{M}$ is a submersion.\
**Third step** Let $L$ be our compact leaf and let $p\in L$ be a point. Set $$A_p=\{t\in{\mathbb{R}}- \{0\} \ | \ \Psi_t(p)\in L\}\subset{\mathbb{R}}- \{0\}.$$ We will see that:
- $A_p = \emptyset$ gives the first possibility of the theorem, and
- $A_p\neq\emptyset$ gives the second possibility.
In fact, suppose that $A_p=\emptyset$. Then, since all the leaves of ${\mathcal{F}}$ are of the form $\Psi_t(L)$ for some $t\in {\mathbb{R}}$, the map $\Psi_L\colon {\mathbb{R}}\times L\to M$ is injective, hence a diffeomorphism by the first step.
Now, assume that $A_p\neq\emptyset$. We shall see that there exists $c\in{\mathbb{R}}$, $c>0$, such that $A_p=c{\mathbb{Z}}$. In fact, set $$c=\inf A_p^+, \quad A_p^+=\{t\in{\mathbb{R}}^+ \ | \ \Phi_t(p)\in L\}.$$ Note that $A_p^+\neq\emptyset$. In addition, from Theorem \[local-descrip-general\] follows that $c>0$. Furthermore, being $L$ a closed submanifold, we see that $c\in A_p^+$. Therefore $p\in L\cap\Psi_{-c}(L)$ which implies $L=\Psi_{-c}(L)$ and $L=\Psi_c(L)$. Hence, if $k\in{\mathbb{Z}}$, $ck\in A_p$ and $c{\mathbb{Z}}\subset A_p$. Conversely, if $t\in A_p$, there exists $k\in{\mathbb{Z}}$ such that $ck\leq t <c(k+1)$. If $t>ck$, we have $0<t-ck<c$ and $t-ck\in A_p^+$, which contradicts the fact that $c$ is the infimum of $A_p^+$. Hence $t=ck$ and $A_p=c{\mathbb{Z}}$.
To conclude, we will show that $\Psi_L\colon L\times{\mathbb{R}}\to M$ induces a diffeomorphism between the manifold $L\times_{(\Psi_c,c)}{\mathbb{R}}$ and $M$. For this, it is sufficient to prove that if $(y,t)$ and $(y',t')$ in $L\times{\mathbb{R}}$, then $\Psi_L(y,t)=\Psi_L(y',t')$ if and only if there exists $k\in{\mathbb{Z}}$ such that $$\label{condition3}
y=\Psi_{ck}(y')\qquad \mathrm{and} \qquad t'=t+ck .$$ Clearly, if holds, then $\Psi_L(y,t)=\Psi_L(y',t')$. Conversely, suppose $\Psi_L(y,t)=\Psi_L(y',t')$ and suppose $t'\geq t$. Then $y=\Psi_{t'-t}(y')\in L\cap\Psi_{t'-t}(L)$, from which follows as usual $L=\Psi_{t'-t}(L)$. In particular, $\Psi_{t'-t}(p)\in L$, so that $t'-t\in A_p$. Therefore, there exists $k\in{\mathbb{Z}}$ such that $t'=t+ck$ and from this we see that $y=\Psi_{ck}(y')$. This concludes the proof of the theorem.
The particular case of a lcs manifold of the first kind with a compact leaf in its canonical foliation {#lcs-can-fol}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this section, we will consider the particular case when $M$ has a lcs structure of the first kind and $\omega$ is the Lee $1$-form of $M$.
We recall that if $L$ is a leaf of the canonical foliation ${\mathcal F}=\{\omega = 0\}$, $\eta$ is the anti-Lee $1$-form of $M$ and $i\colon L \to M$ is the canonical inclusion then $\eta_L
= i^*(\eta)$ is a contact $1$-form on $L$. Thus:
- The product manifold $L\times(-\epsilon, \epsilon)$, with $\epsilon > 0$, admits a canonical gcs structure of the first kind and
- If $L$ is compact, $\phi\colon L \to L$ is a strict contactomorphism and $c > 0$ then the mapping torus $L \times_{(\phi,c)} \mathbb{R}$ of $L$ by $\phi$ and $c$ is a compact lcs manifold of the first kind
(see Section \[LCS\_Manifolds\] for more details).
Now, we will introduce two natural definitions which will be useful in the sequel. The first one is well known (see, for instance, [@LiMa]).
\[contact\_isomorphism\] Let $\eta_1$ and $\eta_2$ be contact forms on the manifolds $M_1$ and $M_2$ respectively. A diffeomorphism $\Psi\colon M_1\to M_2$ is said to be a *strict contactomorphism* if $\Psi^*\eta_2=\eta_1$.
Let $(\omega_1,\eta_1)$ and $(\omega_2,\eta_2)$, be lcs structures of the first kind on manifolds $M_1$ and $M_2$ respectively. A diffeomorphism $\Psi\colon M_1\to M_2$ is said to be *lcs morphism of the first kind* if $\Psi^*\omega_2=\omega_1$ and $\Psi^*\eta_2=\eta_1$.
$\Psi$ being a lcs morphism of the first kind implies that $\Psi^*\Phi_2=\Phi_1$, where $\Phi_i=d\eta_i+\eta_i\wedge\omega_i$, $i=1,2$.
We prove the two following results
(the local description)\[local-descrip-lcs\] Let $(\omega, \eta)$ be a lcs structure of the first kind on a manifold $M$ and let $U$ be the anti-Lee vector field of $M$. Suppose that $U$ is complete and that $L$ is a compact leaf of the canonical foliation ${\mathcal{F}}=\{\omega = 0\}$ on $M$. If $\Psi_L\colon L\times{\mathbb{R}}\to M$ is the restriction to $L\times\mathbb{R}$ of the flow $\Psi\colon M\times{\mathbb{R}}\to M$ of $U$ then, for every point $p \in L$, there exist an open subset $W \subseteq M$, $L \subseteq W$, and a positive real number $\epsilon > 0$ such that $$\Psi^{\epsilon}_L \coloneq\Psi\big|_{L\times(-\epsilon, \epsilon)}\colon L\times(-\epsilon, \epsilon) \to W$$ is an isomorphism between the gcs manifolds $L\times(-\epsilon, \epsilon)$ and $W$. Moreover, the leaves of ${\mathcal{F}}$ over points of $W$ are of the form $\Psi_t(L)$, with $t \in(-\epsilon,\epsilon)$. In particular, they are contained in $W$ and they are strict contactomorphic to $L$.
(the global description)\[global-descrip-lcs\] If, in addition to the hypotheses of , $M$ is connected, then all the leaves of the canonical foliation are of the form $\Psi_t(L)$ (with $t \in \mathbb{R}$) and, therefore, they are strict contactomorphic to $L$. Furthermore, we have the two following possibilities:
1. If $M$ is not compact then the map $
\Psi_L\colon L\times\mathbb{R}\to M
$ is a gcs isomorphism between the gcs manifolds $L\times\mathbb{R}$ and $M$.
2. If $M$ is compact then there exists $c > 0$ such that $\Psi_c\colon L \to L$ is a strict contactomorphism and $\Psi_L$ induces a lcs isomorphism of the first kind between $M$ and the mapping torus of $L$ by $\Psi_c$ and $c$.
In order to prove Theorems \[local-descrip-lcs\] and \[global-descrip-lcs\], we will use the following result:
\[eta-invariant\] Under the same hypotheses as in Theorem \[local-descrip-lcs\], we have that $$\Psi_L^*(\eta) = pr_1^*(\eta_L),$$ where $pr_1\colon L\times\mathbb{R}\to L$ is the canonical projection on the first factor and $\eta_L$ is the contact $1$-form on $L$.
It is clear that $${\mathcal L}_{U}\eta = d(\eta(U)) + i_U(d\eta) = 0,$$ and, thus, $$\label{invariant-eta}
\Psi_t^*\eta = \eta, \; \; \; \mbox{ for every } t \in \mathbb{R}.$$ In addition, using that $\eta(U) = 0$, we also have that $$\label{eta-U-0}
(\Psi_{L}^* \eta)\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\right) = 0.$$ Therefore, from and , we conclude that $$\Psi_{L}^* \eta = pr_1^*(\eta_L).$$
(of Theorem \[local-descrip-lcs\]) If follows using Theorem \[local-descrip-general\] and Proposition \[eta-invariant\].
(of Theorem \[global-descrip-lcs\]) It follows using Theorem \[global-descrip-general\] and Proposition \[eta-invariant\].
The first possibility of means that $M$ is symplectomorphic to the standard symplectization of the leaf. In the compact case, tells us that a manifold endowed with a locally conformal symplectic structure of the first kind $(\omega,\eta)$ fibres over a circle, that $\eta$ pulls back to a contact form on the fibre and that the gluing map is a strict contactomorphism. This displays the similarity with the result of Banyaga. The main difference between the two results is that Banyaga restricts to the compact case and needs to modify the foliation $\mathcal{F}$ to a $\mathscr{C}^{\infty}-$near foliation $\mathcal{F}'$ which he proves to be a fibration, while we work directly with $\mathcal{F}$. In our case, however, we must assume the completeness of $U$ (which is automatic if our manifold is compact) as well as the existence of a compact leaf of ${\mathcal{F}}$.
A similar issue appears in the context of *cosymplectic manifolds*. Recall that a manifold $M^{2n+1}$ is cosymplectic (in the sense of Libermann, see [@Lib]) if there exist $\alpha\in\Omega^1(M)$ and $\beta\in\Omega^2(M)$ such that $d\alpha=0=d\beta$ and $\alpha\wedge\beta^n\neq 0$. It was proven by Li in [@Li] that, in the compact case, a cosymplectic manifold corresponds to a mapping torus of a symplectic manifold and a symplectomorphism. In particular, such manifolds fibre over $S^1$ with fibre a symplectic manifold. However, in order to obtain this result (whose proof is similar in spirit to that of Banyaga for the lcs case) one needs to perturb the foliation $\{\alpha=0\}$, so that the original cosymplectic structure is destroyed. Both the result of Banyaga and that of Li rely on a theorem of Tischler [@Ti], which asserts that a compact manifold with a closed and nowhere zero 1-form fibres over the circle $S^1$. Recently, Guillemin, Miranda and Pires (see [@GMP]) have proven a result similar to our in the context of compact cosymplectic manifolds, working directly with the foliation $\{\alpha=0\}$.
A Martinet-type result for lcs structures of the first kind {#Martinet}
-----------------------------------------------------------
As another application of the results in Section \[fol-codim-1\], we obtain a Martinet-type result about the existence of lcs structures of the first kind on a certain type of oriented compact manifolds of dimension $4$.
First of all, we recall the classical result of Martinet [@Mar]: if $L$ is an oriented closed manifold of dimension $3$ then there exists a contact $1$-form on $L$. There exist some equivariant versions of this result:
\[inv-contact-forms-1\] Let $L$ be an oriented closed manifold of dimension $3$ and an action of $S^1$ on $L$ which preserves the orientation. Then there exists a $S^1$-invariant contact $1$-form on $L$.
\[inv-contact-forms-2\] Let $L$ be an oriented closed manifold of dimension $3$ and suppose that a finite group $\Gamma$ of prime order acts on $L$ preserving the orientation. Then there exists a $\Gamma$-invariant contact $1$-form on $L$.
Now, let $M$ be an oriented connected manifold of dimension $4$, $\omega$ a closed $1$-form on $M$ without singularities and let $L$ be a compact leaf of the foliation ${\mathcal{F}}=\{\omega = 0\}$.
If $M$ is not compact then, using , it directly follows that $M$ admits a gcs structure of the first kind.
Next, suppose that $M$ is compact. Using again , we deduce that the global structure of $M$ is completely determined by $L$, a real number $c > 0$ and a diffeomorphism $\phi\colon L \to L$. In fact, if $U$ is a vector field on $M$ such that $\omega(U) = 1$ and $\Psi_L\colon L\times\mathbb{R}\to M$ is the restriction to $L\times\mathbb{R}$ of the flow of $U$ then $\phi = \Psi_c$ and $\Psi_L$ induces a diffeomorphism between $L_{(\phi,c)} = (L\times\mathbb{R}) / \sim_{(\phi,c)}$ and $M$.
On the other hand, since $M$ is orientable, we can choose a volume form $\nu$ on $L\times\mathbb{R}$ which is invariant under the transformation $$L\times\mathbb{R} \to L\times\mathbb{R}, \; \; \; (x,t) \to (\phi(x),t-c).$$ Thus, for every $t \in \mathbb{R}$, the $3$-form $i(\frac{\partial}{\partial t})\nu$ on $L\times\mathbb{R}$ induces a volume form $\nu_t$ on $L$ in such a way that:
- the volume form $\nu_t$ is $\phi$-invariant and
- any two of these volume forms define the same orientation on $L$.
Using the previous facts and Theorems \[global-descrip-general\], \[inv-contact-forms-1\] and \[inv-contact-forms-2\], we conclude
\[Martinet\_type\] Let $M$ be an oriented connected manifold of dimension $4$, $\omega$ a closed $1$-form on $M$ without singularities and $L$ a compact leaf of the foliation ${\mathcal{F}}=\{\omega = 0\}$.
1. If $M$ is not compact then it admits a gcs structure of the first kind. The structure is globally conformal to the symplectization of a leaf.
2. If $M$ is compact then $M$ may be identified with a mapping torus of $L$ by a real number $c > 0$ and a diffeomorphism $\phi\colon L \to L$. Moreover:
1. If there exists an action $\psi\colon S^1 \times L \to L$ which preserves the orientation induced on $L$ and $\phi=\psi_\lambda$, for some $\lambda \in S^1$, then $M$ admits a lcs structure of the first kind.
2. If $\phi\colon L \to L$ preserves the orientation induced on $L$, the discrete subgroup of transformations of $M$ $$\Gamma = \{ \phi^k \ | \ k \in \mathbb{Z} \}$$ is finite and its order is prime, then $M$ also admits a lcs structure of the first kind.
Locally conformal symplectic Lie algebras {#sec:lcs_Lie_algebras}
=========================================
Lcs structures on Lie algebras
------------------------------
In this section we describe locally conformal symplectic structures on Lie algebras.
Let ${\mathfrak{g}}$ be a real Lie algebra of dimension $2n$ ($n\geq 2$). A *locally conformal symplectic (lcs) structure* on ${\mathfrak{g}}$ consists of:
- $\Phi\in\Lambda^2{\mathfrak{g}}^*$, non-degenerate, i.e. $\Phi^n\neq 0$;
- $\omega\in{\mathfrak{g}}^*$, with $ d\omega=0$, such that $d\Phi=\omega\wedge\Phi$.
Here $d$ is the Chevalley-Eilenberg differential on $\Lambda^\bullet{\mathfrak{g}}^*$. Locally conformal symplectic Lie algebras (along with contact Lie algebras) have been considered in [@IM], as a special instance of algebraic Jacobi structures.
Let $({\mathfrak{g}},\Phi,\omega)$ be a lcs Lie algebra. Since $\Phi$ is non-degenerate, it defines an isomorphism ${\mathfrak{g}}\to{\mathfrak{g}}^*$, $X\mapsto \imath_X\Phi$.
The *automorphisms* of the lcs structure $(\Phi,\omega)$, denoted ${\mathfrak{g}}_\Phi$, are the elements of ${\mathfrak{g}}$ which preserve the 2-form $\Phi$, that is $${\mathfrak{g}}_\Phi=\{X\in{\mathfrak{g}}\ | \ L_X\Phi=0\}.$$ ${\mathfrak{g}}_\Phi\subset{\mathfrak{g}}$ is a Lie subalgebra of ${\mathfrak{g}}$. Let $\ell\colon {\mathfrak{g}}\to{\mathbb{R}}$ be the map which sends $X\in {\mathfrak{g}}$ to $\omega(X)\in{\mathbb{R}}$. Viewing ${\mathbb{R}}$ as an abelian Lie algebra, the closedness of $\omega$ implies that $\ell$ is a morphism of Lie algebras. Thus, the restriction of $\ell$ to ${\mathfrak{g}}_{\Phi}$ also is a Lie algebra morphism known as *Lee morphism*. The image of the Lee morphism is 1-dimensional; hence $\ell$ is surjective, if it is non-zero.
The lcs Lie algebra $({\mathfrak{g}},\Phi,\omega)$ is said to be *of the first kind* if $\ell$ is surjective; *of the second kind* if it is zero.
In this paper we will deal with lcs Lie algebras of the first kind. Let $({\mathfrak{g}},\Phi,\omega)$ be a lcs Lie algebra of the first kind. Pick a vector $U\in{\mathfrak{g}}_\Phi$ such that $\ell(U)=1$. Define $\eta\in{\mathfrak{g}}^*$ by the equation $\eta=-\imath_U\Phi$; clearly $U\in\ker(\eta)$. Also, define $V \in{\mathfrak{g}}$ by $\omega=\imath_V\Phi$; notice that $V\in\ker(\omega)$ and that $\imath_V\eta=1$. Since $U\in{\mathfrak{g}}_\Phi$, ${\mathcal{L}}_U\Phi=0$ and hence $d\imath_U\Phi=-\imath_U d\Phi$, which implies $$d\eta=-d\imath_U\Phi=\imath_U d\Phi=\imath_U(\omega\wedge\Phi)=\Phi+\omega\wedge\eta.$$ Thus $\Phi=d\eta-\omega\wedge\eta$. Easy computations show that $\imath_U d\eta=\imath_V d\eta=0$. Therefore $d\eta\in\Lambda^2{\mathfrak{g}}^*$ has two vectors in its kernel, and can not have maximal rank $n$. We compute $$0\neq\Phi^n=(d\eta+\eta\wedge\omega)^n=n(d\eta)^{n-1}\wedge\eta\wedge\omega.$$ But then $d\eta$ has rank $2n-2$ and $\eta$ behaves like a contact form on the ideal $\ker(\omega)$, which has dimension $2n-1$.
To sum up, we obtain an algebraic analogue to Proposition \[lcs\_1\_kind\]: a lcs structure of the first kind on a Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{g}}$ of dimension $2n$ is completely determined by two 1-forms $\omega,\eta \in {\mathfrak{g}}^*$ such that $$\label{algebraic-l.c.s-first-kind}
d\omega = 0, \quad \mathrm{rank}(d\eta)<2n \quad \mbox{and} \quad \omega\wedge \eta\wedge (d\eta)^{n-1} \neq 0.$$ From now on we will use $(\omega, \eta)$ to denote a lcs structure of the first kind on the Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{g}}$. Clearly, $\Phi=d\eta-\omega\wedge\eta$. By there exist $U, V \in {\mathfrak{g}}$, *the anti-Lee and Lee vectors*, characterized by the conditions $$\begin{aligned}
\omega(U) =1, & \eta(U) = 0, & i_Ud\eta = 0,\nonumber \\
\omega(V) =0, & \eta(V) = 1, & i_Vd\eta = 0.\end{aligned}$$ Note that the previous conditions imply that $$i_{[U, V]}\omega = 0, \; \; i_{[U, V]}\eta = 0 \; \; \mbox{ and } \; \; i_{[U, V]}d\eta = 0,$$ and, therefore, $$\label{U-V-flat}
[U, V] = 0.$$
Let now $({\mathfrak{g}},\Phi,\omega)$ be a lcs Lie algebra. Since $\omega$ is a closed 1-form, we can perform the construction of Example \[1\_dim\_rep\]. In particular, $\Phi$ is a 2-cocycle for $d_\omega\colon C^2({\mathfrak{g}};W_\omega)\to C^3({\mathfrak{g}};W_\omega)$, hence it defines a cohomology class $[\Phi]\in H^2({\mathfrak{g}};W_\omega)$. We call $(\Phi,\omega)$ *exact* if $[\Phi]=0$, *non-exact* otherwise. Assume that the lcs structure is of the first kind. Then there exists $\eta\in{\mathfrak{g}}^*$ such that $\Phi=d\eta-\omega\wedge\eta$, hence $\Phi=d_\omega\eta$ and $\Phi$ is a coboundary. We obtain:
\[Lichnerowicz\] Let ${\mathfrak{g}}$ be a Lie algebra endowed with a lcs structure of the first kind $(\Phi,\omega)$. Then $(\Phi,\omega)$ is exact.
The converse is in general false, as the following example shows:
\[solv\_ex\_not\_first\_kind\] Consider the 4-dimensional solvable Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{g}}=(12+34,0,-23,0)$, isomorphic to the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{d}_{4,1}$ of the list contained in [@Ovando Proposition 2.1]. Consider the lcs structure on ${\mathfrak{g}}$ obtained by taking $\Phi=2e^{12}+e^{34}$ and $\omega=e^2$. One checks that $\Phi=d_\omega\eta$, with $\eta=e^1$, hence the structure is exact. However, it is not of the first kind. Indeed, the only automorphisms of $(\Phi,\omega)$ are of the form $a e_1$, with $a\in \mathbb{R}$; all of them are sent to zero by the Lee morphism. If $G$ denotes the unique simply connected solvable Lie group with Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{g}}$, then $G$ is endowed with an exact lcs structure which is not of the first kind. Notice that $G$ is not compact.
Consider an exact lcs Lie algebra $({\mathfrak{g}},\Phi,\omega)$ of dimension $2n$ and write $\Phi=d\eta-\omega\wedge\eta$, for some $\eta\in{\mathfrak{g}}^*$. Then we have $$\label{eq:11}
0\neq \Phi^n=(d\eta-\omega\wedge\eta)^n=(d\eta)^n+n(d\eta)^{n-1}\wedge\eta\wedge\omega,$$ hence $2n-2\leq \mathrm{rank}(d\eta)\leq 2n$. If the rank of $d\eta$ is $2n-2$, then $(\Phi,\omega)$ is of the first kind by the above construction. On the other hand, if the rank of $d\eta$ is $2n$, the fact that $\wedge^{2n}{\mathfrak{g}}^*$ is 1-dimensional, together with , shows that $\Phi^n$ must be a multiple of $(d\eta)^n$. This implies that the volume form is exact.
Recall that a Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{g}}$ is *unimodular* if $\mathrm{tr}(\mathrm{ad}_X)=0$ for each $X\in{\mathfrak{g}}$. An equivalent characterization is given, in terms of the Chevalley-Eilenberg complex $(\Lambda^\bullet{\mathfrak{g}}^*,d)$, by the condition $H^n({\mathfrak{g}};{\mathbb{R}})\neq 0$, where $n=\dim{\mathfrak{g}}$. Hence, on a unimodular Lie algebra, the volume form can not be exact. Let $G$ be the unique connected simply connected Lie group with Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{g}}$. By [@Miln Lemma 6.2], if $G$ admits a discrete subgroup $\Gamma$ with compact quotient, then ${\mathfrak{g}}$ is unimodular. In particular, if ${\mathfrak{g}}$ is not unimodular, then $G$ does not admit any compact quotient.
Putting all these considerations together, we obtain
\[exact\_non\_first\_kind\] Let ${\mathfrak{g}}$ be a unimodular Lie algebra endowed with an exact lcs structure $(\Phi,\omega)$. Then $(\Phi,\omega)$ is of the first kind.
In particular, on unimodular Lie algebras a lcs structure is exact if and only if it is of the first kind. Notice that the Lie algebra of Example \[solv\_ex\_not\_first\_kind\] is not unimodular.
Contact structures on Lie algebras
----------------------------------
Let ${\mathfrak{h}}$ be a real Lie algebra of dimension $2n-1$. A *contact structure* on ${\mathfrak{h}}$ a 1-form $\theta\in{\mathfrak{h}}^*$ such that $$(d\theta)^{n-1}\wedge\theta\neq 0.$$
Again $d$ denotes the Chevalley-Eilenberg differential on $\Lambda^\bullet{\mathfrak{h}}^*$. If $({\mathfrak{h}}, \theta)$ is a contact Lie algebra then there exists a unique vector $R\in {\mathfrak{h}}$, *the Reeb vector*, which is characterized by the conditions $$i_R(d\theta) = 0 \quad \mathrm{and} \quad i_R(\theta) = 1.$$
For a contact Lie algebra $({\mathfrak{h}}, \theta)$ with Reeb vector $R$, either the center of ${\mathfrak{h}}$, $\mathcal{Z}({\mathfrak{h}})$, is trivial or $\mathcal{Z}({\mathfrak{h}}) = \langle R\rangle$. Contact Lie algebras with non-trivial center are in 1-1 correspondence with a particular class of central extensions of symplectic Lie algebras. In fact, if $\sigma \in \Lambda^2 {\mathfrak{s}}^*$ is a symplectic structure on a Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{s}}$ of dimension $2n-2$, that is, $\sigma^{n-1}\neq 0$ and $d\sigma = 0$, then one may consider the central extension ${\mathfrak{h}}= {\mathbb{R}}{\circledcirc}_\sigma {\mathfrak{s}}$ of ${\mathfrak{s}}$ by the 2-cocycle $\sigma$. If $\theta \in {\mathfrak{h}}^*$ is the 1-form on ${\mathfrak{h}}$ given by $$\theta(a, X) = a,$$ we have that $({\mathfrak{h}}, \theta)$ is a contact Lie algebra with Reeb vector $R = (1, 0) \in {\mathfrak{h}}$. The converse is also true. Namely, if ${\mathfrak{h}}$ is a contact Lie algebra with Reeb vector $R$ such that $\mathcal{Z}({\mathfrak{h}}) = \langle R \rangle$ then the quotient vector space ${\mathfrak{s}}= {\mathfrak{h}}/{\langle}R{\rangle}$ is a symplectic Lie algebra and ${\mathfrak{h}}$ is the central extension of ${\mathfrak{s}}$ by the symplectic structure (for more details, see [@Dia1]).
We consider next derivations of contact and symplectic Lie algebras:
Let $({\mathfrak{h}},\theta)$ be a contact Lie algebra and let $D\in\mathrm{Der}({\mathfrak{h}})$ be a derivation. $D$ is called a *contact derivation* if $D^*\theta=0$. Let $({\mathfrak{s}},\sigma)$ be a symplectic Lie algebra and let $D\in\mathrm{Der}({\mathfrak{s}})$ be a derivation. $D$ is called a *symplectic derivation* if $\sigma(DX,Y)+\sigma(X,DY)=0$ for every $X,Y\in{\mathfrak{s}}$.
In order to describe contact derivations on $({\mathfrak{h}},\theta)$, we assume that ${\mathfrak{h}}$ is the central extension of a symplectic Lie algebra.
\[central-extension\] Let $({\mathfrak{s}}, \sigma)$ be a symplectic Lie algebra. There exists a one-to-one correspondence between symplectic derivations in ${\mathfrak{s}}$ and contact derivations in the central extension ${\mathfrak{h}}= {\mathbb{R}}{\circledcirc}_\sigma{\mathfrak{s}}$. In fact, the correspondence is given as follows. If $D_{{\mathfrak{s}}}\colon {\mathfrak{s}}\to {\mathfrak{s}}$ is a symplectic derivation in ${\mathfrak{s}}$ then $D$ is a contact derivation in ${\mathfrak{h}}$, where $D$ is defined by $$\label{Def-D}
D(a, X) = (0, D_{{\mathfrak{s}}}X), \; \; \mbox{ for } (a, X) \in {\mathfrak{h}}.$$
Let $D$ be a contact derivation of ${\mathfrak{h}}= {\mathbb{R}}{\circledcirc}_\sigma{\mathfrak{s}}$. Then, the condition $D^{*}(1,0) = 0$ implies that $$D(a, X) = (0, aZ + D_{{\mathfrak{s}}}X), \; \; \mbox{ for } (a, X) \in {\mathfrak{h}}$$ where $Z$ is a fixed vector of ${\mathfrak{s}}$ and $D_{{\mathfrak{s}}}\colon {\mathfrak{s}}\to {\mathfrak{s}}$ is a linear map. By , $[(a, 0), (0, X)]_{{\mathfrak{h}}}=0$ for every $X\in{\mathfrak{s}}$, and thus $$0= D[(1, 0), (0, Y)]_{{\mathfrak{h}}} = [D(1,0), (0, Y)]_{{\mathfrak{h}}} = (\sigma(Z, Y), [Z, Y]);$$ from this we deduce that $Z=0$. Thus, $D(a, X) = (0, D_{{\mathfrak{s}}}X)$. On the other hand, using that $$D[(0, X), (0,Y)]_{{\mathfrak{h}}} = [D(0, X), (0, Y)]_{{\mathfrak{h}}} + [(0, X), D(0, Y)]_{{\mathfrak{h}}}, \; \; \mbox{ for } X, Y \in {\mathfrak{s}}$$ we conclude that $D_{{\mathfrak{s}}}$ is a symplectic derivation of the symplectic Lie algebra $({\mathfrak{s}}, \sigma)$.
Conversely, suppose that $D_{{\mathfrak{s}}}\colon {\mathfrak{s}}\to {\mathfrak{s}}$ is a symplectic derivation of the symplectic algebra ${\mathfrak{s}}$ and let $D\colon {\mathfrak{h}}\to {\mathfrak{h}}$ be the linear map given by . Then, a direct computation, proves that $D$ is a contact derivation of ${\mathfrak{h}}$.
A correspondence between contact Lie algebras and lcs Lie algebras of the first kind {#contact-alg-lcs-alg}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here we prove that there is a 1-1 correspondence between contact Lie algebras in dimension $2n-1$ endowed with a contact derivation and lcs Lie algebras of the first kind in dimension $2n$.
\[prop:1\] Let $({\mathfrak{g}},\omega, \eta)$ be a lcs Lie algebra of the first kind of dimension $2n$. Set ${\mathfrak{h}}=\ker(\omega)$ and let $\theta$ be the restriction of $\eta$ to ${\mathfrak{h}}$. Then $({\mathfrak{h}},\theta)$ is a contact Lie algebra, endowed with a contact derivation $D$ and ${\mathfrak{g}}$ is isomorphic to the semidirect product ${\mathfrak{h}}\rtimes_D{\mathbb{R}}$. In fact, $D$ is induced by the inner derivation $ad_U\colon {\mathfrak{g}}\to {\mathfrak{g}}$. Conversely, let $({\mathfrak{h}},\theta)$ be a contact Lie algebra and let $D$ be a contact derivation of ${\mathfrak{h}}$. Then ${\mathfrak{g}}={\mathfrak{h}}\rtimes_D{\mathbb{R}}$ is endowed with a lcs structure of the first kind.
If $X,Y\in{\mathfrak{g}}$, then $$\omega([X,Y])=-d\omega(X,Y)=0,$$ since $\omega$ is closed. This means that the subalgebra $[{\mathfrak{g}},{\mathfrak{g}}]$ is contained in ${\mathfrak{h}}$, and ${\mathfrak{h}}$ is an ideal of ${\mathfrak{g}}$. Let $U$ be the anti-Lee vector of the lcs structure $(\omega, \eta)$ on ${\mathfrak{g}}$ and denote by $\theta$ the restriction of $\eta$ to ${\mathfrak{h}}$. Using that $\omega \wedge \eta\wedge (d\theta)^{n-1} \neq 0$ and the fact that $i_U\eta = 0$ and $i_U d\eta = 0$, we conclude that $({\mathfrak{h}},\theta)$ is a contact Lie algebra. Define a linear map $D$ on ${\mathfrak{h}}$ by $$\label{Def-D1}
D(X)=\mathrm{ad}_U(X).$$ Since ${\mathfrak{h}}$ contains the commutator $[{\mathfrak{g}},{\mathfrak{g}}]$, indeed $D\colon {\mathfrak{h}}\to{\mathfrak{h}}$, and $D$ is derivation of ${\mathfrak{h}}$ by the Jacobi identity in ${\mathfrak{g}}$. Furthermore, $D$ is a contact derivation of $({\mathfrak{h}},\theta)$: $$(D^*\theta)(X)=\theta(D(X))=\theta([U,X])=\eta([U,X])=- d\eta(U,X)=-\imath_U d \eta(X)=0.$$ Consider the linear isomorphism $\varphi\colon {\mathfrak{g}}\to {\mathfrak{h}}\rtimes_D{\mathbb{R}}$ given by $$\varphi (X) = ( X -\omega(X) U,\omega(X)), \mbox{ for } X \in {\mathfrak{g}}.$$ Note that $$\varphi^{-1}(X,a) = aU + X, \; \; \mbox{ for } (X,a)\in {\mathfrak{h}}\rtimes_D{\mathbb{R}}.$$ Therefore, from , we conclude that $\varphi$ is a Lie algebra isomorphism between ${\mathfrak{g}}$ and ${\mathfrak{h}}\rtimes_D{\mathbb{R}}$.
Conversely, let us start with a contact Lie algebra $({\mathfrak{h}},\theta)$ of dimension $2n-1$ and a contact derivation $D$. Set ${\mathfrak{g}}={\mathfrak{h}}\rtimes_D{\mathbb{R}}$ and write a vector in ${\mathfrak{g}}$ as $(X,a)$, with $a\in{\mathbb{R}}$. Use to define a Lie algebra structure on ${\mathfrak{g}}$. Take $U = (0,1) \in {\mathfrak{g}}$. Then, $$[U,(X,0)]_{{\mathfrak{g}}}=(D(X),0),$$ and $D$ can be identified with the adjoint action of $U$ on ${\mathfrak{g}}$. Define $\omega\in{\mathfrak{g}}^*$ by $\omega|_{{\mathfrak{h}}}=0$, $\omega(U)=1$, and let $\eta\in{\mathfrak{g}}^*$ be the extension of the contact form $\theta$ to ${\mathfrak{g}}$ obtained by setting $\eta(U)=0$. To prove that ${\mathfrak{g}}$ is lcs of the first kind, it is enough to show that $d\omega=0$ and that $\omega\wedge\eta\wedge(d\eta)^{n-1} \neq 0$. Taking vectors $(X,a),(Y,b)\in{\mathfrak{g}}$, we have $$d\omega((X,a),(Y,b))=-\omega([(X,a),(Y,b)]_{{\mathfrak{g}}})=-\omega((aD(Y)-bD(X)+[X,Y]_{{\mathfrak{h}}},0))=0,$$ since $\omega|_{{\mathfrak{h}}}=0$. We are left with showing that the rank of $d\eta$ is $2n-2$. One has $$\begin{aligned}
\imath_U d \eta((X,a))&=d\eta((0,1),(X,a))=-\eta([(0,1),(X,a)]_{{\mathfrak{g}}})=-\eta((D(X),0))=-\theta(D(X))=\\
&=-(D^*\theta)(X)=0,\end{aligned}$$ since $D$ is a contact derivation. This shows that $d\eta$ has a kernel, hence its rank cannot be $2n$. On the other hand, $d\eta=d\theta$ on ${\mathfrak{h}}=\ker(\omega)$, hence the rank of $d\eta$ is indeed $2n-2$. Moreover, if $V$ is the Reeb vector of ${\mathfrak{h}}$ then $$\imath_V\imath_U(\omega\wedge\eta\wedge(d\eta)^{n-1}) = \imath_V(\eta\wedge(d\eta)^{n-1}) = (d\eta)^{n-1} \neq 0$$ which implies that $$\omega\wedge\eta\wedge(d\eta)^{n-1} \neq 0.$$ The lcs structure of the first kind is then obtained by setting $\Phi=d\eta-\omega\wedge\eta$.
can be interpreted as an algebraic analogue of .
Symplectic Lie algebras and a particular class of lcs Lie algebras of the first kind {#sym-Lie-alg-lcs-Lie}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this section, we will consider a special class of lcs Lie algebras of the first kind, those with central Lee vector. We will see that they are closely related with symplectic Lie algebras. In fact, we have the following result
\[central-lcs\] There exists a one-to-one correspondence between lcs Lie algebras of the first kind $({\mathfrak{g}}, \omega, \eta)$ of dimension $2n+2$ with central Lee vector and symplectic Lie algebras $({\mathfrak{s}}, \sigma)$ of dimension $2n$ endowed with a symplectic derivation. In fact, this correspondence is defined as follows. Let $({\mathfrak{s}}, \sigma)$ be a symplectic Lie algebra and $D_{{\mathfrak{s}}}\colon {\mathfrak{s}}\to {\mathfrak{s}}$ a symplectic derivation in ${\mathfrak{s}}$. On the vector space ${\mathfrak{g}}= {\mathbb{R}}\oplus {\mathfrak{s}}\oplus{\mathbb{R}}$ we can consider the Lie bracket $$\label{double_extension}
[(a, X, a'), (b, Y, b')]_{{\mathfrak{g}}} = (\sigma(X, Y),a'D_{{\mathfrak{s}}}Y - b'D_{{\mathfrak{s}}}X + [X, Y]_{{\mathfrak{s}}},0 )$$ and the 1-forms $\omega,\eta\in{\mathfrak{g}}^*$ given by $$\label{lcs_structure_double}
\omega(a, X, a') = a', \; \; \eta(a, X, a') = a$$ for $(a, X, a'), (b, Y, b') \in {\mathfrak{g}}$. Then $(\omega,\eta)$ is a lcs structure of the first kind on the Lie algebra $({\mathfrak{g}}, [\cdot, \cdot]_{\mathfrak{g}})$ with central Lee vector $V = (1, 0, 0) \in
{\mathbb{R}}\oplus {\mathfrak{s}}\oplus{\mathbb{R}}$ and anti-Lee vector $U = (0, 0, 1) \in {\mathbb{R}}\oplus {\mathfrak{s}}\oplus{\mathbb{R}}$.
Let $({\mathfrak{s}}, \sigma)$ be a symplectic Lie algebra, $D_{\mathfrak{s}}\colon {\mathfrak{s}}\to {\mathfrak{s}}$ a symplectic derivation and $[\cdot, \cdot]_{\mathfrak{g}}$ (resp. $\omega$ and $\eta$) the bracket (resp. the $1$-forms) on ${\mathfrak{g}}$ defined by (resp. by ). Then, using Proposition \[central-extension\] and , we deduce that $({\mathfrak{g}},
[\cdot, \cdot]_{\mathfrak{g}})$ is a lcs Lie algebra of the first kind with lcs structure $(\omega, \eta)$.
Conversely, suppose that $(\omega, \eta)$ is a lcs structure of the first kind on a Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{g}}$ of dimension $2n+2$ and that the Lee vector $V$ belongs to $\mathcal{Z}({\mathfrak{g}})$. Denote by $({\mathfrak{h}},\theta)$ the contact Lie subalgebra associated with ${\mathfrak{g}}$ and by $D$ the corresponding contact derivation. Then, $V$ is the Reeb vector $R$ of ${\mathfrak{h}}$ and, therefore, $R \in \mathcal{Z}({\mathfrak{h}})$. This implies that the quotient vector space ${\mathfrak{s}}= {\mathfrak{h}}/ \langle R\rangle $ is a symplectic Lie algebra with symplectic structure $\sigma$ and that ${\mathfrak{h}}$ is the central extension of ${\mathfrak{s}}$ by $\sigma$. Furthermore, using Proposition \[central-extension\], we have that $D$ may be given in terms of a symplectic derivation $D_{\mathfrak{s}}$ on ${\mathfrak{s}}$ and, in addition, the Lie algebra structure and the lcs structure on ${\mathfrak{g}}$ are given by and , respectively.
Now, we may introduce the following definition.
\[lcs-extension-algebraic\] The vector space ${\mathfrak{g}}= {\mathbb{R}}\oplus {\mathfrak{s}}\oplus{\mathbb{R}}$ in Theorem \[central-lcs\] endowed with the Lie algebra structure and the lcs structure of the first kind is called the *lcs extension* of the symplectic Lie algebra $({\mathfrak{s}}, \sigma)$ by the derivation $D_{{\mathfrak{s}}}$.
\[lcs\_extension\] With the notation introduced in Sections \[multiplicative\] and \[central-ext-alg-group\] the lcs extension of $({\mathfrak{s}}, \sigma)$ by $D_{{\mathfrak{s}}}$ can be denoted $({\mathbb{R}}{\circledcirc}_\sigma{\mathfrak{s}})\rtimes_D{\mathbb{R}}$, where $D$ is the contact derivation of ${\mathbb{R}}{\circledcirc}_\sigma{\mathfrak{s}}$ determined by $D_{\mathfrak{s}}$.
In some cases, the symplectic Lie algebra in may in turn be obtained as a symplectic double extension of another symplectic Lie algebra whose dimension is $\dim \; {\mathfrak{s}}- 2$.
We recall the construction of the double extension $({\mathfrak{s}}, \sigma)$ of a symplectic Lie algebra $({\mathfrak{s}}_1, \sigma_1)$ by a derivation $D_{{\mathfrak{s}}_1}$ and an element $Z_1 \in {\mathfrak{s}}_1$ (for more details, see [@DaMe; @MeRe]).
It is clear that the $2$-form $D^*_{{\mathfrak{s}}_1}\sigma_1$ on ${\mathfrak{s}}_1$ given by $$\label{D-s1-star}
(D^*_{{\mathfrak{s}}_1}\sigma_1)(X_1, Y_1) = \sigma_1(D_{{\mathfrak{s}}_1}X_1, Y_1) + \sigma_1(X_1,D_{{\mathfrak{s}}_1}Y_1),$$ is a $2$-cocycle. So, we can consider the central extension ${\mathfrak{h}}_1 = {\mathbb{R}}{\circledcirc}_{D^*_{{\mathfrak{s}}_1}\sigma_1}{\mathfrak{s}}_1$ with bracket given by .
Now let $(-i_{Z_1}\sigma_1, -D_{{\mathfrak{s}}_1})\colon {\mathfrak{h}}_1 \to {\mathfrak{h}}_1$ be the linear map given by $$(-i_{Z_1}\sigma_1, -D_{{\mathfrak{s}}_1})(a,X_1) = (-\sigma_1(Z_1, X_1), -D_{{\mathfrak{s}}_1}X_1);$$ then $(-i_{Z_1}\sigma_1, -D_{{\mathfrak{s}}_1})$ is a derivation of ${\mathfrak{h}}_1$ if and only if $$\label{der-ext-central}
d(i_{Z_1}\sigma_1) = -(D_{{\mathfrak{s}}_{1}}^*)^2\sigma_1.$$ Assuming that $(-i_{Z_1}\sigma_1, -D_{{\mathfrak{s}}_1})$ is a derivation, we can consider the vector space ${\mathfrak{s}}= {\mathfrak{h}}_1\oplus{\mathbb{R}}$ with the Lie algebra structure $$\begin{aligned}
[(a_1, X_1,a'_1), (b_1, Y_1,b'_1)]_{{\mathfrak{s}}} = \ &
((D_{{\mathfrak{s}}_1}^*\sigma_1)(X_1,Y_1)-a'_1\sigma_1(Z_1, Y_1) + b'_1\sigma_1(Z_1, X_1),\\
& -a'_1D_{{\mathfrak{s}}_1}Y_1 + b'_1D_{{\mathfrak{s}}_1}X_1 + [X_1, Y_1]_{{\mathfrak{s}}_1},0),\end{aligned}$$ that is, ${\mathfrak{s}}$ is the semidirect product ${\mathfrak{h}}_1\rtimes_{(-i_{Z_1}\sigma_1, -D_{{\mathfrak{s}}_1})}{\mathbb{R}}$. Moreover, the 2-form $\sigma\colon {\mathfrak{s}}\times {\mathfrak{s}}\to \mathbb{R}$ on ${\mathfrak{s}}$ defined by $$\label{sym-str-double-ext}
\sigma((a_1, X_1,a'_1), (b_1, Y_1,b'_1)) = a_1b'_1 - a'_1 b_1 + \sigma_1(X_1, Y_1)$$ for $(a_1, X_1,a'_1), (b_1, Y_1,b'_1) \in {\mathfrak{s}}$, is a symplectic structure on ${\mathfrak{s}}$. The symplectic Lie algebra $({\mathfrak{s}}, \sigma)$ is the *double extension* of $({\mathfrak{s}}_1, \sigma_1)$ by $D_{{\mathfrak{s}}_1}$ and $Z_1$ (see [@DaMe; @MeRe]).
Now, in the presence of a symplectic derivation $D_{{\mathfrak{s}}}$ of $({\mathfrak{s}}, \sigma)$, we can use Theorem \[central-lcs\]. In fact, we have the following result
\[sym-double-lcs-ext\] Assume that we have the following data:
1. a symplectic Lie algebra $({\mathfrak{s}}_1, \sigma_1)$ of dimension $2n-2$;
2. a derivation $D_{{\mathfrak{s}}_1}$ of ${\mathfrak{s}}_1$ and an element $Z_1 \in {\mathfrak{s}}_1$ such that holds and
3. a symplectic derivation $D_{\mathfrak{s}}$ of the symplectic double extension $({\mathfrak{s}}, \sigma)$ of $({\mathfrak{s}}_1, \sigma_1)$ by $D_{{\mathfrak{s}}_1}$ and $Z_1$.
Then the vector space ${\mathfrak{g}}=(\mathbb{R} \oplus {\mathfrak{s}}) \oplus \mathbb{R}$ endowed with the Lie algebra structure given by and the lcs structure of the first kind given by is a lcs Lie algebra of the first kind of dimension $2n+2$ with central Lee vector.
Lcs structures on nilpotent Lie algebras
----------------------------------------
In this section we focus on lcs structures on nilpotent Lie algebras. Our first result is:
\[first-descrip-lcs-nilpotent\] Let ${\mathfrak{s}}$ be a nilpotent Lie algebra endowed with a symplectic structure and let ${\mathfrak{g}}$ be a nilpotent Lie algebra endowed with a lcs structure whose Lee form is non-zero.
1. The lcs extension of ${\mathfrak{s}}$ by a symplectic nilpotent derivation is a nilpotent Lie algebra endowed with a lcs structure of the first kind with central Lee vector.
2. The lcs structure on ${\mathfrak{g}}$ is of the first kind, the Lee vector is central and ${\mathfrak{g}}$ is the lcs extension of a symplectic nilpotent Lie algebra by a symplectic nilpotent derivation.
To 1. The central extension of a nilpotent Lie algebra by a $2$-cocycle is again nilpotent. Thus, if $({\mathfrak{s}},\sigma)$ is a symplectic nilpotent Lie algebra, ${\mathfrak{h}}= \mathbb{R} {\circledcirc}_\sigma {\mathfrak{s}}$ is a contact nilpotent Lie algebra. Moreover, if $D_{\mathfrak{s}}$ is a symplectic nilpotent derivation of ${\mathfrak{s}}$ and $D$ is the corresponding contact derivation of ${\mathfrak{h}}$ then, from (\[Def-D\]), it follows that $D$ is nilpotent. Therefore, ${\mathfrak{h}}\rtimes_D{\mathbb{R}}$ (that is, the lcs extension of ${\mathfrak{s}}$ by $D_{\mathfrak{s}}$), is also a nilpotent Lie algebra. Finally, from Theorem \[central-lcs\], we have that the Lee vector of the lcs structure on ${\mathfrak{g}}$ is central.
To 2. From Corollary \[cor:Dixmier\] and Proposition \[exact\_non\_first\_kind\], we deduce that the lcs structure on ${\mathfrak{g}}$ is of the first kind. Now, let $V$ be the Lee vector of ${\mathfrak{g}}$. By , the Lie subalgebra ${\mathfrak{h}}= \ker(\omega)$ is a contact Lie algebra and $V$ is just the Reeb vector $R$ of ${\mathfrak{h}}$. In addition, since ${\mathfrak{g}}$ is nilpotent, so is ${\mathfrak{h}}$ and we have that $\mathcal{Z}({\mathfrak{h}}) = \langle R \rangle$ (see [@Dia; @Dia1]). This, together with , implies that $V \in \mathcal{Z}({\mathfrak{g}})$.
Thus, from Theorem \[central-lcs\], it follows that ${\mathfrak{g}}$ is the lcs extension of a symplectic Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{s}}$ by symplectic derivation $D_{\mathfrak{s}}$ on ${\mathfrak{s}}$. In fact, using Theorems \[prop:1\] and \[central-lcs\], we deduce that ${\mathfrak{s}}$ is the quotient Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{h}}/ \langle R \rangle \simeq {\mathfrak{g}}/ \langle U, V\rangle$, with $U$ the anti-Lee vector of ${\mathfrak{g}}$, and $D_{\mathfrak{s}}$ is the derivation on ${\mathfrak{s}}$ induced by the operator $\mathrm{ad}_U\colon {\mathfrak{g}}\to {\mathfrak{g}}$. So, ${\mathfrak{s}}$ is nilpotent and, using that the endomorphism $\mathrm{ad}_U$ is nilpotent, we conclude that the derivation $D_{\mathfrak{s}}$ also is nilpotent.
On the other hand, one may prove that the symplectic double extension of a nilpotent Lie algebra by a nilpotent derivation is a symplectic nilpotent Lie algebra. In fact, in [@MeRe] (see also [@DaMe]), the authors prove that every symplectic nilpotent Lie algebra of dimension $2n$ may be obtained by a sequence of $n-1$ symplectic double extensions by nilpotent derivations from the abelian Lie algebra of dimension $2$. Hence, using these facts and Theorem \[first-descrip-lcs-nilpotent\], we deduce the following result
\[description-Lie-alg-nil\]
1. Under the same hypotheses as in Corollary \[sym-double-lcs-ext\] if, in addition, the derivations $D_{{\mathfrak{s}}_1}$ and $D_{\mathfrak{s}}$ on the symplectic nilpotent Lie algebras ${\mathfrak{s}}_1$ and ${\mathfrak{s}}$, respectively, are nilpotent then the lcs Lie algebra $({\mathbb{R}}\oplus {\mathfrak{s}})\oplus{\mathbb{R}}$ is also nilpotent.
2. Every lcs nilpotent Lie algebra of dimension $2n+2$ with non-zero Lee $1$-form may be obtained as the lcs extension of a $2n$-dimensional symplectic nilpotent Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{s}}$ by a symplectic nilpotent derivation and, in turn, the symplectic nilpotent Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{s}}$ may obtained by a sequence of $n-1$ symplectic double extensions by nilpotent derivations from the abelian Lie algebra of dimension $2$.
For the next result, we recall the notion of characteristic filtration of a nilpotent Lie algebra (see [@BM; @Sal]). Let ${\mathfrak{g}}$ be a nilpotent Lie algebra and let $(\Lambda^\bullet{\mathfrak{g}}^*,d)$ be the associated Chevalley-Eilenberg complex. Consider the following subspaces of ${\mathfrak{g}}^*$: $$\label{char_fil}
W_1=\ker(d), \qquad W_k=d^{-1}(\wedge^2 W_{k-1}), \ k\geq 2.$$ It is immediate to see that $W_{k-1}\subset W_k$, hence $\{W_k\}_k$ is a filtration of ${\mathfrak{g}}^*$, intrinsically defined. The nilpotency of ${\mathfrak{g}}$ implies that there exists $m\in{\mathbb{N}}$ such that $W_m={\mathfrak{g}}^*$. If $W_m={\mathfrak{g}}^*$ but $W_{m-1}\neq{\mathfrak{g}}^*$, one says that ${\mathfrak{g}}$ is $m$-step nilpotent. In particular, $1$-step nilpotent Lie algebras are abelian.
Let ${\mathfrak{g}}$ be a nilpotent Lie algebra. The filtration $\{W_k\}_k$ of ${\mathfrak{g}}^*$, defined by , is the *characteristic filtration* of ${\mathfrak{g}}^*$.
Let ${\mathfrak{g}}$ be a nilpotent Lie algebra and let $\{W_k\}_k$ be the characteristic filtration of ${\mathfrak{g}}^*$. Define $$F_1=W_1, \qquad F_k=W_k/W_{k-1}, \ k\geq 2.$$ Clearly one has ${\mathfrak{g}}^*=\oplus_kF_k$, but the splitting is not canonical. Nevertheless, the numbers $f_k=\dim(F_k)$ are invariants of ${\mathfrak{g}}^*$.
\[prop:char\_filtration\] Let ${\mathfrak{g}}$ be an $m$-step nilpotent Lie algebra of dimension $2n$. Assume ${\mathfrak{g}}$ is endowed with a lcs structure. Then $f_m=1$.
By , the lcs structure is of the first kind; we denote it $(\omega,\eta)$. It is sufficient to prove that, if $f_m\geq 2$, the Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{g}}$ can not admit any lcs structure of the first kind. Let $\mathcal{B}=\langle e^1_1,\ldots,e^{m-1}_{2n-i},e^m_{2n-i+1},\ldots,e^m_{2n-1},e^m_{2n}\rangle$ be a basis of ${\mathfrak{g}}^*$ adapted to the filtration $\{W_k\}$. By definition, this means that the collection $\{e^k_j\}_j$ spans $F_k$. Assume that $f_m\geq 2$; hence, $i\geq 2$. Set for convenience $y=e^m_{2n-1}$ and $z=e^m_{2n}$. Since $d\omega=0$, by making a suitable change of variables in $F_1$, we can assume that $\omega$ is one of the generators of $F_1$, indeed we can take $\omega=e^1_1$. Let ${\mathfrak{h}}=\ker(\omega)$; then ${\mathfrak{h}}$ is a nilpotent Lie algebra, the characteristic filtration of ${\mathfrak{h}}^*$ is $\widetilde{W}_1=W_1/\langle\omega\rangle$, $\widetilde{W}_k=W_k$, $k\geq 2$ and $\widetilde{\mathcal{B}}=\langle e^1_2,\ldots,e^{m-1}_{2n-i},e^m_{2n-i+1},\ldots,e^m_{2n-2},y,z\rangle$ is a basis of ${\mathfrak{h}}^*$ adapted to $\{\widetilde {W}_k\}$. By , ${\mathfrak{h}}$ is a contact Lie algebra, with contact form $\theta$ given by the restriction of $\eta$ to ${\mathfrak{h}}$. In particular the rank of $d\theta$ is maximal on $\ker(\theta)$. This means that if $X\in\ker(\theta)$, $\imath_Xd\theta\neq 0$. Expand $\theta$ on the basis $\widetilde{\mathcal{B}}$, $$\theta=a_2e^1_2+\ldots+\ldots+a_{2n-2}e^m_{2n-2}+by+cz, \quad a_j,b,c\in{\mathbb{R}}.$$ Let $\langle X_2,\ldots,X_{2n-2},Y,Z\rangle$ be the basis of ${\mathfrak{h}}$ dual to $\widetilde{\mathcal{B}}$. The vector $T=cY-bZ$ clearly belongs to $\ker(\theta)$. By hypothesis, $dy,dz\in\Lambda^2\widetilde{W}_{m-1}$, and $T\in\ker(e^k_{\ell}) \ \forall k,\ell$, hence $\imath_Td\theta=0$. Thus $\theta\wedge(d\theta)^{n-1}$ has a kernel, contradicting the fact that $({\mathfrak{h}},\theta)$ is a contact Lie algebra.
To conclude this section, we use the classification of nilpotent Lie algebras in dimension 4 and 6 to determine which of them carry a locally conformal symplectic structure. We refer to Section \[Notation\_Lie\_algebras\] for the notation.
\[4\_dim\_nilpotent\] Suppose $({\mathfrak{g}},\omega,\eta)$ is a nilpotent Lie algebra of dimension 4 endowed with a lcs structure. Then ${\mathfrak{g}}$ is isomorphic to one of the following Lie algebras:
- ${\mathfrak{g}}_1=(0,0,0,12)$, $\omega=e^3$, $\eta=e^4$;
- ${\mathfrak{g}}_2=(0,0,12,13)$, $\omega=e^2$, $\eta=e^4$.
There are three isomorphism classes of nilpotent Lie algebras in dimension 4 (see [@BM] for instance): the two listed above and the abelian one, which is clearly not lcs.
Both Lie algebras in Proposition \[4\_dim\_nilpotent\] are symplectic. ${\mathfrak{g}}_1$ admits a complex structure and is the Lie algebra of the so called *Kodaira-Thurston* nilmanifold, that was mentioned in the introduction. ${\mathfrak{g}}_2$ does not admit any complex structure (see [@Sal]) and is the Lie algebra of the 4-dimensional nilpotent Lie group $G$ considered in Section \[Dimension:4\].
\[6\_dim\_nilpotent\] Suppose $({\mathfrak{g}},\omega,\eta)$ is a nilpotent Lie algebra of dimension 6 endowed with a lcs structure. Then ${\mathfrak{g}}$ is isomorphic to one of the Lie algebras contained in Table \[table:1\].
The third and fourth column in Table \[table:1\] contain two labellings of nilpotent Lie algebras, according to [@BM] and [@CFGU] respectively. We also compare lcs structures with other structures on 6-dimensional nilpotent Lie algebras, namely symplectic and complex structures.
=1.2mm
[lcccccccc]{} Lie algebra & $\omega$ & $\eta$ & [@BM] & [@CFGU] & Symplectic & Complex\
$(0,0,0,0,0,12+34)$ & $e^5$ & $e^6$ & $L_{5,1}\oplus A_1$ & ${\mathfrak{h}}_3$ & $\times$ &\
$(0,0,0,0,12,15+34)$ & $e^2$ & $e^6$ & $L_{6,3}$ & ${\mathfrak{h}}_{20}$ & $\times$ & $\times$\
$(0,0,0,0,12,15+23)$ & $e^4$ & $e^6$ & $L_{5,3}\oplus A_1$ & ${\mathfrak{h}}_9$ & &\
$(0,0,0,12,13,15+24)$ & $e^3$ & $e^6$ & $L_{6,7}$ & ${\mathfrak{h}}_{18}$ & $\times$ & $\times$\
$(0,0,0,12,13,24+35)$ & $e^1$ &$e^6$ & $L_{6,8}^+$ & ${\mathfrak{h}}_{19}^-$ & $\times$ &\
$(0,0,0,12,13,24-35)$ & $e^1$ & $e^6$ & $L_{6,8}^-$ & ${\mathfrak{h}}_{19}^+$ & $\times$ & $\times$\
$(0,0,0,12,14,15+24)$ & $e^3$ & $e^6$ & $L_{5,6}\oplus A_1$ & ${\mathfrak{h}}_{22}$ & & $\times$\
$(0,0,0,12,14,15+23+24)$ & $e^3$ & $e^6$ & $L_{6,14}$ & ${\mathfrak{h}}_{24}$ & & $\times$\
$(0,0,0,12,14+23,15-34)$ & $e^2$ & $e^6$ & $L_{6,15}$ & ${\mathfrak{h}}_{27}$ & & $\times$\
$(0,0,12,13,14,25-34)$ & $e^1$ & $e^6$ & $L_{6,20}$ & ${\mathfrak{h}}_{31}$ & $\times$ & $\times$\
$(0,0,12,13,14+23,25-34)$ & $e^1$ & $e^6$ & $L_{6,22}$ & ${\mathfrak{h}}_{32}$ & $\times$ & $\times$\
By Proposition \[prop:char\_filtration\], we can restrict to those Lie algebras whose characteristic filtration ends with a one-dimensional space. It is then enough to show that if ${\mathfrak{g}}$ is one of the 6-dimensional nilpotent Lie algebras which does not appear in the above list, there exists no contact ideal of ${\mathfrak{g}}$ and then apply .
As an example, consider the Lie algebra $L_{6,13}=(0,0,0,12,14,15+23)$ (in the notation of [@BM]). Then $L_{6,13}$ has a basis ${\mathcal{B}}=\langle e^1,\ldots,e^6\rangle$ whose closed elements are $e^1$, $e^2$ and $e^3$. The generic closed element has the form $\omega=a_1e^1+a_2e^2+a_3e^3$, hence ${\mathfrak{h}}=\ker(\omega)$ has a basis $$\langle a_2e_1-a_1e_2, a_3e_1-a_1e_3,e_4,e_5,e_6\rangle\eqcolon\langle f_1,f_2,f_3,f_4,f_5\rangle,$$ where $\langle e_1,\ldots,e_6\rangle$ is the basis dual to ${\mathcal{B}}$. A computation shows that, with respect to the basis $\langle f_1,f_2,f_3,f_4,f_5\rangle$ basis and its dual basis, the Chevalley-Eilenberg differential in ${\mathfrak{h}}^*$ is given by $$df^1=0=df^2, \quad df^3=a_1a_3 f^{12}, \quad df^4=a_2 f^{13}+a_3f^{23} \quad \mathrm{and} \quad df^5=a_1a_2 f^{12}+a_2f^{14}+a_3f^{24}.$$ We proceed case by case:
- if $a_1=0$ or $a_3=0$, a change of basis shows that ${\mathfrak{h}}$ is isomorphic to $(0,0,0,12,14)$, which is not a contact algebra;
- if $a_2=0$, a change of basis shows that ${\mathfrak{h}}$ is isomorphic to $(0,0,12,13,14)$, which is not a contact algebra;
- if $a_1a_2a_3 \neq 0$, a change of basis shows that ${\mathfrak{h}}$ is isomorphic to $(0,0,12,13,14)$ as well.
We conclude that $L_{6,13}$ has no suitable contact ideal and, by , it is not locally conformal symplectic.
According to [@Sal], the five nilpotent Lie algebras in Table \[table:1\] that admit neither a symplectic nor a complex structure are the only such examples in dimension 6. Since all of them admit a lcs structure, we obtain the following result:
A 6-dimensional nilpotent Lie algebra carries at least one among symplectic, complex and locally conformal symplectic structures.
Locally conformal symplectic Lie groups {#sec:lcs_Lie_groups}
=======================================
First of all, we will introduce, in a natural way, the notion of a locally conformal symplectic (lcs) Lie group.
A Lie group $G$ of dimension $2n$ ($n \geq 2$) is said to be a *locally conformal symplectic (lcs) Lie group* if it admits a closed left-invariant $1$-form ${\overleftarrow{\omega}}$ and a non-degenerate left-invariant $2$-form ${\overleftarrow{\Phi}}$ such that $$d{\overleftarrow{\Phi}} = {\overleftarrow{\omega}} \wedge {\overleftarrow{\Phi}}.$$ The lcs structure is said to be *of the first kind* if $G$ admits a left-invariant $1$-form ${\overleftarrow{\eta}}$ such that $\Phi = d{\overleftarrow{\eta}} + {\overleftarrow{\eta}} \wedge {\overleftarrow{\omega}}$ and ${\overleftarrow{\omega}} \wedge {\overleftarrow{\eta}} \wedge (d{\overleftarrow{\eta}})^{n-1}$ is a volume form on $G$.
If ${\mathsf{e}}$ is the identity element of a Lie group $G$ and ${\mathfrak{g}}= T_{{\mathsf{e}}}G$ is the Lie algebra of $G$ then it is clear that $G$ is a lcs Lie group (resp. lcs Lie group of the first kind) if and only if ${\mathfrak{g}}$ is a lcs Lie algebra (resp. lcs Lie algebra of the first kind). In fact, if $({\overleftarrow{\omega}}, {\overleftarrow{\Phi}})$ is a lcs structure on $G$ then $(\omega, \Phi)$ is a lcs structure on ${\mathfrak{g}}$, with $$\omega = {\overleftarrow{\omega}}({\mathsf{e}}), \; \; \Phi = {\overleftarrow{\Phi}}({\mathsf{e}}).$$ In a similar way, if $({\overleftarrow{\omega}}, {\overleftarrow{\eta}})$ is a lcs structure of the first kind on $G$ then $(\omega, \eta)$ is a lcs structure of the first kind on ${\mathfrak{g}}$, with $$\omega = {\overleftarrow{\omega}}({\mathsf{e}}), \; \; \eta = {\overleftarrow{\eta}}({\mathsf{e}}).$$
Next, we will restrict our attention to lcs Lie groups of the first kind. More precisely, we will discuss the relation between lcs Lie groups of the first kind and contact (resp. symplectic) Lie groups.
Relation with contact Lie groups {#relacion-contact}
--------------------------------
It is well-known that a Lie group $H$ of dimension $2n-1$ is a contact Lie group if it admits a contact left-invariant $1$-form ${\overleftarrow{\eta}}$, that is, ${\overleftarrow{\eta}} \wedge (d{\overleftarrow{\eta}})^{n-1}$ is a volume form on $H$ (see, for instance, [@Dia; @Dia1]).
As in the lcs case, a Lie group $H$ with Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{h}}$ is a contact Lie group if and only if ${\mathfrak{h}}$ is a contact Lie algebra. In fact, if ${\overleftarrow{\eta}}$ is a left-invariant contact $1$-form on $H$ then $\eta = {\overleftarrow{\eta}}({\mathsf{e}})$ is a contact structure on ${\mathfrak{h}}$.
Next, using contact Lie groups, we will present the typical example of a lcs Lie group of the first kind.
\[lcs-Lie-group-first-kind\] Let $(H, {\overleftarrow{\eta}})$ be a contact Lie group of dimension $2n-1$ and $\phi\colon \mathbb{R} \to \operatorname{Aut}(H)$ the flow of a contact multiplicative vector field ${\mathcal{M}}$ on $H$. In other words, $$\phi\colon\mathbb{R} \to \operatorname{Aut}(H)$$ is a representation of the abelian Lie group $\mathbb{R}$ on $H$ and $$\label{contact-flow}
\phi_t^*({\overleftarrow{\eta}}) = {\overleftarrow{\eta}}, \; \; \mbox{ for } t \in \mathbb{R}.$$ Then, we can consider the semidirect product $G = H \rtimes_\phi\mathbb{R}$ whose Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{g}}$ is the semidirect product ${\mathfrak{g}}= {\mathfrak{h}}\rtimes_{D} \mathbb{R}$, with $D\colon{\mathfrak{h}}\to{\mathfrak{h}}$ the derivation in ${\mathfrak{h}}$ induced by the representation $\phi$ (see Section \[multiplicative\]). Denote by $\eta$ the contact structure on the Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{h}}$, that is, $\eta = {\overleftarrow{\eta}}({\mathsf{e}})$, ${{\mathsf{e}}}$ being the identity element in $H$. Then, from , it follows that ${\mathcal L}_{\mathcal M}{\overleftarrow{\eta}} = 0$, which implies that $$D^*\eta = 0,$$ that is, $D$ is a contact derivation. Thus, if $\omega = (0, 1) \in {\mathfrak{h}}^* \oplus\mathbb{R} = {\mathfrak{g}}^*$ then, using , we deduce that the couple $(\omega, \eta)$ is a lcs structure of the first kind on ${\mathfrak{g}}$. Therefore, $({\overleftarrow{\omega}}, {\overleftarrow{\eta}})$ is a lcs structure of the first kind on $G = H \rtimes_\phi\mathbb{R}$.
Note that if ${\overleftarrow{R}}$ is the Reeb vector field of $H$, with $R\in {\mathfrak{h}}$, then $({\overleftarrow{R}}, 0)$ is just the Lee vector field of $G = H \rtimes_\phi\mathbb{R}$.
The previous example is the model of a connected simply connected lcs Lie group of the first kind. More precisely, two lcs Lie groups of the first kind $(G, \omega, \eta)$ and $(G',\omega',\eta')$ are isomorphic if there exists a Lie group isomorphism $\Psi\colon G \to G'$ such that $$\Psi^*\omega' = \omega \; \; \; \mbox{ and } \; \; \; \Psi^*\eta' = \eta.$$ Then, one may prove the following result
\[Universal-covering-lcs\] Let $G$ be a connected simply connected lcs Lie group of the first kind. If ${\mathfrak{g}}$ is the Lie algebra of $G$ then ${\mathfrak{g}}$ is isomorphic to a semidirect product of a contact Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{h}}$ with $\mathbb{R}$. Moreover, if $H$ is a connected simply connected Lie group with Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{h}}$, then $G$ is isomorphic to a semidirect product $H \rtimes_\phi\mathbb{R}$, where $\phi\colon\mathbb{R} \to\operatorname{Aut}(H)$ is a contact representation of the abelian Lie group $\mathbb{R}$ on $H$ and the lcs structure on $H \rtimes_\phi\mathbb{R}$ is given as in Example \[lcs-Lie-group-first-kind\].
Let ${\mathfrak{g}}$ be the Lie algebra of $G$ and $(\omega, \eta)$ the lcs structure of the first kind on ${\mathfrak{g}}$. Then, using , we deduce the following facts:
- $\eta$ induces a contact structure on the ideal ${\mathfrak{h}}=\ker(\omega)\subset{\mathfrak{g}}$;
- there exists a contact derivation $D\colon{\mathfrak{h}}\to {\mathfrak{h}}$ such that ${\mathfrak{g}}$ is isomorphic to the semidirect product ${\mathfrak{h}}\rtimes_{D} \mathbb{R}$ and
- under the previous isomorphism $\omega$ is the $1$-form $(0, 1)$ in ${\mathfrak{h}}^* \oplus\mathbb{R}$.
Now, let $H$ be a connected simply connected Lie group with Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{h}}$. Then, $H$ is a contact Lie group. In addition, the derivation $D\colon{\mathfrak{h}}\to{\mathfrak{h}}$ induces a representation $$\phi\colon \mathbb{R} \to\operatorname{Aut}(H).$$ In fact, if ${\mathcal{M}}$ is the multiplicative vector field on $H$ whose flow is $\phi$ then, using and the fact that $D$ is a contact derivation, we deduce that $${\mathcal L}_{{\mathcal{M}}}{\overleftarrow{\eta}} = 0,$$ which implies that $\phi$ is a contact representation, that is, $$\phi_t^*{\overleftarrow{\eta}} = {\overleftarrow{\eta}}, \; \; \; \mbox{ for } t \in \mathbb{R}.$$ On the other hand, it is clear that the Lie algebra of the connected simply connected Lie group $H \rtimes_\phi\mathbb{R}$ is ${\mathfrak{h}}\rtimes_{D} \mathbb{R} \simeq {\mathfrak{g}}$. This ends the proof of the result.
Let $\Gamma$ be a lattice in the contact Lie group $H$ and let $r{\mathbb{Z}}$ be an integer lattice of $\mathbb{R}$ such that the restriction to $r{\mathbb{Z}}$ of the representation $\phi$ (in Theorem \[Universal-covering-lcs\]) takes values in $\operatorname{Aut}(\Gamma)$. Then $\Gamma \rtimes_\phi(r{\mathbb{Z}})$ is a lattice in $H \rtimes_\phi\mathbb{R}$ and $M = (\Gamma \rtimes_\phi(r{\mathbb{Z}})) \backslash (H \rtimes_\phi\mathbb{R})$ is a compact manifold. Furthermore, since the lcs structure of the first kind on $H \rtimes_\phi\mathbb{R}$ is left-invariant, it induces a lcs structure of the first kind on $M$. Thus, $M$ is a compact lcs manifold of the first kind. This construction can also be described as a mapping torus. More precisely, notice that the compact quotient $N\coloneq\Gamma\backslash H$ carries a contact structure; moreover, $\bar{\phi}\coloneq\phi(r)$ gives a strict contactomorphism $\bar{\phi}\colon H\to H$ which preserves $\Gamma$, hence descends to a strict contactomorphism of $N$, denoted again $\bar{\phi}$. We can form its mapping torus $$N_{\bar{\phi}}=N\times_{(\bar{\phi},r)}{\mathbb{R}}.$$ The map $M\to N_{\bar{\phi}}$ given by $[(h,t)]\mapsto [([h],t)]$ is a diffeomorphism.
Relation with symplectic Lie groups {#rel_symplectic}
-----------------------------------
A Lie group $S$ of dimension $2n$ is said to be a symplectic Lie group if it admits a left-invariant $2$-form ${\overleftarrow{\sigma}}$ which is closed and non-degenerate (see, for instance, [@BaCo; @DaMe; @LiMe]).
Let $S$ be a Lie group with identity ${\mathsf{e}}$ and let ${\mathfrak{s}}=T_{{\mathsf{e}}}S$ be its Lie algebra; it is clear that $S$ is a symplectic Lie group if and only if ${\mathfrak{s}}$ is a symplectic Lie algebra. In fact, if ${\overleftarrow{\sigma}}$ is a left-invariant symplectic structure on $S$ then $\sigma = {\overleftarrow{\sigma}}({\mathsf{e}}) \in \Lambda^2{{\mathfrak{s}}}^*$ is a symplectic structure on ${\mathfrak{s}}$.
Next, we will discuss the relation between symplectic Lie groups and a particular class of lcs Lie groups of the first kind.
### Lcs Lie groups of the first kind with bi-invariant Lee vector field
First of all, we present the following example.
\[symplectic-lcs-first-kind\] Let $S$ be a Lie group of dimension $2n$ with Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{s}}$. Moreover, suppose given:
- a $2$-cocycle $\varphi\colon S \times S \to \mathbb{R}$ on $S$ with values in $\mathbb{R}$ such that the corresponding $2$-cocycle $\sigma\colon {\mathfrak{s}}\times{\mathfrak{s}}\to \mathbb{R}$ on ${\mathfrak{s}}$ with values in $\mathbb{R}$ given by (\[sigma\]) is non-degenerate;
- a representation $\phi\colon\mathbb{R} \to\operatorname{Aut}(S)$ of the abelian Lie group $\mathbb{R}$ on $S$ such that $$\phi_u^*{\overleftarrow{\sigma}} = {\overleftarrow{\sigma}}, \; \; \mbox{ for every } u \in \mathbb{R}.$$
Note that the first condition implies that $({\mathfrak{s}},\sigma)$ is a symplectic Lie algebra, hence $S$ is a symplectic Lie group with symplectic form ${\overleftarrow{\sigma}}$.
Therefore, the central extension ${\mathbb{R}}{\circledcirc}_\sigma{\mathfrak{s}}$ is a contact Lie algebra with contact structure $\eta = (1,0) \in{\mathbb{R}}\oplus{\mathfrak{s}}^*$ and central Reeb vector $R = (1,0) \in {\mathbb{R}}{\circledcirc}_\sigma{\mathfrak{s}}$. This implies that the central extension ${\mathbb{R}}{\circledcirc}_{\varphi} S$ is a contact Lie group with contact structure ${\overleftarrow{\eta}}$ and bi-invariant Reeb vector field ${\overleftarrow{R}}$. Note that the left-invariant vector field ${\overleftarrow{R}}$ is bi-invariant since $R$ belongs to the center of ${\mathbb{R}}{\circledcirc}_{\sigma} {\mathfrak{s}}$.
Now, denote by $D_{{\mathfrak{s}}}\colon{\mathfrak{s}}\to {\mathfrak{s}}$ the symplectic derivation induced by $\phi$. Then, from Proposition \[central-extension\], it follows that the linear map $D\colon{\mathbb{R}}{\circledcirc}_{\sigma}{\mathfrak{s}}\to{\mathbb{R}}{\circledcirc}_{\sigma}{\mathfrak{s}}$ given by $$\label{D-derivation}
D(u,X) = (0,D_{{\mathfrak{s}}}X), \; \; \; \mbox{ for } u \in \mathbb{R} \mbox{ and } X \in {\mathfrak{s}}$$ is a contact derivation. Thus, it induces a contact representation ${\widetilde{\phi}}\colon\mathbb{R} \to\operatorname{Aut}({\mathbb{R}}{\circledcirc}_{\varphi} S)$ and the semidirect product $G = ({\mathbb{R}}{\circledcirc}_{\varphi} S) \rtimes_{{\widetilde{\phi}}} \mathbb{R}$ is a lcs Lie group of the first kind with bi-invariant Lee vector field $({\overleftarrow{R}}, 0)$ (see Example \[lcs-Lie-group-first-kind\]).
We remark the following facts:
- ${\mathfrak{g}}$, the Lie algebra of $G$, is the lcs extension $({\mathbb{R}}{\circledcirc}_{\sigma}{\mathfrak{s}}) \rtimes_{D}\mathbb{R}$ of the symplectic Lie algebra $({\mathfrak{s}}, \sigma)$ by the derivation $D_{{\mathfrak{s}}}$ (compare with Remark \[lcs\_extension\]);
- the element $(R, 0)\in{\mathfrak{g}}$ is central; this implies that the vector field $({\overleftarrow{R}}, 0)$ on $G$ is bi-invariant.
Next, we will present a more explicit description of the contact representation ${\widetilde{\phi}}\colon\mathbb{R} \to \operatorname{Aut}(\mathbb{R} {\circledcirc}_{\varphi} S)$ in terms of the symplectic representation $\phi\colon\mathbb{R} \to \operatorname{Aut}(S)$.
As we know, the multiplication in $\mathbb{R} {\circledcirc}_{\varphi} S$ is given by $$\label{Mult-Central-Ext}
(u, s)(u', s') = (u + u' + \varphi(s, s'), ss'), \; \; \mbox{ for } (u, s), (u', s') \in \mathbb{R} {\circledcirc}_{\varphi} S.$$ Thus, we have the following expressions of the left-invariant vector fields on $\mathbb{R} {\circledcirc}_{\varphi} S$, $$\label{Left-invariant-0}
{\overleftarrow{(1, 0)}} = \displaystyle \frac{\partial}{\partial u}, \; \; \; {\overleftarrow{(0, X)}}(u, s) = \displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}\Big|_{r=0} \varphi(s,\exp(rX)) \frac{\partial}{\partial u}\Big|_{(u, s)} + {\overleftarrow{X}}(s),$$ for $X \in {\mathfrak{s}}$ and $(u, s) \in \mathbb{R} {\circledcirc}_{\varphi}S$.
Now, let ${\widetilde{{\mathcal{M}}}}$ be the multiplicative vector field on $\mathbb{R} {\circledcirc}_{\varphi} S$ whose flow is ${\widetilde{\phi}}$, $${\widetilde{{\mathcal{M}}}}(u, s) = \displaystyle {\widetilde{\psi}}(u, s) \frac{\partial}{\partial u}\Big|_{(u, s)} + {\overline{{\mathcal{M}}}}(u, s), \; \; \mbox{ for } (u, s) \in \mathbb{R} {\circledcirc}_{\varphi} S,$$ with ${\widetilde{\psi}}\in\mathscr{C}^{\infty}(\mathbb{R} {\circledcirc}_{\varphi} S)$ and ${\overline{{\mathcal{M}}}}\colon \mathbb{R} {\circledcirc}_{\varphi} S \to TS$ a time-dependent vector field on $S$.
From , and , we deduce that $$0 = \displaystyle {\overleftarrow{D(1,0)}} = \left[\frac{\partial}{\partial u}, {\widetilde{{\mathcal{M}}}}\right]$$ which implies that $${\widetilde{{\mathcal{M}}}}(u, s) = {\widetilde{\psi}}(s) \frac{\partial}{\partial u}\Big|_{(u, s)} + {\overline{{\mathcal{M}}}}(s), \; \; \mbox{ for } (u, s) \in \mathbb{R} {\circledcirc}_{\varphi} S,$$ with ${\widetilde{\psi}}\in\mathscr{C}^{\infty}(S)$ and ${\overline{{\mathcal{M}}}}\in {\mathfrak{X}}(S)$.
So, using and the fact that ${\widetilde{{\mathcal{M}}}}$ is multiplicative, we conclude that ${\overline{{\mathcal{M}}}}$ also is multiplicative. Moreover, from and , it follows that the derivation on ${\mathfrak{s}}$ associated with ${\overline{{\mathcal{M}}}}$ is just $D_{{\mathfrak{s}}}\colon {\mathfrak{s}}\to {\mathfrak{s}}$. Thus, ${\overline{{\mathcal{M}}}}= {\mathcal{M}}$, with ${\mathcal{M}}$ the multiplicative vector field on $S$ whose flow is $\phi$, and $${\widetilde{{\mathcal{M}}}}(u, s) = {\widetilde{\psi}}(s) \frac{\partial}{\partial u}\Big|_{(u, s)} + {\mathcal{M}}(s).$$ Therefore, the flow ${\widetilde{\phi}}\colon \mathbb{R} \to \operatorname{Aut}(\mathbb{R} {\circledcirc}_{\varphi} S)$ of ${\widetilde{{\mathcal{M}}}}$ has the form $${\widetilde{\phi}}_t(u, s) = (u + {\widetilde{\chi}}_t(s), \phi_t(s))$$ and $$\label{M-tilde}
{\widetilde{{\mathcal{M}}}}(u, s) = \displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}\Big|_{t=0}({\widetilde{\chi}}_t(s)) \frac{\partial}{\partial u}\Big|_{(u, s)} + {\mathcal M}(s)$$ with ${\widetilde{\chi}}\in\mathscr{C}^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}}\times S)$. Since ${\widetilde{\phi}}$ is an action of $\mathbb{R}$ on $\mathbb{R} {\circledcirc}_{\varphi} S$, we deduce that ${\widetilde{\chi}}$ satisfies the relation $$\label{Chi-Tilde-1}
{\widetilde{\chi}}_{t+t'}(s) = {\widetilde{\chi}}_t(s) + {\widetilde{\chi}}_{t'}(\phi_t(s)), \; \; \mbox{ for } t, t' \in \mathbb{R} \mbox{ and } s \in S.$$ Moreover, using and the fact that ${\widetilde{\chi}}_t \in\operatorname{Aut}(\mathbb{R} {\circledcirc}_{\varphi} S)$, for every $t \in \mathbb{R}$, we obtain that $$\label{Chi-Tilde-2}
\displaystyle {\widetilde{\chi}}_t(ss') - {\widetilde{\chi}}_t(s) - {\widetilde{\chi}}_t(s') = \varphi(\phi_t(s), \phi_t(s')) - \varphi (s, s').$$ In addition, from and , it follows that $${\overleftarrow{D(0, X)}} = [{\overleftarrow{(0, X)}}, {\widetilde{{\mathcal{M}}}}](-\varphi({\mathsf{e}}, {\mathsf{e}}), {\mathsf{e}}) = \displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}\Big|_{t=0} (d_{{\mathsf{e}}}{\widetilde{\chi}}_t)(X) \frac{\partial}{\partial u}\Big|_{(-\varphi({\mathsf{e}}, {\mathsf{e}}), {\mathsf{e}})} + D_{{\mathfrak{s}}}X,$$ which, using (\[D-derivation\]), implies that $$\label{Chi-Tilde-3}
\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}\Big|_{t=0} (d_{{\mathsf{e}}}{\widetilde{\chi}}_t) = 0.$$
The Lie group $({\mathbb{R}}{\circledcirc}_{\varphi} S) \rtimes_{{\widetilde{\phi}}} {\mathbb{R}}$ endowed with the previous lcs structure of the first kind is called the *lcs extension of the Lie group $S$ by the symplectic $2$-cocycle $\varphi$ and the symplectic representation $\phi\colon\mathbb{R}\to\operatorname{Aut}(S)$*.
Lcs extensions of symplectic Lie groups by symplectic $2$-cocycles and symplectic representations are the models of connected simply connected lcs Lie groups of the first kind with bi-invariant Lee vector field. In fact, we can prove the following result.
\[symplectic-lcs-Lie-group\] Let $G$ be a connected simply connected lcs Lie group of the first kind with bi-invariant Lee vector field. If ${\mathfrak{g}}$ is the Lie algebra of $G$ then ${\mathfrak{g}}$ is a lcs extension of a symplectic Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{s}}$ and if $S$ is a connected simply connected Lie group with Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{s}}$, we have that $G$ is isomorphic to a lcs extension of $S$.
Let ${\mathfrak{g}}$ be the Lie algebra of $G$, let $(\omega, \eta)$ be the lcs structure of the first kind on ${\mathfrak{g}}$ and let $V \in {\mathfrak{g}}$ be the Lee vector. Using that the Lee vector field ${\overleftarrow{V}}$ of $G$ is bi-invariant, we have that $V$ belongs to the center of ${\mathfrak{g}}$. Thus, from Theorem \[central-lcs\] and Definition \[lcs-extension-algebraic\], we deduce that ${\mathfrak{g}}$ may be identified with the lcs extension of a symplectic Lie algebra $({\mathfrak{s}}, \sigma)$ by a symplectic derivation $D_{{\mathfrak{s}}}\colon{\mathfrak{s}}\to{\mathfrak{s}}$. Under this identification, $\omega = ((0, 0), 1)\in ({\mathbb{R}}\oplus{\mathfrak{s}}^*)\oplus\mathbb{R}$, $\eta = ((1,0), 0)\in({\mathbb{R}}\oplus{\mathfrak{s}}^*)\oplus\mathbb{R}$ and $V = ((1,0), 0) \in ({\mathbb{R}}{\circledcirc}_\sigma\mathbb{R})\rtimes_D\mathbb{R}$ (compare with Remark \[lcs\_extension\]).
Now, let $S$ be a connected simply connected Lie group with Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{s}}$ and $\varphi\colon S \times S \to \mathbb{R}$ a $2$-cocycle on $S$ with values in $\mathbb{R}$ such that the corresponding $2$-cocycle on ${\mathfrak{s}}$ with values in $\mathbb{R}$ is just $\sigma$ (see Section \[central-ext-alg-group\]). Then, the central extension $H = {\mathbb{R}}{\circledcirc}_{\varphi}S$ is a connected simply connected contact Lie group with Lie algebra ${\mathbb{R}}{\circledcirc}_{\sigma}{\mathfrak{s}}$, contact structure ${\overleftarrow{\eta}} = {\overleftarrow{(1,0)}}$ and bi-invariant Reeb vector field ${\overleftarrow{V}} = {\overleftarrow{(1,0)}}$.
Next, proceeding as in the proof of Theorem \[Universal-covering-lcs\], we can take a contact representation $${\widetilde{\phi}}\colon \mathbb{R} \to\operatorname{Aut}({\mathbb{R}}{\circledcirc}_{\varphi}S)$$ of $\mathbb{R}$ on the contact Lie group ${\mathbb{R}}{\circledcirc}_{\varphi}S$ such that the corresponding contact derivation $D\colon{\mathbb{R}}{\circledcirc}_\sigma {\mathfrak{s}}\to {\mathbb{R}}{\circledcirc}_\sigma {\mathfrak{s}}$ is given by $$D(u,X) = (0,D_{{\mathfrak{s}}}(X)).$$ Then, the semidirect product $({\mathbb{R}}{\circledcirc}_{\varphi}S)\rtimes_{{\widetilde{\phi}}}\mathbb{R}$ is a connected simply connected Lie group with Lie algebra the lcs extension $({\mathbb{R}}{\circledcirc}_{\sigma}{\mathfrak{s}}) \rtimes_{D}\mathbb{R}$ of $({\mathfrak{s}}, \sigma)$ by $D_{{\mathfrak{s}}}$. Thus, since ${\mathfrak{g}}$ is isomorphic to $({\mathbb{R}}{\circledcirc}_{\sigma}{\mathfrak{s}}) \rtimes_{D}\mathbb{R}$, there exists a Lie group isomorphism between $G$ and $({\mathbb{R}}{\circledcirc}_{\varphi} S) \rtimes_{{\widetilde{\phi}}}\mathbb{R}$ and, under this isomorphism, the Lee 1-form of $G$ is just the left-invariant $1$-form ${\overleftarrow{((0,0), 1)}}$, with $((0,0), 1) \in {\mathbb{R}}\oplus{\mathfrak{s}}^*\oplus\mathbb{R}$.
Now, let $\phi\colon\mathbb{R} \to\operatorname{Aut}(S)$ be a representation of the abelian Lie group $\mathbb{R}$ on $S$ such that the corresponding derivation on ${\mathfrak{s}}$ is just $D_{{\mathfrak{s}}}\colon{\mathfrak{s}}\to{\mathfrak{s}}$. Denote by ${\mathcal M}$ the multiplicative vector field on $S$ whose flow is $\{\phi_t\}_{t \in \mathbb{R}}$. Then, using and the fact that $D_{{\mathfrak{s}}}$ is a symplectic derivation, we deduce that $${\mathcal L}_{\mathcal M}{\overleftarrow{\sigma}} = 0,$$ which implies that $\phi$ is a symplectic representation, i.e., $$\phi_t^*{\overleftarrow{\sigma}} = {\overleftarrow{\sigma}}, \; \; \mbox{ for every } t \in \mathbb{R}.$$ Finally, proceeding as in Example \[symplectic-lcs-first-kind\], one may see that $${\widetilde{\phi}}_t(u,s) = ( u + {\widetilde{\chi}}_t(s),\phi_t(s)), \; \; \mbox{ for } t, u \in \mathbb{R} \mbox{ and } s \in S,$$ with ${\widetilde{\chi}}\colon {\mathbb{R}}\times S \to \mathbb{R}$ a smooth map satisfying (\[Chi-Tilde-1\]), (\[Chi-Tilde-2\]) and (\[Chi-Tilde-3\]).
\[co-compact-discrete\] Let $S$ be a connected simply connected symplectic Lie group, $\varphi\colon S \times S \to \mathbb{R}$ a symplectic $2$-cocycle on $S$ with values in $\mathbb{R}$ and $\phi\colon\mathbb{R} \to\operatorname{Aut}(S)$ a symplectic representation of $\mathbb{R}$ on $S$. Suppose that $\Gamma_S$ is a lattice in $S$ and $p, q$ are real numbers such that:
- the restriction of $\varphi$ to $\Gamma_S \times \Gamma_S$ takes values in the integer lattice $p{\mathbb{Z}}$ and
- the restriction to the integer lattice $q{\mathbb{Z}}$ of the corresponding contact representation ${\widetilde{\phi}}\colon\mathbb{R} \to\operatorname{Aut}({\mathbb{R}}{\circledcirc}_{\varphi} S)$ takes values in $\operatorname{Aut}(p{\mathbb{Z}}{\circledcirc}_{\varphi} \Gamma_S)$.
Then, $(p{\mathbb{Z}}{\circledcirc}_{\varphi} \Gamma_S )\rtimes_{{\widetilde{\phi}}} q{\mathbb{Z}}$ is a lattice in the lcs Lie group of the first kind $({\mathbb{R}}{\circledcirc}_{\varphi} S) \rtimes_{{\widetilde{\phi}}}\mathbb{R}$ and $M = ((p{\mathbb{Z}}{\circledcirc}_{\varphi} \Gamma_S )\rtimes_{{\widetilde{\phi}}} q{\mathbb{Z}})\backslash (({\mathbb{R}}{\circledcirc}_{\varphi} S) \rtimes_{{\widetilde{\phi}}}\mathbb{R})$ is a compact manifold. Furthermore, since the lcs structure of the first kind on $({\mathbb{R}}{\circledcirc}_{\varphi} S) \rtimes_{{\widetilde{\phi}}}\mathbb{R}$ is left-invariant, it induces a lcs structure of the first kind on $M$. Thus, $M$ is a compact lcs manifold of the first kind.
### Symplectic extensions of symplectic Lie groups and lcs Lie groups {#symp_ext_symp_lcs_groups}
In some cases, the symplectic Lie group $S$ of dimension $2n$ (in the previous section) may in turn be obtained from a symplectic Lie group $S_1$ of dimension $2n-2$.
In fact, [*an integrated version*]{} of the symplectic double extension of a symplectic Lie algebra (see Section \[contact-alg-lcs-alg\]) produces $S$ from $S_1$. This process may be described as follows.
Let $S_1$ be a Lie group of dimension $2n-2$ with Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{s}}_{1}$ and suppose that:
- there exists a $2$-cocycle on $S_1$ with values in $\mathbb{R}$, $\varphi_1\colon S_1 \times S_1 \to \mathbb{R}$, such that the corresponding $2$-cocycle on ${\mathfrak{s}}_{1}$ with values in $\mathbb{R}$, $\sigma_1\colon {\mathfrak{s}}_{1} \times {\mathfrak{s}}_{1} \to \mathbb{R}$ is non-degenerate and
- there exists a representation of the abelian group $\mathbb{R}$ on $S_1$, $\phi_1\colon \mathbb{R} \to\operatorname{Aut}(S_1)$.
Under these conditions, the left-invariant $2$-form ${\overleftarrow{\sigma_1}}$ is a symplectic structure on $S_1$.
Now, let $D_{{\mathfrak{s}}_{1}}\colon {\mathfrak{s}}_{1} \to {\mathfrak{s}}_{1}$ be the derivation on ${\mathfrak{s}}_{1}$ associated with the representation $\phi_1\colon\mathbb{R} \to\operatorname{Aut}(S_1)$ and $D_{{\mathfrak{s}}_{1}}^*\sigma_1\colon {\mathfrak{s}}_{1} \times {\mathfrak{s}}_1 \to \mathbb{R}$ the $2$-cocycle on ${\mathfrak{s}}_1$ with values in $\mathbb{R}$ given by . Then, we will define a $2$-cocycle on $S_1$ with values in $\mathbb{R}$ such that the corresponding $2$-cocycle on ${\mathfrak{s}}_{1}$ is just $D_{{\mathfrak{s}}_{1}}^*\sigma_{1}$.
For this purpose, we will consider the map $(\varphi_{1}, \phi_{1})\colon S_1 \times S_1 \to \mathbb{R}$ given by $$(\varphi_1, \phi_1)(s_1, s'_1) = \displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}\Big|_{r =0}\varphi_1(\phi_1(r)(s_1), \phi_1(r)(s'_1)), \; \; \mbox{ for } s_1, s'_1 \in S_1.$$ Using that $\varphi_1\colon S_1 \times S_1 \to \mathbb{R}$ is a $2$-cocycle on $S_1$ and the fact that $\phi_1\colon \mathbb{R} \to\operatorname{Aut}(S_1)$ is a representation, we have that $(\varphi_1, \phi_1)$ also is a $2$-cocycle. In addition, if $(\sigma_{1}, T_{{\mathsf{e}}_1}\phi_{1})\colon {\mathfrak{s}}_{1} \times {\mathfrak{s}}_{1} \to \mathbb{R}$ is the $2$-cocycle on ${\mathfrak{s}}_{1}$ associated with $(\varphi_1, \phi_1)$ then, from , it follows that $$(\sigma_1, T_{{\mathsf{e}}_1}\phi_1)(X_1, X'_1) = \displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}\Big|_{r = 0} \sigma_1((T_{{\mathsf{e}}_1}\phi_1(r))(X_1), (T_{{\mathsf{e}}_1}\phi_1(r))(X'_1)).$$ On the other hand, using , we obtain that $${\overleftarrow{D_{{\mathfrak{s}}_{1}}X_1}} = \displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}\Big|_{r=0}(T_{{\mathsf{e}}_1}\phi_1(r))(X_1).$$
This implies that $$(\sigma_1, T_{{\mathsf{e}}_1}\phi_1)(X_1, X'_1) = \sigma_1(D_{{\mathfrak{s}}_{1}}X_1, X'_1) + \sigma_1(X_1, D_{{\mathfrak{s}}_{1}}X'_1).$$ In other words, $(\sigma_1, T_{{\mathsf{e}}_1}\phi_1)$ is just the $2$-cocycle $D^*_{{\mathfrak{s}}_{1}}\sigma_1$ and, thus, $(\varphi_1, \phi_1)$ is a $2$-cocycle on $S_1$ associated with $D^*_{{\mathfrak{s}}_{1}}\sigma_1$. Therefore, we may consider the central extension $H_1 = \mathbb{R} {\circledcirc}_{(\varphi_1, \phi_1)}S_1$. We remark that the multiplication in $H_1$ is given by $$\label{mult-H1}
(r, s_1)(r', s'_1) = (r + r' + (\varphi_1, \phi_1)(s_1, s'_1), s_1 s'_1).$$ We will denote by ${\mathfrak{h}}_{1}$ the Lie algebra of $H_1$. It follows that ${\mathfrak{h}}_1 = \mathbb{R} {\circledcirc}_{D_{{\mathfrak{s}}_1}^*\sigma_1}{\mathfrak{s}}_1$ and, moreover, $$\label{left-invariant}
{\overleftarrow{(1, 0)}} = \displaystyle \frac{\partial}{\partial r}, \; \; \; {\overleftarrow{(0, X_1)}}(r, s_1) = \displaystyle \frac{d}{du}\Big|_{u =0}(\varphi_1, \phi_1)(s_1,\exp(uX_1))\frac{\partial}{\partial r}\Big|_{(r, s_1)} + {\overleftarrow{X_1}}(s_1)$$ for $X_1 \in {\mathfrak{s}}_1$ and $(r, s_1) \in \mathbb{R} {\circledcirc}_{(\varphi_1, \phi_1)}S_1 = H_1$.
Now, as in Section \[sym-Lie-alg-lcs-Lie\], suppose that $Z_1 \in {\mathfrak{s}}_1$ and that the map $(-i_{Z_1}\sigma_1, -D_{{\mathfrak{s}}_1}) \colon {\mathfrak{h}}_1 \to {\mathfrak{h}}_1$ given by $$\label{Dh1}
(-i_{Z_1}\sigma_1, -D_{{\mathfrak{s}}_1})(r, X_1) = (-\sigma_1(Z_1, X_1), -D_{{\mathfrak{s}}_1}X_1), \; \; \mbox{ for } r \in \mathbb{R} \mbox{ and } X_1 \in {\mathfrak{s}}_1,$$ is a derivation on the Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{h}}_1$. Denote by $$\phi_{H_1}\colon \mathbb{R} \to\operatorname{Aut}(H_1) =\operatorname{Aut}(\mathbb{R} {\circledcirc}_{(\varphi_1, \phi_1)}S_1)$$ the representation of the abelian Lie group $\mathbb{R}$ on $H_1$ associated with the derivation $(-i_{Z_1}\sigma_1, D_{{\mathfrak{s}}_1})\colon {\mathfrak{h}}_1 \to {\mathfrak{h}}_1$ and by ${\mathcal M}_{H_1} \in {\mathfrak{X}}(H_1)$ the multiplicative vector field on $H_1$ whose flow is $\phi_{H_1}$. Then, $${\mathcal M}_{H_1}(r, s_1) = \displaystyle \psi(r, s_1) \frac{\partial}{\partial r}\Big|_{(r, s_1)} + {\mathcal M}_{S_1}(r, s_1), \; \; \mbox{ for } (r, s_1) \in \mathbb{R} {\circledcirc}_{(\varphi_1, \phi_1)} S_1 = H_1,$$ with $\psi \in\mathscr{C}^{\infty}(H_1)$ and ${\mathcal M}_{S_1}\colon H_1 \to TS_1$ a time-dependent vector field on $S_1$. Since $$0 = {\overleftarrow{(Z_1, D_{{\mathfrak{s}}_1})(1, 0)}} = [{\overleftarrow{(1, 0)}}, {\mathcal M}_{H_1}],$$ we conclude from that $${\mathcal M}_{H_1}(r, s_1) = \displaystyle \psi(s_1) \frac{\partial}{\partial r}\Big|_{(r, s_1)} + {\mathcal M}_{S_1}(s_1),$$ with $\psi \in\mathscr{C}^{\infty}(S_1)$ and ${\mathcal M}_{S_1} \in {\mathfrak{X}}(S_1)$. Now, using and the fact that ${\mathcal M}_{H_1}$ is multiplicative, it follows that ${\mathcal M}_{S_1}$ also is multiplicative. In addition, from and , we deduce that the derivation on ${\mathfrak{s}}_1$ associated with ${\mathcal M}_{S_1}$ is just $-D_{{\mathfrak{s}}_1}\colon {\mathfrak{s}}_1 \to {\mathfrak{s}}_1$. Therefore, ${\mathcal M}_{S_1} = -{\mathcal M}_1$, with ${\mathcal M}_1$ the multiplicative vector field on $S_1$ whose flow is $\phi_1$, and $${\mathcal M}_{H_1}(r, s_1) = \psi(s_1) \frac{\partial}{\partial r}\Big|_{(r, s_1)} - {\mathcal M}_1(s_1).$$ This implies that the flow $\phi_{H_1}\colon \mathbb{R} \to\operatorname{Aut}(H_1)$ of ${\mathcal M}_{H_1}$ has the form $$\phi_{H_1}(t)(r, s_1) = (r + \chi_t(s_1), \phi_1(-t)(s_1))$$ and $$\label{MH1}
{\mathcal M}_{H_1}(r, s_1) = \displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}\Big|_{t=0}(\chi_t(s_1)) \frac{\partial}{\partial r}\Big|_{(r, s_1)} - {\mathcal M}_1(s_1)$$ with $\chi \in \mathscr{C}^{\infty}(\mathbb{R} \times S_1)$.
In what follows, we will denote by $(\chi, \phi_1)$ the representation $\phi_{H_1}$. Since $(\chi, \phi_1)$ is an action of $\mathbb{R}$ on $H_1$, we deduce that $\chi$ satisfies the relation $$\label{double-symp-1}
\chi_{t+t'}(s_1) = \chi_t(s_1) + \chi_{t'}(\phi_1(-t)s_1), \; \; \mbox{ for } t, t' \in \mathbb{R} \mbox{ and } s_1 \in S_1.$$ Moreover, using and the fact that $(\chi, \phi_1)(t) \in\operatorname{Aut}(H_1)$, for every $t \in \mathbb{R}$, we obtain that $$\label{double-symp-2}
\displaystyle \chi_t(s_1s'_1) - \chi_t(s_1) - \chi_t(s'_1) = \frac{d}{dr}\Big|_{r=-t} \varphi_1(\phi_1(r)s_1, \phi_1(r)s'_1) - \frac{d}{dr}\Big|_{r=0} \varphi_1(\phi_1(r)s_1, \phi_1(r)s'_1).$$ In addition, from and , it follows that $$[{\overleftarrow{(0, X_1)}}, {\mathcal M}_{H_1}](0, {\mathsf{e}}_1) = \displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}\Big|_{t=0} (d_{{\mathsf{e}}_1}\chi_t)(X_1) \frac{\partial}{\partial r}\Big|_{(0, {\mathsf{e}}_1)} - D_{{\mathfrak{s}}_1}X_1,$$ which, using , implies that $$\label{double-symp-3}
\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}\Big|_{t=0} (d_{{\mathsf{e}}_1}\chi_t)(X_1) = -\sigma_1(Z_1, X_1), \; \; \mbox{ for } X_1 \in {\mathfrak{s}}_1.$$ Next, we consider the Lie group $$S = H_1 \rtimes_{(\chi, \phi_1)} \mathbb{R} = (\mathbb{R} {\circledcirc}_{(\varphi_1, \phi_1)}S_1) \rtimes_{(\chi, \phi_{1})} \mathbb{R}$$ with Lie algebra $${\mathfrak{s}}= {\mathfrak{h}}_1 \rtimes_{(-i_{Z_1}\sigma_1, -D_{{\mathfrak{s}}_1})} \mathbb{R} = (\mathbb{R} {\circledcirc}_{D^*_{{\mathfrak{s}}_1}\sigma_1}{\mathfrak{s}}_1) \rtimes_{(-i_{Z_1}\sigma_1, -D_{{\mathfrak{s}}_1})}\mathbb{R}.$$ Then, following the construction in Section \[contact-alg-lcs-alg\], we have that the $2$-cocycle $\sigma$ on ${\mathfrak{s}}$ given by is non-degenerate and it defines a left-invariant symplectic $2$-form ${\overleftarrow{\sigma}}$ on $S$. Thus, $S$ is a symplectic Lie group.
Using a similar terminology as in the Lie algebra case, we introduce the following definition.
The symplectic Lie group $(S, {\overleftarrow{\sigma}})$ is the *double extension* of the symplectic Lie group $(S_1, {\overleftarrow{\sigma_1}})$ by the symplectic $2$-cocycle $\varphi_1\colon S_1 \times S_1 \to \mathbb{R}$ on $S_1$, the representation $\phi_1\colon\mathbb{R} \to\operatorname{Aut}(S_1)$ of $\mathbb{R}$ on $S_1$ and the smooth map $\chi\colon\mathbb{R} \times S_1 \to \mathbb{R}$, the latter satisfying , and .
We remark that the discussion in this section proves the following result
\[sequence-sym-Lie-group\] Let $(S, {\overleftarrow{\sigma}})$ be a connected simply connected Lie group with Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{s}}$ and suppose that ${\mathfrak{s}}$ is the double extension of the symplectic Lie algebra $({\mathfrak{s}}_1, \sigma_1)$ by a derivation $D_{{\mathfrak{s}}_1}\colon {\mathfrak{s}}_1 \to {\mathfrak{s}}_1$ and an element $Z_1 \in {\mathfrak{s}}_1$ satisfying . Then, we can choose the following objects:
- a connected, simply connected Lie group $S_1$ with Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{s}}_1$;
- a $2$-cocycle $\varphi_1\colon S_1 \times S_1 \to \mathbb{R}$ on $S_1$ such that the corresponding $2$-cocycle on ${\mathfrak{s}}_1$ is just $\sigma_1$;
- a representation $\phi_1\colon\mathbb{R} \to\operatorname{Aut}(S_1)$ of $\mathbb{R}$ on $S_1$ such that the corresponding derivation on ${\mathfrak{s}}_1$ is $D_{{\mathfrak{s}}_1}$ and
- a smooth map $\chi\colon\mathbb{R} \times S_1 \to \mathbb{R}$ which satisfies , and .
In addition, $(S, {\overleftarrow{\sigma}})$ is the double extension of the symplectic Lie group $(S_1, {\overleftarrow{\sigma_1}})$ by $\varphi_1$, $\phi_1$ and $\chi$.
\[co-compact-discrete-symplectic\] Let $(S, {\overleftarrow{\sigma}})$ be a connected simply connected symplectic Lie group which is the double extension of the connected simply connected symplectic Lie group $(S_1, {\overleftarrow{\sigma_1}})$ by $\varphi_1\colon S_1 \times S_1 \to \mathbb{R}$, $\phi_1\colon \mathbb{R} \to\operatorname{Aut}(S_1)$ and $\chi\colon\mathbb{R} \times S_1 \to \mathbb{R}$. Suppose that $\Gamma_{S_1}$ is a lattice in $S_1$ and $p_1, q_1$ are real numbers such that:
- the restriction of $(\varphi_1, \phi_1)$ to $\Gamma_{S_1} \times \Gamma_{S_1}$ takes values in the integer lattice $p_1{\mathbb{Z}}$ and
- the restriction to the integer lattice $q_1{\mathbb{Z}}$ of the representation $(\chi, \phi_1)\colon\mathbb{R} \to\operatorname{Aut}({\mathbb{R}}{\circledcirc}_{(\varphi_1, \phi_1)} S_1)$ takes values in $\operatorname{Aut}(p_1{\mathbb{Z}}{\circledcirc}_{(\varphi_1, \phi_1)} \Gamma_{S_1})$.
Then $\Gamma=(p_1{\mathbb{Z}}{\circledcirc}_{(\varphi_1, \phi_1)} \Gamma_{S_1})\rtimes_{(\chi, \phi_1)} q_1{\mathbb{Z}}$ is a lattice in the symplectic Lie group $S = ({\mathbb{R}}{\circledcirc}_{(\varphi_1, \phi_1)} S_1) \rtimes_{(\chi, \phi_1)}\mathbb{R}$ and $M = \Gamma\backslash S$ is a compact manifold. Furthermore, since the symplectic structure on $S$ is left-invariant, it induces a symplectic structure on $M$. Thus, $M$ is a compact symplectic manifold.
Now, let $(S, {\overleftarrow{\sigma}})$ be the double extension of the symplectic Lie group $(S_1, {\overleftarrow{\sigma_1}})$ by the $2$-cocycle $\varphi_1\colon S_1 \times S_1 \to \mathbb{R}$, the representation $\phi_1\colon \mathbb{R} \to
\operatorname{Aut}(S_1)$ and the smooth map $\chi\colon\mathbb{R} \times S_1 \to \mathbb{R}$. Moreover, suppose that:
- $\varphi\colon S \times S \to \mathbb{R}$ is a $2$-cocycle on $S$ with values in $\mathbb{R}$ such that the corresponding $2$-cocycle on ${\mathfrak{s}}$ is just $\sigma$ and
- $\phi\colon\mathbb{R} \to \operatorname{Aut}(S)$ is a symplectic representation of $\mathbb{R}$ on $S$.
Then, one may consider the lcs extension $$(\mathbb{R} {\circledcirc}_{\varphi} S) \rtimes_{{\widetilde{\phi}}} \mathbb{R} = \mathbb{R} {\circledcirc}_{\varphi} ((\mathbb{R} {\circledcirc}_{(\varphi_1, \phi_1)}S_1) \rtimes_{(\chi, \phi_1)} \mathbb{R}\rtimes_{{\widetilde{\phi}}} \mathbb{R}$$ of $S$ by $\varphi$ and $\phi$ which is a lcs Lie group of the first kind with bi-invariant Lee vector field by Example \[symplectic-lcs-first-kind\].
These results will be useful in the next section. In fact, we will see that every connected simply connected lcs nilpotent Lie group with non-zero Lee $1$-form of dimension $2n$ is obtained as the lcs extension by a nilpotent representation of a connected simply connected symplectic nilpotent Lie group $S$ of dimension $2n-2$ and, in turn, $S$ may be obtained by a sequence of $n-1$ symplectic double extensions by nilpotent representations from the abelian Lie group $\mathbb{R}^2$.
Lcs nilpotent Lie groups
------------------------
In this section, we discuss lcs structures (with non-zero Lee $1$-form) on nilpotent Lie groups.
Let $(S, {\overleftarrow{\sigma}})$ be the double extension of the symplectic Lie group $(S_1, {\overleftarrow{\sigma_1}})$ by the symplectic $2$-cocycle $\varphi_1\colon S_1 \times S_1 \to \mathbb{R}$, the representation $\phi_1\colon\mathbb{R} \to \operatorname{Aut}(S_1)$ and the smooth map $\chi\colon \mathbb{R} \times S_1 \to \mathbb{R}$ satisfying , and .
Now, suppose that $S_1$ is nilpotent and that $\phi_1$ also is. Then, the corresponding derivation $D_{{\mathfrak{s}}_1}$ on the Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{s}}_1$ of $S_1$ is nilpotent. Furthermore, the Lie group $H_1 = \mathbb{R} {\circledcirc}_{(\varphi_1, \phi_1)} S_1$ is nilpotent and the derivation $(-i_{Z_1}\sigma_1, -D_{{\mathfrak{s}}_1})$ on the Lie algebra of $H_1$ given by also is nilpotent. So, using that the Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{s}}$ of $S$ is ${\mathfrak{s}}= {\mathfrak{h}}_1 \rtimes_{(-i_{Z_1}\sigma_1, -D_{{\mathfrak{s}}_1})} \mathbb{R}$, we deduce that $(S, {\overleftarrow{\sigma}})$ is a nilpotent symplectic Lie group, the nilpotent double extension of $(S_1, {\overleftarrow{\sigma_1}})$ by $\varphi_1$, $\phi_1$ and $\chi$.
Next, let $\varphi\colon S \times S \to \mathbb{R}$ be a symplectic $2$-cocycle on $S$ and $\phi\colon\mathbb{R} \to\operatorname{Aut}(S)$ a symplectic representation of $\mathbb{R}$ on $S$. Denote by $D_{{\mathfrak{s}}}\colon
{\mathfrak{s}}\to {\mathfrak{s}}$ the symplectic derivation associated with $\phi$. Then, we can consider the lcs extension $$G = (\mathbb{R} {\circledcirc}_{\varphi} S) \rtimes_{{\widetilde{\phi}}} \mathbb{R} = \mathbb{R} {\circledcirc}_{\varphi} ((\mathbb{R} {\circledcirc}_{(\varphi_1, \phi_1)}S_1) \rtimes_{(\chi, \phi_1)} \mathbb{R}) \rtimes_{{\widetilde{\phi}}} \mathbb{R}$$ It is a lcs Lie group of the first kind with bi-invariant Lee vector field and with Lie algebra the lcs extension of ${\mathfrak{s}}$ by $\sigma$ and $D$, $${\mathfrak{g}}= (\mathbb{R} {\circledcirc}_{\sigma} {\mathfrak{s}}) \rtimes_{D} \mathbb{R},$$ $D$ being the contact derivation on $\mathbb{R} {\circledcirc}_{\sigma} {\mathfrak{s}}$ associated with the contact representation ${\widetilde{\phi}}\colon{\mathbb{R}}\to\mathbb{R} {\circledcirc}_{\varphi} S$ lifting $\phi$.
Assume that $\phi$ is nilpotent. Then, the derivation $D_{{\mathfrak{s}}}$ is nilpotent and, using Theorem \[first-descrip-lcs-nilpotent\], it follows that ${\mathfrak{g}}$ is a lcs nilpotent Lie algebra with non-zero central Lee vector. Therefore, $G$ is a lcs nilpotent Lie group with non-zero bi-invariant Lee vector field.
Next, we will see that the Lie group $G$ in the previous example is the model of a connected simply connected lcs nilpotent Lie group with non-zero Lee $1$-form. In fact, we will prove the following result.
\[structure\_nilpotent\] Let $G$ be a connected simply connected lcs nilpotent Lie group of dimension $2n+2$ with non-zero Lee $1$-form. Then, $G$ is isomorphic to a lcs extension of a connected simply connected symplectic nilpotent Lie group $S$ and, in turn, $S$ is isomorphic to a symplectic Lie group which may be obtained as a sequence of $(n-1)$ symplectic nilpotent double extensions from the abelian Lie group $\mathbb{R}^2$.
Let ${\mathfrak{g}}$ be the Lie algebra of $G$. Then, using Theorem \[first-descrip-lcs-nilpotent\], we deduce that ${\mathfrak{g}}$ is a lcs Lie algebra of the first kind with non-zero central Lee vector. Thus, $G$ is lcs Lie group of the first kind with non-zero bi-invariant Lee vector field.
On the other hand, from Theorem \[description-Lie-alg-nil\], it follows that ${\mathfrak{g}}$ is the lcs extension of a symplectic nilpotent Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{s}}$ (of dimension $2n$) by a symplectic nilpotent derivation and, in turn, ${\mathfrak{s}}$ may be obtained as a sequence of $(n-1)$ symplectic double extensions by nilpotent derivations from the abelian Lie algebra $\mathbb{R}^2$.
Denote by ${\mathfrak{s}}_1, \dots ,{\mathfrak{s}}_{n-2}, {\mathfrak{s}}_{n-1} = \mathbb{R}^2$ the corresponding sequence of symplectic nilpotent Lie algebras and by $S$ (respectively, $S_i$, with $i = 1, \dots, n-1$) a connected simply connected nilpotent Lie group with Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{s}}$ (respectively, ${\mathfrak{s}}_i$, with $i = 1, \dots, n-1$).
Then, using Theorem \[symplectic-lcs-Lie-group\] and Proposition \[sequence-sym-Lie-group\], we deduce that $G$ is isomorphic to a lcs extension of $S$ and, in turn, $S$ is isomorphic to a symplectic nilpotent Lie group which may be obtained as a sequence of $(n-1)$ symplectic nilpotent double extensions from the abelian Lie group $\mathbb{R}^2$. The corresponding sequence of $(n-1)$ connected simply connected nilpotent symplectic Lie groups is $S_1, \dots, S_{n-2}, S_{n-1} = \mathbb{R}^2$.
\[discrete-subgroup-lcs-nilpotent\_1\] Let $S$ be a connected simply connected symplectic nilpotent Lie group with Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{s}}$, let $\varphi\colon S \times S \to \mathbb{R}$ be a symplectic $2$-cocycle on $S$ with values in $\mathbb{R}$ and let $\phi\colon\mathbb{R} \to\operatorname{Aut}(S)$ be a symplectic nilpotent representation of $\mathbb{R}$ on $S$. Moreover, suppose that the structure constants of ${\mathfrak{s}}$ with respect to a basis are rational numbers. It follows from Theorem \[Maltsev\] that $S$ admits a lattice $\Gamma_S$. In addition, we will assume that we can choose two real numbers $p$ and $q$ such that $\Gamma_S$, $p$ and $q$ satisfy the conditions in Remark \[co-compact-discrete\]. Under these conditions, $$M = ((p{\mathbb{Z}}{\circledcirc}_{\varphi} \Gamma_S )\rtimes_{\tilde{\phi}} q{\mathbb{Z}})\backslash (({\mathbb{R}}{\circledcirc}_{\varphi} S) \rtimes_{\tilde{\phi}}\mathbb{R})$$ is a compact lcs nilmanifold of the first kind.
\[discrete-subgroup-lcs-nilpotent\_2\] A particular case of the previous situation is the following one. Suppose that $S$ is the nilpotent double extension of a connected simply connected symplectic nilpotent Lie group $S_1$ with Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{s}}_1$. Moreover, suppose that the structure constants of ${\mathfrak{s}}_1$ with respect to a basis are rational numbers. Then it follows from Theorem \[Maltsev\] that $S_1$ admits a lattice $\Gamma_{S_1}$.
In addition, we will assume that we can choose two real numbers $p_1$ and $q_1$ such that $\Gamma_{S_1}$, $p_1$ and $q_1$ satisfy the conditions in Remark \[co-compact-discrete-symplectic\]. Under these conditions, we have that $$\Gamma_S = (p_1{\mathbb{Z}}{\circledcirc}_{(\varphi_1, \phi_1)} \Gamma_{S_1})\rtimes_{(\chi, \phi_1)} q_1{\mathbb{Z}}$$ is a lattice of $S$. Finally, if $p$ and $q$ are real numbers as in Remark \[discrete-subgroup-lcs-nilpotent\_1\], we deduce that $$M = (p {\mathbb{Z}}{\circledcirc}_{\varphi}((p_1{\mathbb{Z}}{\circledcirc}_{(\varphi_1, \phi_1)} \Gamma_{S_1})\rtimes_{(\chi, \phi_1)} q_1{\mathbb{Z}}) \rtimes_{{\widetilde{\phi}}} q{\mathbb{Z}})\backslash
(({\mathbb{R}}{\circledcirc}_{\varphi} (({\mathbb{R}}{\circledcirc}_{(\varphi_1, \phi_1)} S_1) \rtimes_{(\chi, \phi_1)}\mathbb{R}) \rtimes_{{\widetilde{\phi}}}\mathbb{R})$$ is a compact lcs nilmanifold of the first kind.
To conclude, we show how to recover the examples of Section \[sec:examples\] in the framework of and Remarks \[discrete-subgroup-lcs-nilpotent\_1\] and \[discrete-subgroup-lcs-nilpotent\_2\].
We start with the 4-dimensional nilpotent Lie group $G$ constructed in Section \[Dimension:4\]. In this case, $S$ is ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ with its structure of abelian Lie group and $H$ is the central extension ${\mathbb{R}}{\circledcirc}_\varphi{\mathbb{R}}^2$ with respect to the 2-cocycle $\varphi\colon{\mathbb{R}}^2\times{\mathbb{R}}^2\to{\mathbb{R}}$, $((x,y),(x',y'))\mapsto yx'$. Using , $\varphi$ determines the 2-cocycle $\sigma$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$, which is the standard symplectic form $\sigma=dx\wedge dy$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$. Further, one can see that the symplectic nilpotent representation $\phi\colon{\mathbb{R}}\to\operatorname{Aut}({\mathbb{R}}^2)$ is given by $\phi_t(x,y)=(x+ty,y)$. In the notation of Section \[rel\_symplectic\], the function ${\widetilde{\chi}}\colon{\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{R}}^2\to{\mathbb{R}}$ determining the lift of the symplectic representation $\phi_t$ to a contact representation ${\widetilde{\phi}}\colon{\mathbb{R}}\to\operatorname{Aut}({\mathbb{R}}{\circledcirc}_\varphi{\mathbb{R}}^2)$ is ${\widetilde{\chi}}_t(x,y)=t\frac{y^2}{2}$, which verifies properties -. Thus $G=({\mathbb{R}}{\circledcirc}_\varphi{\mathbb{R}}^2)\rtimes_{{\widetilde{\phi}}}{\mathbb{R}}$ is the lcs extension of $S$ by $\varphi$ and $\phi$. Concerning the lattice, we consider ${\mathbb{Z}}\times 2{\mathbb{Z}}\subset{\mathbb{R}}^2$; one sees that $\varphi|_{{\mathbb{Z}}\times 2{\mathbb{Z}}}$ takes values in $2{\mathbb{Z}}$. Then $\Xi=(2{\mathbb{Z}}{\circledcirc}_\varphi({\mathbb{Z}}\times 2{\mathbb{Z}}))\rtimes_{{\widetilde{\phi}}}{\mathbb{Z}}\subset G$ is a lattice.
Let us now move to the examples of Section \[Dimension:6\]. In both of them, $H={\mathbb{R}}{\circledcirc}_\varphi S$ where:
- $S$ is the 4-dimensional nilpotent Lie group with multiplication $$(x,y,z,t)\cdot(x',y',z',t')=(x+x',y+y',z+z'+xx',t+t'+yx')$$
- $\varphi\colon S\times S\to{\mathbb{R}}$ is the 2-cocycle $$\varphi((x,y,z,t),(x',y',z',t'))=yz'+tx'.$$
First of all, we describe $S$ as a symplectic double extension of $S_1={\mathbb{R}}^2$. We consider ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ with global coordinates $(x,z)$ and symplectic form $\sigma_1=dx\wedge dz$. The data associated to the symplectic double extension of ${\mathfrak{s}}_1={\mathbb{R}}^2$ are, in the notation of Section \[sym-Lie-alg-lcs-Lie\], the vector $Z_1= (0, 1)$ and the trivial derivation $D_{{\mathfrak{s}}_1}\colon{\mathbb{R}}^2\to{\mathbb{R}}^2$. Hence ${\mathfrak{s}}=({\mathbb{R}}\oplus{\mathbb{R}}^2)\rtimes_{(-i_{Z_1}\sigma_1,0)}{\mathbb{R}}$. As for the group structure of Section \[symp\_ext\_symp\_lcs\_groups\], we see that the 2-cocycle $(\varphi_1,\phi_1)$ is trivial, hence $S=({\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{R}}^2)\rtimes_{(\chi,\operatorname{Id})}{\mathbb{R}}$, where $\chi_y(x,z)=yx$, which verifies , and .
In the first example we chose the trivial symplectic representation on $S$ and lifted it to the trivial contact representation on $H={\mathbb{R}}{\circledcirc}_\varphi S$. Hence, the nilpotent Lie group we work with is $G=({\mathbb{R}}{\circledcirc}_\varphi S)\times{\mathbb{R}}$. Concerning the lattice, we start with ${\mathbb{Z}}^2\subset {\mathbb{R}}^2$; then $\Gamma_S=({\mathbb{Z}}\times{\mathbb{Z}}^2)\rtimes_{(\chi,\operatorname{Id})}{\mathbb{Z}}\subset S$ is a lattice. The lattice we take in $G$ is $({\mathbb{Z}}{\circledcirc}_\varphi \Gamma_S)\times {\mathbb{Z}}$.
In the second example, the symplectic representation $\phi\colon{\mathbb{R}}\to\operatorname{Aut}(S)$ is non-trivial and given by $\phi_s(x,y,z,t)=(x,y+sx,z+sy+\frac{1}{2}s^2x,t+sz+\frac{1}{2}s^2y+\frac{1}{6}s^3x)$; the function ${\widetilde{\chi}}\colon{\mathbb{R}}\times S\to{\mathbb{R}}$ which determines the lift of $\phi$ to a contact representation ${\widetilde{\phi}}\colon{\mathbb{R}}\to\operatorname{Aut}({\mathbb{R}}{\circledcirc}_\varphi S)$ is $${\widetilde{\chi}}_s(x,y,z,t)=s\left(xz+\frac{1}{2}y^2-\frac{1}{3}x^3\right)+s^2xy+\frac{1}{3}s^3x^2$$ which verifies properties , and . For the lattice, we start with ${\mathbb{Z}}\times 6{\mathbb{Z}}\times {\mathbb{Z}}\subset{\mathbb{R}}\times {\mathbb{R}}^2$ and $\Lambda_S=({\mathbb{Z}}\times 6{\mathbb{Z}}\times {\mathbb{Z}})\rtimes_{(\chi,\operatorname{Id})}2{\mathbb{Z}}\subset S$; the restriction of $\varphi$ to such subgroup takes values in $2{\mathbb{Z}}$. Then $(2{\mathbb{Z}}{\circledcirc}_\varphi\Lambda_S)\rtimes_{{\widetilde{\phi}}}{\mathbb{Z}}$ is the desired lattice.
Finally, we consider the example of Section \[Dimension:higher\]. There one starts with the nilpotent Lie group $S_{2n-2}$ of dimension $2n-2$ ($n\geq 4$), whose group operation is given by $$\begin{array}{c}
(x_1, y_1, \dots, x_{n-1}, y_{n-1})\cdot(x'_1, y'_1, \dots, x'_{n-1}, y'_{n-1}) \\
= (x_1 + x'_1, y_1 + y'_1 + x_{n-1}x'_{n-1}, x_2 + x'_2, y_2 + y'_2, \dots, x_{n-2} + x'_{n-2}, y_{n-2} + y'_{n-2}, \\
x_{n-1} + x'_{n-1}, y_{n-1} + y'_{n-1} + x_1x'_{n-1})
\end{array}$$ in terms of a global system of coordinates $(x_1, y_1, \dots, x_{n-1}, y_{n-1})$. The 2-cocycle $\varphi\colon S_{2n-2}\times S_{2n-2}\to{\mathbb{R}}$ is given by $$\varphi((x_1, y_1, \dots, x_{n-1}, y_{n-1}),(x'_1, y'_1, \dots, x'_{n-1}, y'_{n-1}))=\sum_{j=1}^{n-2}x_jy'_j+y_{n-1}x'_{n-1}$$ and $H_{2n-1}={\mathbb{R}}{\circledcirc}_\varphi S_{2n-2}$.
We describe $S_{2n-2}$ as a symplectic double extension; in the notation of Section \[Dimension:higher\], we consider the basis $\{\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_{n-1},\beta_1,\ldots,\beta_{n-1}\}$ of ${\mathfrak{s}}^*_{2n-2}$ with structure equations $$d\alpha_i=0, \ i=1,\ldots,n-1, \quad d\beta_i=0, \ i=1,\ldots,n-2 \quad \mathrm{and} \quad d\beta_{n-1}=\alpha_1\wedge\alpha_{n-1}.$$ Hence ${\mathfrak{s}}_{2n-2}$ is the direct sum of the abelian Lie algebra ${\mathbb{R}}^{2n-6}$ with a 4-dimensional Lie algebra, whose dual is spanned by $\{\alpha_1,\alpha_{n-1},\beta_1,\beta_{n-1}\}$, which is the direct sum of the 3-dimensional Heisenberg algebra and a 1-dimensional factor. We explained in the discussion of the 6-dimensional examples how this 4-dimensional Lie algebra can be described as a symplectic double extension of ${\mathbb{R}}^2$.
In this case as well we have chosen the trivial symplectic representation on $S_{2n-2}$ and lifted it to the trivial contact representation on $H_{2n-1}$. Hence $G=({\mathbb{R}}{\circledcirc}_\varphi S_{2n-2})\times{\mathbb{R}}$ in this case. There is a lattice $\Xi_{2n-2}\subset S_{2n-2}$, consisting of points with integer coordinates. $\varphi$ restricted to $\Xi_{2n-2}\times\Xi_{2n-2}$ takes values into ${\mathbb{Z}}$, hence $\Gamma_{2n-1}={\mathbb{Z}}{\circledcirc}_\varphi\Xi_{2n-2}\subset H_{2n-1}$ is a lattice. The lattice in $G$ is $({\mathbb{Z}}{\circledcirc}_\varphi\Xi_{2n-2})\times{\mathbb{Z}}$.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This work was partially supported by SFB 701 - Spectral Structures and Topological Methods in Mathematics (Universität Bielefeld) (G. B.) and MICINN (Spain) grant MTM2012-34478 (J. C. M.). The authors would like to thank Daniele Angella (Università di Firenze, Italy), Marisa Fernández (EHU, Spain), Dieter Kotschick (LMU, Germany) and Luis Ugarte (Universidad de Zaragoza, Spain) for discussion on locally conformal symplectic structures, David Mart[í]{}nez Torres (PUC-Rio, Brazil) for his comments on equivariant versions of Martinet’s result in contact geometry and Jesus Alvarez López (USC, Spain) for his comments on foliations of codimension one.
[1]{}
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">D. Alekseevsky, V. Cortés, K. Hasegawa and Y. Kamishima</span>, *Homogeneous locally conformally Kaehler and Sasaki manifolds*, Internat. J. Math. **26** (2015), no. 6, 29p.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">L. C. de Andrés, L. A. Cordero, M. Fernández and J. J. Mencia</span>, *Examples of four-dimensional compact locally conformal Kähler solvmanifolds*, Geom. Dedicata **29** (1989), 227–232.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">G. Bande and D. Kotschick</span>, *Moser stability for locally conformally symplectic structures*, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. **137** (2009), no. 7, 2419–2424.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">G. Bande and D. Kotschick</span>, *Contact Pairs and Locally Conformal Symplectic Structures*, Harmonic Maps and Differential Geometry, 85–98, Contemp. Math., 542, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2011.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">A. Banyaga</span>, *On the geometry of locally conformal symplectic manifolds*, in Infinite dimensional Lie groups in geometry and representation theory (Washington, DC, 2000), 79–91, World Sci. Publishing, River Edge, NJ.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">A. Banyaga</span>, *Some properties of locally conformal symplectic structures*, Comment. Math. Helv. **77** (2002) 383–398.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">A. Banyaga</span>, *Examples of non $d_\omega$-exact locally conformal symplectic structures*, J. Geom. **87** (2007), 1–13.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">W. P. Barth, K. Hulek, C. A. M. Peters and A. Van de Ven</span>, *Compact complex surfaces*, Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete (3), 4. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1984. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">O. Baues and V. Cortés</span>, *Symplectic Lie Groups I–III*, to appear in Astérisque, <http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.1629>.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">G. Bazzoni, J. C. Marrero and J. Oprea</span>, *A splitting theorem for compact Vaisman manifolds*, to appear in Rend. Sem. Mat. Univ. Pol. Torino.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">G. Bazzoni and J. C. Marrero</span>, *Locally conformal symplectic nilmanifolds with no locally conformal Kähler metrics*, available at <http://arxiv.org/abs/1407.5510>.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">G. Bazzoni and V. Muñoz</span>, *Classification of minimal algebras over any field up to dimension $6$*, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. **364** (2012), 1007–1028.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">F. Belgun</span>, *On the metric structure of non-Kähler complex surfaces*, Math. Ann. **317** (2000), no. 1, 1–40.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">C. Benson and C. Gordon</span>, *Kähler and symplectic structures on nilmanifolds*, Topology **27** (1988), no. 4, 513–518.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">K. S. Brown</span>, *Cohomology of Groups*, GTM 87, Springer-Verlag, 1982.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Ch. A. Carlson</span>, *Foliations, contact structures and finite group actions*, Ph. D. Thesis, University of California Riverside, 2012; <https://escholarship.org/uc/item/98758436>.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">L. A. Cordero, M. Fernández, A. Gray and L. Ugarte</span>, *Nilpotent complex structures on compact nilmanifolds*, Proceedings of the Workshop on Differential Geometry and Topology (Palermo, 1996). Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo (2) Suppl. No. 49 (1997), 83–100.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">J.-M. Dardié and A. Medina</span>, *Double Extension Symplectique d’un Groupe de Lie Symplectique*, Adv. Math. **117** (1996), no. 2, 208–227.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">A. Diatta</span>, *Left invariant contact structures on Lie groups*, Differential Geom. Appl. **26** (2008), no. 5, 544–552.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">A. Diatta</span>, *Géometrie de Poisson et de contact des espaces homogènes*, Ph. D. Thesis, Université de Montpellier 2, France (2001).
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">J. Dixmier</span>, *Cohomologie des algèbres de Lie nilpotentes*, Acta Sci. Math. Szeged **16** (1955), 246–250.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">S. Dragomir and L. Ornea</span>, *Locally conformal Kähler geometry*, Progress in Math. 155, Birkhäuser (1998).
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">M. Fernández and V. Muñoz</span>, *An 8-dimensional non-formal simply connected symplectic manifold*, Ann. of Math. (2) **167** (2008), no. 3, 1045–1054.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">M. Freedman, R. Hain and P. Teichner</span>, *Betti number estimates for nilpotent groups*, Fields Medalists’ Lectures, 413–434, World. Sci. Ser. 20th Century Math., 5, World. Sci. Publ., River Edge, NJ, 1997.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">S. Friedl and S. Vidussi</span>, *Twisted Alexander polynomials detect fibered 3-manifolds*, Ann. of Math. (2) **173** (2011), no. 3, 1587–1643.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">P. Gauduchon, A. Moroianu and L. Ornea</span>, *Compact homogeneous lcK manifolds are Vaisman*, Math. Ann. **361** (2015), no. 3–4, 1043–1048.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">R. E. Gompf</span>, *A new construction of symplectic manifolds*, Ann. of Math. (2), **142** (1995), no. 3, 527–595.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">A. Gray and L. M. Hervella</span>, *The sixteen classes of almost Hermitian manifolds and their linear invariants*, Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. (4) **123** (1980), 35–58.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">F. Guédira and A. Lichnerowicz</span>, *Géométrie des algèbres de Lie locales de Kirillov*, J. Math. Pures Appl. **63** (9) (1984), 407–484.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">V. Guillemin, E. Miranda and A. R. Pires</span>, *Codimension one symplectic foliations and regular Poisson structures*, Bull. Braz. Math. Soc. (N.S.) **42** (2011), no. 4, 607–623.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">K. Hasegawa</span>, *Minimal models of nilmanifolds*, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. **106** (1989), no. 1, 65–71.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">K. Hasegawa and Y. Kamishima</span>, *Locally conformally Kähler structures on homogeneous spaces*, Geometry and analysis on manifolds, 353–372, Prog. Math. 308, Birkhäuser/Springer, Cham, 2015.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">K. Hasegawa and Y. Kamishima</span>, *Compact Homogeneous Locally Conformally Kähler Manifolds*, Osaka J. Math. **53** (2016), no. 3.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">D. Huybrechts</span>, *Complex geometry. An introduction*, Universitext. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2005.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">D. Iglesias and J. C. Marrero</span>, *Generalized Lie bialgebras and Jacobi structures on Lie groups*, Israel J. Math. **133** (2003), 285–320.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Y. Kamishima and T. Tsuboi</span>, *CR-structures on Seifert manifolds*, Invent. Math. **104** (1991), no. 1, 149–163.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">T. Kashiwada and S. Sato</span>, *On harmonic forms on compact locally conformal Kähler manifolds with parallel Lee form*, Ann. Fac. Sci. Kinshasa, Zaire. 6, 17–29, 1980.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">H. V. Lê and J. Vanžura</span>, *Cohomology theories on locally conformal symplectic manifolds*, Asian J. Math. **19** (2015), no. 1, 45–82.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">H. C. Lee</span>, *A kind of even-dimensional differential geometry and its application to exterior calculus*, Amer. J. Math. 65 (1943), 433–438.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">H. Li</span>, *Topology of co-symplectic/co-Kähler manifolds*, Asian J. Math. **12** (2008), no. 4, 527–543.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">P. Libermann</span>, *Sur les automorphismes infinitésimaux des structures symplectiques et des structures de contact*, 1959 Colloque Géom. Diff. Globale (Bruxelles, 1958), 37–59, Centre Belge Rech. Math., Louvain.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">P. Libermann and C. M. Marle</span>, *Symplectic geometry and analytical mechanics*, Translated from the French by Bertram Eugene Schwarzbach. Mathematics and its Applications, 35. D. Reidel Publishing Co., Dordrecht, 1987
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">A. Lichnerowicz and A. Medina</span>, *On Lie groups with left-invariant symplectic or Kählerian structures*, Lett. Math. Phys. **16** (1988), no. 3, 225–235.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">A. Mal’tsev</span>, *On a class of homogeneous spaces*, Izv. Akad. Nauk. Armyan. SSSR Ser. Mat. 13 (1949), 201–212.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">J. C. Marrero, D. Mart[í]{}nez Torres and E. Padrón</span>, *Universal models via embedding and reduction for locally conformal symplectic structures*, Ann. Global Anal. Geom. **40** (2011), no. 3, 311-337.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">J.E. Marsden, G. Misiolek, J.P. Ortega, M. Perlmutter and T.S. Ratiu</span>, *Hamiltonian reduction by stages*, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, 1913. Springer, Berlin, 2007.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">J. Martinet</span>, *Formes de contact sur les variétés de dimension 3*, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 209, 142–163. Springer, Berlin, 1971.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">K. C. H. Mackenzie and P. Xu</span>, *Classical lifting processes and multiplicative vector fields*, Quart. J. Math. Oxford Ser. (2) **49** (1998), no. 193, 59–85.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">D. McDuff</span>, *Examples of symplectic simply connected manifolds with no Kähler structure*, J. Diff. Geom. **20**, 267–277, 1984.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">D. McDuff and D. Salamon</span>, *Introduction to symplectic topology*, Oxford Science, 1995.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">A. Medina and P. Revoy</span>, *Groupes de Lie à Structure Symplectique Invariante*, Symplectic geometry, groupoids, and integrable systems (Berkeley, CA, 1989), 247–266, Math. Sci. Res. Inst. Publ., 20, Springer, New York, 1991.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">D. V. Millionschikov</span>, *Cohomology with local coefficients of solvmanifolds and Morse-Novikov theory*, Uspekhi Mat. Nauk **57** (2002), no. 4 (346), 183–184; available at [http://arXiv:math/0203067v1](http://arXiv:math/0203067v1).
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">J. Milnor</span>, *Curvature of left invariant metrics on Lie groups*, Adv. in Math. **21** (1976), 293–329.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">K. Niederkrüger</span>, *Compact Lie group actions on contact manifolds*, Ph. D. Thesis, Köln University, 2005; <http://kups.ub.uni-koeln.de/1501/>
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">K. Nomizu</span>, *On the cohomology of compact homogeneous space of nilpotent Lie group*, Ann. of Math. (2) **59** (1954), 531–538.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">K. Oeljeklaus and M. Toma</span>, *Non-Kähler compact complex manifolds associated to number fields*, Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) 55, no. 1, 161–171, 2005.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">J. Oprea and A. Tralle</span>, *Symplectic manifolds with no Kähler structure*, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, 1661. Springer, Berlin, 1997.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">L. Ornea and M. Verbitski</span>, *A report on locally conformally Kähler manifolds*, Harmonic maps and differential geometry, 135–149, Contemp. Math., 542, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2011.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">L. Ornea and M. Verbitsky</span>, *LCK rank of locally conformally Kähler manifolds with potential*, *preprint*, <http://arxiv.org/abs/1601.07413>.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">G. Ovando</span>, *Four dimensional symplectic Lie algebras*, Beiträge Algebra Geom. **47** (2006), no. 2, 419–434.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">S. Salamon</span>, *Complex structures on nilpotent Lie algebras*, J. Pure Appl. Algebra **157** (2001), 311–333.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">H. Sawai</span>, *Locally conformal Kähler structures on compact nilmanifolds with left-invariant complex structures*, Geom. Dedicata **125** (2007), 93–101.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">W. Thurston</span>, *Some simple examples of symplectic manifolds*, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. **55** (1976), no. 2, 467–468.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">D. Tischler</span>, *On fibering certain foliated manifolds over $S^1$*, Topology 9 (1970), 153–154.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">G. M. Tuynman and W. A. J. J. Wiegerinck</span>, *Central extensions and physics*, J. Geom. Phys. 4 (1987), no. 2, 207–258.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">L. Ugarte</span>, *Hermitian structures on six-dimensional nilmanifolds*, Transform. Groups **12** (2007), no. 1, 175–202.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">I. Vaisman</span>, *On locally conformal almost Kähler manifolds*, Israel J. Math. **24** (1976), 338–351.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">I. Vaisman</span>, *Locally conformal Kähler manifolds with parallel Lee form*, Rend. Mat. **12** (1979), 263–284.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">I. Vaisman</span>, *Remarkable operators and commutation formulas on locally conformal Kähler manifolds*, Compositio Math. **40** (1980), 227–259.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">I. Vaisman</span>, *On locally and globally conformal Kähler manifolds*, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. **262** (1980), 533–542.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">I. Vaisman</span>, *Generalized Hopf manifolds*, Geom. Dedicata **13** (1982), 231–255.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">I. Vaisman</span>, *Locally conformal symplectic manifolds*, Internat. J. Math. & Math. Sci. **8** (3) (1985), 521–536.
[^1]: In this paper we will restrict to contact *forms* rather than contact structures. Consequently, our morphisms will be *strict* contactomorphisms, i.e. contactomorphisms preserving the contact form - see Definition \[contact\_isomorphism\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present an algorithm for the construction of conformal coordinates in the interior of a spherically symmetric, collapsing matter cloud in general relativity. This algorithm is based on the numerical integration of the radial null geodesics and a local analysis of their behavior close to the singularity. As an application, we consider a collapsing spherical dust cloud, generate the corresponding conformal diagram and analyze the structure of the resulting singularity. A new bound on the initial data which guarantees that the singularity is visible from future null infinity is also obtained.'
author:
- Néstor Ortiz and Olivier Sarbach
bibliography:
- '../References/refs\_collapse.bib'
title: Conformal diagrams for the gravitational collapse of a spherical dust cloud
---
Introduction
============
Once a sufficiently large mass is concentrated in a small region of an asymptotically flat spacetime, as occurs in the complete gravitational collapse of a star, for instance, a trapped surface appears [@rSsY83] and the singularity theorems predict that a spacetime singularity forms (see [@HawkingEllis-Book; @Wald-Book] and references therein). An interesting question is whether this singularity is naked, or if it is hidden inside a black hole, such that no information escaping from it – light rays in particular – can be detected at future null infinity.
This question is essentially the contents of the weak cosmic censorship conjecture [@rP69] which states that under suitable assumptions on the matter fields, the maximal Cauchy development of asymptotically flat, nonsingular initial data generically yields an asymptotically flat spacetime with a complete future null infinity. In case a naked singularity forms, there is a Cauchy horizon, and if it extends all the way to future null infinity it is not possible to predict the evolution of a test field in the asymptotic region for arbitrarily large times. As a consequence, future null infinity is incomplete and if this situation persists for perturbations of the initial data, weak cosmic censorship is violated. So far, despite much work, no general proof or disproof of this conjecture has been given. Reviews on this topic can be found in Refs. [@rW97; @pJ00].
In this paper we analyze the gravitational collapse in the simple case of the Tolman-Bondi models, describing a collapsing spherically symmetric star with zero pressure. In these models spacetime is known in closed, explicit form, which greatly simplifies the analysis of its causal structure. In fact, it has been known for a long time that such collapse models lead to the formation of shell-focusing singularities, a portion of which is null and visible to local observers [@pYhShM73; @dElS79; @dC84; @rN86; @pJiD93; @Joshi-Book]. For appropriate initial data, part of the null singularity is even visible to observers which are arbitrarily far away from the dust cloud [@dC84], and there is a Cauchy horizon which extends all the way to future null infinity. We are interested in understanding how generic this feature is, at least within the class of Tolman-Bondi models.
To this purpose, we develop a method that generates a conformal diagram inside the collapsing, spherical dust cloud from given data for the initial density and velocity distributions. This method provides a valuable tool for understanding the causal structure of the spacetime. In particular, it enables one to determine in a systematic way whether or not a given initial data set results in a singularity that is hidden inside a black hole. Our method is based on a combination of analytic and numerical techniques. Analytic tools are used to understand the behavior of the null geodesics in the vicinity of the singularity, while numerical techniques are used to integrate the light rays away from the singularities. By generating the conformal diagrams for different initial data sets, we find that it is possible to obtain spacetimes with naked singularities which are globally visible without fine-tuning, indicating that these are generic within the class of spherically symmetric dust collapse. We also identify a large new class of initial data which leads to the formation of such globally naked singularities.
This paper is organized as follows. In section \[Sec:Model\], we briefly review the Tolman-Bondi model in the bounded case, which describes the complete gravitational collapse of a spherical dust cloud, and state our assumptions on the initial data. In section \[Sec:Theorems\], we start with a qualitative analysis of the in- and outgoing radial light rays emanating from or terminating in the shell-focusing singularity. In particular, we analyze the existence, uniqueness and asymptotic properties of such rays in a vicinity of the singularity. Our presentation is self-contained and presents a simple derivation of many known results. However, it also goes beyond previous results in the literature insofar that we obtain new asymptotic expansions for the light rays terminating at the singularity and a new bound on the initial data which guarantees that the resulting spacetime contains a globally visible singularity. Next, in section \[Sec:Diagrams\], we describe our method for constructing the conformal coordinates inside the collapsing cloud. These coordinates provide a natural extension to the inside of the cloud of the Penrose-Kruskal coordinates for the Schwarzschild metric. Then, in section \[Sec:Results\], we present the conformal diagrams corresponding to different initial data, and analyze in which cases the resulting singularity is naked or covered by an event horizon. Conclusions are drawn in section \[Sec:Conclusions\] and more technical points are discussed in the appendices.
Tolman-Bondi dust collapse {#Sec:Model}
==========================
In terms of co-moving, synchronous coordinates [@MTW-Book], the spacetime metric ${\bf g}$, four-velocity ${\bf u}$ and density $\rho$ for the solutions of the Einstein-Euler equations describing the gravitational collapse of a spherically symmetric dust cloud are given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf g} &=& -d\tau^2 + \frac{r'(\tau,R)^2}{1 + 2E(R)}\; dR^2
+ r(\tau,R)^2(d\vartheta^2 + \sin^2\vartheta\, d\varphi^2),
\label{Eq:MetricSol}\\
{\bf u} &=& \frac{\partial}{\partial\tau}\; , \qquad
\rho(\tau,R) = \rho_0(R)\left( \frac{R}{r(\tau,R)} \right)^2\frac{1}{r'(\tau,R)}\; ,
\label{Eq:FluidSol}\end{aligned}$$ where here the function $\tau\mapsto r(\tau,R)$ describes the evolution of the areal radius along the dust shell $R$ as a function of proper time, and $\dot{r}$ and $r'$ denote the partial derivatives of $r$ with respect to $\tau$ and $R$, respectively. We choose $R$ such that each dust shell is labeled by its initial areal radius at $\tau=0$, that is, $r(0,R) = R$. The time evolution of $r$ is governed by the one-dimensional mechanical system $$\frac{1}{2} \dot{r}(\tau,R)^2 + V(r(\tau,R), R) = E(R),\qquad
V(r,R) := -\frac{m(R)}{r},
\label{Eq:1DMechanical}$$ for each shell $R$, where $m(R)$ is the Misner-Sharp mass function [@cMdS64] which is determined by the initial density profile $\rho_0$ according to $$m(R) = 4\pi G\int\limits_0^R \rho_0(\bar{R})\bar{R}^2 d\bar{R},$$ with Newton’s constant $G$. The initial data consists of the initial velocity and density profiles $v_0(R) := \dot{r}(0,R)$ and $\rho_0(R)$, respectively, which fix the energy $E(R) = v_0(R)^2/2 - m(R)/R$ for each shell $R$.
We consider collapsing clouds of finite radius $R_1 > 0$. More precisely, our assumptions on the initial data are the following:
1. $\rho_0,v_0: (0,\infty) \to {\mathbb{R}}$ posses even and odd $C^\infty$-extensions, respectively, on the real axis ${\mathbb{R}}$ (regular, smooth initial data),
2. $\rho_0(R) > 0$ for $0\leq R < R_1$ and $\rho_0(R)=0$ for $R\geq R_1$ (finite, positive density cloud),
3. $\rho_0'(R)\leq 0$ for all $R > 0$ (monotonically decreasing density),
4. $2m(R)/R < 1$ for all $R > 0$ (absence of trapped surfaces on the initial slice).
Notice that condition (iv) automatically implies that $1 + 2E(R) > 0$ for all $R\geq 0$, such that equation (\[Eq:MetricSol\]) does not exhibit any coordinate singularities as long as $r > 0$ and $r' > 0$. Next, we impose conditions on the initial velocity profile:
1. $v_0(R)/R < 0$ for all $R\geq 0$ (collapsing cloud),
2. $(v_0(R)/R)^2 < 2m(R)/R^3$ for all $R\geq 0$ (bounded collapse).
The condition (vi) means that initially, the potential energy dominates the kinetic one such that the total energy is negative, $E(R)/R^2 < 0$ for all $R\geq 0$. One could also consider initial data for which the initial velocity is zero at some points, on an interval or everywhere, in which case the data is time-symmetric. In this respect condition (v) does not represent a genuine restriction since after an arbitrarily small time such data will evolve into a configuration where (v) and (vi) are both satisfied. Nevertheless, our results also apply to the time-symmetric case by substituting $v_0=0$ in our formulae below. Notice that the Oppenheimer-Snyder collapse [@jOhS39], for which $E=0$ and the density is homogeneous, is not covered by our assumptions. However, this case could be recovered by approximation from data satisfying our conditions.
For the following, it is convenient to introduce the functions $$c(R) := \frac{2m(R)}{R^3},\qquad
q(R) := \sqrt{E(R)/V(R,R)} = \sqrt{1 - \frac{R v_0(R)^2}{2m(R)}}.$$ The first quantity is proportional to the the mean density within the dust shell $R$ while $q(R)^2$ is the ratio between the total and initial potential energy. According to assumption (i), these functions have even $C^\infty$-extensions on the real axis, and assumptions (ii) and (iii) guarantee that $c(R) > 0$, $c'(R)\leq 0$ while assumptions (v) and (vi) imply that $0 < q(R) < 1$ for all $R\geq 0$. In fact, our conclusions hold equally well if we replace assumption (iii) by the weaker condition:
1. $c'(R)\leq 0$ for all $R > 0$ (monotonically decreasing mean density).
Finally, we impose the following two restrictions on the function $q$. First,
1. $q'(R)\geq 0$ for all $R > 0$ (exclusion of shell-crossing singularities),
which, together with condition (iii)’, implies that $r'(R) > 0$ for all $R > 0$ and guarantees that no shell-crossing singularities form, see Ref. [@rN86] and the remark below the proof of Lemma \[Lem:Elementary\] in the next section. In order to formulate the second condition on $q$, we first note that the functions $c'/R$ and $q'/R$ are bounded near $R=0$ and have even $C^\infty$-extensions on the real axis. Then, the second condition is
1. For all $R\geq 0$, we have $q'(R)/R > 0$ whenever $c'(R)/R = 0$ (non-degeneracy condition).
In particular, this means that the central values of $q''$ and $c''$ cannot be both zero. As we will see in the next section, this condition implies the existence of light rays escaping from the central singularity and making it visible, at least to local observers. On the other hand, if the central values of $q''$ and $c''$ are both zero, one can show [@rN86] that no such light rays exist. Therefore, the condition (viii) for $R=0$ is the key property that determines whether or not the central singularity is locally visible.
Under the assumptions (i)–(viii), the solution of equation (\[Eq:1DMechanical\]) is given by the explicit formula $$r(\tau,R)
= \frac{R}{q(R)^2} \left[f^{-1}\left( f(q(R)) + \sqrt{c(R)}q(R)^3\tau \right) \right]^2,
\label{Eq:Sol}$$ with the strictly decreasing function $$f: [0,1] \to [0,\pi/2],\quad x\mapsto x\sqrt{1 - x^2} + \arccos(x),$$ whose derivative is $f'(x) = -2x^2/\sqrt{1 - x^2}$, $0\leq x < 1$. $f$ is a $C^\infty$-function on the interval $[0,1)$. The solution is regular on the domain $R\geq 0$ and $0\leq\tau < \tau_s(R)$, where the boundary $\tau = \tau_s(R)$ describes the shell-focusing singularity which is defined by the vanishing of $r/R$. From equation (\[Eq:Sol\]), we obtain $$\tau_s(R) = \frac{\frac{\pi}{2} - f(q(R))}{\sqrt{c(R)}q(R)^3},\qquad R\geq 0.
\label{Eq:taus}$$ Since the density $\rho$ of the dust diverges, the Einstein field equations imply that the Ricci scalar diverges at the shell-focusing singularity, and therefore, the boundary points $\tau = \tau_s(R)$ represent a curvature singularity. The tidal forces are much stronger near such points than in the case of shell-crossing singularities [@pSaL99]. Outside the cloud, $R > R_1$, the spacetime is isometric to a subset of the Schwarzschild-Kruskal manifold according to Birkhoff’s theorem, see for example Ref. [@Straumann-Book].
It is worth noticing that the key equation (\[Eq:1DMechanical\]), describing the dynamics of the dust shells, is identical to its Newtonian counterpart if $\tau$ is identified with Newtonian (absolute) time. What makes the relativistic part much more interesting, however, is the analysis of the resulting causal structure of spacetime. A particular interesting question is whether or not there exist light rays emanating from the shell-focusing singularity which are able to escape to future null infinity. This is discussed next.
Light rays emanating from the singularity: qualitative analysis {#Sec:Theorems}
===============================================================
In this section, we analyze the behavior of the radial null geodesics in the vicinity of the shell-focusing singularity. While most of the results derived here are known in the literature, see for instance, Refs. [@dC84; @rN86; @pJiD93], and have been generalized to non-radial causal geodesics [@sDpJiD02], see also [@tSpJ96; @bNfM01] for the marginally bound case, our derivation offers an alternative, self-contained and simple presentation of the theory. In addition, we obtain new asymptotic expansions for the light rays which will be important for generating the conformal diagram in the next section, and new results concerning the global behavior of the Cauchy horizon.
We divide the singular points into the central singularity, $\Sigma_0 := \{ (\tau_s(0),0) \}$, and the remaining part $\Sigma:= \{ (\tau_s(R),R) : 0 < R \leq R_1 \}$. We first establish for each point $p\in \Sigma$ the existence of a unique pair of in- and outgoing radial light rays terminating at $p$. Next, we prove that under our assumptions there is a unique ingoing light ray terminating at $\Sigma_0$, whereas there are infinitely many outgoing light rays emanating from the central singularity $\Sigma_0$. Then, we discuss the global behavior of the Cauchy horizon and determine fairly general conditions on the initial data which guarantee that it lies outside the black hole region. In particular, we provide a new upper bound for the central density which implies that in the spacetimes developing from initial data satisfying this bound, the central singularity is visible from future null infinity.
Our method for analyzing the light rays is based on new local coordinates $(y,R)$, where $y$ is defined by $r(\tau,R) = R y^2$, that is, for each point $(\tau,R)$, $y^2$ is the ratio between the areal radii of the dust shell $R$ measured at times $\tau$ and $0$. With this, the spacetime domain inside the collapsing dust cloud we are interested in is the rectangular region $$\Delta := \{ (y,R) : 0 < y < 1, 0 < R < R_1 \},$$ whose boundary consists of the union of $\Sigma\cup \Sigma_0 = \{ (0,R) : 0\leq R \leq R_1 \}$ (the shell-focusing singularity), $\Theta:= \{ (y,R_1) : 0 < y \leq 1 \}$ (the surface of the cloud), $\Gamma := \{ (y,0) : 0 < y \leq 1 \}$ (the center of the cloud), and $\Pi := \{(1,R): 0\leq R \leq R_1 \}$ (the initial surface), see figure \[Fig:Rectangular\_domain\].
![\[Fig:Rectangular\_domain\] A spacetime diagram representing the interior of the collapsing dust cloud in the coordinates $(y,R)$. In these coordinates, the interior is the rectangle $\Delta$ which is bounded by the initial surface $\Pi$, the surface of the cloud $\Theta$, the singularity $\Sigma\cup\Sigma_0$ and the center $\Gamma$.](rectangular_dom.eps){width="8cm"}
The radial null geodesics are the null curves of the radial part of the metric (\[Eq:MetricSol\]), $$\frac{d\tau}{dR} = \epsilon \frac{r'(\tau,R)}{\sqrt{1 + 2E(R)}},
\label{Eq:dtau/dR}$$ where $\epsilon = 1$ for outgoing and $\epsilon = -1$ for ingoing null geodesics. Expressed in terms of the new coordinates $(y,R)$, we have $$\tau = \frac{g(q(R),y)}{\sqrt{c(R)}},\qquad
r' = y^2 + \frac{R^2}{y}\sqrt{1 - q(R)^2 y^2}\Lambda(y,R),
\label{Eq:taurprime}$$ and the equation for the radial light rays is $$\frac{dy}{dR} = \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{1-q(R)^2y^2}\left[ \frac{R\Lambda(y,R)}{y^2}
\left( 1 - \frac{\epsilon R Q(R)}{ y}\sqrt{1 - q(R)^2y^2} \right) - \epsilon Q(R) \right]
\label{Eq:dy/dR},$$ where the functions $\Lambda: [0,1)\times [0,R_1] \to {\mathbb{R}}$, $Q: [0,R_1]\to {\mathbb{R}}$, and $g,h: (0,1)\times [0,1)\to{\mathbb{R}}$ are defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda(y,R) &:=& 2\frac{q'(R)}{Rq(R)} h(q(R),y)
- \frac{c'(R)}{2Rc(R)} g(q(R),y),\\
Q(R) &:=& \sqrt{\frac{c(R)}{1 - R^2 q(R)^2 c(R)}},\\
g(q,y) &:=& \frac{ f(qy) - f(q) }{q^3},\\
h(q,y) &:=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-q^2}} - \frac{y^3}{\sqrt{1- q^2y^2}} - \frac{3}{2}g(q,y).\end{aligned}$$ Notice that $1 - R^2 q^2(R) c(R) = 1 + 2E(R) > 0$ and $c(R) > 0$ are positive, such that $Q$ is well-defined. In the time-symmetric case the first term in the expression for $\Lambda$ must be dropped, $g(q,y)$ is replaced by the function $f(y)$, and the function $h$ which is ill-defined for $q=1$ is not needed. It follows from our assumptions that the functions $\Lambda$, $Q$, $g$ and $h$ are $C^\infty$-differentiable. As a consequence, the coefficients on the right-hand side of equation (\[Eq:dy/dR\]) are smooth for all points $(y,R)\in\Delta$ in the interior of the cloud. However, equation (\[Eq:dy/dR\]) is singular at the shell-focusing singularity $y=0$ and the analysis of light rays emanating from or terminating at those points has to be treated specially.
Before undertaking this analysis, we summarize the elementary properties of the functions $\Lambda$, $Q$, $g$ and $h$ which will be important later:
\[Lem:Elementary\] The functions $\Lambda$, $Q$, $g$ and $h$ are strictly positive, $C^\infty$-differentiable functions on their domain. Furthermore, for fixed $q$, $g(q,\cdot)$ and $h(q,\cdot)$ are strictly decreasing and for fixed $R$, $\Lambda(\cdot,R)$ is strictly decreasing.
[[**Proof.** ]{}]{}First, $Q > 0$ follows directly from its definition and our assumptions. Next, the positivity and monotonicity in $y$ of $g$ follow from the fact that $f$ is strictly decreasing. For the function $h$, we fix $0 < q < 1$ and note that $$\lim\limits_{y\to 1} h(q,y) = 0,\qquad
\frac{\partial h}{\partial y}(q,y) = -\frac{q^2 y^4}{(1 - q^2 y^2)^{3/2}} < 0,\quad
0 < y < 1,$$ which implies that $h(q,\cdot)$ is strictly decreasing and that $h(q,\cdot) > 0$ on the interval $[0,1)$. This, together with the assumptions (iii)’, (vii) and (viii) immediately implies that $\Lambda > 0$ and that $\Lambda(\cdot,R)$ is strictly decreasing for fixed $R$. [$\fbox{\hspace{0.3mm}}$ ]{}
In particular, it follows from equation (\[Eq:taurprime\]) and $\Lambda > 0$ that $r' > 0$ on $\Delta$, which precludes the existence of shell-crossing singularities, and implies that through each point $p\in\Delta$ there passes exactly one pair of in- and outgoing radial null geodesics.
In the following, we analyze the radial light rays through the singular points $p\in \Sigma$ and $p\in \Sigma_0$.
Asymptotic behavior of the radial null rays near $\Sigma$
---------------------------------------------------------
Let $p = (0,R_0)\in \Sigma$ be a point on the non-central part of the singularity, $0 < R_0\leq R_1$. We show that there is a unique pair of in- and outgoing radial null rays terminating at $p$, which can be parametrized in the form $R = R_0 + \phi(y)$ for some $C^\infty$-function $\phi: [0,\delta)\to{\mathbb{R}}$ satisying $\phi(0) = 0$. For this, we first rewrite equation (\[Eq:dy/dR\]) in its inverse form, $$\frac{d\phi}{dy} = \frac{dR}{dy} = \frac{2}{\sqrt{1-q^2y^2}}\left[ \frac{R\Lambda}{y^2} \left( 1 - \frac{\epsilon R Q}{ y}\sqrt{1 - q^2y^2} \right) - \epsilon Q \right]^{-1}.
\label{Eq:dR/dy}$$ In order to find the asymptotic behavior of the function $\phi$, we assume $\phi \approx A y^\alpha$ with $A\neq 0$ and $\alpha > 0$ some positive exponent to be determined. More precisely, following [@pJiD93], we set $x:=y^\alpha$ and assume $\phi(y) = \psi(x)$, with $\psi: [0,\delta)\to{\mathbb{R}}$ a $C^1$-function satisfying $\psi(0)=0$ and $d\psi/dx(0) = A\neq 0$. The equation for the function $\psi$ implied by equation (\[Eq:dR/dy\]) is $$\frac{d\psi}{dx}
= \frac{2}{\alpha}\frac{ x^{\frac{4}{\alpha}-1} }{\sqrt{1 - q^2 x^{\frac{2}{\alpha}} }}\left.
\left[ R\Lambda\left( y - \epsilon R Q\sqrt{1 - q^2 y^2} \right) - \epsilon Q y^3 \right]^{-1}
\right|_{y=x^{\frac{1}{\alpha}}, R = R_0 + \psi(x)}.$$ Since the left-hand side converges to $A\neq 0$ while the expression inside the square parenthesis on the right-hand side converges to $-\epsilon R_0^2 Q(R_0)\Lambda(0,R_0)\neq 0$ for $x\to 0$, a necessary condition for the existence of such a solution is $\alpha=4$. In this case, we obtain, in the limit $x\to 0$, $$A = -\frac{1}{2\epsilon R_0^2 Q(R_0)\Lambda(0,R_0)}.
\label{Eq:AValue}$$
In order to give sufficient conditions for the existence of a solution, we make the ansatz $$\phi(y) = A y^4 [1 + z(y)],$$ where $A$ is given by equation (\[Eq:AValue\]) and $z: [0,\delta) \to {\mathbb{R}}$ is a $C^\infty$-function satisfying $z(0) = 0$. As a consequence of equation (\[Eq:dR/dy\]), the function $z$ satisfies the differential equation $$y\frac{dz}{dy} + 4z = y F(y,z),
\label{Eq:dz/dy}$$ with the nonlinear term defined as $$y F(y,z) := \left. \frac{2}{A\sqrt{1 - q^2 y^2} \left[R \Lambda y - \epsilon R^2 Q\Lambda\sqrt{1 - q^2 y^2} - \epsilon Q y^3 \right]} \right|_{R = R_0 + A y^4(1+z)} - 4.$$ According to the definition of the constant $A$ and the elementary properties of the functions $q$, $Q$ and $\Lambda$, it follows that $y F: [0,\delta)\times (-\delta_1,\delta_1)\to{\mathbb{R}}$ is a well-defined, $C^\infty$-function provided that $\delta > 0$ and $\delta_1 > 0$ are small enough. Since $y F(0,z) = 0$ for all $|z| < \delta_1$, it also follows that the function $F: [0,\delta)\times (-\delta_1,\delta_1)\to{\mathbb{R}}$ itself is $C^\infty$.
Equation (\[Eq:dz/dy\]) is an ordinary differential equation with a regular singular point at $y=0$, with the nonlinear forcing term $y F(y,z)$. It follows the existence of a unique $C^\infty$-solution $z: [0,\varepsilon) \to {\mathbb{R}}$ satisfying $z(0) = 0$ and $dz/dy(0) = F(0,0)/5$, see Theorem 1 in [@dC84] or Theorem \[Thm:RegSingPert\] in Appendix \[App:Theorem\]. We summarize the main result of this subsection in:
\[Propo:LightRaysS\] Let $p = (0,R_0)\in \Sigma$. In the vicinity of $p$ there exists a unique pair of $C^1$ radial light rays terminating at $p$. Furthermore, these light rays have the form $$R(y) = R_0 + A y^4[ 1 + z(y) ],
\label{Eq:LightRaysSExp}$$ where $A$ is given by equation (\[Eq:AValue\]), and $z: [0,\delta) \to {\mathbb{R}}$ is a $C^\infty$-function satisfying $z(0)=0$.
[[**Proof.** ]{}]{}Existence follows from Theorem \[Thm:RegSingPert\], as discussed above. As for uniqueness, suppose $(y(\lambda),R(\lambda))$ is a $C^1$ radial light ray terminating at $p$. We may choose the parameter $\lambda$ such that the point $p$ corresponds to $\lambda=0$. Then, according to equation (\[Eq:dR/dy\]), we must have $$\lim\limits_{\lambda\to 0} \frac{dR}{d(y^4)}
= \lim\limits_{\lambda\to 0} \frac{dR}{4 y^3 dy} = A \neq 0,$$ which implies that we can choose $\lambda=y$ in a vicinity $[0,\delta)$ of $p$. Furthermore, the $C^1$-function $z: (0,\delta) \to {\mathbb{R}}$, $z(y):= (R(y)-R_0)/(A y^4) - 1$ is bounded and satisfies equation (\[Eq:dz/dy\]) and $\lim\limits_{y\to 0} z(y)=0$ according to l’Hôpital’s rule. Now uniqueness follows from Theorem \[Thm:RegSingPert\]. Finally, it follows from equation (\[Eq:dtau/dR\]) and the sign of $A$ that $\tau$ increases as $y$ decreases to zero, showing that the point $p$ is the endpoint of the light rays. [$\fbox{\hspace{0.3mm}}$ ]{}
Asymptotic behavior of the radial null rays near $\Sigma_0$
-----------------------------------------------------------
Next, we turn our attention to the radial light rays emanating from or terminating at the central singularity, $p = (0,0)\in \Sigma_0$. As in the previous subsection, we first try to find the asymptotic behavior by assuming that we can write the solution to equation (\[Eq:dy/dR\]) in the form $y(R) = \varphi(u)$, where $\varphi: [0,\delta)\to [0,\delta_1)$ is a $C^1$-function of the dimensionless variable $u:=(R/R_1)^\alpha$ satisfying $\varphi(0)=0$ and $d\varphi/du(0) = \lambda > 0$, with $\alpha > 0$ to be determined.
The function $\varphi$ satisfies the differential equation $$\frac{d\varphi}{du} = \frac{R_1}{2\alpha}\sqrt{1- q(R)^2 y^2} \left[
R_1\Lambda(y,R) u^{\frac{2}{\alpha}-3}\left( \frac{u}{y} \right)^2
\left( 1 - \epsilon R_1 Q(R) u^{\frac{1}{\alpha}-1}\frac{u}{y}\sqrt{1 - q(R)^2 y^2} \right)
- \epsilon Q(R) u^{\frac{1}{\alpha}-1}
\right]_{y = \varphi(u), R=R_1 u^{\frac{1}{\alpha}}}.
\label{Eq:dphi/du}$$ The left-hand side converges to $\lambda > 0$ in the limit $u\to 0$. The right-hand side also converges to a positive value if $\alpha=2/3$, in which case equation (\[Eq:dphi/du\]) simplifies to $$\frac{d\varphi}{du} = \frac{3R_1}{4}\sqrt{1- q(R)^2 y^2} \left[
R_1\Lambda(y,R) \left( \frac{u}{y} \right)^2
\left( 1 - \epsilon R_1 Q(R)\sqrt{u}\frac{u}{y}\sqrt{1 - q(R)^2 y^2} \right)
- \epsilon Q(R)\sqrt{u} \right]_{y = \varphi(u), R=R_1 u^{\frac{3}{2}}}.
\label{Eq:dphi/du2/3}$$ In the limit $u\to 0$ one obtains $$\lambda = \left( \frac{3}{4}R_1^2\Lambda_0 \right)^{\frac{1}{3}} > 0,
\label{Eq:lambda}$$ with $$\Lambda_0 := \Lambda(0,0) = \frac{2q_0''}{q_0} h(q_0,0)
- \frac{c_0''}{2c_0} g(q_0,0) > 0,
\label{Eq:Lambda_zero}$$ where we have defined $q_0 := q(0)$, $q_0'' := q''(0)$, $c_0 := c(0)$ and $c_0'' := c''(0)$.
In order to prove the existence of such light rays, we make the ansatz $\varphi(x) = \lambda x^2 v(x)$, where $x := (R/R_1)^{1/3}$ and $v: [0,\delta)\to [0,\delta_1)$ is a $C^\infty$-function satisfying $v(0)=1$. The equation for $v$ follows easily from equation (\[Eq:dphi/du\]) with $\alpha=1/3$ and can be cast into the form $$x\frac{dv^3}{dx} + 6v^3 = \frac{9R_1}{2} \sqrt{1-q(R)^2 y^2}\left[ \frac{R_1\Lambda(y,R)}{\lambda^3} \left( 1 - \frac{\epsilon R_1 Q(R) x}{\lambda v}\sqrt{1 - q(R)^2 y^2} \right) - \frac{\epsilon Q(R) x v^2}{\lambda} \right]_{R=R_1 x^{\frac{1}{3}},y = \lambda x^2 v}.$$ Finally, we define a new $C^\infty$-function $z: [0,\delta)\to (-\delta_2,\delta_2)$ through $v(x)^3 = 1 + z(x)$, such that $z(0) = 0$. In terms of this function we have $$x\frac{dz}{dx} + 6z = x F(x,z),
\label{Eq:dz/dx}$$ with the nonlinear term $$\begin{aligned}
&& x F(x,z) \\
&& := \frac{9R_1}{2} \sqrt{1-q(R)^2 y^2}\left[ \frac{R_1\Lambda(y,R)}{\lambda^3} \left( 1 - \frac{\epsilon R_1 Q(R) x}{\lambda(1+z)^{1/3}}\sqrt{1 - q(R)^2 y^2} \right)
- \frac{ \epsilon Q(R) x(1+z)^{2/3}}{\lambda} \right]_{R=R_1 x^{\frac{1}{3}},y = \lambda x^2(1 +z)^{1/3}} - 6.\end{aligned}$$ Since $x F(x,z)$ vanishes identically for $x=0$ according to the definition of $\lambda$ in equation (\[Eq:lambda\]), it follows that $F: [0,\delta) \times (-\delta_2,\delta_2)\to {\mathbb{R}}$ defines a $C^\infty$-function, and we can make use of Theorem \[Thm:RegSingPert\] to conclude the existence of a unique, local solution $z: [0,\varepsilon)\to {\mathbb{R}}$ of equation (\[Eq:dz/dx\]) such that $z(0)=0$ and $dz/dx(0) = F(0,0)/7$. Since by equation (\[Eq:dtau/dR\]) $\tau$ increases (decreases) with $R$ for outgoing (ingoing) radial null rays, this demonstrates the existence of an outgoing radial light ray emanating from $\Sigma_0$ and the existence of an ingoing radial light ray terminating at $\Sigma_0$. We summarize our findings in
\[Propo:LightRaysS0Existence\] Let $p = (0,0)\in \Sigma_0$ be the central singularity. There exists an outgoing radial light ray emanating at $p$ and an ingoing radial light ray terminating at $p$, which have the form $$y(x) = \lambda x^2 [ 1 + z(x) ]^{1/3},\qquad x = \left( \frac{R}{R_1} \right)^{1/3},
\label{Eq:LightRaysS0Exp}$$ where the constant $\lambda$ is given by equation (\[Eq:lambda\]) and $z: [0,\delta)\to{\mathbb{R}}$ is a $C^\infty$-function satisfying $z(0)=0$.
Furthermore, these rays are the unique $C^1$ radial light rays $y: [0,\delta)\to {\mathbb{R}}$ satisfying $\lim\limits_{x\to 0} y(x)/x^2 = \lambda$.
The question of uniqueness is more subtle than in the previous subsection, and deserves a detailed discussion. The reason for this relies in the fact that there might exist radial light rays $y: [0,\delta) \to {\mathbb{R}}$ with $y(0)=0$ whose limit $y(x)/x^2$ for $x\to 0$ does not exist. In order to analyze this, we start with the following technical lemma which is proven in Appendix \[App:Lemma\],
\[Lemma:uniqueness\] Let $\varphi: I := (0,\delta) \to (0,\delta_1)$ be a local, $C^1$-solution of equation (\[Eq:dphi/du2/3\]) such that $\lim\limits_{u\to 0} \varphi(u) = 0$. Define $$m := \inf\limits_{u\in I} \frac{\varphi(u)}{u} \geq 0,\qquad
M := \sup\limits_{u\in I} \frac{\varphi(u)}{u} \leq \infty.$$ Then, the following statements hold:
1. If $m > 0$, then $M < \infty$.
2. If $M < \infty$ and $\epsilon = -1$, then $m > 0$.
3. If $m > 0$ and $M < \infty$, then $\lim\limits_{u\to 0} \frac{\varphi(u)}{u} = \lambda$, where $\lambda$ is defined by equation (\[Eq:lambda\]).
As a consequence of this lemma, we have the following uniqueness result:
\[Propo:LightRaysS0Uniqueness\] Let $\varphi_0 : I := (0,\delta) \to (0,\delta_1)$ be the solution of equation (\[Eq:dphi/du2/3\]) of the form $\varphi_0(u) = \lambda u v_0(u)$ with $v_0: I \to {\mathbb{R}}$ a $C^1$-function such that $\lim\limits_{u\to 0} v_0(u) = 1$, whose existence was proven in Proposition \[Propo:LightRaysS0Existence\]. Let $\varphi: I':=(0,\delta') \to (0,\delta'_1)$ be a local, $C^1$-solution of equation (\[Eq:dphi/du2/3\]) with $0 < \delta' \leq \delta$ and $0 < \delta'_1 \leq \delta_1 $ such that $\lim\limits_{u\to 0}\varphi(u) = 0$.
Then, in the ingoing case $\epsilon = -1$, it follows that $\varphi(u) = \varphi_0(u)$ for all $u\in I'$, that is, $\varphi_0$ is the unique local solution which connects $\Sigma_0$. In the outgoing case $\epsilon = 1$, it follows that $\varphi(u) \leq \varphi_0(u)$ for all $u\in I'$, that is, $\varphi_0$ is the earliest radial light ray escaping from $\Sigma_0$.
[[**Proof.** ]{}]{}Since $\lim\limits_{u\to 0} v_0(u) = 1$ there are constants $M > m > 0$ such that $m \leq \lambda v_0(u) \leq M$ for all $u\in I$. Let us define the function $v(u) := \varphi(u)/(\lambda u)$, $u\in I'$. According to Proposition \[Propo:LightRaysS0Existence\], it follows that $v(u) = v_0(u)$ for all $u\in I'$ if we can show that $\lim\limits_{u\to 0} v(u) = 1$.
Now consider the case $\epsilon = -1$ first, and suppose $\varphi(u)\neq \varphi_0(u)$ for some $u\in I'$. Since the solutions cannot cross on $\Delta$, it follows that either $\varphi(u) > \varphi_0(u)$ for all $u\in I'$ or $\varphi(u) < \varphi_0(u)$ for all $u\in I'$. In the first case, it follows that $\varphi(u)/u > \varphi_0(u)/u = \lambda v_0(u) \geq m > 0$ for all $u\in I'$. Then, Lemma \[Lemma:uniqueness\](i) and (iii) imply that $\lim\limits_{u\to 0} \varphi(u)/u = \lambda$, and uniqueness follows. In the second case, $\varphi(u)/u < \varphi_0(u)/u = \lambda v_0(u) \leq M$ for all $u\in I'$ and Lemma \[Lemma:uniqueness\](ii) and (iii) imply that $\lim\limits_{u\to 0} \varphi(u)/u = \lambda$.
Finally, suppose $\epsilon = 1$ and $\varphi(u) > \varphi_0(u)$. Then, Lemma \[Lemma:uniqueness\](i) and (iii) imply that $\lim\limits_{u\to 0} \varphi(u)/u = \lambda$ as before, and uniqueness follows. [$\fbox{\hspace{0.3mm}}$ ]{}
Notice that in the case of outgoing radial null geodesics emanating from $\Sigma_0$, we cannot prove that $\varphi_0(u)$ is unique. In fact, it turns out that there are infinitely many outgoing radial light rays emanating from $\Sigma_0$. Indeed, given a point $p = (R_0,y_0)\in\Delta$ sufficiently close to $\Sigma_0$ and such that $y_0 < \varphi_0(u_0)$, $u_0 = (R_0/R_1)^{2/3}$, the outgoing light ray $\varphi(u)$ passing through this point cannot cross $\varphi_0$, and so $\varphi(u)/u < \varphi_0(u)/u \leq M$ for all $u\in I$ for which $\varphi$ is defined. Since by Propostion \[Propo:LightRaysS\] the light ray $\varphi$ cannot emanate from $\Sigma$, it follows that $\varphi(u)$ connects $\Sigma_0$. Therefore, there are infinitely many radial light rays emanating from $\Sigma_0$, the earliest of which is $\varphi_0$, which generates a Cauchy horizon.
We summarize the results obtained so far in the following
\[Thm:CH\] Given the assumptions (i),(ii),(iii)’,(iv)–(viii) made in section \[Sec:Model\], we have the following behavior for the radial null geodesics near the shell-focusing singularity: for each point $p = (0,R_0)\in \Sigma$, $R_0 > 0$, there exists a unique pair of $C^\infty$ radial light rays terminating at $p$. There is also a unique, $C^\infty$ incoming radial light ray terminating at the central singularity $(0,0)\in \Sigma_0$. However, there are infinitely many outgoing light rays emanating from $\Sigma_0$. The earliest of those is described by the solution given in Proposition \[Propo:LightRaysS0Existence\] and generates the Cauchy horizon.
These results, including the asymptotic expansions (\[Eq:LightRaysSExp\],\[Eq:LightRaysS0Exp\]) turn out to be important ingredients for the algorithm generating the conformal diagrams described in section \[Sec:Diagrams\]. However, before discussing this algorithm, we analyze conditions for which the light ray generating the Cauchy horizon arrives at the surface of the dust cloud earlier than the event horizon, implying that part of the singularity is visible to outside observers.
Global visibility of the singularity
------------------------------------
Here, we find conditions on the initial data which guarantee the formation of a naked singularity which is visible not only to local observers, but also to observers at an arbitrarily large distance from the cloud. This occurs if and only if the light ray generating the Cauchy horizon arrives at the surface of the cloud earlier than the event horizon, implying the existence of light rays emanating from the singularity which reach the Schwarzschild exterior spacetime at $r > 2m$.
In order to analyze this question, it is useful to consider the apparent horizon. In our spherically symmetric model, it is determined by the critical surface dividing the two regions in which the areal radius is increased and decreased, respectively, along the outgoing radial null rays. Parametrizing the outgoing radial null rays by $R$, and using equations (\[Eq:dtau/dR\]), (\[Eq:1DMechanical\]) and (\[Eq:taurprime\]) we obtain $$\frac{dr}{dR} = \frac{d\tau}{dR}\dot{r} + r'
= \left(y^2 + R^2\Lambda(y,R)\frac{\sqrt{1 - q(R)^2y^2}}{y} \right)
\left(1 - RQ(R)\frac{\sqrt{1 - q(R)^2y^2}}{y} \right)
\label{Eq:dr/dR}$$ along the outgoing null rays, where $y^2 = r/R$, as before. It follows that the apparent horizon is the surface for which the expression inside the second parenthesis vanishes, which is equivalent to the condition $y = y_{AH}(R) := R\sqrt{c(R)}$ or $$r = r_{AH}(R) := R^3 c(R) = 2m(R).$$ From equation (\[Eq:LightRaysS0Exp\]), we see that at least for $R\ll R_1$ the light ray $y = y_0(R)$ generating the Cauchy horizon lies outside the apparent horizon, since $y_0(R) \simeq R^{2/3}$ while $y_{AH}(R)\simeq R$. Next, we also note that an outgoing null ray emanating from a point inside the apparent horizon, $r < 2m(R)$, cannot escape this region since $r$ decreases while $m(R)$ increases as $R$ grows. Therefore, a null ray emanating from a point inside the apparent horizon inside the cloud either reaches the singularity inside the cloud, or the surface of the cloud with $r < 2m(R_1)$, and hence it lies inside the black hole region. As a consequence, a necessary and sufficient condition for the Cauchy horizon to lie outside the event horizon is that the light ray $y_0$ lies [*outside*]{} the apparent horizon for all $R > 0$, that is, $$r_0(R) := R y_0(R)^2 > 2m(R)$$ for all $R > 0$. In the following, we establish that under suitable assumptions on the initial data this estimate holds. This is achieved by estimating each term in the propagation equation (\[Eq:dr/dR\]) for the areal radius. We start with the following simple observation.
One has the following upper bound for the function $y_0$, describing the generator of the Cauchy horizon: $$y_0(R) \leq \frac{1}{q(R)} f^{-1}\left(
f(q(R)) + \left[ \frac{\pi}{2} - f(q_0) \right]\frac{q(R)^3}{q_0^3}\sqrt{\tilde{c}(R)}
\right) =: \eta(R),$$ for all $0 \leq R \leq R_1$, where $\tilde{c}(R) := c(R)/c_0$ is the normalized mean density profile and where $c_0 := c(0)$ and $q_0 := q(0)$.
[[**Proof.** ]{}]{}Since by equation (\[Eq:dtau/dR\]) $\tau$ cannot decrease along $y_0$, we have, using equation (\[Eq:taurprime\]), $$g(q(R),y_0(R)) = \sqrt{c(R)} \tau \geq \sqrt{c(R)}\tau_s(0),$$ where according to equation (\[Eq:taus\]), $\tau_s(0) = (\pi/2 - f(q_0))/(q_0^3\sqrt{c_0})$. Now the statement of the lemma follows from the definition of the function $g$ and the fact that $f$ is strictly monotonically decreasing. [$\fbox{\hspace{0.3mm}}$ ]{}
Notice that $\eta(R)$ is strictly positive for $R > 0$ and satisfies $\eta(R)\simeq R^{2/3}$ for $R\ll R_1$. Furthermore, $\eta$ only depends on the initial function $q$ and the initial normalized mean density $\tilde{c} = c/c_0$, but not on its magnitude $c_0$.
Next, assuming that the areal radius is uniformly bounded away from the apparent horizon on some interval, we integrate equation (\[Eq:dr/dR\]) to obtain an appropriate lower bound on $r$:
\[Lem:CHEstimate\] Let $\delta > 0$, and suppose $y_0(R) \geq (1 + \delta) y_{AH}(R)$ for all $0\leq R \leq R_0$. Then, the generator of the Cauchy horizon satisfies $$r_0(R) \geq \frac{\delta}{1 + \delta}\xi(R)
+ \delta(1 + \delta)\int\limits_0^RÊ\bar{R}^2 c(\bar{R}) d\bar{R},
\qquad
\xi(R) := \int\limits_0^R \bar{R}^2\Lambda(\eta(\bar{R}),\bar{R})
\frac{\sqrt{1 - q(\bar{R})^2\eta(\bar{R})^2}}{\eta(\bar{R})} d\bar{R}$$ for all $0\leq R \leq R_0$.
[[**Proof.** ]{}]{}We estimate the expressions inside the two parenthesis on the right-hand side of equation (\[Eq:dr/dR\]) from below. For the first expression, we note that $y^2 \geq (1+\delta)^2 R^2 c(R)$, $\Lambda(y,R) \geq \Lambda(\eta(R),R)$ and $\sqrt{1 - q(R)^2 y^2}/y \geq \sqrt{1 - q(R)^2\eta(R)^2}/\eta(R)$, where we have used the results from the previous Lemma and Lemma \[Lem:Elementary\]. For the second expression we use $$RQ(R)\frac{\sqrt{1 - q(R)^2y^2}}{y}
\leq R Q(R)\frac{\sqrt{1 - (1+\delta)^2 R^2 q(R)^2 c(R)}}{(1+\delta) R\sqrt{c(R)}}
= \sqrt{\frac{1 - (1+\delta)^2 R^2 q(R)^2 c(R)}{1 - R^2 q(R)^2 c(R)}}\frac{1}{1 + \delta}
\leq \frac{1}{1 + \delta}.$$ Putting everything together, we obtain $$\frac{dr}{dR} \geq \left[ (1+\delta)^2 R^2 c(R)
+ R^2\Lambda(\eta(R),R)\frac{\sqrt{1 - q(R)^2\eta(R)^2}}{\eta(R)} \right]
\frac{\delta}{1 + \delta}$$ for all $0\leq R \leq R_0$. Integrating both sides of this inequality and observing that $r(0)=0$, the statement follows immediately. [$\fbox{\hspace{0.3mm}}$ ]{}
Like $\eta(R)$, the function $\xi(R)$ is strictly positive for $R > 0$ and only depends on $q$ and the normalized mean density $\tilde{c} = c/c_0$. In contrast to this, the mass function $m(R) = R^3 c(R)/2$ scales with the magnitude $c_0$ of the central density. Therefore, under the hypothesis of Lemma \[Lem:CHEstimate\], we can always arrange for $r_0(R) > 2m(R)$ on the interval $0\leq R\leq R_0$ by rescaling the initial density profile. This observation leads to our final result on the global behavior of the Cauchy horizon.
\[Thm:Naked\] Consider an initial density and velocity profile $(\tilde{\rho}_0,\tilde{v}_0)$ satisfying $\tilde{c}(0) = 1$ and the conditions (i),(ii),(iii)’,(iv)–(viii) in section \[Sec:Model\]. Let $\mu > 0$ be sufficiently small such that $\mu\leq 1$ and $$\mu^2 \leq \inf\limits_{0 < R \leq R_1} \frac{4}{27}\frac{\xi(R)}{R^3\tilde{c}(R)}.
\label{Eq:c0Bound}$$ Then, the rescaled data $(\rho_0:=\mu^2\tilde{\rho}_0,v_0:=\mu\tilde{v}_0)$ also satisfies the conditions (i),(ii),(iii)’,(iv)–(viii) in section \[Sec:Model\], and the generator of the Cauchy horizon in the resulting spacetime satisfies $$r_0(R_1) \geq \frac{9}{2} m(R_1)
+ \frac{3\mu^2}{4}\int\limits_0^{R_1}Ê\bar{R}^2\tilde{c}(\bar{R}) d\bar{R} > 2m(R_1).$$
[[**Proof.** ]{}]{}First, we note that $\xi(R)\simeq R^{7/3}$ for $R\ll R_1$, and that $\xi(R)$ is strictly positive for $R > 0$, such that the function $\xi(R)/(R^3\tilde{c}(R))$ is strictly positive and diverges for $R\to 0$. Therefore, the infimum in the bound (\[Eq:c0Bound\]) is strictly positive.
Next, we note that the rescaled solution satisfies $c=\mu^2\tilde{c}$ and $q=\tilde{q}$, since the rescaling is such that both the initial kinetic and potential energies scale with $\mu^2$. Now fix[^1] $\delta = 1/2$ and let $R_0\in [0,R_1]$ be the maximum value for which $y_0(R)\geq (1 + \delta) y_{AH}(R)$ for all $0\leq R \leq R_0$. Observe that $R_0 > 0$ since $y_0(R)\simeq R^{2/3}$ whereas $y_{AH}(R)\simeq R$ for $R\ll R_1$. Now Lemma \[Lem:CHEstimate\] and the hypothesis imply that $$r_0(R) \geq \frac{\delta}{1 + \delta}\xi(R)
+ \delta(1 + \delta)\int\limits_0^RÊ\bar{R}^2 c(\bar{R}) d\bar{R}
\geq \frac{9}{4} R^3 c(R) + \frac{3}{4}\int\limits_0^RÊ\bar{R}^2 c(\bar{R}) d\bar{R}$$ for all $0\leq R \leq R_0$. In particular, this implies that $y_0(R_0) > 3 y_{AH}(R_0)/2$. By the maximality of $R_0$, this means that $R_0 = R_1$, and the proposition follows. [$\fbox{\hspace{0.3mm}}$ ]{}
Therefore, given a normalized mean density profile $\tilde{c}$ and an initial ratio $q^2$ between total and potential energy satisfying our assumptions, the existence of a singularity which is locally visible is based on the requirement that the second derivatives $\tilde{c}''$ and $q''$ at the center $R=0$ do not vanish both (see the comments below assumption (viii) in section \[Sec:Model\]), while the global visibility is guaranteed if the magnitude $c_0$ of the mean density profile $c = c_0\tilde{c}$ is sufficiently small. For the case of time-symmetric initial data, where $q=1$, the expression for the function $\xi$ simplifies to $$\xi(R) = \int\limits_0^R \bar{R}\frac{d}{d\bar{R}}\eta(\bar{R})^2 d\bar{R}
= R\eta(R)^2 - \int\limits_0^R \eta(\bar{R})^2 d\bar{R},\qquad
\eta(R) = f^{-1}\left( \frac{\pi}{2}\sqrt{\tilde{c}(R)} \right).$$
In the next section, we numerically compute the bound (\[Eq:c0Bound\]) for a four-parameter family of initial data and show that it is consistent with the results obtained from the conformal diagrams.
Light rays emanating from the singularity: quantitative study and conformal diagrams {#Sec:Diagrams}
====================================================================================
In this section we present our algorithm for constructing conformal coordinates $(T,X)$, in which the radial part of the metric (\[Eq:MetricSol\]), $$\tilde{\bf g} := -d\tau^2 + \frac{dR^2}{\gamma(\tau,R)^2},\qquad
\gamma(\tau,R) := \frac{\sqrt{1 + 2E(R)}}{r'(\tau,R)},$$ assumes the simple form $$\tilde{\bf g} = \Omega(T,X)^2( -dT^2 + dX^2),$$ with $\Omega(T,X) > 0$ the conformal factor. In these coordinates, the causal structure is transparent since the radial light rays are simply described by the straight lines $T\pm X = const.$ The coordinates $T$ and $X$ are conveniently obtained by introducing the null coordinates $U := T - X$ and $V := T + X$ which satisfy the advection equations $$\dot{U} = -\gamma U',\qquad \dot{V} = +\gamma V',
\label{Eq:Advection}$$ subject to appropriate boundary conditions. Indeed, if $U$ and $V$ satisfy equation (\[Eq:Advection\]), then $$\Omega^2( -dT^2 + dX^2) = -\Omega^2 dU dV
= \Omega^2\dot{U}\dot{V}\left( -d\tau^2 + \frac{dR^2}{\gamma(\tau,R)^2} \right),$$ and the conformal factor is $\Omega = 1/\sqrt{\dot{U}\dot{V}}$, provided that $\dot{U}$ and $\dot{V}$ are positive.
The special case of a homogeneous cloud with zero initial velocity
------------------------------------------------------------------
As a simple example, consider first the case of homogeneous density and zero initial velocity, for which $q=1$ and $c = c_0 = const$. In this case, $r = R y^2$, $\gamma^{-1} = y^2/\sqrt{1 - c_0 R^2}$, where $y = f^{-1}(\sqrt{c_0}\tau)$ is independent of $R$. Therefore, $$\tilde{\bf g} = \frac{y^4}{c_0}\left[ -\left( \frac{2dy}{\sqrt{1 - y^2}} \right)^2
+ \left( \frac{\sqrt{c_0} dR}{\sqrt{1 - c_0 R^2}} \right)^2 \right],$$ and the substitutions $y = \cos(T/2)$, $\sqrt{c_0} R = \sin(X)$ lead to the Friedman-Robertson-Walker form of the metric with conformal time $T$, $${\bf g} = \frac{\cos^4(T/2)}{c_0}\left[ -dT^2 + dX^2
+ \sin^2(X)(d\vartheta^2 + \sin^2\vartheta\, d\varphi^2)\right],\qquad
0\leq T \leq \pi,\quad 0\leq X \leq \arcsin(\sqrt{c_0} R_1).$$ The corresponding conformal diagram for $c_0 = 0.75$ and $R_1 = 1$ is shown in figure \[Fig:Homogeneous\]. Notice that the apparent horizon equation $y_{AH}(R) = \sqrt{c_0} R$ reduces to the simple equation $T = \pi - 2X$, which describes a time-like three-surface. The singularity is spacelike and hidden inside the black hole region. Surprisingly, the picture changes completely in the generic case. As is already clear from Theorem \[Thm:CH\], the central singularity is null and visible to local observers when the assumptions (i)-(viii) are met. Furthermore, the null piece of the singularity may extend far enough into the past such that the Cauchy horizon lies outside the black hole, see Theorem \[Thm:Naked\] and the conformal diagrams below.
![\[Fig:Homogeneous\] Conformal diagram for a homogenous dust cloud with zero initial velocity and the parameter choices $c_0 = 0.75$ and $R_1=1$. The lines denoted by “AH" and “EH" refer to the apparent and event horizons, respectively. Since outside the cloud the apparent horizon coincides with the event horizon, the event horizon inside the cloud is determined by the outgoing null ray passing through the intersection of the apparent horizon with the surface of the cloud. Notice also that for these parameter values, the event horizon intersects the initial surface, implying that the dust particles which are close to the center initially, are already imprisoned inside the black hole region.](homogeneous.eps){width="12cm"}
The generic case
----------------
In the generic case, where the initial velocity and density profiles satisfy the assumptions (i)–(viii), we solve the advection equations (\[Eq:Advection\]) by the method of characteristics. The equations (\[Eq:Advection\]) imply that $U$ and $V$ are constant along the out- ($\tau_+(R)$) and ingoing ($\tau_-(R)$) radial null geodesics, respectively, where $$\frac{d\tau_+}{dR} = +\frac{1}{\gamma(\tau_+,R)},\qquad
\frac{d\tau_-}{dR} = -\frac{1}{\gamma(\tau_-,R)}.$$ In terms of the coordinates $(y,R)$ introduced in section \[Sec:Theorems\], these equations are $$\frac{dy_+}{dR} = w_+(y_+,R),\qquad
\frac{dy_-}{dR} = w_-(y_-,R),$$ where the function $w_\epsilon(y,R)$, $\epsilon = \pm 1$, is given by the right-hand side of equation (\[Eq:dy/dR\]). For the numerical integration we use, instead of $R$, a new parameter $\lambda$ and rewrite the equations for the radial null rays as the autonomous systems, $$\frac{dy_\pm}{d\lambda}
= \frac{\pm w_\pm(y_\pm,R_\pm)}{\sqrt{1 + w_\pm(y_\pm,R_\pm)^2}}, \qquad
\frac{dR_\pm}{d\lambda} = \frac{\pm 1}{\sqrt{1 + w_\pm(y_\pm,R_\pm)^2}}.
\label{Eq:ODE}$$ The definition of the parameter $\lambda$ is such that it corresponds to the arc length with respect to the (artificial) Euclidean metric in the $(y,R)$-chart. Therefore, the right-hand sides of equations (\[Eq:ODE\]) cannot be very large or both very small, and there is no need for adaptive or implicit methods when numerically integrating the equations. As a consequence, it is sufficient to use a fourth-order Runge-Kutta time integrator (see, for instance, Ref. [@Recipies-Book]) with fixed step size $h$ when integrating the ODE system (\[Eq:ODE\]). The sign of $\lambda$ is such that $\tau$ increases with $\lambda$ along the in- and outgoing radial light rays.
Once the characteristics are found, the null coordinates $U$ and $V$ can be constructed by assigning to each outgoing null ray a unique value for $U$ and to each ingoing null ray a unique value for $V$, such that $\dot{U} > 0$, $\dot{V} > 0$. For this, we specify boundary conditions for $U$ and $V$ at the surface $\Theta$ of the cloud, boundary conditions for $U$ at the singularity $\Sigma$ and boundary conditions for $V$ at the initial surface $\Pi$ (see figure \[Fig:Rectangular\_domain\]). In order to assure that $\dot{U},\dot{V} > 0$ we require that $U$ increases as one moves along $\Theta$ to the future, and then along the singularity $\Sigma$ toward the center. Similarly, we ask that $V$ increases when one moves along $\Pi$ from the center to the surface, and then along $\Theta$ to the future.
In what follows, we describe these boundary conditions in more detail. The idea is to match the conformal diagram smoothly to the Penrose-Kruskal diagram of the exterior Schwarzschild solution. For a different choice of boundary conditions, see Ref. [@nOoS10].
### Boundary conditions for $U$ and $V$ at $\Theta$
The quantities $U$ and $V$ at $\Theta$ are determined by matching their values to those of the Penrose-Kruskal coordinates in the Schwarzschild spacetime. For this, we obtain $U$ and $V$ analytically by computing the trajectory of a free falling, radial observer in the Schwarzschild spacetime which starts at $r = R_1$ with initial velocity $v_0(R_1)$. The calculation which is performed in Appendix \[App:Kruskal\] yields the following result: $$\begin{aligned}
\tan(U_{\Theta}(y)) &=& \frac{1}{a_1} \left( \sqrt{a_1^2-b_1^2y^2} - y\sqrt{1-b_1^2} \right) \\
&\times& \exp \left\{ \frac{y^2}{2a_1^2} - \frac{\sqrt{1-b_1^2}}{2b_1^2}
\left[ \frac{1+2b_1^2}{b_1}\left( \arctan \left( \frac{\sqrt{a_1^2-b_1^2y^2}}{b_1y} \right)
-\frac{\pi}{2} \right) + \frac{y}{a_1^2}\sqrt{a_1^2-b_1^2y^2} \right]\right\}, \\
\tan(V_{\Theta}(y)) &=& \frac{1}{a_1} \left( \sqrt{a_1^2-b_1^2y^2} + y\sqrt{1-b_1^2} \right)\\
&\times& \exp \left\{ \frac{y^2}{2a_1^2} + \frac{\sqrt{1-b_1^2}}{2b_1^2}
\left[ \frac{1+2b_1^2}{b_1}\left( \arctan \left( \frac{\sqrt{a_1^2-b_1^2y^2}}{b_1y} \right)
- \frac{\pi}{2} \right) + \frac{y}{a_1^2}\sqrt{a_1^2-b_1^2y^2} \right] \right\},\end{aligned}$$ where $a_1 := \sqrt{2m(R_1)/R_1} = R_1\sqrt{c(R_1)}$ and $b_1 := \sqrt{-2E(R_1)} = q(R_1) a_1$. As shown in Appendix \[App:Kruskal\], $U_\Theta$ and $V_\Theta$ are strictly decreasing functions of $y$ which are normalized such that $U_\Theta(0) = V_\Theta(0) = \arctan(1) = \pi/4$.
### Boundary conditions for $V$ at $\Pi$
At the initial surface $\Pi$, we choose $V$ to be a linear function such that the values of it and its derivative match the corresponding expressions for the Penrose-Kruskal coordinates. Therefore, $$V_\Pi(R) := V_\Theta(1) + \beta \left( \frac{R}{R_1} - 1 \right),\qquad
\beta := R_1 \left. \frac{\partial V_\Theta}{\partial R_1} \right|_{y=1}.$$ For the cases studied below we have verified that $\beta$ is positive, implying that $V' > 0$ along $\Pi$.
### Boundary conditions for $U$ at $\Sigma$
Our choice for $U$ at the spacelike portion $\Sigma$ of the singularity is based on the observation that in the Penrose diagram for the Schwarzschild spacetime, the curvature singularity at $r=0$ is a subset of the straight line $2T = U + V = const.$ Therefore, we choose $U$ such that $U + V = const. = U_\Theta(0) + V_\Theta(0) = \pi/2$. However, this requires the knowledge of $V$ at each point of $\Sigma$. We determine the value $V_p$ of $V$ at a given point $p\in \Sigma$ by computing numerically an ingoing radial null geodesics to the past until it intersects either the surface of the cloud $\Theta$ or the initial surface $\Pi$, where $V$ is known. Since $V$ is constant along the ingoing null ray, this determines $V$ at $p$. Then, $U$ is obtained by setting $U_p := \pi/2 - V_p$.
Construction of the conformal diagram
-------------------------------------
The boundary conditions determine a unique pair of coordinates $(U,V)$ for each point $p\in\Delta$ in the inside of the cloud. To find it, it is in principle sufficient to compute a future directed outgoing radial null ray and a past directed ingoing radial null ray emanating from $p$. The outgoing ray intersects either $\Sigma$ or $\Theta$, where $U$ is given. The ingoing ray intersects either $\Pi$ or $\Theta$, where $V$ is known. With this algorithm it is in principle possible to construct the images of the relevant surfaces $\Pi$, $\Gamma$, $\Theta$, $\Sigma$, the apparent horizon or a dust particle trajectory in the conformal $TX$ diagram, where $T = (V+U)/2$, $X = (V-U)/2$, by computing the coordinates $(U,V)$ for each point on these surfaces.
However, in practice, a problem with this procedure occurs when the outgoing rays approach the singular surface $\Sigma$ since at $\Sigma$ the equation for the null ray is undefined. In order to avoid integrating toward the singularity, we adopt the following algorithm:
1. We choose a uniform grid $(y_j,R_1)$ along the surface $\Theta$ of the cloud, where $y_j = j/J$, $j=0,1,2,...,J$. Since $U$ and $V$ are given at $\Theta$, we immediately obtain the conformal image of $\Theta$ by computing $(U_\Theta(y_j),V_\Theta(y_j))$ at all gridpoints $j=0,1,2,...,J$.
2. For each $j=J,J-1,...$ we shoot from $(y_j,R_1)$ an outgoing radial light ray to the past. This light ray may intersect one of the surfaces $\Pi$, $\Gamma$, the apparent horizon or a dust particle trajectory at a point $p$, say. Then, we associate to $p$ the value $U_p = U_\Theta(y_j)$ for $U$, and determine $V_p$ by shooting from $p$ an ingoing radial light ray directed to the past, as described above. This gives the conformal image of the relevant surfaces in the past of the surface $\Theta$ of the cloud. This region necessarily includes a portion of the initial surface $\Pi$, it might also contain all of it plus a portion of the center $\Gamma$, or even all of the center. In the last case, it occurs that some past-directed outgoing null ray arrives at the central singularity $\Sigma_0$ for some positive $j^*$, say. According to Theorem \[Thm:CH\] the subsequent outgoing light rays for $j < j^*$ must emanate from $\Sigma_0$ as well.
3. Similarly, we define a uniform grid $(0,R_k)$ along the singularity $\Sigma$, where $R_k = R_1 k/K$, $k=1,2,...,K$, and shoot from each of these gridpoints an outgoing radial light ray to the past. In order to perform the integration, we start at the point $(y,R) = (h, R_k + A h^4)$ close to the singularity, which comes from the truncation of the asymptotic expansion (\[Eq:LightRaysSExp\]). Then, we intersect the light ray with the relevant surfaces and determine $(U,V)$ at the intersection points like in the previous step. In this way, one obtains the image of the relevant surfaces beyond the past of $\Theta$.
4. Finally, we determine the conformal images of the singularities $\Sigma_0$ and $\Sigma$. By construction, the image of $\Sigma$ is a horizontal line in the $TX$ diagram with endpoints $(\pi/4,X_0)$, $(\pi/4,0)$, with $X_0 = (V_0 - U_0)/2$ defined below. The image of $\Sigma_0$, in turn, is defined by a unique value $V_0$ of $V$ and a whole range of values $U\in [U_0,U_1]$ for $U$. Indeed, according to Theorem \[Thm:CH\] there is a unique ingoing radial light ray terminating at $\Sigma_0$ while there are infinitely many outgoing radial light rays emanating from $\Sigma_0$, the earliest of which generates the Cauchy horizon. As a consequence, $\Sigma_0$ unfolds into a subset of the straight line $T + X = V_0$ in the conformal $TX$ diagram. Therefore, it is sufficient to compute $V_0$, $U_0$ and $U_1$ in order to determine its endpoints.
To compute $V_0$, we integrate the unique ingoing radial light ray to the past, starting from the point $(y,R) = (1.25 h,\sqrt{4(1.25h)^3/(3\Lambda_0)})$ obtained from the truncation of the asymptotic expansion (\[Eq:LightRaysS0Exp\]), until it intersects $\Theta$ or $\Pi$. To compute $U_1$, we integrate to the future the outgoing radial light ray generating the Cauchy horizon starting from the point $(y,R) = (1.25 h,\sqrt{4(1.25h)^3/(3\Lambda_0)})$ until it intersects $\Theta$ or $\Sigma$. The intersection point determines the value for $U_1$. Finally, the value of $U_0$ is fixed by the requirement that $U_0 + V_0 = 2T = \pi/2$ since it must match the value for $U$ at the left endpoint of $\Sigma$.
Numerical results {#Sec:Results}
=================
We apply our method for constructing the conformal diagram to the four-parameter family of initial data $$c(R) := c_0 \left[ 1 - \frac{6}{5} a\left( \frac{R}{R_1}\right)^2
+ \frac{3}{7}(2a-1)\left(\frac{R}{R_1}\right)^4 \right],\qquad
q(R) := q_0 + q_1\left( \frac{R}{R_1} \right)^2,\qquad
0 \leq R \leq R_1,
\label{Eq:cqChoice}$$ where the parameters $c_0$, $a$, $q_0$ and $q_1$ are subject to the inequalities $0 < a \leq 1$, $0 < R_1^2 c_0 < 3/2$, $0 < q_0 < 1$, and $0 < q_1 < 1-q_0$. These conditions guarantee that the corresponding initial density and velocity profiles $(\rho_0,v_0) = ( (R^3 c)'/(8\pi G R^2), -R\sqrt{(1-q^2)c})$ satisfy the assumptions (i)–(viii) on the interval $[0,R_1]$. Although the resulting density profile, $$\rho_0(R) = \frac{3c_0}{8\pi G}\left[ 1 - 2a\left(\frac{R}{R_1}\right)^2
+ (2a-1)\left(\frac{R}{R_1}\right)^4 \right],\qquad
0 \leq R \leq R_1$$ cannot be $C^\infty$-smoothly matched to zero at $R=R_1$, it still satisfies $\rho_0(R_1) = 0$ which implies that the metric is twice continuously differentiable across the surface of the cloud.
Examples of numerically generated conformal diagrams
----------------------------------------------------
Conformal diagrams corresponding to three parameter choices are shown in figures \[Fig:Hidden\], \[Fig:Naked\_c\] and \[Fig:Naked\_q\]. As anticipated in the previous section, the causal structure in the generic case is quite different than in the case of homogeneous, time-symmetric collapse illustrated in figure \[Fig:Homogeneous\]. First, we notice from the diagrams that the apparent horizon may be spacelike inside the cloud, whereas it is always timelike in the homogeneous, time-symmetric case. Next, while $\Sigma_0\cup\Sigma$ is spacelike in the latter, $\Sigma$ is still spacelike but the central singularity $\Sigma_0$ is null in the generic case, and therefore, it is visible to local observers. Moreover, the null part of the singularity may either be completely hidden inside the black hole region, as in figure \[Fig:Hidden\], or a portion of it may be visible from future null infinity, as in figures \[Fig:Naked\_c\] and \[Fig:Naked\_q\].
![\[Fig:Hidden\] Conformal diagram for the model described in equation (\[Eq:cqChoice\]) with the parameter choice $c_0 = 0.1691$, $a=0.3$, $q_0=0.75$ and $q_1=0.02$. The lines denoted by “AH", “EH" and “CH" refer to the apparent, event and Cauchy horizons, respectively. In this case, the singularity is hidden inside the black hole region since all light rays emanating from it end at the spacelike singularity. Although the center of the cloud appears to be null in the diagram, closer inspection reveals that it is, in fact, time-like. The dotted line corresponds to the dust particle trajectory with initial areal radius $R_0 = 0.95R_1$. The diagram was generated with the step size $h = 0.0005$ and $1500$ and $500$ points, respectively, for the grids $y_j$ and $R_k$ (see steps 2 and 3 in the previous section).](hidden.eps){width="14cm"}
![\[Fig:Naked\_c\] Conformal diagram for the model described in equation (\[Eq:cqChoice\]) with the same parameter choice as in the previous figure except that $c_0 = 0.1688$. In this case, there exists light rays emanating from the null part of the singularity which arrive at the surface of the cloud [*earlier*]{} than the apparent horizon. Therefore, a portion of the singularity is visible to distant observers [*outside*]{} the black hole region.](naked_c.eps){width="12cm"}
![\[Fig:Naked\_q\] Conformal diagram for the model described in equation (\[Eq:cqChoice\]) with the same parameter choice as in figure \[Fig:Hidden\], except that $q_0 = 0.753$. Also in this case a portion of the singularity is visible [*outside*]{} the black hole region.](naked_q.eps){width="12cm"}
It is worth stressing that no fine-tuning is required to construct the examples in which the naked singularity is globally visible. In fact, as Theorem \[Thm:Naked\] shows, it is sufficient to decrease the central density $\rho_0 = 3c_0/(8\pi G)$ to a small enough value in order to produce such singularities. For the initial data described in equation (\[Eq:cqChoice\]) with the parameter values used in figures \[Fig:Hidden\] and \[Fig:Naked\_c\] the bound (\[Eq:c0Bound\]) on $c_0$ in Theorem \[Thm:Naked\] gives $$\mu^2\le 0.062,$$ which is consistent with the numerical results in those figures. However, the numerical results also indicate that our bound is far from optimal, since the transition from local to global visibility occurs around $c_0\approx 0.169$ which is much larger than $\mu^2$.
We have verified the self-convergence of our numerical results by generating the conformal diagram using different step sizes $h$. In table \[Tab:Convergence\] we show the values for the key quantities $U_1$ and $V_0$ in the example of figure \[Fig:Naked\_c\], which determine the location of the earliest singular point in the collapse, from which the Cauchy horizon emanates. The results show self-convergence to an order between three and four.
Resolution Step size $U_1$ Error CF $V_0$ Error CF
------------ ----------- -------------------------- -------------- ----------- ------------------------- --------------- -----------
1 $h=0.01$ $-5.764905579201557E-01$ — — $1.120836074650528E-03$ — —
2 $h/2$ $-5.709420746741624E-01$ $5.54848E-3$ — $1.120831798152899E-03$ $4.2765E-9$ —
3 $h/4$ $-5.704917279004125E-01$ $4.50347E-4$ $12.3205$ $1.120831389468409E-03$ $4.08684E-10$ $10.4641$
4 $h/8$ $-5.704566274816609E-01$ $3.51004E-5$ $12.8302$ $1.120831350043764E-03$ $3.94246E-11$ $10.3662$
5 $h/16$ $-5.704540486177565E-01$ $2.57886E-6$ $13.6108$ $1.120831346181979E-03$ $3.86179E-12$ $10.2089$
6 $h/32$ $-5.704538804441139E-01$ $1.68174E-7$ $15.3345$ $1.120831345796034E-03$ $3.85945E-13$ $10.0061$
A similar self-convergence test is performed for the dust particle trajectory shown in figure \[Fig:Naked\_c\], corresponding to an initial areal radius of $R_0 = 0.95 R_1$. In figure \[Fig:Tr\_conv\], we show the numerical error for different points on this trajectory. The numerical error is estimated by computing the Euclidean norm between two successive resolutions ($h$ and $h/2$, $h/2$ and $h/4$ and so forth), and clearly decreases as resolution is increased. In order to quantify these errors, we show in table \[Tab:Tr\_conv\_factor\] for each fixed resolution the maximum of this error with respect to all points on the trajectory. The results exhibit fourth order self-convergence.
![\[Fig:Tr\_conv\] Numerical error for points on the particle trajectory shown in figure \[Fig:Naked\_c\]. The continuous line gives the Euclidean distance between corresponding points computed with step sizes $h=0.01$ and $h/2$. The dotted one represents the error for points computed with step sizes $h/2$ and $h/4$, and so forth.](tr_convergence.eps){width="12cm"}
Resolution Step size Maximum error CF
------------ ----------- -------------------------- -----------
1 $h=0.01$ — —
2 $h/2$ $1.115221660178996E-7 $ —
3 $h/4$ $6.812854288367279E-9 $ $16.3693$
4 $h/8$ $4.148846069813869E-10$ $16.4211$
5 $h/16$ $2.588085455658281E-11$ $16.0306$
6 $h/32$ $1.608422340951133E-12$ $16.0908$
Phase space diagrams {#Sec:PhaseSpace}
--------------------
As an application of our results, we explore some features of the phase diagram corresponding to the four-parameter family of initial data given in equation (\[Eq:cqChoice\]). In figure \[Fig:c0bound\] we show a subset for fixed $q$ of this diagram, and the critical line in the $a$-$c_0$-plane that divides the regions corresponding to initial data giving rise to black holes and globally naked singularities, respectively. From the figure, it can be observed that density profiles which are nearly flat close to the center, corresponding to $a\ll 1$, have a lower critical value for $c_0$ than density profiles which are concentrated near the center. In this sense, diluted profiles favor the formation of black holes while concentrated profiles favor the formation of globally naked singularities. Notice also that although the upper bound for $c_0$ obtained in Theorem \[Thm:Naked\] is far from optimal, it nevertheless describes the correct qualitative behavior for the critical line.
In figure \[Fig:qbound\] we show the critical line in the $a$-$c_0$-plane for different values of $q_0$ and $q_1 = 0.01$. As we see, the critical value for $c_0$ decreases as $q_0$ decreases from $0.98$ to $0.01$. Since $1 - q^2$ is the ratio between the initial kinetic energy and the magnitude of the initial potential energy, this means that large initial velocities in the negative radial direction favor the formation of black holes.
![\[Fig:c0bound\] A cut through the phase diagram corresponding to the four-parameter family of initial data given in equation (\[Eq:cqChoice\]). The cut corresponds to the subset with fixed parameters $q_0 = 0.75$ and $q_1 = 0.02$. The shaded region corresponds to initial data giving rise to a naked singularity which is globally visible. The dashed line describes the upper bound for $c_0$ from Theorem \[Thm:Naked\].](c0_bound.eps){width="12cm"}
![\[Fig:qbound\] The critical line, dividing the regions of initial data giving rise to black holes and globally naked singularities, respectively, for different values of $q_0$ and $q_1 = 0.01$.](a_c0.eps){width="12cm"}
Conclusions {#Sec:Conclusions}
===========
We have presented a numerical method for constructing the conformal diagram inside a spherically symmetric dust cloud which undergoes complete gravitational collapse. The construction is based on the integration of radial null geodesics and a careful analysis of their behavior close to the singularity. Our assumptions on the initial data, namely the initial density and velocity profiles, should be physically reasonable and generic within the limitation of spherical symmetry and zero pressure. Confirming previously known results [@dC84; @rN86; @pJiD93; @Joshi-Book], we find that under these assumptions, the shell-focusing singularity always consists of a space-like part, which matches the one of the Schwarzschild exterior, and a null part which is “naked” in the sense that it is visible, at least to observers which are sufficiently close to the center of the cloud.
Based on our method, we analyzed a four-parameter family of initial data and determined under which circumstances the null part of the shell-focusing singularity forms sufficiently early such that a portion of it lies outside the event horizon, resulting in a naked singularity which is globally visible. We find that this can be arranged fairly simply without fine-tuning the data. This shows that it is not difficult to create naked singularities which are in causal contact with future null infinity, confirming the results in [@dC84] for time-symmetric initial data. More importantly, however, these findings also indicate that the formation of a globally naked singularity is stable with respect to perturbations within the spherical symmetric, zero pressure model. In fact, this stability statement is confirmed and strengthened by Theorem \[Thm:Naked\], which provides a new bound on the initial data guaranteeing that the corresponding spacetime contains such a singularity. The corresponding spacetimes are not globally hyperbolic, and as a consequence, it is not possible to determine the evolution of test fields obeying hyperbolic partial differential equations with light speed propagation beyond the Cauchy horizon without imposing boundary conditions at the null singularity. Since the Cauchy horizon is located outside the black hole region, this implies, in particular, that it is not even possible to predict the evolution of such test fields in the Schwarzschild exterior for $r > 2m$.
Besides the results already mentioned, there are several possible applications of our numerical algorithm. First, it provides a tool to systematically analyze the phase space of spherically symmetric dust collapse, identifying the class of initial data leading to globally naked singularities. As an example, we have explored in section \[Sec:PhaseSpace\] different cuts through the phase space, and determined the critical set within these cuts which separates the black holes from the globally naked singularities. It should be interesting to perform a more exhaustive analysis, including, for example, initial data with arbitrarily concentrated density profiles or families of initial data which contain the Oppenheimer-Snyder model as a limiting case. Second, the numerical construction of the conformal coordinates may be useful for describing the propagation of test fields on the collapsing spacetimes considered here. For example, the wave equation $\Box\Phi = 0$ reduces to a family of flat space wave equations of the simple form $$\frac{\partial^2\psi_{\ell m}}{\partial T^2} - \frac{\partial^2\psi_{\ell m}}{\partial X^2}
+ V(T,X)\psi_{\ell m} = 0,\qquad
\Phi(T,X,\vartheta,\varphi)
= \frac{1}{r}\sum\limits_{\ell m} \psi_{\ell m}(T,X) Y^{\ell m}(\vartheta,\varphi)$$ with a potential $V$, when decomposed into spherical harmonics $Y^{\ell m}$. Therefore, properties of the solutions outside the Cauchy horizon can, in principle, be inferred from the structure of the potential $V$.
It remains to be seen whether or not our results can be extrapolated to the realistic gravitational collapse, in which pressure and angular momentum may delay the formation of the singularity. If these effects are sufficiently strong, it is imaginable that the resulting singularity is hidden inside the black hole, such that weak cosmic censorship is valid. Unfortunately, analyzing scenarios with more realistic equations of state in the absence of symmetries requires much more efforts since exact solutions are not available anymore, at least not for generic initial data. Intermediate steps toward understanding the general case are the following: first, it should be possible to generalize our method to the case of a spherically symmetric collapse with nonzero pressure, since it is based on the numerical integration of radial null rays and their asymptotic behavior near the shell-focusing singularity. Next, one could consider a collapsing fluid star which is slightly nonspherical, in which case the problem may be analyzed using perturbation theory for spherically symmetric spacetimes. In the dust case, numerical work [@hItHkN00] and recent analytic results [@eDbN11] for the self-similar collapse show that linear fluctuations from smooth initial data grow without bound when approaching the Cauchy horizon, providing evidence that the latter is unstable at the linearized level. Finally, the problem can be approached using numerical approximation. In [@sSsT91], a numerical code was used to evolve collisionless prolate gas spheroids, and it was shown that when sufficiently large, these spheroids form a curvature singularity before an apparent horizon appears. However, as pointed out in [@rWvI91], this does not exclude the formation of trapped surfaces in the maximally extended spacetime, and so the numerical work in [@sSsT91] does not imply a violation of cosmic censorship at this stage. More recently, the gravitational collapse has also been analyzed in five [@lLfP10; @yYhS11] and higher-dimensional spacetimes [@rGpJ04; @rGpJ07].
Even if it turned out that generically, singularities in the nonspherical gravitational collapse with a realistic equation of state are hidden inside black holes, it would still be interesting to understand what happens in the limit when the collapse becomes spherical and pressure can be neglected. Presumably, the fact that in this limit naked singularities which are visible from future null infinity exist should have an imprint on the perturbed case.
We thank Thomas Zannias for fruitful and stimulating discussions. This work was supported in part by Grants CONACyT 46521 and 61173 and CIC 4.19 to Universidad Michoacana.
An existence theorem for nonlinear perturbations of regular singular points {#App:Theorem}
===========================================================================
In this appendix, we include a short proof of the following theorem which we used in section \[Sec:Theorems\] to show the local existence of light rays emanating or terminating at the singularity. It is based on basic tools from the theory of dynamical systems.[^2] For a generalization to systems of equations and applications to relativistic stars, see Ref. [@aRbS91].
\[Thm:RegSingPert\] Let $\beta > 0$, and let $D\subset {\mathbb{R}}^2$ be an open subset of ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ which contains the origin. Furthermore, let $f: D \to {\mathbb{R}}$ be a $C^\infty$-function. Then, the differential equation $$x\frac{dy}{dx} + \beta y = x f(x,y)
\label{Eq:RegularSingularPert}$$ has a unique local $C^\infty$-solution $y: (0,\varepsilon) \to {\mathbb{R}}$ which is bounded. Moreover, this solution satisfies $$\lim\limits_{x\to 0} y(x) = 0,\qquad
\lim\limits_{x\to 0}\frac{dy}{dx}(x) = \frac{f(0,0)}{\beta+1}.$$
[[**Proof.** ]{}]{}Define $\alpha := f(0,0)$, and introduce the parameter $t = -\log(x)$ for $x > 0$. Then, the solutions of equation (\[Eq:RegularSingularPert\]) are given by the trajectories of the autonomous system $$\frac{d}{dt} u = A u + F(u),
\label{Eq:Dynamical}$$ with $$u = \left( \begin{array}{c} x \\ y \end{array} \right),\qquad
A = \left( \begin{array}{rr} -1 & 0 \\ -\alpha & \beta \end{array} \right),\qquad
F(u) = \left( \begin{array}{c} 0 \\ x\left[ f(0,0) - f(x,y) \right] \end{array} \right).$$ The dynamical system described by equation (\[Eq:Dynamical\]) has a stationary point at $u=0$, and the linearized system at this point is given by the matrix $A$. The eigenvalues of $A$ are $-1$ and $\beta > 0$, with corresponding one-dimensional stable and unstable manifolds describing the sets of points in phase space converging to $u=0$ for $t\to\infty$ and $t\to -\infty$, respectively, see for example Ref. [@Hartman-Book]. Therefore, the solutions of equation (\[Eq:RegularSingularPert\]) which are bounded for small $x = \exp(-t)$ correspond to the stable manifold. Its tangent vector at $u=0$ is given by the eigenspace of $A$ corresponding to the eigenvalue $-1$. Since this eigenspace is generated by the vector $(\beta+1,\alpha)$, the slope of the solution at $u=0$ is $\alpha/(\beta+1)$. [$\fbox{\hspace{0.3mm}}$ ]{}
Proof of Lemma \[Lemma:uniqueness\] {#App:Lemma}
===================================
Here we prove Lemma \[Lemma:uniqueness\] which is a statement about local, $C^1$-solutions $\varphi$ of equation (\[Eq:dphi/du2/3\]) satisfying $\lim\limits_{u\to 0}\varphi(u) = 0$. For this, it is convenient to rewrite equation (\[Eq:dphi/du2/3\]) in the form $$\frac{dy}{du} = A(y,u)\left( \frac{u}{y} \right)^2
\left[ 1 - \epsilon B(y,u)\sqrt{u}\left( \frac{u}{y} \right) \right]
- \frac{3\epsilon}{4} B(y,u)\sqrt{u},
\label{Eq:dphi/du2/3Bis}$$ where the functions $A,B: [0,1)\times [0,1]\to{\mathbb{R}}$ are defined as $$\begin{aligned}
A(y,u) &:=& \left. \frac{3}{4}R_1^2 \Lambda(y,R) \sqrt{1-q(R)^2y^2}
\right|_{R = R_1 u^{3/2}}, \\
B(y,u) &:=& \left. R_1 Q(R)\sqrt{1 - q(R)^2 y^2} \right|_{R = R_1 u^{3/2}}.\end{aligned}$$ According to Lemma \[Lem:Elementary\], these functions are continuous, and they satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
A_0 &:=& A(0,0) = \frac{3}{4} R_1^2\Lambda(0,0) = \lambda^3 > 0,\\
B_0 &:=& B(0,0) = R_1 Q_0 > 0, \end{aligned}$$ where $\lambda$ is defined in equation (\[Eq:lambda\]) and $Q_0 := Q(0) > 0$. Therefore, given $\delta > 0$ with $\delta < \min\{ A_0,B_0 \}$, there exists $\delta_y > 0$ and $\delta_u > 0$ small enough such that $D:=[0,\delta_y]\times [0,\delta_u]\subset [0,1)\times [0,1]$ and $$\begin{aligned}
0 < A_0 - \delta \leq &A(y,u)& \leq A_0 + \delta,\\
0 < B_0 - \delta \leq &B(y,u)& \leq B_0 + \delta\end{aligned}$$ for all $(y,u)\in D$. Let $\varphi: (0,\delta_u) \to (0,\delta_y)$ be a local solution of equation (\[Eq:dphi/du2/3Bis\]) such that $\lim\limits_{u\to 0}\varphi(u) = 0$, and set $$m := \inf\limits_{0 < u < \delta_u} \frac{\varphi(u)}{u} \geq 0,\qquad
M := \sup\limits_{0 < u < \delta_u} \frac{\varphi(u)}{u} \leq \infty.$$ We are now ready to prove the lemma.
1. Suppose $m > 0$. Then, we can use $u/y\leq 1/m$ in equation (\[Eq:dphi/du2/3Bis\]) and estimate $$\frac{dy}{du} \leq \frac{A_0 + \delta}{m^2}
\left[ 1 + \frac{B_0 + \delta}{m}\sqrt{\delta_u} \right]
+ \frac{3(B_0+ \delta)}{4}\sqrt{\delta_u} =: M',$$ for $0 < u < \delta_u$. Since $\lim\limits_{u\to 0}\varphi(u) = 0$ this implies that $\varphi(u)\leq M' u$ for all $0 < u < \delta_u$. Therefore, $M\leq M' < \infty$.
2. Conversely, suppose $M < \infty$, and assume $\epsilon=-1$. Using the estimate $u/y \geq 1/M$ in equation (\[Eq:dphi/du2/3Bis\]) and the positivity of $B$ on $D$, we obtain $$\frac{dy}{du} \geq \frac{A_0 - \delta}{M^2} =: m' > 0,$$ which implies $\varphi(u)\geq m' u$ for all $0 < u < \delta_u$. Therefore, $m\geq m' > 0$.
3. Finally, suppose $m > 0$ and $M < \infty$. According to the L’Hôpital’s rule (see, for instance, Ref. [@Spivak-calculus-Book]), we have $$\lim\limits_{u\to 0} \frac{\varphi(u)^3}{u^3}
= \lim\limits_{u\to 0}\left(\frac{\varphi(u)}{u}\right)^2 \frac{d\varphi}{du}
= A_0 = \lambda^3,$$ where we have used equation (\[Eq:dphi/du2/3Bis\]) and the boundedness of $u/y$ in the second step. Therefore, $\lim\limits_{u\to 0} \varphi(u)/u = \lambda$.
[$\fbox{\hspace{0.3mm}}$ ]{}
The surface of the cloud in Kruskal coordinates {#App:Kruskal}
===============================================
The purpose of this appendix is to construct Penrose-Kruskal coordinates along the surface of the cloud, $\Theta$. For this, we start with the expressions for the Kruskal null coordinates which are related to the standard Schwarzschild coordinates $(t,r)$ by [@Wald-Book]: $$\begin{aligned}
U &=& \pm\sqrt{\left| \frac{r}{2m} - 1\right|}\exp \left( \frac{r-t}{4m} \right),\\
V &=& \sqrt{\left| \frac{r}{2m} - 1 \right|}\exp \left( \frac{r+t}{4m} \right),\end{aligned}$$ where the choice of sign ($+/-$) corresponds to the region inside or outside the event horizon, respectively. These coordinates satisfy the relation $$UV = \left(1 - \frac{r}{2m} \right) \exp \left(\frac{r}{2m} \right),\qquad
r > 0.
\label{Eq:UV}$$ The surface $\Theta$ is generated by the trajectories of freely falling particles with zero angular momentum in the Schwarzschild spacetime, for which the equations of motion are given by equation (\[Eq:1DMechanical\]) with $R=R_1$. The coordinate $t$ along the geodesic is determined by the conservation of energy equation $$\frac{dt}{d\tau} = \frac{\sqrt{1 + 2E_1}}{1 - \frac{2m_1}{r}},$$ where $E_1 := 2E(R_1)$ and $m_1 := m(R_1)$. Using this, equation (\[Eq:1DMechanical\]) and the definition of $U$ and $V$, we find the following equations, $$\begin{aligned}
4m_1 \frac{d}{dr}\log(U) &=& \frac{r}{r-2m_1} \left( 1 + \sqrt{ \frac{1+2E_1} {\frac{2m_1}{r} +2E_1} }\right),\label{Eq:dU/dr}\\
4m_1 \frac{d}{dr}\log(V) &=& \frac{r}{r-2m_1} \left( 1 - \sqrt{ \frac{1+2E_1} {\frac{2m_1}{r} +2E_1} }\right)\label{Eq:dV/dr},\end{aligned}$$ which are valid both outside and inside the event horizon. Integrating equation (\[Eq:dU/dr\]), we obtain $$U(y) = \frac{1}{a_1} \left( \sqrt{a_1^2-b_1^2y^2} - y\sqrt{1-b_1^2} \right)
\exp \left\{ \frac{y^2}{2a_1^2} - \frac{\sqrt{1-b_1^2}}{2b_1^2}
\left[ \frac{1+2b_1^2}{b_1} \arctan \left( \frac{\sqrt{a_1^2-b_1^2y^2}}{b_1y} \right)
+ \frac{y}{a_1^2}\sqrt{a_1^2-b_1^2y^2} \right] \right\},$$ where $a_1^2 := 2m_1/R$, $b_1^2:=-2E_1$ and $y^2 = r/R_1$. From the relation (\[Eq:UV\]) it follows immediately that $$V(y) = \frac{1}{a_1} \left( \sqrt{a_1^2-b_1^2y^2} + y\sqrt{1-b_1^2} \right)
\exp \left\{ \frac{y^2}{2a_1^2} + \frac{\sqrt{1-b_1^2}}{2b_1^2}
\left[ \frac{1+2b_1^2}{b_1} \arctan \left( \frac{\sqrt{a_1^2-b_1^2y^2}}{b_1y} \right)
+ \frac{y}{a_1^2}\sqrt{a_1^2-b_1^2y^2} \right] \right\}.$$
A translation in $t$ induces the transformations $U\mapsto \kappa U$ and $V\mapsto V/\kappa$, with $\kappa > 0$. We choose $\kappa$ such that $U(0) = V(0) = 1$. The Penrose-Kruskal coordinates $U_\Theta$ and $V_\Theta$ in section \[Sec:Diagrams\] are obtained from the resulting rescaled quantities after compactification, $U_\Theta(y) := \arctan( U(y) )$, $V_\Theta(y) := \arctan( V(y) )$.
Using equations (\[Eq:dU/dr\]) and (\[Eq:dV/dr\]) and the fact that $\dot{r} < 0$ along the surface, it is not difficult to check that $\dot{U}$ and $\dot{V}$ are positive everywhere along $\Theta$. Therefore, the conformal factor in section \[Sec:Diagrams\], $\Omega = 1/\sqrt{\dot{U}_\Theta\dot{V}_\Theta}$, is well defined.
[^1]: Other positive values for $\delta$ could also be considered. Our choice is the one that maximizes the constant in the bound (\[Eq:c0Bound\]).
[^2]: We thank Thomas Zannias for pointing out to us the elegant proof of this theorem.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Electron scattering Coulomb form factors for the single-particle quadrupole transitions in $p$-shell $^{10}$B nucleus have been studied. Core polarization effects are included through a microscopic theory that includes excitations from the core orbits up to higher orbits with 2$\hbar$$\omega$ excitations. The modified surface delta interaction (MSDI) is employed as a residual interaction. The effect of core polarization is found essential in both the transition strengths and momentum transfer dependence of form factors, and gives a remarkably good agreement with the measured data with no adjustable parameters.'
author:
- 'Fouad A. Majeed'
title: 'The effect of core polarization on longitudinal form factors in $^{10}$B'
---
Introduction
============
Comparisons between calculated and measured longitudinal electron scattering form factors have long been used as stringent tests of models of nuclear structure [@FA06; @FA07]. Shell model within a restricted model space succeeded in describing static properties of nuclei, when effective charges are used. The Coulomb form factors have been discussed for the stable sd-shell nuclei using sd-shell wave functions with phenomenological effective charges [@RA83]. For p-shell nuclei, Cohen–Kurath [@CK65] model explains well the low-energy properties of p-shell nuclei. However, at higher-momentum transfer, it fails to describe the form factors. Radhi [*et al.*]{} [@RA01; @RA02; @RA03; @R03; @RJ03] have successfully proved that the inclusion of core polarization effects in the $p$-shell and $sd$-shell are very essential to improve the calculations of the form factors. Restricted 1$p$-shell models were found to provide good predictions for the $^{10}$B natural parity level spectrum and transverse form factors [@CD95]. However, they were less successful for $C2$ form factors and give just 45% of the total observed $C2$ transition strength. Expanding the shell-model space to include 2$\hbar$$\omega$ configurations in describing the form factors of $^{10}$B, Cichocki [*et al.*]{} [@CD95] have found that only a 10% improvement was realized. The purpose of the present work is to study the $C2$ form factors for $^{10}$B by including higher-energy configurations as a first-order core polarization through a microscopic theory which combines shell model wave functions and highly excited states. Single-particle wave functions are used as a zero-th contribution and the effect of core polarization is included as a first-order perturbation theory with the modified surface delta interaction (MSDI) [@PM77] as a residual interaction and a 2$\hbar$$\omega$ for the energy denominator. The single-particle wave functions are those of the harmonic-oscillator (HO) potential with size parameter *b* chosen to reproduce the measured root mean square (rms) charge radii of these nuclei.
Theory
======
The core polarization effect on the form factors is based on a microscopic theory, which combines shell model wave functions and configurations with higher energy as first order perturbations; these are called core polarization effects. The reduced matrix elements of the electron scattering operator $T$${_\Lambda}$ is expressed as the sum of the product of the elements of the one-body density matrix (OBDM) $\chi^{\Lambda}_{\Gamma_{f}\Gamma_{i}}$($\alpha$, $\beta$) times the single-particle matrix elements, and is given by $$\langle{\Gamma}_{f}|||T_{\Lambda}|||{\Gamma}_{i}\rangle=\sum_{\alpha,\beta} \chi^{\Lambda}_{\Gamma_{f}\Gamma_{i}}(\alpha,
\beta)(\alpha|||T_{\Lambda}|||\beta),$$ where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ label single-particle states (isospin is included) for the model space. For p-shell nuclei, the orbits $1p_{3/2}$ and $1p_{1/2}$ define the model space. The states $\mid$${\Gamma}_{i}$$\rangle$ and ${\Gamma}_{f}$ are described by the model space wave functions. Greek symbols are used to denote quantum numbers in coordinate space and isospace, i.e. ${\Gamma}$$_{i}$$\equiv$$J_{i}$$T_{i}$, ${\Gamma}$$_{f}$$\equiv$$J_{f}$$T_{f}$ and $\Lambda$=$JT$. According to the first-order perturbation theory, the single-particle matrix element is given by [@PM77] $$\begin{aligned}
% \nonumber to remove numbering (before each equation)
(\alpha|||T_{\Lambda}|||\beta) &=&\langle\alpha|||T_{\Lambda}|||\beta\rangle
+\langle\alpha|||T_{\Lambda}\frac{Q}{E_{i}-H_{0}}V_{res}|||\beta\rangle\nonumber\\
&+&\langle\alpha|||V_{res}\frac{Q}{E_{f}-H_{0}}T_{\Lambda}|||\beta\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ The first term is the zeroth-order contribution. The second and third terms are the core polarization contributions. The operator Q is the projection operator onto the space outside the model space. For the residual interaction, $V_{res}$, we adopt the MSDI [@PM77]. $E_{i}$ and $E_{f}$ are the energies of the initial and final states, respectively. The core polarization terms are written as [@PM77] $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2},\Gamma}\frac{(-1)^{\beta+\alpha_{2}+\Gamma}}{e_{\beta}-e_{\alpha}-e_{\alpha_{1}}+e_{\alpha_{2}}} (2\Gamma+1) \left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
\alpha & \beta & \Lambda\\
\alpha_{2}& \alpha_{1}& \Gamma\end{array}\right\}\nonumber\\
\times\sqrt{(1+\delta_{\alpha_{1}\alpha})(1+\delta_{\alpha_{2}\beta})}\langle\alpha\alpha_{1}|V_{res}|\beta\alpha_{2}\rangle\langle\alpha_{2}|||T_{\Lambda}|||\alpha_{1}\rangle\nonumber\\
+\texttt{terms with $\alpha_{1}$ and $\alpha_{2}$ exchanged with}\nonumber\\\texttt{ an overall minus sign},\end{aligned}$$ where the index $\alpha_{1}$ and $\alpha_{2}$ runs over particles states and $e$ is the single-particle energy. The core polarization parts are calculated by keeping the intermediate states up to the 2$p$1$f$-shells. The single-particle matrix element reduced in both spin and isospin is written in terms of the single-particle matrix element reduced in spin only [@PM77]. $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\alpha_{2}|||T_{\Lambda}|||\alpha_{1}\rangle=\sqrt{\frac{2T+1}{2}}\sum_{t_{z}}I_{T}(t_{z})\langle\alpha_{2}||T_{\Lambda}||\alpha_{1}\rangle\end{aligned}$$ with $$I_{T}(t_{z})=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
1, & \quad\texttt{for}~~T=0, \\
(-1)^{1/2-t_{z}}, & \quad\texttt{for}~~T=1, \\
\end{array}\right \}$$ where $t$$_{z}$=1/2 for protons and -1/2 for neutrons. The reduced single-particle matrix element of the Coulomb operator is given by [@TJ66] $$\begin{aligned}
\
\langle\alpha_{2}||T_{J}||\alpha_{1}\rangle=\int^{\infty}_{0}\!dr\,r^{2}\,j_{J}(qr)
\langle\alpha_{2}||Y_{J}||\alpha_{1}\rangle\,R_{n_{1}\ell_{1}}\,R_{n_{2}\ell_{2}}\end{aligned}$$ where $j_{J}(qr)$ is the spherical Bessel function and $R_{n\ell}(r)$ is the single-particle wave function. Electron scattering form factor involving angular momentum $J$ and momentum transfer $q$, between the initial and final nuclear shell model states of spin $J_{i,f}$ and isospin $T_{i,f}$ is [@TW84] $$\begin{aligned}
\
|F_{J}(q)|^{2}=\frac{4\pi}{Z^{2}(2J_{i}+1)}\left|\sum_{T=0,1}\left(%
\begin{array}{ccc}
T_{f} & T & T_{i} \\
-T_{z} & 0 & T_{z} \\
\end{array}%
\right)\right|^{2}\nonumber\\
\times\left|\langle\alpha_{2}|||T_{\Lambda}|||\alpha_{1}\rangle\right|^{2} |F_{c.m}(q)|^{2} \ |F_{f.s}(q)|^{2}\end{aligned}$$ where $T_{z}$ is the projection along the z-axis of the initial and final isospin states and is given by $T_{z}=(Z-N)/2$. The nucleon finite-size (f.s) form factor is $F_{f.s}(q) =\texttt{exp}(-0.43q^{2}/4)$ and $F_{c.m}(q) = \texttt{exp}(q^{2}b^{2}/4A)$ is the correction for the lack of translational invariance in the shell model. $A$ is the mass number, and $b$ is the harmonic oscillator size parameter. The single-particle energies are calculated according to [@PM77] $$\begin{aligned}
% \nonumber to remove numbering (before each equation)
e_{nlj} &=& (2n+l-1/2)\hbar\omega\nonumber \\
&+&\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
-\frac{1}{2}(l+1)\langle~f(r)\rangle_{nl}, & \quad\texttt{for}~j=l-1/2, \\
\frac{1}{2}l\langle~f(r)\rangle_{nl}, & \quad\texttt{for}~j=l+1/2, \\
\end{array}\right \}\end{aligned}$$ with $\langle~f(r)\rangle_{nl}\approx-20A^{-2/3}$ and $\hbar\omega=45A^{-1/3}-25A^{-2/3}$. The electric transition strength is given by [@PM77] $$\
B(CJ,k)=\frac{Z^{2}}{4\pi}\left[\frac{(2J+1)!!}{k^{J}}\right]^{2}\,F^{2}_{J}(k)$$ where $k=E_{x}/\hbar\,c.$
Results and Discussion
======================
The core polarization effects are calculated with the MSDI as a residual interaction. The parameters of the MSDI are denoted by $A_{T}$ , $B$ and C [@PM77], where $T$ indicates the isospin (0,1). These parameters are taken to be $A_{0}=A_{1}=B=25/A$ and $C=0$, where $A$ is the mass number. In all of the following diagrams (see Fig. 1), the dashed lines give the results obtained using the 1$p$-shell wave functions (1p) of Cohen-Kurath interaction \[CK-TBME\] [@CK65]. The results of the core polarization (CP) effects are shown by the dashed-dotted lines. The results including core polarization (1p+CP) are shown by the solid lines. The $B(C2\uparrow,q)$ values as a function of momentum transfer $q$ achieved by removing from the form factors most of the dependence on the momentum transfer, according to the transformation given in Ref. [@RA83]. The $B(C2\uparrow)$ values are given at the photon point defined at $q = k = E_{x}/\hbar\,c$, and are displayed in Table \[tab1\]. The size parameter $b$ is taken to be 1.71 fm [@EV87] to get the single-particle wave functions of the harmonic-oscillator potential.
The calculations for the $C0$ and $C2$ isoscalar transition from the ground state ($J^{\pi}_{i} = 3^{+}, T = 0)$ to the ground state ($J^{\pi}_{f} =
3^{+}, T = 0)$ at $E_{x} = 0.0$ MeV are shown in Fig. 1. The multipole decomposition is displayed as indicated by $C0$ and $C2$. The total form factor is shown by the solid curve, where the data are well described in all the momentum transfer regions up to $q\leq\,2.58 fm^{-1}$. The core-polarization effects enhance the $C2$ form factor appreciably by a factor around 2 over the 1$p$-shell calculation. This enhancement brings the total form factor (solid curve) very close to the experimental data. Similar results are obtained in Ref. [@CD95].
Fig.2 displays the calculation of the $C2$ form factor to the ($J^{\pi}_{f} = 1^{+}, T = 0)$ at $E_{x} = 0.718$ MeV. The 1$p$-shell model calculation underestimate the experiment and the inclusion of the core polarization enhances the calculations and brings the form factor to the experimental values in all momentum transfer regions.The result of the 1p-shell model calculations predicts the $B(C2\uparrow)$ value to be 0.889 $e^{2}fm^{4}$ in comparison with the measured value $1.7\pm0.3\,e^{2}fm^{4}$ [@CD95]. Inclusion of CP effect predicts the value to be $1.77 e^{2}fm^{4}$, which is very close to the measured value and the previous theoretical work of Refs.[@RA01; @CD95] as shown in Table \[tab1\].
The $C2$ form factor for the ($J^{\pi}_{f}T_{f}=2^{+} 0)$ at $E_{x}$=3.587 MeV is shown in Fig.3, the 1$p$-shell model calculations describes the experimental data very well up to momentum transfer $q\leq\,2.0 fm^{-1}$ and start to deviate from the experiment. The inclusion of the core-polarization effect overestimate the measured form factors up to $q\sim2.0 fm^{-1}$ and comes to the measured form factors at $q\sim(2-3) fm^{-1}$. The calculated $B(C2\uparrow)$ value is found to be equal to 0.568 $e^{2}fm^{4}$ (without CP) and 1.55 $e^{2}fm^{4}$ (with CP) in comparison with the measured value $0.6\pm0.1~e^{2}fm^{4}$ [@CD95] as displayed in Table \[tab1\].
Fig.4shows the comparison of the calculated longitudinal $C2$ form factors from the ground state ($J^{\pi}_{i} = 3^{+}_{1}, T = 0)$ to the excited state ($J^{\pi}_{f} = 3^{+}_{2}, T = 0)$ at $E_{x} = 4.774$ MeV the 1$p$-shell model calculations reproduce the low-$q$ values up to $q\leq 1.0 fm^{-1}$ and start to deviate severely and the inclusion of the CP effects make the calculations more worse and bring it higher than (1p) calculation. Our calculation are consistent with that of Ref. [@CD95] and in order to fit the measured form factor they use oscillator wave function with size parameter $b=1.5\:fm$ and shows the $q$ dependance of the 8.66 MeV $C0$ form factor in $^{13}$C, normalized to fit the 4.774 MeV $^{10}$B data. The comparison of the calculated $B(C2\uparrow)$ found to be 0.56 $e^{2}fm^{4}$ with (1p) and 1.66 $e^{2}fm^{4}$ with (1p+CP) in comparison with the measured value $<0.04~e^{2}fm^{4}$ [@CD95].
The longitudinal $C2$ form factor for the transition ($J^{\pi}=4^{+},T=0)$ state at $E_{x}=6.025\,MeV$, the inclusion of the core polarization effect describes the measured form factor in all momentum transfer regions. The calculation of $B(C2\uparrow)$ with (1p) is found to be 5.79 $e^{2}fm^{4}$, while with (1p+CP) is 11.67 $e^{2}fm^{4}$ in comparison with the measured value $17.4\pm0.7~e^{2}fm^{4}$ [@CD95] as shown in Fig.5 and Table \[tab1\]. It is very clear that the 1p-shell model fails to describe the data in both the transition strength $(B(C2\uparrow) = 5.79 e^{2}
fm^{4})$ and the form factors. The inclusion of CP effects gives a remarkably good agreement with the experimental data in all regions of the momentum transfers $q$ and enhances by a factor of 3 over the 1p-shell model results.
[cccccccc]{} $J^{\pi}_{f}$ & $T_{f}$ & $E_{x}$(MeV)& $b$ (fm) & 1$p$ & $1p$+CP & Other & Exp.\
& & & [@EV87]& & &[@CD95] & [@CD95]\
\
$3^{+}_{1}$ & 0 & 0.000 & 1.71 & & & &\
$1^{+}$ & 0 & 0.718 & 1.71 & 0.889 & 1.77 & 1.62 & $1.7\pm0.3$\
$2^{+}$ & 0 & 3.587 & 1.71 & 0.568 & 1.55 & 1.36 & $0.6\pm0.1$\
$3^{+}_{2}$ & 0 & 4.774 & 1.71 & 0.56 & 1.66 & 1.63 & $<0.04$\
$4^{+}$ & 0 & 6.025 & 1.71 & 5.79 & 11.67& 11.74& $17.4\pm0.7$\
![The longitudinal $C0+C2$ form factor for the isoscalar $3^{+}_{g.s.}$ (0.0 MeV) transition in $^{10}$B compared with the experimental data taken from Ref. [@CD95].](fig1.eps){width="40.00000%"}
![The longitudinal $C2$ form factor for the isoscalar $1^{+}$ (0.718 MeV) transition in $^{10}$B compared with the experimental data taken from Ref. [@CD95].](fig2.eps){width="40.00000%"}
![The longitudinal $C2$ form factor for the isoscalar $2^{+}$ (3.587 MeV) transition in $^{10}$B compared with the experimental data taken from Ref. [@CD95].](fig3.eps){width="40.00000%"}
![The longitudinal $C2$ form factor for the isoscalar $3^{+}_{2}$ (4.774 MeV) transition in $^{10}$B compared with the experimental data taken from Ref. [@CD95].](fig4.eps){width="40.00000%"}
![The longitudinal $C2$ form factor for the isoscalar $4^{+}$ (3.587 MeV) transition in $^{10}$B compared with the experimental data taken from Ref. [@CD95].](fig5.eps){width="40.00000%"}
Conclusions
===========
The 1p-shell models, which can describe static properties and energy levels, are less successful for describing dynamic properties such as $C2$ transition rates and electron scattering form factors. The average underestimation of the $B(C2\uparrow)$ value from the experiment is about a factor of 2. The inclusion of higher-excited configurations by means of core polarization enhances the form factors and brings the theoretical results closer to the experimental data. The average $B(C2\uparrow)$ value becomes about 90% of the average experimental value when core polarization effects are included, for the transitions considered in this work. All calculations presented in this work have been performed by employing MSDI as residual interaction. The use of modern effective interaction may give a better description of the form factors.
[99]{} F. A. Majeed, Phys. Scr. [**76**]{}, 332 (2007). F. A. Majeed, R. A. Radhi, Chin. Phys. Lett. Vol. [**23**]{}, No.10, 2699 (2006). B.A. Brown, R. Radhi, B.H. Wildenthal, Phys. Rep. [**101**]{}, 313 (1983). S. Cohen, D. Kurath, Nucl. Phys. [**73**]{}, 1 (1965). R.A. Radhi, A.A. Abdullah, Z.A. Dakhil , N.M. Adeeb, Nucl. Phys. A[** 696**]{}, 442 (2001). R. A. Radhi, Nucl. Phys. A[** 707**]{}, 56 (2002). R. A. Radhi, Eur. Phys. J. A [**16**]{}, 381 (2003). R. A. Radhi, Nucl. Phys. A[** 716**]{}, 100 (2002). R. A. Radhi, Eur. Phys. J. A [**16**]{}, 381 (2003). A. Cichocki, J. Dubach, R.S. Hicks, G.A. Peterson, C.W. de Jager, H. de Vries, N. Kalantar- Nayestanaki, T. Sato, Phys. Rev. C [**51**]{}, 2406 (1995). P. J. Brussaard, P. W. M. Glaudemans, [*Shell-Model Applications in Nuclear Spectrscopy*]{} (Amsterdam: North Holland),(1977). T. de Forest Jr., J.D. Walecka, Adv. Phys. [**15**]{}, 1 (1966). T.W. Donnelly, I. Sick, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**56**]{}, 461 (1984). E. de Vries [*et al.*]{}, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables,[**500**]{}, 36 (1987).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This paper considers the problem of Nash equilibrium (NE) seeking in aggregative games, where the payoff function of each player depends on an aggregate of all players’ actions. We present a distributed continuous time algorithm such that the actions of the players converge to NE by communicating to each other through a connected network. A major concern in communicative schemes among strategic agents is that their private information may be revealed to other agents or to a curious third party who can eavesdrop the communications. We address this concern for the presented algorithm and show that private information of the players cannot be reconstructed even if all the communicated variables are compromised. As agents may deviate from their optimal strategies dictated by the NE seeking protocol, we investigate robustness of the proposed algorithm against time-varying disturbances. In particular, we provide rigorous robustness guarantees by proving input to state stability (ISS) properties of the NE seeking dynamics. Finally, we demonstrate practical applications of our theoretical findings on two case studies; namely, on an energy consumption game and a charging coordination problem of electric vehicles.'
author:
- 'Mehran Shakarami, Claudio De Persis, and Nima Monshizadeh [^1]'
bibliography:
- 'MyReferences.bib'
title: '[Privacy and Robustness Guarantees in Distributed Dynamics for Aggregative Games]{}'
---
Aggregative games, Nash equilibrium seeking, privacy.
Introduction
============
Game theory is the standard tool for studying the interaction behavior of self-interested agents/players and has attracted considerable attention due to its broad applications and technical challenges. An active research topic in this area [concerns]{} aggregative games that model a set of noncooperative agents aiming at minimizing their cost functions, while the action of each individual player is influenced by an aggregation of the actions of all the other players [@jensen2010aggregative]. The most notable example of aggregative games is the Cournot competition in [economics]{} [@mas1995microeconomic]. [These]{} games have appeared in a broad range of applications such as networked control systems [@de2019feedback], demand-side management in smart grids [@mohsenian2010autonomous], charging control of plug-in electric vehicles [@ma2011decentralized], and flow control of communication networks [@alpcan2005distributed].
Existence of a solution for games, Nash equilibrium (NE), and its uniqueness have been extensively studied in the literature, and various NE computation algorithms have been proposed [@basar1999dynamic]. Earlier [works]{} considered the case where each agent has full access to the actions of all other agents, i.e., all-to-all interactions [@basar1999dynamic; @facchinei2007finite]. However, recent works have attempted to relax this assumption due to computational and scalability issues. In this regard, [the authors in [@salehisadaghiani2016distributed; @ye2017distributed; @gadjov2018passivity] presented distributed NE seeking algorithms where each player computes an estimation of the actions of all the other players by communicating to its neighbors. Although those algorithms are applicable to aggregative games, they are inefficient as they require that each player estimate the action of all other players. In aggregative games, on the other hand, it is sufficient that each player estimates the aggregation term. This has led to various algorithms tailored for aggregative games,]{} which can be classified as [gather and broadcast]{} [@de2018continuous; @grammatico2017dynamic; @paccagnan2018nash] and distributed algorithms [@koshal2016distributed; @parise2017distributed; @Gadjov2019single; @liang2017distributed]. [The former is based on the exchange of information with a central aggregator, whereas the latter relies on a peer-to-peer communication.]{} This paper falls into the second category and presents a fully distributed NE seeking algorithm for aggregative games.
[From a different perspective, distributed NE seeking algorithms for aggregative games can be divided into discrete time [@koshal2016distributed; @lei2018linearly; @parise2017distributed; @Gadjov2019single] and continuous time [@liang2017distributed; @ye2016game]. The discrete time algorithms are based on best response dynamics [@koshal2016distributed Synchronous Alg.], gossip technique [@koshal2016distributed Asynchronous Alg.], double-layer iterations [@lei2018linearly; @parise2017distributed], and forward-backward iteration [@Gadjov2019single]. The continuous time algorithms are based on best response dynamics (gradient based algorithms). The asynchronous algorithm in [@koshal2016distributed], needs diminishing step sizes for exact convergence, which typically slows down the convergence speed, and if a fixed step size is used, the solution will only converge to a vicinity of the NE. The other algorithms, on the other hand, employ some tuning parameters shared among all players. In comparison to those works, we provide fully distributed conditions for implementing the proposed NE seeking algorithm, and more importantly, equip our algorithm with rigorous [privacy and robustness]{} guarantees as discussed below.]{}
Generally speaking, NE seeking algorithms rely on communication either with a central aggregator [@de2018continuous] or among neighboring agents [@koshal2016distributed]. In the former [approach]{}, it is often assumed that the aggregator is trustworthy, whereas, in reality, private information can still be leaked by an aggregator either willingly or unwillingly. In the latter [approach]{}, private information can be revealed to other players through direct communication, or leaked to curious adversaries as a result of eavesdropping. More generally, in order to convince strategic players to participate in any cooperative policy, privacy guarantees need to be put in place.
Motivated by the above concerns, we investigate the proposed distributed NE seeking algorithm from the viewpoint of privacy. To this end, we adopt the notion of privacy recently proposed in [@Monshizadeh2019plausible]. Roughly speaking, privacy is preserved if private variables of the dynamics cannot be reconstructed based on the available information on the structure of the algorithm, the class of payoff functions, measurements, and communicated variables. To make sure this is the case, it will be shown that there are [*replicas*]{} of private variables that are indistinguishable from the original ones in view of the available information. An alternative approach would be to use data perturbation techniques and rely on differential privacy [@dwork2011differential; @dwork2014algorithmic; @Cortes2016]. The idea behind this technique is to add noise with appropriate statistical properties to the process under investigation in order to limit the ability of a curious party in estimating the private quantities of the system. However, the added noise will steer the asymptotic behavior of the algorithm away from the NE of the game . Our approach, on the contrary, retains the NE of the game while providing privacy guarantees.
The payoff functions do not capture all practical features of a game, due to the underlying approximations in obtaining the payoff functions [or unidentified parameters. Therefore, it is crucial that an NE seeking algorithm has suitable robustness properties. More importantly, [robustness]{} is essential due to possible deviation of the players actions from a fully rational behavior, examples of which are “stubborn players” [@ye2016game; @frihauf2011nash] who do not fully obey the NE seeking dynamics, or “almost" rational players whose decisions are determined by their “bounded rationality” [@pita2010robust]. [Robustness]{} of an NE seeking algorithm with respect to slowly-varying channel gain in code division multiple access systems is studied in [@fan2006passivity]. [Interested readers are referred to [@ito2012disturbance; @cherukuri2017role; @weitenberg2018exponential] for studies on robustness of gradient systems, saddle-point dynamics, and optimal frequency regulation of power networks, respectively.]{}]{}
[To cope with the imperfections in the payoff functions, we add bounded time-varying disturbances to the dynamics of the algorithm]{}, and [it will be shown]{} that the proposed distributed NE seeking algorithm is robust against such perturbations. [We use input-to-state stability]{} (ISS) as a notion of robustness, which [examines]{} whether the state trajectories of the system are bounded by a function of the perturbation [@sontag2008input].
In summary, the main contribution of the paper is threefold. First, we provide [a fully distributed algorithm in continuous-time that steers the players to the NE.]{} [Second, we provide privacy guarantees for the proposed algorithm. Third, we show robustness of the algorithm [in the sense of ISS]{} against bounded time-varying disturbances.]{}
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section \[problem\] includes preliminaries and the problem formulation. In Section \[alg\_analysis\], a distributed NE seeking algorithm is proposed and its [privacy and robustness]{} guarantees are established. The algorithm is modified in Section \[projection\] to [deal with]{} the case when the action of each player is constrained to a compact set. [Two case studies of an energy consumption game and charging of electric vehicles are]{} provided in Section \[simulation\]. The paper closes with conclusions in Section \[conclusion\].
Notations, Preliminaries, and Problem Statement {#problem}
===============================================
Notations
---------
The set of real, positive real, and nonnegative real numbers are denoted by $ {\mathbb{R}}$, $ {\mathbb{R}}_{>0} $, and $ {\mathbb{R}}_{\geq0} $, respectively. We use $ {\mymathbb{0}}$ to denote a vector or matrix of all zeros. The symbol $ {\mathds{1}}_n $ denotes the vector of all ones in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$, and $ I_n $ denotes the identity matrix of size $n$. We omit the subscript whenever no confusion arises. The Kronecker product is denoted by $ \otimes $. For given vectors $ x_1,\cdots,x_N \in{\mathbb{R}}^n$, we use the shorthand notation ${\bm{x}}:={\mbox{col}}\big(x_1,\cdots,x_N\big)=\big[x_1^\top,\cdots,x_n^\top\big]^\top $ and $ {\bm{x}}_{-i}:={\mbox{col}}\big(x_1,\cdots,x_{i-1},x_{i+1},\cdots,x_N\big) $. We use $ \bm{A}:={\mbox{blockdiag}}\big(A_1,\cdots,A_N\big) $ to denote the block diagonal matrix constructed from the matrices $ A_1,\cdots,A_N $. A continuous function $ \alpha:{\mathbb{R}}_{\geq 0}\to {\mathbb{R}}_{\geq 0}$ is class $ \mathcal{K} $ if it is strictly increasing and $ \alpha(0)=0 $. In addition, it is class $ \mathcal{K}_\infty $ if $ \alpha(s)\to \infty $ as $ s\to \infty $. A continuous function $ \beta:{\mathbb{R}}_{\geq 0}\times {\mathbb{R}}_{\geq 0}\to {\mathbb{R}}_{\geq 0} $ belongs to class $ \mathcal{KL} $ if for any fixed $ t $, the mapping $ s\mapsto\beta(s,t) $ belongs to class $ \mathcal{K} $, and for any fixed $ s $, the mapping $ t\mapsto\beta(s,t) $ is decreasing and $ \beta(s,t)\to 0 $ as $ t\to\infty $. A function $ F:{\mathbb{R}}^n\to {\mathbb{R}}^n $ is (strictly) monotone if $ (x-y)^\top(F(x)-F(y))\geq 0\,(>0) $ for all $ x\neq y\in {\mathbb{R}}^n $, and it is $ \mu $-strongly monotone if $ (x-y)^\top(F(x)-F(y))\geq \mu \|x-y\|^2 $ for all $ x, y\in {\mathbb{R}}^n $ and some $ \mu\in {\mathbb{R}}_{>0} $.
Algebraic Graph Theory
----------------------
Let $ G_c=(\cali,\cale) $ be an undirected graph that models the network of $ N $ agents with $ \cali=\{1,\cdots,N\} $ being the node set associated to the agents, and $ \cale$ denoting the edge set. Each element of $ \cale $ is an unordered pair $ \{i,j\} $ with $ i,j\in\cali $. The graph is connected if there is a path between every pair of nodes. The set of neighbors of agent $ i $ is $ \caln_i=\{j\in\cali\mid \{i,j\}\in\cale\} $. The Laplacian matrix of $ G_c $ is denoted by $ L $ with $ L_{ii} $ equal to the cardinality of $ \caln_i $, $ L_{ij}=-1 $ if $ j\in\caln_i $, and $ L_{ij}=0 $ otherwise. The matrix $ L $ of an undirected graph is positive semidefinite and $ {\mathds{1}}_{N}\in\ker(L) $. If the graph is connected, $ L $ has exactly one zero eigenvalue, and $ \operatorname{im}({\mathds{1}}_{N})=\ker(L) $. [The Moore–Penrose inverse of $ L $ is denoted by $ L^{+ } $.]{}
Projection and Variational Inequality
-------------------------------------
Given a closed convex set $ \cals \subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^n$, the projection of a point $ v\in{\mathbb{R}}^n $ to $ \cals $ is denoted by $ \operatorname{proj}_\cals (v):=\operatorname*{arg\,min}_{y\in\cals}\|y-v\| $. Given a point $ x\in\cals $, the normal cone of $ \cals $ at $ x $ is the set $ \caln_{\cals}(x):=\big\{y\in{\mathbb{R}}^n \mid y^\top(z-x)\leq 0,\forall z\in\cals\big\} $. The tangent cone of $ \cals $ at $ x\in\cals $ is denoted by $ \calt_\cals(x):=\operatorname{cl}\left(\cup_{y\in\cals}\cup_{h>0} h(y-x)\right) $ where $ \operatorname{cl}(\cdot) $ denotes the closure of a set. For $ v\in{\mathbb{R}}^n $ and $ x\in\cals $, the projection of $ v $ at $ x $ with respect to $ \cals $ is given by $ \Pi_{\cals}(x,v):=\lim\limits_{h\to 0^{+}}\frac{1}{h}\left(\operatorname{proj}_\cals(x+hv)-x\right) $, and it is equivalent to the projection of $ v $ to $ \calt_\cals(x) $, i.e., $ \Pi_{\cals}(x,v)=\operatorname{proj}_{\calt_\cals(x)}(v) $. By using Moreau’s decomposition theorem, a vector $ v\in {\mathbb{R}}^n $ can be decomposed as $ v=\operatorname{proj}_{\caln_\cals(x)}(v)+\operatorname{proj}_{\calt_\cals(x)}(v) $ for any point $ x\in \cals $. Given a mapping $ F:\cals\to {\mathbb{R}}^n $, the variational inequality problem VI$ (\cals,F)$ is to find the point $ \bar x\in \cals $ such that $ (x-\bar x)^\top F(\bar x)\geq 0 $ for all $ x\in \cals $.
Aggregative Games
-----------------
We consider $ N $ players that can choose their action variables $ x_i $ in the constraint sets $ \calx_i\subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^n $. In an aggregative game, each player aims at minimizing a payoff function $ J_i:{\mathbb{R}}^n\times {\mathbb{R}}^n\to {\mathbb{R}}$ by choosing the action variable $ x_i $. The value of the payoff function depends on $x_i$ and an aggregation of all the other action variables. In particular, each player $i\in \cali$ attempts to solve the following minimization problem $$\label{cost}
\begin{split}
&\min_{x_i\in\calx_i}J_i(x_i,{s({\bm{x}})})\\
&{s({\bm{x}})}:=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{j\in\cali}h_jx_j=\frac{1}{N}({\mathds{1}}_N^\top \otimes I_n){\bm{H}}{\bm{x}},
\end{split}$$ where $ \cali:=\{1,\cdots,N\} $ is the set of players, $ h_j$ is a positive scalar indicating the weight of the action $ x_j$ in the aggregation [$ {s({\bm{x}})} $]{}, ${\bm{H}}:={\mbox{blockdiag}}(h_1I_n,\cdots,h_NI_n) $, and $ {\bm{x}}:={\mbox{col}}(x_1,\cdots,x_N) $. Note that the solution of the above problem depends on the action of other players. We use the compact notation $ {\cal G}_{\text{agg}}=\big({\cal I} ,(J_i)_{i\in \cal I}, (\calx _i)_{i\in \cal I}\big) $ to denote the aggregative game in . By definition, a point ${\bm{x}}^*:= {\mbox{col}}(x_1^*,\cdots,x_N^*) $ is a Nash equilibrium (NE) of the game if [$$x_i^*\in \operatorname*{arg\,min}_{y\in\calx_i}J_i(y,\frac{h_i}{N}y+\frac{1}{N}\sum_{j\neq i}h_jx_j^*),\quad \forall \, i\in\cali.$$]{} This means that at the NE, there is no player that can decrease its payoff by unilaterally changing its action. [We note that $ x_i^* $ depends on the optimal action of all the other players, and therefore several coupled optimization problems need to be solved to obtain $ {\bm{x}}^* $. Consequently, standard distributed optimization techniques cannot be used for solving this problem.]{} In the next section, we derive local sufficient conditions for existence and uniqueness of NE and present a distributed algorithm that asymptotically converges to this point.
Distributed NE Seeking Dynamics {#alg_analysis}
===============================
First, we discuss some auxiliary results that are instrumental to prove convergence properties of the NE seeking algorithm proposed later in the section.
\[asmp0\] For all $ i\in\cali $, the action set is $ \calx_i={\mathbb{R}}^n $, and the cost function $ J_i $ is $ \mathcal{C}^2 $ in all its arguments.
[This assumption is similar to [[@gadjov2018passivity Asm. 2(i)]]{}, and we will relax]{} it in [Section \[projection\]]{} to any compact and convex subset $\calx_i\subset {\mathbb{R}}^n $. However, $ \calx_i={\mathbb{R}}^n $ is considered in this section for clarity of the presentation.
Let $ \sigma_i\in{\mathbb{R}}^n $ be a local variable associated to each player $i\in \cali$, with the payoff function written as $ J_i(x_i,\sigma_i)$, and define $$\label{fi}
f_i(x_i,\sigma_i):={ \frac{\partial }{\partial x_i}}J_i(x_i,\sigma_i)+\frac{h_i}{N} { \frac{\partial }{\partial \sigma_i}}J_i(x_i,\sigma_i).$$ It is easy to see that $${ \frac{\partial }{\partial x_i}}J_i(x_i,{s({\bm{x}})})=f_i(x_i,{s({\bm{x}})}).$$ To proceed further, we need the following assumption:
\[asmp1\] For all $ i\in\cali $, $ x_i\in\calx_i $, and $ \sigma_i\in{\mathbb{R}}^n $, the mapping $ x_i\mapsto f_i(x_i,\sigma_i)$ is $ \mu_i $-strongly monotone, and the mapping $ \sigma_i\mapsto f_i(x_i,\sigma_i)$ is $ \ell_i $-Lipschitz continuous with [$ \mu_i>\ell_i h_i$]{}.
[The assumption above is a decentralized version of [@de2018continuous Asm. 1] that can be checked locally.]{} The conditions of Assumption \[asmp1\] can be replaced by less conservative, yet more implicit, conditions; see Remark \[r:relax\].
In game theory, it is well-known that the pesudo-gradient mapping defined as $ {\mbox{col}}\big((f_i(x_i,{s({\bm{x}})}))_{i\in\cali}\big) $ plays a fundamental role in designing NE seeking algorithms. Motivated by this and the fact that the players may not have access to $ {s({\bm{x}})} $, we introduce the following mapping: $$\label{F}
F({\bm{x}}, {\bm{\sigma}}):=\begin{bmatrix}
{\bm{K}}\,{\mbox{col}}\big((f_i(x_i,\sigma_i))_{i\in\cali}\big)\\
{\bm{\sigma}}-{\bm{H}}{\bm{x}}\end{bmatrix}$$ where $ {\bm{K}}:={\mbox{blockdiag}}(k_1I_n,\cdots,k_NI_n) $ with design parameters $ k_i>0 $, and $ {\bm{\sigma}}:={\mbox{col}}({\sigma}_1,\cdots,{\sigma}_N) $. The following lemma captures some properties of .
\[pro1\] Let Assumption \[asmp1\] hold and choose $ k_{i} $ such that $$\label{inter}
k_{i}\in\big(\frac{(\sqrt{\mu_i}-\sqrt{\mu_i-\ell_ih_i})^{2}}{\ell_i^2},\ \frac{(\sqrt{\mu_i}+\sqrt{\mu_i-\ell_ih_i})^{2}}{\ell_i^2}\big)$$ is satisfied for each $i\in \cali$. Then, for all $ x_i\in\calx_i $ and $ \sigma_i\in{\mathbb{R}}^n $,
(i) the map $ F $ in is $ \epsilon $-strongly monotone.
(ii) the map $ {\bm{K}}{\mbox{col}}\big((f_i(x_i,{s({\bm{x}})}))_{i\in\cali}\big) $ is $ \epsilon $-strongly monotone.
See Appendix A.
Setting $ k_i=1 $, for each $i$, returns a more restrictive condition than the one in Assumption \[asmp1\], namely $ \sqrt{\mu_i}>2(\ell_i+h_i) $. Therefore, introducing the gain $k_i$ yields a milder assumption and, as we will see later, contributes to the privacy of the proposed algorithm.
We note that the results of the preceding lemma is sufficient for the existence and uniqueness of the NE. This is formally stated next.
\[lemNE\] Let Assumptions \[asmp0\] and \[asmp1\] hold. Then the aggregative game $ {\cal G}_{\text{agg}}=\big({\cal I} ,(J_i)_{i\in \cal I}, (\calx _i)_{i\in \cal I}\big) $ has a unique NE $ {\bm{x}}^* $ which satisfies $$\label{ne}
{\mbox{col}}\big((f_i(x_i^*,{s({\bm{x}}^*)}))_{i\in\cali}\big)= {\mymathbb{0}}$$ with $f_i(\cdot)$ given by .
See Appendix A.
\[r:relax\] From the presented analysis, one can see that Assumption \[asmp1\] can be relaxed to any payoff function [$ J_i(x_i,{s({\bm{x}})})$]{} that is strictly convex and radially unbounded in $ x_i $ for all $ {\bm{x}}_{-i}\in \calx_{-i} $ [[@gadjov2018passivity Asm. 2(i)]]{}, and results in strong monotonicity of the mapping $ {\mbox{col}}(k_i f_i(x_i,\sigma_i),\sigma_i-h_i x_i) $ for some $ k_i>0 $.
For privacy reasons, we assume that the players do not communicate their action variables $x_i$, neither to the other players nor to a central unit. Instead, auxiliary variables will be communicated through a connected communication graph $ G_c $. This motivates the following distributed NE seeking policy:
$$\begin{aligned}
\dot{x}_i&=-k_if_i(x_i,\sigma_i)\\
\dot{{\sigma}}_i&=-{\sigma}_i+h_ix_i-\sum_{j\in\caln_i}(\psi_i-\psi_j)\\
\dot{\psi}_i&=\sum_{j\in\caln_i}({\sigma}_i-{\sigma}_j),
\end{aligned}
$$
for each $i\in \cali$, where $ \caln_i $ denotes the set of neighbors of node $ i $. Notice that the players only use the local parameters $ k_i $ and $ h_i $, and communicate the variables $ {\sigma}_i $ and $\psi_i$. The variable $\sigma_i$ is, in fact, a local estimation of $ {s({\bm{x}})} $, [and the state components $ {\psi}_i $, $i\in \cali$, are defined to enforce consensus on $ \sigma_i$ variables]{}. Let $ {\bm{\psi}}:={\mbox{col}}(\psi_1,\cdots,\psi_N) $ and $ L $ be the Laplacian matrix of the graph $ G_c $. Then, the algorithm can be written in vector form as $$\label{dist}
\begin{split}
\dot{{\bm{x}}}&=-{\bm{K}}{\mbox{col}}\big((f_i(x_i,\sigma_i))_{i\in\cali}\big)\\
\dot{{\bm{\sigma}}}&=- {\bm{\sigma}}+{\bm{H}}{\bm{x}}-(L\otimes I_n){\bm{\psi}}\\
\dot{{\bm{\psi}}}&=(L\otimes I_n){\bm{\sigma}}.
\end{split}$$ [For clarity, we note that the standing assumption in the remainder of the section is: Assumptions \[asmp0\] and \[asmp1\] hold, and $ k_i $ is selected according to , for each $i\in \cali$. ]{}
First, we characterize the equilibria of and then proceed with the results concerning convergence, privacy, and robustness.
\[prop:eqil\] Let $ {\bm{x}}^* $ be the NE of the game $ {\cal G}_{\text{agg}} $. Then, any equilibrium point of is given by $(\bar{\bm{x}},\bar{\bm{\sigma}},\bar{\bm{\psi}})= ({\bm{x}}^*,{\mathds{1}}_N \otimes {s({\bm{x}}^*)}, \bar{\bm{\psi}}) $ where $ \bar {\bm{\psi}}\in \varPsi$ with $$\label{psi_set}
\varPsi:=\left\{\bar{\bm{\psi}}\in{\mathbb{R}}^{nN}\mid \bar{\bm{\psi}}= (L^{+}\otimes I_n){{\bm{H}}}{\bm{x}}^*+{\mathds{1}}_{N}\otimes\zeta,\, \zeta\in{\mathbb{R}}^n\right\},$$ [and $ L^{+ } $ is the Moore–Penrose inverse of $ L $.]{}
At any equilibrium point $ (\bar{\bm{x}},\bar{\bm{\sigma}},\bar{\bm{\psi}}) $, we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\mymathbb{0}}&=-{\bm{K}}{\mbox{col}}\big((f_i(\bar x_i,\bar \sigma_i))_{i\in\cali}\big)\label{eqil_x}\\
{\mymathbb{0}}&=-\bar {\bm{\sigma}}+{\bm{H}}\bar {\bm{x}}-(L\otimes I_n)\bar {\bm{\psi}}\label{eqil_sig}\\
{\mymathbb{0}}&=(L\otimes I_n)\bar {\bm{\sigma}}.\label{eqil_zet}\end{aligned}$$ As the graph is connected, from , we have $ \bar{\bm{\sigma}}={\mathds{1}}_N\otimes \gamma $ for some $ \gamma\in{\mathbb{R}}^n $. Therefore, becomes $${\mymathbb{0}}=-{\mathds{1}}_N\otimes \gamma+{\bm{H}}\bar {\bm{x}}-(L\otimes I_n)\bar {\bm{\psi}}.$$ Left-multiplying both sides of the above equality by $ ({\mathds{1}}_N^\top \otimes I_n) $ gives $ \gamma=\frac{1}{N}({\mathds{1}}_N^\top \otimes I_n){\bm{H}}\bar {\bm{x}}={s(\bar {\bm{x}})} $. This means that $ \bar{\bm{\sigma}}={\mathds{1}}_N\otimes {s(\bar {\bm{x}})} $ and in turn, $ \bar\sigma_i={s(\bar {\bm{x}})} $. Now, becomes $${\mymathbb{0}}=-{\bm{K}}{\mbox{col}}\big(f_i(\bar x_i,{s(\bar {\bm{x}})})_{i\in\cali}\big).$$ Consequently, by using Lemma \[lemNE\] and $ {\bm{K}}> 0$, $ \bar{\bm{x}}$ is the NE of the game, i.e., $ \bar{\bm{x}}={\bm{x}}^* $ and $ \bar{\bm{\sigma}}={\mathds{1}}_N\otimes {s( {\bm{x}}^*)} $. In addition, by substituting the obtained values and using , equality yields $$(L\otimes I_n)\bar{\bm{\psi}}= {{\bm{H}}} {\bm{x}}^*-{\mathds{1}}_N \otimes {s({\bm{x}}^*)}=(\Pi\otimes I_n){\bm{H}}{\bm{x}}^*.$$ Noting that $\Pi=LL^+=L^+L$, we conclude that $ \bar{\bm{\psi}}$ belongs to the set $ \varPsi $ given by .
Proposition \[prop:eqil\], shows that equilibria of are crafted as desired, namely $\bar {\bm{x}}$ and $\bar {\bm{\sigma}}$ return the NE of the game, and the aggregativve value $s({\bm{x}}^*)$, respectively. The next theorem establishes convergence of the solutions of to such an equilibrium.
\[th:conv\] Consider the NE seeking algorithm with initial condition $ ({{\bm{x}}}(0),{{\bm{\sigma}}}(0),{\bm{\psi}}(0) )\in {\mathbb{R}}^{nN}\times {\mathbb{R}}^{nN}\times {\mathbb{R}}^{nN}$. Then, the solution $ ({{\bm{x}}},{{\bm{\sigma}}},{\bm{\psi}}) $ converges to the equilibrium point $ (\bar{\bm{x}},\bar{\bm{\sigma}},\bar{\bm{\psi}})=({\bm{x}}^*,{\mathds{1}}_N \otimes {s({\bm{x}}^*)}, {\bm{\psi}}^*) $ where $ {\bm{x}}^* $ is the unique NE of the aggregative game $ \mathcal{G}_{\text{agg}}$ and [ ${\bm{\psi}}^*\in \Psi$ is given by ${\bm{\psi}}^*=(L^{+}\otimes I_n) {\bm{H}}{\bm{x}}^*+\frac{1}{N} ({\mathds{1}}_N{\mathds{1}}_N^\top \otimes I_n) {\bm{\psi}}(0)$. ]{}
Let $ \tilde{{\bm{x}}}={\bm{x}}-\bar{{\bm{x}}} $, $ \tilde{{\bm{\sigma}}}={\bm{\sigma}}-\bar{{\bm{\sigma}}} $, and $ \tilde{{\bm{\psi}}}={\bm{\psi}}-\bar{{\bm{\psi}}} $, where $(\bar {\bm{x}}, \bar{{\bm{\sigma}}}, \bar {\bm{\psi}})$ is an equilibrium of . Note that, by Proposition \[prop:eqil\], we have $\bar{\bm{x}}={\bm{x}}^*$, $ \bar{{\bm{\sigma}}}= \bar{{\bm{\sigma}}}^*$, and $\bar{{\bm{\psi}}}\in \Psi$, with $\Psi$ given by . Consider the following Lyapunov function candidate $$V(\tilde{{\bm{x}}},\tilde{{\bm{\sigma}}},\tilde{{\bm{\psi}}}):=\frac{1}{2}\|{\mbox{col}}(\tilde{{\bm{x}}},\tilde{{\bm{\sigma}}},\tilde{{\bm{\psi}}})\|^ 2.$$ As a result, one can use and to get $$\dot V=-{\mbox{col}}(\tilde{{\bm{x}}},\tilde{{\bm{\sigma}}})^\top F({\bm{x}}, {\bm{\sigma}})-\tilde{{\bm{\sigma}}}^\top(L\otimes I_n){\bm{\psi}}+\tilde{{\bm{\psi}}}^\top (L\otimes I_n) {\bm{\sigma}}.$$ By adding and subtracting $ {\mbox{col}}(\tilde{{\bm{x}}},\tilde{{\bm{\sigma}}})^\top F(\bar{\bm{x}},\bar {\bm{\sigma}})$ to the right hand side of [the above equation]{} and using Lemma \[pro1\]$ (i) $, we obtain $$\begin{gathered}
\label{vdot}
\dot V\leq -\epsilon \|{\mbox{col}}(\tilde{{\bm{x}}},\tilde{{\bm{\sigma}}})\|^2 -{\mbox{col}}(\tilde{{\bm{x}}},\tilde{{\bm{\sigma}}})^\top F(\bar{\bm{x}},\bar {\bm{\sigma}})
\\
-\tilde{{\bm{\sigma}}}^\top(L\otimes I_n){\bm{\psi}}+\tilde{{\bm{\psi}}}^\top (L\otimes I_n) {\bm{\sigma}}.
\end{gathered}$$ Noting , , and , we have $$-{\mbox{col}}(\tilde{{\bm{x}}},\tilde{{\bm{\sigma}}})^\top F(\bar{\bm{x}},\bar {\bm{\sigma}})=- \tilde{{\bm{\sigma}}}^\top (\bar {\bm{\sigma}}-{\bm{H}}\bar {\bm{x}})=\tilde{{\bm{\sigma}}}^\top(L\otimes I_n)\bar {\bm{\psi}}.$$ Consequently, reduces to $$\begin{aligned}
\dot V&\leq -\epsilon \|{\mbox{col}}(\tilde{{\bm{x}}},\tilde{{\bm{\sigma}}})\|^2-\tilde{{\bm{\sigma}}}^\top(L\otimes I_n)\tilde{{\bm{\psi}}}+\tilde{{\bm{\psi}}}^\top (L\otimes I_n) {\bm{\sigma}}\\
&=-\epsilon \|{\mbox{col}}(\tilde{{\bm{x}}},\tilde{{\bm{\sigma}}})\|^2,
\end{aligned}$$ where the last equality is obtained using . To conclude the proof, we use LaSalle’s invariance principle. Then, $ ({{\bm{x}}},{{\bm{\sigma}}},{\bm{\psi}}) $ converges to the largest invariance set in $ \Omega=\left\{({{\bm{x}}},{{\bm{\sigma}}},{\bm{\psi}}) \mid {\bm{x}}=\bar{{\bm{x}}},\, {\bm{\sigma}}=\bar{{\bm{\sigma}}}\right\} $. [Consequently, we derive from and that ${\bm{\psi}}\in \Psi$, given by , on the invariant set. Now, note that $({\mathds{1}}^\top \otimes I_n) {\bm{\psi}}(t)$ is a conserved quantity of the system, and that ${\mathds{1}}^\top L^+=0$. Then, by , we find that the vector ${\bm{\psi}}$ converges to ${\bm{\psi}}^*=(L^{+}\otimes I_n) {\bm{H}}{\bm{x}}^*+\frac{1}{N} ({\mathds{1}}_N{\mathds{1}}_N^\top \otimes I_n) {\bm{\psi}}(0)$, which completes the proof.]{}
Privacy Analysis
----------------
We resort to the notion of privacy introduced in [@Monshizadeh2019plausible] to investigate the privacy of the presented NE seeking algorithm. In particular, privacy is preserved if a curious party cannot uniquely reconstruct the actual private variables of the system. A curious party can be one of the players or an external adversary.
For technical reasons, in this section, we restrict the cost functions to $$J_i(x_i,{s({\bm{x}})}):=x_i^\top Q_ix_i+(D_i\, {s({\bm{x}})} +d_i)^\top x_i,$$ where $ Q_i=Q_i^\top\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n\times n} $, [$Q_i>0$]{}, $ D_i\in {\mathbb{R}}^{n\times n} $, and $ d_i\in{\mathbb{R}}^n $. Note that in this case, the parameters $\mu_i$ and $\ell_i$ in Assumption \[asmp1\] are given by $$\mu_i:=\lambda_{\min}(2Q_i +h_i\frac{D_i+D_i^\top}{2N} ),\quad \ell_i:=\|D_i\|.$$ Let $$\begin{aligned}
{\bm{A}}:&={\mbox{blockdiag}}(2Q_i+\frac{h_i}{N}D_i^\top ),\quad \bm{D}:={\mbox{blockdiag}}(D_i) \\
{\bm{d}}:&={\mbox{col}}(d_i) , \quad \forall i\in\mathcal{I}.\end{aligned}$$ Then, reduces to $$\label{distq}
\dot{\bm{\xi}}={\bm{A}}_q \bm{\xi}+\bm{D}_q,$$ where $$\label{dist-data}
\begin{split}
{\bm{A}}_q:&=\begin{bmatrix}
-{\bm{K}}{\bm{A}}& -{\bm{K}}\bm{D} & {\mymathbb{0}}\\
{\bm{H}}& -I & -(L\otimes I_n)\\
{\mymathbb{0}}& (L\otimes I_n) & {\mymathbb{0}}\end{bmatrix}\\
\bm{\xi}:&={\mbox{col}}(
{{\bm{x}}}, {{\bm{\sigma}}}, {{\bm{\psi}}}),\quad \bm{D}_q:={\mbox{col}}(-{\bm{K}}{\bm{d}}, {\mymathbb{0}},{\mymathbb{0}}).
\end{split}$$
Note that the parameters $ k_i $, $ h_i $, $ Q_i $, $ D_i $, and $ d_i $ are local parameters associated to each node $i$. Similarly, the action of each player $x_i$ is local and will be treated as private information. On the contrary, both $ {\sigma}_i $ and $ \psi_i $ are communicated to other agents. Therefore, the latter information is accessible to other players due to direct communication, or to an adversary as a result of eavesdropping. To provide strong privacy guarantees, we assume that all communicated variables and the Laplacian matrix $L$ are public information, i.e, accessible to a curious party. Such privacy guarantees are valid even if $ N-1 $ players collude to obtain private information of one specific player. Moreover, the goal and structure of the algorithm are considered public. Now, consider a [*replica*]{} of as follows $$\label{replica}
\dot{\bm{\xi}'}={\bm{A}}'_q \bm{\xi}'+\bm{D}'_q$$ $$\label{replica-data}
\begin{split}
{\bm{A}}_q':&=\begin{bmatrix}
-{\bm{K}}' {\bm{A}}' & -{\bm{K}}' \bm{D}' & {\mymathbb{0}}\\
{\bm{H}}' & -I & -(L\otimes I_n)\\
{\mymathbb{0}}& (L\otimes I_n) & {\mymathbb{0}}\end{bmatrix}\\
\bm{\xi}':&={\mbox{col}}(
{{\bm{x}}}', {{\bm{\sigma}}}', {{\bm{\psi}}}'),\quad \bm{D}_q':={\mbox{col}}(-{\bm{K}}' {\bm{d}}', {\mymathbb{0}},{\mymathbb{0}}),
\end{split}$$ where the vectors and matrices with “prime" are defined analogously to the ones without in . Let $({\bm{x}}'(t), {\bm{\sigma}}'(t), {\bm{\psi}}'(t))$ be the solution to resulting from an initial condition $({\bm{x}}'(0), {\bm{\sigma}}'(0), {\bm{\psi}}'(0))$. Now, we consider the following definition [@Monshizadeh2019plausible]:
\[d:privacy\] The privacy for the algorithm is preserved if for any initial condition $ x_i(0)\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n} $, there exist $ x_i'(0)\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n}$ such that for each $ i\in\mathcal{I} $ we have $$\label{unobs}
{\sigma}_i(t)={\sigma}_i'(t) ,\quad \psi_i(t)= \psi_i'(t),\quad \forall t\geq 0,$$ and $$\label{almost}
x_i(t)\ne x_i'(t),$$ for $t=0$ and almost all time $ t> 0$.
The idea behind the definition is that a curious adversary cannot infer whether the accessible trajectories ${\bm{\sigma}}(t)$ and ${\bm{\psi}}(t)$ are generated from with the initial condition $({\bm{x}}(0), {\bm{\sigma}}(0), {\bm{\psi}}(0))$ or from with the initial condition $({\bm{x}}'(0), {\bm{\sigma}}(0), {\bm{\psi}}(0))$. The resulting confusion limits the ability of an adversary to reconstruct the private quantities and action variables of the players. Note that the qualifier “almost" in is due to the fact that potentially $x_i(t)$ and its replica $x_i'(t)$ can coincide on a set of measure zero. Since, we work here with linear dynamics under a constant input $ \bm{D}_q $, the condition can be replaced by $x_i(0)\ne x_i'(0)$. Now, we have the following result:
\[t:privacy\] The NE seeking algorithm preserves privacy.
Defining ${\bm{y}}:={\mbox{col}}({{\bm{\sigma}}},{\bm{\psi}}) $, we have $${\bm{y}}=\bm{C}_q\bm{\xi}, \qquad \bm{C}_q:= \begin{bmatrix}
{\mymathbb{0}}&I&{\mymathbb{0}}\\
{\mymathbb{0}}&{\mymathbb{0}}&I
\end{bmatrix}.$$ Note that ${\bm{y}}$ contains public information. Consider the algorithm and its replica . Analogous to [@Monshizadeh2019plausible Prop. 1], privacy is preserved in the sense of Definition \[d:privacy\] if and only if for any initial condition $ \bm{\xi}(0)$, there exists $\bm{\xi'(0)}$ such that $$\label{privcy}
\begin{split}
\bm{C}_q{\bm{A}}_q^k \bm{\xi}(0)&=\bm{C}_q{\bm{A}}_q'^k \bm{\xi}'(0)\\
\bm{C}_q{\bm{A}}_q^k \bm{D}_q&=\bm{C}_q{\bm{A}}_q'^k \bm{D}_q',
\end{split}$$ for all $ k\geq 0 $, and $x_i'(0) \ne x_i(0)$ for each $i\in \cali$. Note that the above conditions mean that $\bm{y}=\bm{C}_q{\bm{\xi}}(t)=\bm{C}_q{\bm{\xi}}'(t)$, as desired. Verifying for $ k=0 $ results in $$\label{prv0}
{{\bm{\sigma}}}(0)={\bm{\sigma}}'(0) ,\, {\bm{\psi}}(0)={\bm{\psi}}'(0).$$ For $ k=1 $, we obtain $$\begin{split}
{\bm{H}}{{\bm{x}}}(0)-{{\bm{\sigma}}}(0)-(L\otimes I_n){{\bm{\psi}}}(0)&= {\bm{H}}' {{\bm{x}}}'(0)\\
&-{{\bm{\sigma}}}'(0)-(L\otimes I_n){{\bm{\psi}}}'(0)\\
(L\otimes I_n){{\bm{\sigma}}}(0)&=(L\otimes I_n){{\bm{\sigma}}}'(0)\\
{\bm{H}}{\bm{K}}{\bm{d}}&={\bm{H}}'{\bm{K}}' {\bm{d}}'.
\end{split}$$ By using , the above conditions reduce to $$\label{prv1}
{\bm{H}}{{\bm{x}}}(0)={\bm{H}}' {{\bm{x}}}'(0),\,{\bm{H}}{\bm{K}}{\bm{d}}={\bm{H}}'{\bm{K}}' {\bm{d}}'.$$ If we continue this process, it can be seen that the condition becomes $$\begin{split}
{\bm{H}}({\bm{K}}{\bm{A}})^k {{\bm{x}}}(0)&={\bm{H}}' ({\bm{K}}' {\bm{A}}')^k{{\bm{x}}}'(0)\\
{\bm{H}}({\bm{K}}{\bm{A}})^k {\bm{K}}\bm{D}&={\bm{H}}' ({\bm{K}}' {\bm{A}}')^k{\bm{K}}' \bm{D}'\\
{\bm{H}}({\bm{K}}{\bm{A}})^k {\bm{K}}{\bm{d}}&={\bm{H}}' ({\bm{K}}' {\bm{A}}')^k{\bm{K}}' {\bm{d}}',
\end{split}$$ for all $ k\geq 0 $. Note that $ {\bm{H}}{\bm{K}}{\bm{A}}={\bm{K}}{\bm{A}}{\bm{H}}$ due to block-diagonal structure of the matrices. Therefore, we obtain the following set of equalities $$\begin{aligned}
{\bm{H}}{{\bm{x}}}(0)&= {\bm{H}}'{{\bm{x}}}'(0),\\
{\bm{K}}{\bm{A}}&={\bm{K}}' {\bm{A}}',
\end{aligned}\quad
\begin{aligned}
{\bm{H}}{\bm{K}}\bm{D}&={\bm{H}}' {\bm{K}}' \bm{D}'\\
{\bm{H}}{\bm{K}}{\bm{d}}&={\bm{H}}' {\bm{K}}' {\bm{d}}'.
\end{aligned}$$ Let $\bm{S}_H:={\bm{H}'}^{-1}\bm{H}$ and $\bm{S}_K:={\bm{K}'}^{-1}\bm{K}$. Then, using the commutativity of the involved matrices, the above conditions can be rewritten as $$\label{privacy1}
\begin{aligned}
{{\bm{x}}}'(0)&= \bm{S}_H\bm{x}(0),\\
{\bm{A}}'&=\bm{S}_K {\bm{A}},
\end{aligned}\quad
\begin{aligned}
\bm{D}'&= \bm{S}_K\bm{S}_H\bm{D}\\
\bm{d}'&= \bm{S}_K\bm{S}_H\bm{d},
\end{aligned}$$ together with $$\label{privacy2}
{\bm{H}'}=\bm{H}\bm{S}^{-1}_H, \qquad {\bm{K}'}=\bm{K}\bm{S}^{-1}_K.
$$ Therefore, an adversary cannot distinguish between the actual system parameters/variables and a replica of the system that satisfies and . This completes the proof.
In order to retain the privacy for games with unweighted action variables, $ h_i=1 $, a suitable change of variables can be exploited. In particular, each player $ i\in\cali $ uses a local parameter $ p_i>0$, set $x_i=p_i\hat x_i$, and apply the NE seeking policy $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\hat x}_i&=-\frac{k_i}{p_i}f_i(p_i\hat x_i,\sigma_i)\\
\dot{{\sigma}}_i&=-{\sigma}_i+p_i \hat x_i-\sum_{j\in\caln_i}(\psi_i-\psi_j)\\
\dot{\psi}_i&=\sum_{j\in\caln_i}({\sigma}_i-{\sigma}_j),
\end{aligned}$$ with $k_i$ chosen as before. Clearly, in this case, $\hat x_i(t)$ converges to $p_i^{-1}x_i^*$. Then, the NE can be retrieved by multiplying the latter by $p_i$. The fact that the above algorithm preserves privacy can be shown analogous to Theorem \[t:privacy\].
Robustness Analysis
-------------------
[In this section, we again consider the general form of cost functions $ J_i(x_i,{s({\bm{x}})}) $ and investigate robustness of the dynamical algorithm against additive perturbations.]{} The perturbations can capture uncertainty in the payoff functions, irrationality of the players, or a deliberate addition of noise to improve privacy.\
Let $ {\bm{\xi}}:={\mbox{col}}({\bm{x}},{\bm{\sigma}}) $, $ G:={\mbox{col}}({\mymathbb{0}}, (L\otimes I_n)) $, and with some abuse of the notation $ F({\bm{\xi}}):=F({\bm{x}},{\bm{\sigma}}) $ [with $ F({\bm{x}},{\bm{\sigma}}) $ given by ]{}. Then, we can rewrite with the disturbance $ {\bm{\nu}}(t)\in{\mathbb{R}}^{2nN} $ as follows $$\label{dist_dt}
\begin{split}
\dot{{\bm{\xi}}}&=-F({\bm{\xi}})-G{\bm{\psi}}+{\bm{\nu}}\\
\dot{{\bm{\psi}}}&=G^\top {\bm{\xi}}.
\end{split}$$ To analyze performance of the above algorithm, we resort to the notion of input-to-state stability (ISS) [@khalil2002nonlinear Def. 4.7] [@sontag2008input]. Let $ \tilde{{\bm{\xi}}}:={\bm{\xi}}-\bar{{\bm{\xi}}} $ and $ \tilde{{\bm{\psi}}}:={\bm{\psi}}-\bar{{\bm{\psi}}} $ with the equilibrium point $ (\bar{{\bm{\xi}}},\bar{{\bm{\psi}}}) $ satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
{\mymathbb{0}}&=-F(\bar{\bm{\xi}})-G\bar{\bm{\psi}}\label{eq_dt_1}\\
{\mymathbb{0}}&=G^\top \bar{\bm{\xi}}.\label{eq_dt_2}\end{aligned}$$ Then, is ISS with respect to $ (\bar{{\bm{\xi}}},\bar{{\bm{\psi}}}) $ if for any $ ({{\bm{\xi}}}(0),{{\bm{\psi}}}(0))\in {\mathbb{R}}^{2nN}\times {\mathbb{R}}^{nN} $ and any [measurable and locally essentially bounded]{} $ {\bm{\nu}}(t) $, the state vector ${\mbox{col}}(\tilde{{\bm{\xi}}},\tilde{{\bm{\psi}}}) $ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\|{\mbox{col}}(\tilde{{\bm{\xi}}}(t),\tilde{{\bm{\psi}}}(t))\| &\leq \beta_0(\|{\mbox{col}}(\tilde{{\bm{\xi}}}(0),\tilde{{\bm{\psi}}}(0))\|,t)\\
&+\beta_1 (\sup_{0\leq \tau \leq t}\|{\bm{\nu}}(\tau)\|),\qquad\qquad \forall t\geq 0,\end{aligned}$$ where $ \beta_0 $ and $ \beta_1 $ are class $ \mathcal{KL} $ and class $ \mathcal{K} $ functions, respectively.
\[th:iss\] [Consider the NE seeking algorithm with initial condition $ ({{\bm{\xi}}}(0),{\bm{\psi}}(0) )\in {\mathbb{R}}^{2nN}\times {\mathbb{R}}^{nN}$. Suppose the disturbance vector $ {\bm{\nu}}(t) $ is measurable and locally essentially bounded,]{} [and assume that there exists some positive constant $ \gamma_i $ such that $ \|\nabla f_i(x_i, \sigma_i)\|\leq \gamma_i $ for all $x_i\in \calx_i$, $\sigma_i\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n}$, and $i\in \cali$]{}. Let $ {{\bm{\xi}}}^*:={\mbox{col}}({\bm{x}}^*,{\mathds{1}}_N \otimes {s({\bm{x}}^*)}) $ and ${\bm{\psi}}^*=(L^{+}\otimes I_n) {\bm{H}}{\bm{x}}^*+\frac{1}{N} ({\mathds{1}}_N{\mathds{1}}_N^\top \otimes I_n) {\bm{\psi}}(0)$ with $ {\bm{x}}^* $ being the unique NE of the aggregative game $ \mathcal{G}_{\text{agg}} $. Then, the NE seeking algorithm is ISS with respect to the equilibrium point $({{\bm{\xi}}}^*,{{\bm{\psi}}}^*) $.
From , , and , we obtain $$\label{e:inc-dynamics}
\begin{split}
\dot{\tilde{\bm{\xi}}}&=-(F({\bm{\xi}})-F(\bar{\bm{\xi}}))-G\tilde{{\bm{\psi}}}+{\bm{\nu}}\\
\dot{\tilde{{\bm{\psi}}}}&=G^\top \tilde{\bm{\xi}}.
\end{split}$$ Define $ {\bm{\Pi}}:=\Pi\otimes I_{n} $ and [$ \tilde{{\bm{\phi}}}:={\bm{\Pi}}\tilde {\bm{\psi}}$]{}. Then, we have $$\label{dist_dt_er2}
\begin{split}
\dot{\tilde{\bm{\xi}}}&=-(F({\bm{\xi}})-F(\bar{\bm{\xi}}))-G\tilde{{\bm{\phi}}}+{\bm{\nu}}\\
\dot{\tilde{{\bm{\phi}}}}&=G^\top \tilde{\bm{\xi}},
\end{split}$$ where $ \tilde{{\bm{\phi}}}={\bm{\phi}}-\bar{{\bm{\phi}}} $ with $ \bar{{\bm{\phi}}}:={\bm{\Pi}}\bar{{\bm{\psi}}}$, and we have used the fact that $G=G{\bm{\Pi}}$. The algorithm is ISS if for a continuously differentiable function $ V:{\mathbb{R}}^{2nN}\times {\mathbb{R}}^{nN}\to {\mathbb{R}}$, there exist class $ \mathcal{K}_\infty $ functions $ \alpha_1 $, $ \alpha_2 $, a class $ \mathcal{K} $ function $ \rho $, and a positive definite function $ W(\tilde{{\bm{\xi}}},\tilde{{\bm{\phi}}}) $ such that [@khalil2002nonlinear Thm. 4.19] $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_1(\|{\mbox{col}}(\tilde{{\bm{\xi}}},\tilde{{\bm{\phi}}})\|)&\leq V(\tilde{{\bm{\xi}}},\tilde{{\bm{\phi}}})\leq \alpha_2(\|{\mbox{col}}(\tilde{{\bm{\xi}}},\tilde{{\bm{\phi}}})\|)\label{iss_1}\\
{ \frac{\partial V}{\partial \tilde{{\bm{\xi}}}}}^\top \dot{\tilde{\bm{\xi}}}+{ \frac{\partial V}{\partial \tilde{{\bm{\phi}}}}}^\top \dot{\tilde{\bm{\phi}}}&\leq -W(\tilde{{\bm{\xi}}},\tilde{{\bm{\phi}}}),\, \forall \, \|{\mbox{col}}(\tilde{{\bm{\xi}}},\tilde{{\bm{\phi}}})\|\geq \rho(\|{\bm{\nu}}\|)>0.\label{iss_2}\end{aligned}$$ Let $$\label{ISS_Function}
V(\tilde{{\bm{\xi}}},\tilde{{\bm{\phi}}}):=\frac{1}{2}\|{\mbox{col}}(\tilde{{\bm{\xi}}},\tilde{{\bm{\phi}}})\|^ 2+\kappa \tilde{{\bm{\phi}}}^\top G^\top \tilde{\bm{\xi}},$$ for some $ \kappa\in{\mathbb{R}}_{>0} $. Then, $$\begin{split}
|\tilde{{\bm{\phi}}}^\top G^\top \tilde{\bm{\xi}}|&\leq \frac{1}{2}(\|G\tilde{{\bm{\phi}}}\|^{2}+\|\tilde{\bm{\xi}}\|^2)\\
&\leq \frac{\max\{1,\lambda_{\rm max}(L)^2\}}{2}\|{\mbox{col}}(\tilde{{\bm{\xi}}},\tilde{{\bm{\phi}}})\|^2,
\end{split}$$ where $\lambda_{\rm max}(L)$ is the largest eigenvalue of $L$. Consequently, is obtained by considering $ \kappa\in (0,\kappa_1) $, [$ \alpha_1(\|{\mbox{col}}(\tilde{{\bm{\xi}}},\tilde{{\bm{\phi}}})\|)=\alpha_1 \|{\mbox{col}}(\tilde{{\bm{\xi}}},\tilde{{\bm{\phi}}})\|^2$, and $ \alpha_2(\|{\mbox{col}}(\tilde{{\bm{\xi}}},\tilde{{\bm{\phi}}})\|)=\alpha_2 \|{\mbox{col}}(\tilde{{\bm{\xi}}},\tilde{{\bm{\phi}}})\|^2$, with $ \kappa_1=\frac{1}{\max\{1,\lambda_{\rm max}(L)^2\}} $ and $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_1&=\frac{1-\kappa\max\{1,\lambda_{\rm max}(L)^2\}}{2}\\
\alpha_2&=\frac{1+\kappa\max\{1,\lambda_{\rm max}(L)^2\}}{2}.\end{aligned}$$]{} We compute the time derivative of $ V $ along the solutions of the system, and use together with $ \epsilon $-strong monotonicity of $ F({\bm{\xi}}) $ to obtain $$\label{vdot_iss}
\begin{split}
\dot{V}\leq -\epsilon\|{\bm{\xi}}\|^2&+ \kappa \|G^\top \tilde{\bm{\xi}}\|^{2}-\kappa \tilde{{\bm{\phi}}}^\top G^\top (F({\bm{\xi}})-F(\bar{\bm{\xi}}))\\
&-\kappa \| G\tilde{{\bm{\phi}}}\|^{2}+(\tilde{\bm{\xi}}+\kappa G\tilde{{\bm{\phi}}})^\top {\bm{\nu}}.
\end{split}$$ Define $$U({\bm{\xi}},\bar{{\bm{\xi}}}):=\int_{0}^{1}\nabla F(\bar{{\bm{\xi}}}+s({\bm{\xi}}-\bar{{\bm{\xi}}}))ds.$$ By the fundamental theorem of calculus, we have $$F({\bm{\xi}})-F(\bar{\bm{\xi}})=U(\bar{{\bm{\xi}}},{\bm{\xi}})\tilde{{\bm{\xi}}}.$$ Substituting the equality above into yields $$\label{vdot_d}
\dot{V}\leq -{\mbox{col}}(\tilde{{\bm{\xi}}},G\tilde{{\bm{\phi}}})^\top P({\bm{\xi}}, \bar {\bm{\xi}}) \,\,{\mbox{col}}(\tilde{{\bm{\xi}}},G\tilde{{\bm{\phi}}})+{\mbox{col}}(\tilde{{\bm{\xi}}},\tilde{{\bm{\phi}}})^\top R \,{\bm{\nu}},$$ where $$P({\bm{\xi}}, \bar {\bm{\xi}}):=\begin{bmatrix}
\epsilon I-\kappa GG^\top&\frac{1}{2}\kappa U({\bm{\xi}}, \bar {\bm{\xi}})^\top \\
\frac{1}{2}\kappa U({\bm{\xi}}, \bar {\bm{\xi}})& \kappa I
\end{bmatrix},\quad R:=\begin{bmatrix}
I\\ \kappa G^\top
\end{bmatrix}.$$ Clearly, the matrix $ P $ is positive definite if and only if, for all ${\bm{\xi}}\in {\mathbb{R}}^{2nN}$, $$\kappa>0,\qquad \epsilon I-\kappa GG^\top-\frac{1}{4}\kappa U({\bm{\xi}}, \bar {\bm{\xi}})^\top U({\bm{\xi}}, \bar {\bm{\xi}})>0.$$ [By using $ \|\nabla f_i(x_i, \sigma_i)\|\leq \gamma_i $, it is straightforward to investigate that $ \|U(\cdot, \cdot)\|^2\leq \bar\gamma^2 + \bar h\,^2+ 1$, where $\bar \gamma:=\max_{i\in \cali} (\gamma_i k_i)$ and $\bar h:=\max_{i\in \cali} h_i$.]{} Hence, we conclude that $ P>0 $ if $ \kappa\in (0,\kappa_2 )$ with $ \kappa_2=\frac{4\epsilon}{\bar\gamma^2 + \bar h\,^2+ 1+4\lambda_{\rm max}(L){^2}} $. Therefore, there exists $ \delta>0 $ such that $ P\geq \delta I $. Moreover, we have $ \|R\|=\sqrt{1+\kappa^2\lambda_{\rm max}(L){^2}} $. Then, by , we find that $$\label{vdot_iss1}
\dot{V}\leq -\delta \|{\mbox{col}}(\tilde{{\bm{\xi}}},G\tilde{{\bm{\phi}}})\|^2+\sqrt{1+\kappa^2\lambda_{\rm max}(L)^2}\|{\mbox{col}}(\tilde{{\bm{\xi}}},\tilde{{\bm{\phi}}})\|\|{\bm{\nu}}\|.$$ Noting that $ \tilde{{\bm{\phi}}}\in\operatorname{im}({\bm{\Pi}}) $, we have $$\|G\tilde{{\bm{\phi}}}\|\geq {\lambda_{\rm min}(L) \|\tilde{{\bm{\phi}}}\|},$$ where $ \lambda_{\rm min} (L) $ is the smallest nonzero eigenvalue of $ L $. This together with results in $$\dot{V}\leq -m\|{\mbox{col}}(\tilde{{\bm{\xi}}},\tilde{{\bm{\phi}}})\|^2+\sqrt{1+\kappa^2\lambda_{\rm max}(L)^2}\|{\mbox{col}}(\tilde{{\bm{\xi}}},\tilde{{\bm{\phi}}})\|\|{\bm{\nu}}\|,$$ where $ m:=\delta \min\{1,\lambda_{\rm min}(L)^2\} $. Hence, is obtained by setting [$ W(\tilde{{\bm{\xi}}},\tilde{{\bm{\phi}}})=\alpha_3\|{\mbox{col}}(\tilde{{\bm{\xi}}},\tilde{{\bm{\phi}}})\|^2 $ and $ \rho(\|{\bm{\nu}}\|)=\alpha_4 \|{\bm{\nu}}\| $ with $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_3&=m(1-\beta )\\
\alpha_4&=\frac{1}{\beta m}\sqrt{1+\kappa^2\lambda_{\rm max}(L)^2},\end{aligned}$$]{} for some $\beta\in (0, 1)$. Consequently, is ISS for $ 0<\kappa<\min\{\kappa_1,\kappa_2 \}$, [and we have $$\begin{aligned}
\beta_0(\|{\mbox{col}}(\tilde{{\bm{\xi}}}(0),\tilde{{\bm{\psi}}}(0))\|,t)&=\sqrt{\frac{\alpha_2}{\alpha_1}}e^{-\frac{\alpha_3}{2\alpha_2}t}\|{\mbox{col}}(\tilde{{\bm{\xi}}}(0),\tilde{{\bm{\psi}}}(0))\|\\
\beta_1 (\sup_{0\leq \tau \leq t}\|{\bm{\nu}}(\tau)\|)&=\sqrt{\frac{\alpha_2}{\alpha_1}}\alpha_4 \sup_{0\leq \tau \leq t}\|{\bm{\nu}}(\tau)\|.\end{aligned}$$]{} [ Note that we have shown the ISS property in the coordinates $(\tilde{\bm{\xi}}, \tilde{\bm{\phi}})$, where $\tilde{\bm{\phi}}={\bm{\Pi}}\tilde{\bm{\psi}}$. In addition, note that the incremental form can be written with respect to any equilibrium $(\bar{\bm{\xi}}, \bar{\bm{\psi}})$, where $\bar{\bm{\xi}}={\bm{\xi}}^*$ and $\bar{\bm{\psi}}\in \Psi$ by Proposition \[prop:eqil\]. To conclude the ISS property of with respect to the equilibrium point $({{\bm{\xi}}}^*,{{\bm{\psi}}}^*)$, it suffices to show that ${\bm{\Pi}}( {\bm{\psi}}(t) - {\bm{\psi}}^*)= {\bm{\psi}}(t) - {\bm{\psi}}^*$, for all $ t$. The latter is equivalent to $$({\mathds{1}}_N {\mathds{1}}_N^\top \otimes I_n) ({\bm{\psi}}(t) - {\bm{\psi}}^*)={\mymathbb{0}},$$ which can be rewritten as $${\mathds{1}}_N \otimes ({\mathds{1}}_N^\top \otimes I_n) ({\bm{\psi}}(t) - {\bm{\psi}}^*)={\mymathbb{0}}.$$ Noting that $({\mathds{1}}_N^\top \otimes I_n) {\bm{\psi}}(t) $ is a conserved quantity of the system, the above equality reduces to $({\mathds{1}}_N^\top \otimes I_n) ({\bm{\psi}}(0) - {\bm{\psi}}^*)={\mymathbb{0}}$. The latter holds, noting the definition of ${\bm{\psi}}^*$ in the theorem. This completes the proof.]{}
[^2] [In the case of general games and by considering suitable assumptions on the pesudo-gradient mapping, the presented NE seeking algorithm in [@gadjov2018passivity] is exponentially stable [@gadjov2018passivity Thm. 1 and 2]. Therefore, it is also ISS with respect to additive time-varying disturbances [@khalil2002nonlinear Lem. 4.6]. However, that algorithm is fundamentally different than ours, which makes the analysis dissimilar. Specifically, the consensus term in [@gadjov2018passivity] appears as damping on the relative state variables, which contributes to the exponential convergence property. For our presented algorithm, the consensus action appears as cross terms, resulting in the presence of undamped communicating variables $ {\bm{\psi}}$ in . To overcome this technical difficulty, we included a sufficiently small cross-term in the ISS Lyapunov function (see the second term in the right hand side of ).]{}
The assumption of the boundedness of $\|\nabla f_i(\cdot,\cdot)\|$ can be relaxed at the expense of [establishing ISS in a local sense. In particular, for any compact set around the equilibrium, one can find restriction on the size of the disturbance such that ISS locally holds [@mironchenko2016local]]{}.
Distributed NE Seeking Dynamics for Constrained Actions {#projection}
=======================================================
This section extends the NE dynamics to the case when the action set is constrained to a compact set. Let the action set be given by $\calx_i \subset {\mathbb{R}}^n$, [and consider the following assumption.]{}
\[asmpset\] For all $ i\in\cali $, the action set $ \calx_i\subset{\mathbb{R}}^n $ is non-empty, convex, and compact, and the cost function $ J_i $ is $ \mathcal{C}^1 $ in all its arguments.
The following lemma proves that the game has a unique NE.
\[lemNEset\] Let Assumptions \[asmp1\] and \[asmpset\] be satisfied, then the aggregative game $ {\cal G}_{\text{agg}}=\big({\cal I} ,(J_i)_{i\in \cal I}, (\calx _i)_{i\in \cal I}\big) $ with the cost function has a unique NE $ {\bm{x}}^*\in\calx $ which is the solution of the variational inequality VI$ (\allowdisplaybreaks\calx,{\bm{K}}{\mbox{col}}\big((f_i(x_i,{s({\bm{x}})}))_{i\in\cali}\big)) $ with $ \calx:=\prod_{i\in \cali}\calx_i $, $ f_i(\cdot) $ defined as , and $ k_i $ selected as .
The claim can be proven by suitably adapting the results of [@facchinei2007finite]. For the sake of completeness, we have provided a proof in Appendix A.
To obtain the NE of the game in a distributed fashion, we again assume that the agents can exchange some variables through a connected undirected graph $ G_c $, and consider the following algorithm $$\label{distset_indv}
\begin{aligned}
\dot{x}_i&=\Pi_{\calx_i}\left(x_i,-k_if_i(x_i,\sigma_i)\right)\\
\dot{{\sigma}}_i&=-{\sigma}_i+h_ix_i-\sum_{j\in\caln_i}(\psi_i-\psi_j)\\
\dot{\psi}_i&=\sum_{j\in\caln_i}({\sigma}_i-{\sigma}_j),
\end{aligned}$$ where $ i\in\cali $ and $ \Pi_{\calx_i}(x_i,v) $ is the projection operator of the vector $ v\in{\mathbb{R}}^n $ on to the tangent cone of $ \calx_i $ at the point $ x_i\in\calx_i $. In vector form we have $$\label{distset}
\begin{split}
\dot{{\bm{x}}}&=\Pi_{\calx}\left({\bm{x}},-{\bm{K}}{\mbox{col}}\big((f_i(x_i,\sigma_i))_{i\in\cali}\big)\right)\\
\dot{{\bm{\sigma}}}&=- {\bm{\sigma}}+{\bm{H}}{\bm{x}}-(L\otimes I_n){\bm{\psi}}\\
\dot{{\bm{\psi}}}&=(L\otimes I_n){\bm{\sigma}}.
\end{split}$$ Note that is a discontinuous dynamical algorithm due to the projection operator. Therefore, we briefly discuss existence and uniqueness of solutions for this system. Consider the collective projected-vector form of the algorithm as follows $${\mbox{col}}(\dot{{\bm{x}}}, \dot{{\bm{\sigma}}}, \dot{{\bm{\psi}}})=\Pi_{\calx\times {\mathbb{R}}^{nN}\times {\mathbb{R}}^{nN}}\Big({\mbox{col}}({{\bm{x}}}, {{\bm{\sigma}}}, {{\bm{\psi}}}),-F_{\text{ext}({\bm{x}},{\bm{\sigma}},{\bm{\psi}})}\Big),$$ where $$F_{\text{ext}({\bm{x}},{\bm{\sigma}},{\bm{\psi}})}:=\left[\begin{array}{c}
F({\bm{x}},{\bm{\sigma}})+G{\bm{\psi}}\\
-(L\otimes I_n){\bm{\sigma}}\end{array}\right],$$ with $ F({\bm{x}},{\bm{\sigma}}) $ given by and $ G:={\mbox{col}}({\mymathbb{0}}, (L\otimes I_n)) $. Using Assumption \[asmpset\] and the fact that ${\mathbb{R}}^{nN} $ is a clopen set (closed-open set), the set $ \calx\times {\mathbb{R}}^{nN}\times {\mathbb{R}}^{nN} $ is closed and convex. In addition, by considering Lemma \[pro1\], it follows that $ F_{\text{ext}({\bm{x}},{\bm{\sigma}},{\bm{\psi}})} $ is monotone. Therefore, from [@brogliato2006equivalence Thm. 1], we conclude that for any initial condition $ ({{\bm{x}}}(0),{{\bm{\sigma}}}(0),{\bm{\psi}}(0) )\in \calx \times {\mathbb{R}}^{nN}\times {\mathbb{R}}^{nN}$, the algorithm has a unique solution which belongs to $ \calx \times {\mathbb{R}}^{nN}\times {\mathbb{R}}^{nN} $ for almost all $ t\geq 0 $. Converging the algorithm to a point corresponding to the NE of the game is established next.
\[the:convSet\] [Let Assumptions \[asmp1\] and \[asmpset\] be satisfied, and ]{}consider the NE seeking algorithm with initial condition $ ({{\bm{x}}}(0),{{\bm{\sigma}}}(0),{\bm{\psi}}(0) )\in \calx\times {\mathbb{R}}^{nN}\times {\mathbb{R}}^{nN}$. Then, the solution $ ({{\bm{x}}},{{\bm{\sigma}}},{\bm{\psi}}) $ converges to the equilibrium point $ (\bar{\bm{x}},\bar{\bm{\sigma}},\bar{\bm{\psi}})=({\bm{x}}^*,{\mathds{1}}_N \otimes {s({\bm{x}}^*)}, {\bm{\psi}}^*) $ where $ {\bm{x}}^* $ is the unique NE of the aggregative game $ \mathcal{G}_{\text{agg}} $ and ${\bm{\psi}}^*\in \Psi$ is given by ${\bm{\psi}}^*=(L^{+}\otimes I_n) {\bm{H}}{\bm{x}}^*+\frac{1}{N} ({\mathds{1}}_N{\mathds{1}}_N^\top \otimes I_n) {\bm{\psi}}(0)$.
At the equilibrium point $ (\bar{\bm{x}},\bar{\bm{\sigma}},\bar{\bm{\psi}}) $, by , we have $$\label{equilSet}
\begin{split}
{\mymathbb{0}}&=\Pi_{\calx}\left(\bar{\bm{x}},-{\bm{K}}{\mbox{col}}\big((f_i(\bar x_i,\bar\sigma_i))_{i\in\cali}\big)\right)\\
{\mymathbb{0}}&=-\bar {\bm{\sigma}}+{\bm{H}}\bar {\bm{x}}-(L\otimes I_n)\bar {\bm{\psi}}\\
{\mymathbb{0}}&=(L\otimes I_n)\bar{\bm{\sigma}}.
\end{split}$$ Similar to the proof of Proposition \[prop:eqil\], it can be shown that $\bar {\bm{\sigma}}={\mathds{1}}_N\otimes {s(\bar{\bm{x}})} $. Consequently, we obtain the following equality by using Moreau’s decomposition theorem $$\begin{split}
{\mymathbb{0}}&=\Pi_{\calx}\left(\bar{\bm{x}},-{\bm{K}}{\mbox{col}}\big((f_i(\bar x_i,{s(\bar {\bm{x}})}))_{i\in\cali}\big)\right)\\
&=-{\bm{K}}{\mbox{col}}\big((f_i(\bar x_i,{s(\bar {\bm{x}})}))_{i\in\cali}\big)\\
&\quad -\text{proj}_{\caln_{\calx}(\bar{{\bm{x}}})}\left(-{\bm{K}}{\mbox{col}}\big((f_i(\bar x_i,{s(\bar {\bm{x}})}))_{i\in\cali}\big)\right),
\end{split}$$ where $ \caln_{\calx}(\bar{{\bm{x}}}) $ is the normal cone of $ \calx $ at $ \bar{\bm{x}}\in\calx $. This means that $$-{\bm{K}}{\mbox{col}}\big((f_i(\bar x_i,{s(\bar {\bm{x}})}))_{i\in\cali}\big)\in \caln_{\calx}(\bar{\bm{x}}).$$ In other words, $ \bar{{\bm{x}}} $ is the solution of VI$ (\calx,{\bm{K}}{\mbox{col}}\big((f_i( x_i,{s( {\bm{x}})}))_{i\in\cali}\big)) $, and from Lemma \[lemNEset\], we conclude that $ \bar{{\bm{x}}}={\bm{x}}^* $. The proof of $ \bar {\bm{\psi}}\in\varPsi $ is similar to Proposition \[prop:eqil\].
To show convergence, let $ {\bm{\xi}}:={\mbox{col}}({{\bm{x}}},{{\bm{\sigma}}}) $, $\Lambda:=\calx\times {\mathbb{R}}^{nN} $, $ F({\bm{\xi}})=F({\bm{x}},{{\bm{\sigma}}}) $, and the Lyapunov function candidate $ V(\tilde{\bm{\xi}},\tilde{\bm{\psi}}):=\frac{1}{2}\|{\mbox{col}}(\tilde{\bm{\xi}},\tilde{\bm{\psi}})\|^2 $ with $ \tilde{\bm{\xi}}={\bm{\xi}}-\bar {\bm{\xi}}$ and $ \tilde{{\bm{\psi}}}={\bm{\psi}}-\bar {\bm{\psi}}$. By using and the definition of $ G $, we obtain $$\dot{V}=\tilde{\bm{\xi}}^\top \Pi_{\Lambda}\big({\bm{\xi}},-F({\bm{\xi}})-G{\bm{\psi}}\big)+\tilde{{\bm{\psi}}}^\top G^\top{\bm{\xi}}.$$ By Moreau’s decomposition theorem, we find that $$\begin{split}
\tilde{\bm{\xi}}^\top \Pi_{\Lambda}\big({\bm{\xi}},-F({\bm{\xi}})-G{\bm{\psi}}\big)&=\tilde{\bm{\xi}}^\top\Big(-F({\bm{\xi}})-G{\bm{\psi}}\\
&-\text{proj}_{\caln_{\Lambda}({\bm{\xi}})}\big(-F({\bm{\xi}})-G{\bm{\psi}}\big)\Big).
\end{split}$$ Noting $ \bar{\bm{\xi}}\in \Lambda $, we have $$-\tilde{\bm{\xi}}^\top \text{proj}_{\caln_{\Lambda}({\bm{\xi}})}\big(-F({\bm{\xi}})-G{\bm{\psi}}\big)\leq 0,$$ and the time derivative of $ V $ admits the following inequality $$\label{dot_v_set}
\dot{V}\leq -\tilde{\bm{\xi}}^\top F({\bm{\xi}})- \tilde{\bm{\xi}}^\top G{\bm{\psi}}+\tilde{{\bm{\psi}}}^\top G^\top{\bm{\xi}}.$$ Moreover, from and Moreau’s decomposition theorem we get $$\begin{split}
0&=\tilde{{\bm{\xi}}}^\top \Pi_{\Lambda}\big(\bar {\bm{\xi}},-F(\bar {\bm{\xi}})-G\bar {\bm{\psi}}\big)\\
&=\tilde{{\bm{\xi}}}^\top\Big(-F(\bar{\bm{\xi}})-G\bar {\bm{\psi}}-\text{proj}_{\caln_{\Lambda}(\bar{\bm{\xi}})}\big(-F(\bar{\bm{\xi}})-G\bar {\bm{\psi}}\big)\Big).
\end{split}$$ Since $$-\tilde{{\bm{\xi}}}^\top\text{proj}_{\caln_{\Lambda}(\bar{\bm{\xi}})}\big(-F(\bar{\bm{\xi}})-G\bar {\bm{\psi}}\big)\geq 0,$$ we conclude that $
\tilde{{\bm{\xi}}}^\top\Big(F(\bar{\bm{\xi}})+G\bar {\bm{\psi}}\Big)\geq 0
$, which can be employed to rewrite as $$\begin{split}
\dot{V}&\leq -\tilde{{\bm{\xi}}}^\top \left(F({\bm{\xi}})-F(\bar{\bm{\xi}})\right)- \tilde{\bm{\xi}}^\top G\tilde{{\bm{\psi}}}+\tilde{{\bm{\psi}}}^\top G^\top{\bm{\xi}}\\
&\leq -\epsilon \|\tilde{{\bm{\xi}}}\|^2,
\end{split}$$ where the last inequality is obtained by using and the fact that $ F({\bm{\xi}}) $ is $ \epsilon $-strongly monotone. By following an analogous argument to [@de2018distributed Thm. 2], we conclude that the solution $ ({{\bm{x}}},{{\bm{\sigma}}},{\bm{\psi}}) $ converges to the set $
\Omega=\left\{({{\bm{x}}},{{\bm{\sigma}}},{\bm{\psi}}) \mid {\bm{x}}=\bar{{\bm{x}}},\, {\bm{\sigma}}=\bar{{\bm{\sigma}}}, {\bm{\psi}\in \Psi} \right \}
$. [Noting that $({\mathds{1}}_N^\top \otimes I_n){\bm{\psi}}(t)$ is an invariant quantity of the system, similar to Theorem \[th:conv\], we conclude that ${\bm{\psi}}$ converges to ${\bm{\psi}}^*$.]{}
Case studies {#simulation}
============
In this section, we consider two illustrative case studies that are formulated as aggregative games.
Energy Consumption Game
-----------------------
This case study considers the energy consumption problem of consumers with heating ventilation air conditioning (HVAC) systems in smart grids. As proposed in [@ma2014distributed], this problem can be formulated into a noncooperative game where each consumer chooses its energy consumption such that the following payoff function is minimized $$J_i(x_i,{s(x)})=\theta \gamma^2 (x_i-\hat{x}_i)^2+(aN{s({\bm{x}})}+b)x_i,$$ where the positive constant parameters $ \theta $, $ \gamma $, and $ a $ are the cost, the thermal, and the price-elasticity coefficients, respectively. The scalar $ b\in{\mathbb{R}}_{>0} $ is a basic price for unite energy consumption, $ x_i\in \calx_i $ is the energy consumption of consumer $ i $, $ \hat{x}_i\in \calx_i $ is the required energy consumption for maintaining the target indoor temperature, and $ N{s({\bm{x}})}=\sum_{j\in\cali}x_j $ is the total energy consumption. The action set $ \calx_i\subset {\mathbb{R}}$ is defined as $ \calx_i:=\big\{x_i\in{\mathbb{R}}\mid x_i\in[\underline{x}_i,\bar x_i]\big\} $ where the positive constants $ \underline{x}_i $ and $ \bar x_i $ are the minimum and maximum acceptable energy consumption, respectively, with $ \underline{x}_i<\bar x_i $. According to [@ma2014distributed Thm. 1], this game has a unique NE if $$a\leq 2\theta \gamma^2/(N-3) ,$$ for $ N>3 $. If we use Lemma \[lemNEset\], the sufficient condition for having a unique NE is $ a\leq 2\theta \gamma^2/(N-1) $ for $ N>1 $, which is slightly more restrictive than the above condition. However, considering Remark \[r:relax\], we need to find $ k_i>0 $ such that the mapping $ {\mbox{col}}(k_i f_i(x_i,\sigma_i),\sigma_i-x_i) $ with $ f_i(x_i,\sigma_i)=(2\theta \gamma^2+a)x_i+aN \sigma_i-2\theta \gamma^2 \hat{x}_i +b$ is strongly monotone. By performing the calculations, we obtain that for all $ a\in {\mathbb{R}}_{>0} $ and $ N\geq 1 $, the mapping is strongly monotone if $$\begin{gathered}
k_i\in \big(\frac{(\sqrt{2\theta \gamma^2+a}-\sqrt{2\theta \gamma^2+a(N+1)})^2}{(aN)^2},\\
\frac{(\sqrt{2\theta \gamma^2+a}+\sqrt{2\theta \gamma^2+a(N+1)})^2}{(aN)^2}\big),\end{gathered}$$ which means that we need less restrictive assumptions to guarantee uniqueness of the NE and convergence of the algorithm. We consider $ N=5 $ players in this game, i.e., $ \cali=\{1,\cdots,5\} $, with $ \theta \gamma^2 $ normalized to one, $ {\mbox{col}}((\hat x_i )_{i\in \cali})={\mbox{col}}(50,55,60,65) (\text{kWh})$, $ {\mbox{col}}((\bar x_i)_{i\in \cali})={\mbox{col}}(60,66,72,78,84) (\text{kWh})$, $ {\mbox{col}}((\underline x_i)_{i\in \cali})={\mbox{col}}(40,44,46,52,56) (\text{kWh})$, $ a=0.04 $, and $ b=5 (\text{\textdollar}/(\text{kWh}))$ [@ye2016game]. To implement the algorithm, the players are assumed to communicate through a connected undirected graph depicted in Fig. \[fig:graph\_HVAC\]. Each player randomly chooses the design parameter $ k_i $ in the above interval. The initial conditions of $ \sigma_i $ and $ \psi_i $ are chosen randomly, and $ x_i(t_0)=0.5(\bar x_i+\underline x_i) $. The resulting action variables are depicted in Fig. \[fig:results\_HVAC\]. The fact that the players converge to the NE of the game can be verified by comparing the results to the NE computed in [@ye2016game Sec. VI-C].
Next, we consider the case where [the action set is $ \calx_i={\mathbb{R}}$ and]{} bounded disturbances affect the dynamics, and investigate its robustness. The disturbance vector $ {\bm{\nu}}\in {\mathbb{R}}^{10} $ is added according to , five elements of which are considered as uniformly distributed random numbers in the interval $ [-20,20] $ with the sampling time $ 0.1 $(s), and the other five elements are sinusoidal signals with amplitudes between 10 and 20, and frequencies between 5 to 25(rad/s). As can be seen from Fig. \[fig:results\_ISS\_HVAC\], the action variables remain bounded, which is consistent with our ISS results. Note that the presence of disturbances results in deviation of the asymptotic behavior from the NE.
$$\begin{tikzpicture}[x=1.7cm, y=1.2cm,
every edge/.style={sloped, draw, line width=1.2pt}]
{\node[vertex]}(v1) at (0,0) {\small $1$};
{\node[vertex]}(v2) at (1,-1) {\small $2$};
{\node[vertex]}(v5) at (-1,-1) {\small $5$};
{\node[vertex]}(v4) at (2,-2) {\small $4$};
{\node[vertex]}(v3) at (-2,-2) {\small $3$};
\path
(v1) edge (v2)
(v1) edge (v5)
(v2) edge (v5)
(v2) edge (v4)
(v5) edge (v3);
\end{tikzpicture}$$
![Action variables of consumers with HVAC systems.[]{data-label="fig:results_HVAC"}](HVCA_results){width="3in"}
![Action variables of consumers with HVAC systems in the presence of disturbances.[]{data-label="fig:results_ISS_HVAC"}](HVCA_ISS_results){width="3in"}
Charging Coordination of Electric Vehicles
------------------------------------------
In this subsection, we consider the problem of charging coordination for a population $ \cali=\{1,\cdots,N\} $ of plug-in electrical vehicles (PEVs) [@ma2011decentralized; @ma2015distributed]. Each agent is aimed at minimizing its payoff function defined as the summation of its electricity bill and a quadratic function as follows $$J_i(x_i,{s({\bm{x}})})=\sum_{t\in\calt}\big(a(d_t+N{s({\bm{x}}^t)})+b\big) x_i^t+q_i(x_i^t)^2+c_i x_i^t,$$ where $ \calt:=\{1,\cdots,n\} $ is the charging horizon, $ x_i={\mbox{col}}\big((x_i^t)_{t\in\calt}\big) $ is the collection of charging control of the $ i $-th vehicle at time $ t $, the positive constants $ a $ and $ b $ respectively are the price-elasticity coefficient and basic price, $ d_t $ is the total non-PEV demand, $ N{s({\bm{x}}^t)}=\sum_{j\in\cali}x_j^t $ is the total PEV demand at time $ t $, and $ q_i $ and $ c_i $ are positive constant parameters. In the payoff function, the quadratic term models battery degradation cost of PEVs [@ma2015distributed]. For each agent, the charging rate $ x_i^t $ is bounded as $ 0\leq x_i^t\leq \bar x_i $ and its summation for all $ t\in\calt $ should be equal to the required energy of the agent defined as $ \gamma_i $. Therefore, the constraint set of $ x_i $ is $ \calx_i:=\calx_i^1\cap\calx_i^2 $ where $$\label{pev_sets}
\begin{split}
\calx_i^1:&=\big\{x_i\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n}\mid x_i^t\in[0,\bar x_i]\big\}\\
\calx_i^2:&=\big\{x_i\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n}\mid \sum_{t\in\calt}x_i^t=\gamma_i\big\}.
\end{split}$$ In practice, it is assumed that $ n\bar x_i\geq \gamma_i $ to grantee that $ \calx_i $ is non-empty. The goal is to reach to the NE and schedule charging strategies for the entire horizon, and in this regard, a gather and broadcast algorithm is presented in [@ma2015distributed] which guarantees convergence when $ q_i>aN $ [@ma2015distributed Thm. 3.1].
In this problem, we have $ f_i(x_i,\sigma_i)=(2q_i+a)x_i+aN\sigma_i+ad+(b+c_i){\mathds{1}}_n $ with $ d={\mbox{col}}\big((d_t)_{t\in\calt}\big) $; therefore, the mapping $ {\mbox{col}}(k_i f_i(x_i,\sigma_i),\sigma_i-x_i) $ is strongly monotone by choosing $$\begin{gathered}
k_i\in \big(\frac{(\sqrt{2q_i+a}-\sqrt{2q_i+a(N+1)})^2}{(aN)^2},\\
\frac{(\sqrt{2q_i+a}+\sqrt{2q_i+a(N+1)})^2}{(aN)^2}\big),\end{gathered}$$ and there is no need for the assumption $ q_i>aN $. To reach the NE, each agent can implement ; however, since $ \calx_i $ is the intersection of two sets, it is not easy to find a closed-form expression for the projection operator $ \Pi_{\calx_i}\left(x_i,\cdot\right) $. To overcome this challenge, [we use the fact that $ x_i(t) $ in the NE dynamics does not need to belong to $ \calx_i $ for all $ t\geq t_0 $, yet it should converge to the NE inside this set. Therefore, $x_i\in\calx_i^2$ can be treated as a “soft constraint". Hence, we modify as follows]{} $$\label{ne_alg_lagrange}
\begin{split}
\dot{{\bm{x}}}&=\Pi_{\calx^1}\left({\bm{x}},-{\bm{K}}{\mbox{col}}\big((f_i(x_i,\sigma_i))_{i\in\cali}\big)-(I_N\otimes {\mathds{1}}_n)\bm{\lambda}\right)\\
\dot{{\bm{\sigma}}}&=- {\bm{\sigma}}+{\bm{H}}{\bm{x}}-(L\otimes I_n){\bm{\psi}}\\
\dot{{\bm{\psi}}}&=(L\otimes I_n){\bm{\sigma}}\\
\dot{\bm{\lambda}}&=(I_N\otimes {\mathds{1}}_n^\top){\bm{x}}-\bm \gamma,
\end{split}$$ where $ \bm{\lambda}={\mbox{col}}((\lambda_i)_{i\in\cali}) $ with the Lagrangian multiplier $ \lambda_i\in {\mathbb{R}}$, $\bm\gamma={\mbox{col}}((\gamma_i)_{i\in\cali})$, and $ \calx^1=\prod_{i\in \cali}\calx_i^1 $ with $ \calx_i^1 $ defined in . A supplementary discussion on the convergence of the above algorithm to the NE is provided in Appendix B.
A population of $ N=100 $ players, that can communicate by a connected undirected graph, are considered in this game, and the charging horizon is from 12:00 a.m. on one day to 12:00 a.m. on the next day. In order to generate the numerical parameters, we consider some nominal values and randomize them similar to [@grammatico2017dynamic]. In the price function, $ a=3.8\times 10^{-3} $ and $ b=0.06(\text{\textdollar}/(\text{kWh})) $ are considered. The parameters of the quadratic functions are uniformly distributed random numbers as $ q_i \sim \{0.004\}+[-0.001,\, 0.001]$ and $ c_i \sim \{0.075\}+[-0.01,\, 0.01]$. In order to generate $ \gamma_i $, inspired by [@ma2015distributed], we assume that the battery capacity size of PEVs are $ \Phi_i\sim \{30\}+[-5,\, 5](\text{kWh}) $, the initial states of charge ($\text{SOC}_{i_0}$) of PEVs satisfy a Gaussian distribution with the mean 0.5 and variance 0.1, and the final state of charge ($\text{SOC}_{i_f}$) equals to 0.95; thus, $ \gamma_i=\Phi_i(\text{SOC}_{i_f}-\text{SOC}_{i_0}) $. In addition, the maximum admissible charging control is set to $ \bar x_i \sim \{10\}+[-2,\, 2](\text{kWh})$.
We select the design parameter of the algorithm as $ k_i=(2(2q_i+a)+aN)/(aN)^2 $, the initial condition of action variables are $ x_i^t(t_0)=\gamma_i/n $, and $ \sigma_i(t_0) $, $ \psi_i(t_0) $, and $ \lambda_i(t_0) $ are selected randomly. Fig. \[fig:results\_PEV\] illustrates total demand and total non-PEV demand. As can be seen, the PEVs shifted their charging intervals to the nighttime, which minimizes their effects on the grid, and as explained in [@ma2011decentralized], the NE has the desired “valley filling” property.
![Total non-PEV demand $ d $ and its summation with total-PEV demand at the equilibrium $ d+\sum_{i\in\cali}x_i^* $.[]{data-label="fig:results_PEV"}](PEV_results){width="3in"}
Conclusions {#conclusion}
===========
[By employing the structure of aggregative games, we presented a distributed NE seeking algorithm where each player calculates its action variable through computing an estimation of the aggregation term. We provided sufficient conditions for convergence of the algorithm to the NE of the game. We have provided privacy guarantees for the algorithm by showing that private information of the players cannot be reconstructed even if all communicated variables are accessed by an adversary. [Raised by practical concerns about the accuracy of payoff functions or rationality of the players, we proved robustness of the proposed algorithm against time-varying disturbances in the sense of ISS.]{} Finally, we extended the algorithm to the case of constrained action sets by using projection operators. Extension of the results to games with coupling constraints is left for future work. Moreover, a challenging task is to provide robustness guarantees in the presence of projections. Another notable research questions is to use aggregative game dynamics as optimal controllers steering a physical system. Examples of the latter in Cournot and Bertrand competitions can be found in [@de2019feedback] and [@stegink2018hybrid], respectively.]{}
Appendix A: Proofs of the Lemmas {#appendix-a-proofs-of-the-lemmas .unnumbered}
================================
*Proof of Lemma \[pro1\].* $ (i) $ The mapping $ F $ is $ \epsilon $-strongly monotone if $$\begin{gathered}
\label{ep_mono}
{\mbox{col}}\big({\bm{x}}-{{\bm{x}}}',{\bm{\sigma}}-{{\bm{\sigma}}}'\big)^\top
\big(F({\bm{x}}, {\bm{\sigma}})- F({\bm{x}}', {\bm{\sigma}}')\big)\geq \\
\epsilon \|{\bm{x}}-{{\bm{x}}}'\|^2 +\epsilon \|{\bm{\sigma}}-{{\bm{\sigma}}}'\|^2
\end{gathered}$$ for all $ {\bm{x}},{\bm{x}}'\in \calx=\prod_{i\in \cali}\calx_i $ and $ {\bm{\sigma}},{\bm{\sigma}}'\in{\mathbb{R}}^{nN} $. By using and Assumption \[asmp1\], we have $$ \begin{split}
&({\bm{x}}-{\bm{x}}')^\top {\bm{K}}\,{\mbox{col}}\big((f_i(x_i,{\sigma}_i)-f_i(x_i',{\sigma}_i))_{i\in\cali}\big)\\
+&({\bm{x}}-{\bm{x}}')^\top {\bm{K}}\, {\mbox{col}}\big((f_i(x_i',{\sigma}_i)-f_i(x_i',{\sigma}_i'))_{i\in\cali}\big)\\
+&({\bm{\sigma}}-{{\bm{\sigma}}}')^\top \big(({{\bm{\sigma}}}-{\bm{H}}{\bm{x}})-({\bm{\sigma}}'-{\bm{H}}{\bm{x}}')\big)\\
\geq &\sum_{i\in\cali} k_i \mu_i \|x_i-x'_i\|^2-(k_i\ell_i+h_i) \|x_i-x'_i\|\|\sigma_i-{\sigma}'_i\|\\
+&\|\sigma_i-{\sigma}'_i\|^2.
\end{split}$$ As a result, to establish the inequality in , it is sufficient to define $ \epsilon:=\min\{\epsilon_i\} $ where $ \epsilon_i> 0$ satisfies $$\begin{gathered}
k_i \mu_i \|x_i-x'_i\|^2-(k_i\ell_i+h_i) \|x_i-x'_i\|\|\sigma_i-{\sigma}'_i\|\\+\|\sigma_i-{\sigma}'_i\|^2\geq \epsilon_i\|x_i-x'_i\|^2+\epsilon_i\|\sigma_i-{\sigma}'_i\|^2.
\end{gathered}$$ [Clearly, such $\epsilon_i$ exists providing that]{} $$\begin{bmatrix}
k_i \mu_i & -\frac{(k_i\ell_i+h_i)}{2}\\
-\frac{(k_i\ell_i+h_i)}{2} & 1
\end{bmatrix}>0.$$ [The above positive definiteness condition holds if and only if]{} $$\begin{gathered}
k_i\in \big(\frac{2\mu_i-\ell_ih_i-2\sqrt{\mu_i(\mu_i-\ell_ih_i)}}{\ell_i^2},\\
\frac{2\mu_i-\ell_ih_i+2\sqrt{\mu_i(\mu_i-\ell_ih_i)}}{\ell_i^2}\big),
\end{gathered}$$ which is equivalent to .
$ (ii) $ Let $ {{\bm{\sigma}}}={\mathds{1}}_N\otimes {s({\bm{x}})} $ and $ {{\bm{\sigma}}'}={\mathds{1}}_N\otimes {s({\bm{x}}')} $. By using the definition of $ {s({\bm{x}})} $ we get $ {\bm{\sigma}}-{\bm{\sigma}}'={\mathds{1}}_N\otimes {s({\bm{x}}-{\bm{x}}')} $. Hence, inequality , proven in part $(i)$, becomes $$\label{ineqKF1}
\begin{split}
&({\bm{x}}-{\bm{x}}')^\top {\bm{K}}\,{\mbox{col}}\big((f_i(x_i,{s({\bm{x}})})-f_i(x_i',{s({\bm{x}}')}))_{i\in\cali}\big)\\
+&({\mathds{1}}_N\otimes {s({\bm{x}}-{\bm{x}}')})^\top \big(({\mathds{1}}_N\otimes {s({\bm{x}}-{\bm{x}}')})-{\bm{H}}({\bm{x}}-{\bm{x}}')\big)\\
\geq &\epsilon \|{\bm{x}}-{{\bm{x}}}'\|^2+\epsilon \|{\mathds{1}}_N\otimes {s({\bm{x}}-{\bm{x}}')}\|^2. \end{split}$$ Let $$\label{pi}
\Pi:=I-{ \frac{1}{N}}{\mathds{1}}_{N}{\mathds{1}}_{N}^\top.$$ Then, $$\begin{split}
({\mathds{1}}_N\otimes {s({\bm{x}}-{\bm{x}}')})-{\bm{H}}({\bm{x}}-{\bm{x}}')= -(\Pi\otimes I_n){\bm{H}}({\bm{x}}-{\bm{x}}'),
\end{split}$$ where we have used the equality $${\mathds{1}}_N\otimes {s({\bm{x}}-{\bm{x}}')}=\frac{1}{N}({\mathds{1}}_N\otimes{\mathds{1}}_N^\top\otimes I_n){\bm{H}}({\bm{x}}-{\bm{x}}') .$$ Therefore, the second term on the left hand side of is zero as $ {\mathds{1}}_N^\top\Pi=0 $, and the proof is complete.$\square$ *Proof of Lemma \[lemNE\].* First, we show that each cost function $ J_i(x_i,{s({\bm{x}})}) $ is $ \eta_i $-strongly convex in $ x_i $ for all $ {\bm{x}}_{-i}\in \calx_{-i}=\prod_{j\neq i}\calx_j $, and for that, it suffices $ f_i(x_i,{s({\bm{x}})}) $ to be $ \eta_i $-strongly monotone in $ x_i $, i.e., $$\begin{gathered}
(x_i-x_i')^\top \big(f_i(x_i,\frac{h_i}{N}x_i+\frac{1}{N}\sum_{j\neq i}h_jx_j)-\\
f_i(x_i',\frac{h_i}{N}x_i'+\frac{1}{N}\sum_{j\neq i}h_jx_j)\big)\geq \eta_i\|x_i-x_i'\|^2,
\end{gathered}$$ for all $ x_i,x_i'\in\calx_i $, $ {\bm{x}}_{-i}\in\calx_{-i} $, and some $ \eta_i>0 $. We can use Assumption \[asmp1\] and rewrite the left hand side of the above inequality as $$\label{propStrong}
\begin{split}
(x_i&-x_i')^\top \big(f_i(x_i,\frac{h_i}{N}x_i+\frac{1}{N}\sum_{j\neq i}h_jx_j)- \\
f_i&(x_i',\frac{h_i}{N}x_i+\frac{1}{N}\sum_{j\neq i}h_jx_j)\big)+\\
(x_i&-x_i')^\top \big(f_i(x_i',\frac{h_i}{N}x_i+\frac{1}{N}\sum_{j\neq i}h_jx_j)-\\
f_i&(x_i',\frac{h_i}{N}x_i'+\frac{1}{N}\sum_{j\neq i}h_jx_j)\big)\geq (\mu_i-\frac{\ell_ih_i}{N}) \|x_i-x_i'\|^2.
\end{split}$$ Thus, noting $ \eta_i:= \mu_i-\frac{\ell_ih_i}{N}$ and $ \mu_i>\ell_ih_i $, we conclude that $ J_i(x_i,{s({\bm{x}})}) $ is $ \eta_i $-strongly convex. By leveraging this property and continuity of $ J_i $ in Assumption \[asmp0\], we conclude that each cost function is radially unbounded with respect to its action [@baker2016strong Prop. 1]. Therefore, it follows from [@basar1999dynamic Cor. 4.2] that the game has an NE $ \bar{\bm{x}}$ which satisfies $${\mbox{col}}\big(f_i(\bar x_i,{s(\bar{\bm{x}})})_{i\in\cali}\big)={\mymathbb{0}}.$$ For uniqueness of the NE, we resort to a proof by contradiction. Let $ \bar {\bm{x}}$ and $ {\bm{x}}' $ be two different NE that satisfy the above equality. Choosing $k_i$ according to for each $i\in \cali$, by Lemma \[pro1\]$ (ii) $, we find that $$\begin{gathered}
(\bar {\bm{x}}-{\bm{x}}')^\top {\bm{K}}\, {\mbox{col}}\big((f_i(\bar x_i,{s(\bar{\bm{x}})})-f_i(x_i',{s({\bm{x}}')}))_{i\in\cali}\big)=0\\
\geq \epsilon \|\bar {\bm{x}}-{{\bm{x}}}'\|^2,
\end{gathered}$$ [which holds if and only if]{} $ \bar {\bm{x}}= {\bm{x}}' $, and we reach a contradiction. This completes the proof.$\square$ *Proof of Lemma \[lemNEset\].* Under Assumption \[asmpset\], the game admits an NE if $ J_i(x_i,{s({\bm{x}})}) $ is strictly convex in $ x_i $ for all $ {\bm{x}}_{-i}\in \calx_{-i}=\prod_{j\neq i}\calx_j $ [@basar1999dynamic Thm. 4.3], which is satisfied as a consequence of Assumption \[asmp1\] (see ). We also know that $ \bar{\bm{x}}\in \calx $ is an NE if and only if it is a solution of the variational inequality VI$ (\calx,{\mbox{col}}\big((f_i(x_i,{s({\bm{x}})}))_{i\in\cali}\big)) $ [@facchinei2007finite Prop. 1.4.2]. Moreover, since $ {\bm{K}}{\mbox{col}}\big((f_i(x_i,{s({\bm{x}})}))_{i\in\cali}\big) $ is strongly monotone (Lemma \[pro1\]$ (ii) $) and $ \calx $ is closed and convex, the variational inequality VI$ (\calx,{\bm{K}}{\mbox{col}}\big((f_i(x_i,{s({\bm{x}})}))_{i\in\cali}\big)) $ has a unique solution $ {\bm{x}}'\in \calx $ [@facchinei2007finite Thm. 2.3.3]. Lastly, we need to show that $ \bar{\bm{x}}$ is unique and equal to $ {\bm{x}}' $.
Clearly, we have $$({\bm{x}}-\bar{{\bm{x}}})^\top {\mbox{col}}\big((f_i( \bar x_i,{s( \bar {\bm{x}})}))_{i\in\cali}\big)\geq 0,\quad \forall {\bm{x}}\in\calx,$$ which can be rewritten as $$\sum_{i\in\cali} (x_i-\bar{x}_i)^\top f_i( \bar x_i,{s( \bar{\bm{x}})})\geq 0 ,\quad \forall {\bm{x}}\in\calx.$$ Let for all $ i\in\cali\setminus \{j\} $, we have $ x_i=\bar{x}_i $; thus, by using $ k_j>0 $, the above inequity yields $$ k_j(x_j-\bar{x}_j)^\top f_j(\bar x_j,{s(\bar {\bm{x}})})\geq 0.$$ By performing the same procedure for the other components of $ \bar {\bm{x}}$ and re-writing all obtained inequalities into the vector form, we can see that $ \bar {\bm{x}}$ is the solution of VI$ (\calx,{\bm{K}}{\mbox{col}}\big((f_i(x_i,{s({\bm{x}})}))_{i\in\cali}\big)) $, i.e., $ \bar {\bm{x}}= {\bm{x}}'$. Consequently, since $ \bar {\bm{x}}$ is an arbitrary solution and $ {\bm{x}}' $ is unique, both variational inequality problems have an identical solution, which concludes the proof. $\square$
Appendix B {#appendix-b .unnumbered}
==========
On convergence of the Modified NE Seeking Algorithm : {#on-convergence-of-the-modified-ne-seeking-algorithm .unnumbered}
-----------------------------------------------------
Similar to , we can guarantee that for any initial condition $ ({{\bm{x}}}(t_0),{{\bm{\sigma}}}(t_0),{\bm{\psi}}(t_0),\bm\lambda(t_0) )\in \calx^1 \times {\mathbb{R}}^{nN}\times {\mathbb{R}}^{nN}\times {\mathbb{R}}^N$, the solution of is unique and belongs to $ \calx^1 \times {\mathbb{R}}^{nN}\times {\mathbb{R}}^{nN} \times {\mathbb{R}}^N$ for almost all $ t\geq t_0 $. We claim that such a solution converges to an equilibrium corresponding to the NE of the game. To this end, consider the equilibrium point $ (\bar {{\bm{x}}},\bar {{\bm{\sigma}}},\bar {\bm{\psi}},\bar {\bm\lambda}) $ with $ \bar {\bm{\sigma}}={\mathds{1}}_N\otimes {s(\bar{\bm{x}})} $, $ (L\otimes I_n)\bar{\bm{\psi}}= (\Pi\otimes I_n){\bm{H}}\bar {\bm{x}}$, and $$\label{PEV_eqli_proj}
{\mymathbb{0}}=\Pi_{\calx^1}\big(\bar {\bm{x}},-{\bm{K}}{\mbox{col}}\big((f_i(\bar x_i,{s(\bar{\bm{x}})}))_{i\in\cali}\big)-(I_N\otimes {\mathds{1}}_n)\bar {\bm\lambda}\big),$$ $$\label{PEV_eqli_x2}
\\{\mymathbb{0}}=(I_N\otimes {\mathds{1}}_n^\top)\bar {\bm{x}}-\bm\gamma.$$ The second equality implies that $ \bar {\bm{x}}\in \calx^2= \prod_{i\in \cali}\calx_i^2$. Employing Moreau’s decomposition theorem and , we can perform an analogous analysis to the proof of Theorem \[the:convSet\] and conclude that $ \bar {\bm{x}}$ is the solution of VI$ (\calx^ 1,{\bm{K}}{\mbox{col}}\big((f_i( x_i,{s( {\bm{x}})}))_{i\in\cali}\big)+(I_N\otimes {\mathds{1}}_n)\bar {\bm\lambda}) $. This means that $ \bar {\bm{x}}$ is the solution of the following optimization problem [@facchinei2007finite Eq. 1.2.1] $$\min_{y\in\calx^1}y^\top ({\bm{K}}{\mbox{col}}\big((f_i( \bar x_i,{s(\bar {\bm{x}})}))_{i\in\cali}\big)+(I_N\otimes {\mathds{1}}_n)\bar {\bm\lambda}).$$ Let $ g_i^t({\bm{x}}):={\mbox{col}}(x_i^t-\bar x_i,-x_i^t)$, $ g_i({\bm{x}}):={\mbox{col}}\big((g_i^t({\bm{x}}))_{t\in\calt}\big) $, and $ g({\bm{x}}):={\mbox{col}}\big((g_i({\bm{x}}))_{i\in\cali}\big) $; then we see that $ g({\bm{x}})\leq 0 $ represents the set $ \calx^1 $. Therefore, there exist $ \mu_i^t\in{\mathbb{R}}^2 $ that satisfy the following KKT conditions
$$\begin{aligned}
{2}
0&={\bm{K}}{\mbox{col}}\big((f_i( \bar x_i,{s(\bar {\bm{x}})}))_{i\in\cali}\big)&&+(I_N\otimes {\mathds{1}}_n)\bar {\bm\lambda}\\
& &&+\sum_{i\in\cali}\sum_{t\in\calt} { \frac{\partial }{\partial x}}g_i^t({\bm{x}})^\top \mu_i^t\\
0&\leq \bm{\mu} \perp g({\bm{x}})\leq 0,\end{aligned}$$
where $ \bm{\mu}:={\mbox{col}}\big((\mu_i)_{i\in\cali}\big) $ with $ \mu_i:={\mbox{col}}\big((\mu_i^t)_{t\in\calt}\big) $. Considering the above equations together with , we conclude from [@facchinei2007finite Prop. 1.3.4(b)] that $ \bar {\bm{x}}$ is the solution of VI$ (\calx,{\bm{K}}{\mbox{col}}\big((f_i( x_i,{s( {\bm{x}})}))_{i\in\cali}\big)) $, and in turn, it is the NE of the game. Convergence of the algorithm is similar to Theorem \[the:convSet\].
[^1]: Mehran Shakarami, Claudio De Persis, and Nima Monshizadeh are with the Engineering and Technology Institute, University of Groningen, 9747AG, The Netherlands, [[email protected], [email protected], [email protected].]{}
[^2]: The authors thank Sergio Grammatico for pointing out this connection.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Reading comprehension is a challenging task in natural language processing and requires a set of skills to be solved. While current approaches focus on solving the task as a whole, in this paper, we propose to use a neural network ‘skill’ transfer approach. We transfer knowledge from several lower-level language tasks (skills) including textual entailment, named entity recognition, paraphrase detection and question type classification into the reading comprehension model. We conduct an empirical evaluation and show that transferring language skill knowledge leads to significant improvements for the task with much fewer steps compared to the baseline model. We also show that the skill transfer approach is effective even with small amounts of training data. Another finding of this work is that using token-wise deep label supervision for text classification improves the performance of transfer learning.'
author:
- 'Todor Mihaylov[^1]'
- Zornitsa Kozareva
- Anette Frank
bibliography:
- 'bib.bib'
title: Neural Skill Transfer from Supervised Language Tasks to Reading Comprehension
---
[^1]: Most of this work was performed during the author’s internship at Amazon, AWS Deep Learning.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'F. Raucq'
- 'G. Rauw'
- 'L. Mahy[^1]'
- 'S. Simón-Díaz'
title: 'Fundamental parameters of massive stars in multiple systems: The cases of HD 17505A and HD 206267A[^2]'
---
Introduction
============
Binary systems are important tools for observationally determining the masses and radii of stars. However, the binarity also implies far more complex and diverse evolutionary paths for these systems [e.g. @Vanbeveren17; @Langer08; @Langer07]. This is especially relevant for massive stars since the incidence of binary or higher multiplicity systems is high among these objects [@Duchene13 and references therein]. In close binaries, the exchange of mass and angular momentum between the stars leads to various observational signatures such as over- or under-luminosities, peculiar chemical abundances, and asynchronous rotation. [e.g. @Linder08; @Mahy11; @Raucq16; @Raucq17]. The evolution of the inner pair of stars in gravitationally-bound hierarchical triple systems is even more complex, since the Lidov-Kozai cycles can modulate the eccentricity of the inner binary, leading to modulations of the binary interactions [@Toonen16]. Observational constraints on these phenomena can be obtained through in-depth analyses of the spectra of such systems using spectral disentangling methods coupled to modern model atmosphere codes [e.g. @Raucq16; @Raucq17]. In this paper, we apply this approach to the spectra of two close massive binaries, HD 17505Aa and HD 206267Aa, which are part of higher multiplicity systems.
HD 17505 is an O-star system dominating the centre of the cluster IC 1848 within the Cas OB6 stellar association at a distance of about 2.3kpc [@Garmany92; @Massey95], which was revised to 1.9kpc by @Hillwig06. Previous studies suggested that HD 17505 is a multiple system consisting of at least four O stars (with a total mass approaching 100M$_{\odot}$) that are apparently gravitationally bound [@Stickland01; @Hillwig06 and references therein], and up to six visual companions that have not been shown to be gravitationally bound [@Mason98], at angular separations ranging from 2to 124. The inner binary [HD 17505Aa; see @Hillwig06] is composed of two O7.5V stars with a short orbital period of 8.57days. The inner binary spectra are blended with that of a third component (HD 17505Ab), which is classified as an O6.5III star with an orbital period of less than 61years [@Hillwig06].
HD 206267 is a trapezium-like system [e.g. @Mason13] dominating the young open cluster Trumpler 37 and the H[ii]{} region IC 1396, embedded in the Cep OB2 association. The system was first studied by @Plaskett23, who noted that its spectrum displays rather diffuse lines, some of which were double and showed variable strength and profile. @Stickland95 showed the main component of the system (HD 206267A) to be triple, and presented an orbital solution of the inner binary, HD206267Aa, based on high-resolution, short-wavelength [*IUE*]{} spectra. He derived an orbital period of 3.71days for the inner binary system. The third component, HD 206267Ab, was found to display a constant velocity. @Burkholder97 subsequently revised the orbital solution of the inner binary and inferred spectral types of O6.5V and O9.5V for the primary and secondary, respectively.
This paper is organized as follows. Section \[obs\] describes the spectroscopic observations and data reduction. Revised orbital solutions are derived in Sect.\[New-orbital-solutions\]. Section \[preparation\] presents the preparatory work on the sample of spectra aiming at the reconstruction of the individiual spectra of the components of both binary systems. The resulting spectra are then used in Sect.\[analysis\] to derive the fundamental stellar parameters, notably through fits with a model atmosphere code. Finally, Sect.\[summary\] summarizes our main results and discusses their implications.
Observations and data reduction \[obs\]
=======================================
Fifteen high-resolution optical spectra of HD 17505A and 22 spectra of HD 206267A were obtained with the HEROS spectrograph, mounted on the 1.2m TIGRE telescope at La Luz Observatory [Mexico; @Schmitt14]. The HEROS spectrograph covers two spectral domains, ranging from 3500Å to 5600Å (the blue channel) and from 5800Å to 8800Å (red channel), with a resolution of $\sim$20000. The spectra were reduced with an Interactive Data Language (IDL) pipeline [@Schmitt14] based on the reduction package REDUCE written by @Piskunov02. The spectra of HD 17505A had a signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) of $\sim 100$ between 4560Å and 4680Å, whilst this number was $\sim 150$ for HD 206267A.
We complemented the HEROS spectra with a series of data from various archives. One reduced spectrum of HD 17505A and one of HD 206267A were extracted from the ELODIE archive. The ELODIE [é]{}chelle spectrograph was mounted on the 1.93m telescope of the Observatoire de Haute Provence (OHP, France) between 1993 and 2006. It covered the spectral range from 3850Å to 6800Å with a resolution of $\sim$42000. Six spectra of HD 17505A and five of HD 206267A were obtained as part of the IACOB project [@SimonDiaz11a; @SimonDiaz11b; @SimonDiaz15] with the FIES [é]{}chelle spectrograph. The FIES instrument is mounted on the 2.5m Nordic Optical Telescope located at the Observatorio del Roque de los Muchachos (La Palma, Spain). This spectrograph covers the spectral range from 3700Å to 7300Å with a resolving power of $\sim$46000 in medium-resolution mode.
For HD 206267A, we further took one spectrum from the ESPaDOnS archives and nine spectra from the SOPHIE archives. The ESPaDOnS [é]{}chelle spectropolarimeter has a resolving power of $\sim 68\,000$ over the complete optical spectrum and is operated on the 3.6m Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope on Mauna Kea, whereas the SOPHIE spectrograph is mounted on the 1.93m telescope at OHP, and covers the wavelength range from 3872Å to 6943Å at a resolution of $\sim$40 000 (high-efficiency mode).
Since our analysis combines spectra collected with different instruments, one might wonder about systematic differences in the wavelength calibration of the spectra. To quantify this, we measured the velocities of the interstellar Na[i]{} D$_1$ and D$_2$ lines for those instruments where more than one spectrum had been taken. The highest resolution spectra (FIES, SOPHIE) reveal that these lines actually consist of several components that are heavily blended. Yet, since they are not resolved on the HEROS data, which make up the bulk of our data, we simply fitted a single Gaussian to each line. The results of these tests are shown in Table\[wavelength\]. Within the errors, the velocities determined with the different instruments overlap with the mean value determined from all data. Systematic differences are found to be less than 2kms$^{-1}$, and part of these differences are most likely due to the non-Gaussian shape of the lines seen with the different resolving powers. These systematic differences are much smaller than the typical errors on the measurements of the stellar radial velocities (RVs). The journals of the observations of HD 17505A and HD 206267A are presented in Tables\[journal\_17505\] and \[journal\_206267\], respectively.
---------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
Na[i]{} D$_1$ Na[i]{} D$_2$ Na[i]{} D$_1$ Na[i]{} D$_2$
(kms$^{-1}$) (kms$^{-1}$) (kms$^{-1}$) (kms$^{-1}$)
FIES $-15.0 \pm 1.4$ $-16.5 \pm 1.5$ $-13.3 \pm 1.2$ $-15.0 \pm 1.3$
SOPHIE – – $-13.6 \pm 1.5$ $-15.7 \pm 0.1$
HEROS $-13.0 \pm 1.6$ $-14.9 \pm 1.6$ $-11.1 \pm 0.6$ $-13.3 \pm 0.8$
All data $-13.5 \pm 1.8$ $-15.4 \pm 1.7$ $-12.0 \pm 1.5$ $-14.1 \pm 1.3$
---------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
: Heliocentric radial velocities of the interstellar Na[i]{} lines.\[wavelength\]
The vast majority of the spectra listed in Tables \[journal\_17505\] and \[journal\_206267\] have very similar S/N ratios. For the spectral disentangling, we thus considered all data with equal weights. The spectra were continuum normalized using a spline-fitting method under the Munich Image Data Analysis System ([MIDAS]{}) software. For each system, we adopted a single set of carefully chosen continuum windows to normalize all spectra in a self-consistent way. Finally, for the purpose of spectral disentangling, all spectra were rebinned with a wavelength step of 0.02Å.
-------------------- ------------ ----------- -------- --------- --------- --------
HJD $-2\,450\,000$ Instrument Exp. time $\phi$ RV(Aa1) RV(Aa2) RV(Ab)
(min)
3327.473 ELODIE 60 0.75 -191.0 114.3 -31.3
5447.762 FIES 15 0.19 115.5 -193.3 -31.7
5577.414 FIES 13.7 0.32 90.8 -163.3 -1.15:
5812.692 FIES 11.8 0.78 -208.3 113.0 -13.6:
5814.677 FIES 9.2 0.01 -28.1 -28.1 -13.6:
5816.755 FIES 8.3 0.25 106.3 -200.4 -13.6:
6285.436 FIES 15 0.95 -128.1 43.0 9.1:
6895.965 HEROS 60 0.20 126.2 -160.5 -37.6
6897.853 HEROS 60 0.42 36.3: -88.5: -37.6
6907.940 HEROS 60 0.60 -36.1 -4.1: -37.6
6910.888 HEROS 40 0.94 -136.1 80.5 -37.6
6911.915 HEROS 60 0.06 -38.2 -38.2 -37.6
6918.869 HEROS 60 0.88 -168.5 126.3 -37.6
6925.891 HEROS 60 0.69 -127.1: 94.7 -37.6
6939.829 HEROS 60 0.32 139.1 -152.3 -37.6
6941.814 HEROS 60 0.55 -28.2 -28.2 -37.6
6943.801 HEROS 60 0.79 -171.4 136.1 -37.6
6945.770 HEROS 60 0.01 -26.4 -26.4 -37.6
6947.861 HEROS 60 0.26 144.8 -166.1 -37.6
6949.855 HEROS 20 0.49 -21.8 -21.8 -37.6
6953.787 HEROS 20 0.95 -126.8 85.6 -37.6
6955.785 HEROS 60 0.18 128.8 -142.9 -37.6
-------------------- ------------ ----------- -------- --------- --------- --------
------------------- ------------ ----------- -------- -------------- --------------
HJD$-2\,450\,000$ Instrument Exp. time $\phi$ RV(Aa1) RV(Aa2)
(min) (kms$^{-1}$) (kms$^{-1}$)
0710.4441 ELODIE 22.3 0.42 -166.64: 279.78
5494.3031 FIES 3.3 0.95 163.71 -298.86
5729.1077 ESPaDOnS 7.5 0.24 -144.38 95.92
5812.5828 FIES 2.1 0.74 107.95 -113.76:
5816.4969 FIES 2.1 0.80 116.34: -141.13:
5817.5170 FIES 2.6 0.07 70.20: -233.19
6285.3231 FIES 3.4 0.17 -7.10 -7.10
6527.4539 SOPHIE 5 0.44 -160.71 294.96
6527.5577 SOPHIE 5 0.47 -160.47 291.80
6528.4396 SOPHIE 5 0.71 -13.17 -13.17
6528.5550 SOPHIE 5 0.74 -13.17 -13.17
6529.4943 SOPHIE 5 0.99 180.19 -301.36
6530.3561 SOPHIE 5 0.22 -137.16 80.18
6530.5523 SOPHIE 5 0.28 -149.83 164.45
6531.4081 SOPHIE 5 0.51 -170.80 251.79
6531.5479 SOPHIE 5 0.54 -140.55 221.30
6895.7500 HEROS 30 0.72 -4.52 -4.52
6897.7738 HEROS 30 0.26 -133.61 128.00
6907.7219 HEROS 30 0.95 123.25: -312.95:
6909.7156 HEROS 30 0.48 -147.36 291.91
6911.7011 HEROS 30 0.02 149.51 -279.74
6920.6768 HEROS 30 0.44 -162.35 276.12:
6926.6468 HEROS 30 0.05 159.82 -252.97
6939.6036 HEROS 30 0.54 -145.36 223.14
6941.6020 HEROS 30 0.08 167.72 -227.50
6944.6560 HEROS 30 0.90 160.05 -278.83
6957.5806 HEROS 30 0.38 -146.99 273.99:
7236.7624 HEROS 15 0.64 -142.53 164.15
7236.7729 HEROS 15 0.64 -117.50 165.15
7238.7444 HEROS 30 0.17 -3.96 -3.96
7264.8159 HEROS 30 0.20 -3.96 -3.96
7271.7659 HEROS 30 0.08 161.57 -229.72
7286.6714 HEROS 30 0.09 162.89 -180.75
7288.6617 HEROS 30 0.63 -145.56 131.03:
7290.7237 HEROS 30 0.19 -3.96 -3.96
7292.6865 HEROS 30 0.72 -92.04: 158.66
7308.6686 HEROS 30 0.02 170.45 -278.45
7323.5769 HEROS 30 0.04 178.21 -257.39
------------------- ------------ ----------- -------- -------------- --------------
New orbital solutions\[New-orbital-solutions\]
==============================================
HD 17505Aa
----------
Using our set of observations, we revised the orbital solution of the inner binary system of HD 17505A. To do so, we concentrated our efforts on the strongest absorption lines that are essentially free from blends with other features. In this way, we measured the RVs of the H$\gamma$, He[i]{} $\lambda\lambda$4471, 5876, 7065, He[i]{} + [ii]{} $\lambda$4026, and He[ii]{} $\lambda\lambda$4542, 5412 lines via a multi-Gaussian fit. We adopted the effective wavelengths from @Underhill95 and @Ninkov. The primary and secondary stars of the inner binary, HD 17505Aa, apparently display the same spectral type, which leads to some difficulties in distinguishing the two stars. For each observation, the RVs of the primary and secondary stars quoted in Table\[journal\_17505\] were determined as the mean of the corresponding RVs measured for each of the above-listed lines in that given observation. Since all our data points were obtained with the same set of lines, we obtain a coherent set of RVs that should be free of any bias due to the choice of the lines under consideration[^3]. For most data points, the uncertainties on the RVs are about 5 – 15km s$^{-1}$. In some cases (indicated by the colons in Table\[journal\_17505\]), the uncertainties however exceed 20km s$^{-1}$.
We then performed a Fourier analysis of the RV(Aa1) and RV(Aa2) data using the Fourier-method for uneven sampling of @HMM, modified by @Gosset. This analysis yielded the highest peak around $\nu=0.11670 \pm 0.00003$d$^{-1}$, i.e. $P_{\rm orb}=8.5690 \pm 0.0022$days, which is consistent within the error bars with the orbital period determined in the study of @Hillwig06, $P_{\rm orb} = 8.5710 \pm 0.0008$days. For completeness, we also performed the same Fourier analysis with our RVs combined to those reported by @Hillwig06 and found again the highest peak at $\nu=0.11670 \pm 0.00002$d$^{-1}$, indicating that our period determination $P_{\rm orb}=8.5690 \pm 0.0014$days is consistent with their work.
Adopting an orbital period of 8.5690days, we computed an orbital solution with the Liège Orbital Solution Package code [LOSP, @Sana09 and references therein]. The RVs were weighted according to their estimated uncertainties. The result is shown in the left panel of Fig.\[orb\_sol\_fig\_17505\] and the corresponding orbital elements are provided in Table\[Orb\_sol\_17505\_tab\]. We further computed an orbital solution combining our newly measured RVs with those of @Hillwig06. The RV curve is shown in the right panel of Fig.\[orb\_sol\_fig\_17505\] and the corresponding orbital elements are also given in Table\[Orb\_sol\_17505\_tab\].
The RV amplitudes of both our single and combined solutions are lower than reported by @Hillwig06, and our determined eccentricities are slightly larger than reported by these authors (see Table\[Orb\_sol\_17505\_tab\]). The lower RV amplitudes result in lower minimum masses compared to the solution of @Hillwig06.
--------------------------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
Prim. (Aa1) Seco. (Aa2) Prim. (Aa1) Seco. (Aa2) Prim. (Aa1) Seco. (Aa2)
$P_{\rm orb}$ (days)
$T_0$ (HJD $- 2\,450\,000$)
$e$
$\gamma$ (kms$^{-1}$) $-27.8 \pm 4.7$ $-27.6 \pm 4.5$ $-25.8 \pm 1.8$ $-26.3 \pm 1.2$ $-27.7 \pm 2.3$ $-25.9 \pm 2.3$
$K$ (kms$^{-1}$) $156.7 \pm 6.3$ $146.7 \pm 5.9$ $166.5 \pm 1.8$ $170.8 \pm 1.8$ $162.8 \pm 3.2$ $160.8 \pm 3.1$
$a\,\sin{i}$ (R$_{\odot}$) $26.3 \pm 1.0$ $24.6 \pm 1.0$ $27.4 \pm 0.5$ $27.0 \pm 0.5$
$q = m_{1}/m_{2}$
$\omega (^{\circ})$
$m\,\sin^3{i}$ (M$_{\odot}$) $11.7 \pm 1.2$ $12.5 \pm 1.3$ $17.1 \pm 0.6$ $16.6 \pm 0.6$ $14.6 \pm 0.7$ $14.8 \pm 0.8$
$R_{\rm RL}/(a_1 + a_2)$ $0.37 \pm 0.01$ $0.38 \pm 0.01$ $0.38 \pm 0.01$ $0.38 \pm 0.01$
$R_{\rm RL}\,\sin{i}$ $19.0 \pm 0.6$ $19.6 \pm 0.6$ $20.6 \pm 0.3$ $20.7 \pm 0.3$
$\sigma_{\rm fit}$ (kms$^{-1}$)
--------------------------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
HD 206267Aa
-----------
For the inner binary system of HD 206267A, we derived a new orbital solution based on the RVs of the strongest absorption lines that are essentially free from blends with other features. For each observation, the RVs of the primary and secondary stars were computed as the mean of the RVs of the He[i]{} $\lambda\lambda$4471, 5876, 7065 and He[i]{} + [ii]{} $\lambda$4026 lines determined by a multi-Gaussian fit on the observed spectra. Broader spectral features such as He[ii]{} and H$\gamma$ lines of the primary, secondary and tertiary stars were too heavily blended to be measured. Again, we used the effective wavelengths of @Underhill95 and @Ninkov. The results are provided in Table\[journal\_206267\]. The uncertainties on these RVs are about 10 – 20km s$^{-1}$ for most observations, but exceed 30kms$^{-1}$ for some spectra, indicated by the colons in Table\[journal\_206267\]. We also obtained a mean RV of $-7.0 \pm 7.8$kms$^{-1}$ for the tertiary component of the system. The dispersion of this value is comparable to the typical uncertainty on the individual tertiary RVs. All tertiary RV data points fall within 2$\sigma$ of the mean.
A Fourier analysis of the RV(Aa1) and RV(Aa2) data yielded a highest peak around $\nu = 0.269502 \pm 0.000015$d$^{-1}$, i.e. $P_{\rm orb} = 3.710534 \pm 0.000208$days, which is close to the period of $P_{\rm orb} = 3.709838 \pm 0.000010$days proposed by @Stickland95, although the values do not agree within their error bars. We also performed a Fourier analysis on our RVs combined with those measured by @Stickland95 and @Burkholder97. This time, the highest peak was found at $\nu=0.269558 \pm 0.000008$d$^{-1}$, i.e. $P_{\rm orb} = 3.709777 \pm 0.000103$days, which is in better agreement with the value of @Stickland95, but does not agree with the value obtained from our data only.
Adopting orbital periods of 3.710534 and 3.709777 days, we then computed two orbital solutions with the LOSP code. The RVs were weighted according to their estimated uncertainties. The resulting RV curves are shown in Fig.\[orb\_sol\_fig\_206267\] and the corresponding orbital elements are provided in Table\[Orb\_sol\_206267\], together with those found in the previous studies of @Stickland95 and @Burkholder97.
The RV amplitudes, minimum masses, mass ratios and eccentricities of both our single and combined solutions are in good agreement with those of previous works. We note however that in the orbital solution based only on our dataset, there is one observation (taken with the ELODIE instrument on HJD 2450710.4441) that seems to be at odds with the computed RV curves, while it is well integrated in the curves for our combined orbital solution. This is by far the oldest data point among our new data, which could hint at apsidal motion as the cause of this discrepancy. Indeed, tidal interactions in a close eccentric binary system can lead to a secular variation of the argument of periastron $\omega$ [e.g. @Schmittomegadot and references therein]. We used the method of @Rauw16 to fit the RV data accounting for the existence of the $\dot{\omega}$ term. In this way, we find the existing RV data of HD 206267Aa to be consistent with $\dot{\omega} = (1.24 \pm 0.84)^{\circ}$yr$^{-1}$. However, given the complexity of the spectrum of this triple system, additional data over a longer epoch are needed to establish the rate of the apsidal motion firmly. Meanwhile, we note that the sigma of the fit of the combined orbital solution is significantly better than the one of the orbital solution based on our RVs only. We thus chose to base our subsequent analysis of the inner binary system of HD 206267 on the orbital solution based on our RVs combined to those measured by @Stickland95 and @Burkholder97.
--------------------------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ------------------ ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
Prim. (Aa1) Seco. (Aa2) Prim. (Aa1) Seco. (Aa2) Prim. (Aa1) Seco. (Aa2) Prim. (Aa1) Seco. (Aa2)
$P_{\rm orb}$ (days)
$T_0$ (HJD$- 2\,450\,000$)
$e$
$\gamma$ (kms$^{-1}$) $-19.4 \pm 5.0$ $9.9 \pm 6.3$ $-24.8 \pm 1.4$ $-10.7 \pm 9.4$ $-6.8 \pm 8.3$ $-14.9 \pm 3.1$ $0.1 \pm 4.0$
$K$ (kms$^{-1}$) $184.0 \pm 6.2$ $275.4 \pm 9.2$ $161.1 \pm 2.5$ $288.0 \pm 11.5$ $187.5 \pm 5.7$ $307.6 \pm 3.8$ $186.1 \pm 3.6$ $295.5 \pm 5.7$
$a\,\sin{i}$ (R$_{\odot}$) $13.4 \pm 0.4$ $20.0 \pm 0.7$ $11.7 \pm 0.18$ $13.6 \pm 0.4$ $22.4 \pm 0.3$ $13.5 \pm 0.3$ $21.5 \pm 0.4$
$q = m_1/m_2$
$\omega (^{\circ})$
$m\,\sin^3{i}$ (M$_{\odot}$) $21.8 \pm 1.8$ $14.5 \pm 1.1$ $22.1 \pm 2.5$ $12.3 \pm 0.8$ $28.4 \pm 1.5$ $17.3 \pm 1.5$ $25.7 \pm 1.2$ $16.2 \pm 0.7$
$R_{\rm RL}/(a_1 + a_2)$ $0.41 \pm 0.01$ $0.34 \pm 0.01$ $0.42 \pm 0.01$ $0.34 \pm 0.01$
$R_{\rm RL}\,\sin{i}$ $13.8 \pm 0.4$ $11.6 \pm 0.3$ $14.7 \pm 0.2$ $11.9 \pm 0.2$
$\sigma_{\rm fit}$ (kms$^{-1}$)
--------------------------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ------------------ ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
Preparatory analysis \[preparation\]
====================================
Once the orbital solutions of the close binary systems had been determined, the natural step to follow would have been to disentangle the spectra of the three components of HD 17505A and HD 206267A, considering a non-moving tertiary object. This is a rather good approximation since the orbital period of the third component of HD 17505A around the inner binary is much longer than the time span of the observations. Moreover, a physical link between the inner binary of HD 206267A and the third component has not been established yet.
However, when we applied our disentangling routine adapted to triple systems [@Mahy12], we observed the appearance of artefacts in the resulting reconstructed primary, secondary, and tertiary spectra. Indeed, the wings of broad features in the resulting tertiary spectrum appear in emission and have a profile very similar to a mirrored profile of the wings of the corresponding lines in the primary and secondary spectra.
The appearance of such artefacts is inherent to the disentangling code itself. Indeed, this method is based on the Doppler shift of the lines of the different components of a system due to their orbital motion (see Sect.\[disent\]). In the systems studied in this work, the wings of the lines of the (stationary) tertiary star are always partially blended with the neighbouring wings of the lines of the primary and secondary stars. This leads to ambiguities in the determination of the line profiles, which translate into the above described artefacts.
We thus adopted a different approach, in which we first adjust the ternary spectrum via the combination of three synthetic spectra (see Sect.\[Adjustment\]), and then subtract the tertiary spectrum from the actual observations.
To assess the relative contributions of each star to the combined spectrum of the triple systems, and therefore to normalize the synthetic spectra before combining them, we evaluated the dilution of prominent spectral lines in the observed spectra as follows: $$\frac{l_i}{l_i + l_j + l_k}=\frac{l_i}{l_j\left(\frac{l_i}{l_j} + 1 + \frac{l_k}{l_j}\right)}$$ with $$\frac{l_i}{l_j}=\left(\frac{EW_i}{EW_j}\right)_{{\rm obs}}\left(\frac{EW_{STj}}{EW_{STi}}\right)_{{\rm mean}}
,$$ where $i$, $j,$ and $k$ represent either the primary, secondary, or tertiary stars, depending on the contribution we were calculating. The value $EW_i$ represents the equivalent width of the studied line of star $i$ referring to the combined continuum of the three stars and $EW_{STi}$ the same quantity measured on the synthetic CMFGEN spectrum of a typical single star of the same spectral type as star $i$.
For HD 17505A, we considered the spectral types previously determined by @Hillwig06: i.e. O7.5V((f)) + O7.5V((f)) + O6.5III((f)). This way, we obtained that the primary, secondary, and tertiary contributions to the total flux of this star are 29%, 34%, and 37%, respectively, which is close to the values of 30%, 30%, and 40% inferred by @Hillwig06. For HD 206267A, we considered the spectral types previously determined by [@Burkholder97]: i.e. O6.5V((f)) + O9.5:V for the close binary system and O8V for the tertiary component as determined by @Harvin03. This way, we estimated that the primary, secondary, and tertiary contributions to the total flux amount to 60%, 15%, and 25%, respectively. Our estimated light contribution of the third component is in good agreement with the $1.314 \pm 0.090$ magnitude difference between the binary system and the third component as found by @Aldoretta15 with the Fine Guidance Sensor on the [*HST*]{}.
Adjustment of the ternary spectrum\[Adjustment\]
------------------------------------------------
We combined synthetic spectra of each component of the triple systems, shifted by the appropriate RVs for each observation, and scaled according to the brightness ratios inferred above. We then compared the resulting synthetic ternary spectrum to the observations of the system. To construct the synthetic spectrum of each component of the triple systems, we used the non-LTE model atmosphere code CMFGEN [@Hillier98]. This code solves the equations of radiative transfer and statistical equilibrium in the co-moving frame. The CMFGEN code is designed to work for both plane-parallel and spherical geometries and can be used to model Wolf-Rayet and O-type stars, as well as luminous blue variables and supernovae. The CMFGEN code further accounts for line blanketing and its impact on the spectral energy distribution. The hydrodynamical structure of the stellar atmosphere is directly specified as an input to the code. A $\beta$ law is used to describe the stellar wind velocity, and a super-level approach is adopted for the resolution of the equations of statistical equilibrium. The following chemical elements and their ions were included in the calculations: H, He, C, N, O, Ne, Mg, Al, Si, S, Ca, Fe, and Ni. A photospheric structure was computed from the solution of the equations of statistical equilibrium, and was then connected to the same $\beta$ wind velocity law. We assumed a microturbulent velocity in the atmosphere varying linearly with wind velocity from 10 kms$^{-1}$ at the photosphere to $0.1\,v_{\infty}$ at the outer boundary. The generated synthetic spectra were then combined and compared to the spectra of the triple system to constrain iteratively the fundamental properties of the three stars.
As a starting point, we assumed that the fundamental parameters of the stars and their winds have values close to those typical for stars of the same spectral type. We thus took the surface gravities, luminosities, and effective temperatures from @Martins05, mass-loss rates and $\beta$ of the wind velocity law from @Muijres12, and wind terminal velocities from @Prinja90. To obtain a first approximation of the line broadening, we performed a multi-Gaussian fit of some lines on the least blended observed spectra. For HD 17505A, we used the He[i]{} $\lambda\lambda$4471, 4922, O[iii]{} $\lambda$5592, and C[iv]{} $\lambda$5812 lines, whereas in the case of HD 206267A, we used the He[i]{} $\lambda$4471, He[i]{} + [ii]{} $\lambda$4026, and O[iii]{} $\lambda$5592 lines.
Starting from these first approximations, we then constrained the physical properties of each star by an iterative process because each adjustment of a given parameter leads to some modifications in the value of others, and each modification in the spectrum of one of the three stars may require some modifications in the spectrum of one of the other two. For each star, the following process was used to adjust the fit of the spectra.
The first step consists in adjusting the effective temperature. This parameter is mainly determined through the relative strengths of the He[i]{} $\lambda$4471 and He[ii]{} $\lambda$4542 lines [e.g. @Artemio; @Martins11]. Next comes a first approximation of the surface gravities through the width of the Balmer lines, which were approximatively reconstructed with a multi-Gaussian fit on a number of observations at different phases. The next logical step would be to adjust the wind parameters. The diagnostics of the terminal velocities, $\beta$ and the mass-loss rates are the strength of H$\alpha$, the width of He[ii]{} $\lambda$4686 and H$\alpha$, and the strengths of H$\gamma$ and H$\delta$, respectively, while the clumping filling factors and the clumping velocity factors are based on the shape of the H$\alpha$ and H$\beta$ lines. The He[ii]{} $\lambda$4686 and the Balmer lines of the inner binary could be polluted by some emission from a wind-wind interaction zone within the inner binary. The adjustment of the models onto the observed spectra may thus lead to an underestimate of the terminal velocities, and an overestimate of the $\beta$ of the velocity law, the clumping filling factors, the clumping velocity factors, and the mass-loss rates of the primary and secondary stars. The values obtained with such a fit should thus only be considered as lower and upper limits of the real properties of the corresponding stellar winds. Once the fundamental stellar parameters were established, we investigated the CNO abundances through the strengths of associated lines. We performed a normalized $\chi^{2}$ analysis to determine the best fit to selected diagnostic lines, following @Martins15 and @Raucq16 [@Raucq17]. The list of suitable lines for CNO surface abundance determination was established based on the results of @Martins15 and by restricting ourselves to those lines that are present in the spectra of our stars, given their spectral types.
For HD 17505Aa, we used the C[iii]{} $\lambda\lambda$4068-70, 4156, 4163, 4187; N[ii]{} $\lambda$4379, and N[iii]{} $\lambda\lambda$4511, 4515, 4525; and O[iii]{} $\lambda\lambda$5508, 5592 lines to constrain the C, N, and O abundances, respectively. For HD 206267A, the same abundances were estimated by means of the C[iii]{} $\lambda\lambda$4068-70; N[ii]{} $\lambda$4379, N[iii]{} $\lambda\lambda$4511, 4515, 4525; and O[iii]{} $\lambda\lambda$5508, 5592 lines for the primary star. For the secondary star, the C[iii]{} $\lambda\lambda$ 4163, 4187 and N[iii]{} $\lambda\lambda$4530, 4535 lines were included in addition to the line list for the primary.
In Figs.\[fig\_recombine\_17505\] and \[fig\_recombine\_206267\] we show parts of the observed spectra of HD 17505A and HD 206267A, respectively, at different orbital phases along with the corresponding recombined synthetic spectra of the triple systems.
Spectral disentangling of the inner binaries \[disent\]
-------------------------------------------------------
Once we obtained a good fit of the triple system for all the observations, we subtracted the synthetic tertiary spectrum from each observation to recover the spectra of the inner binary. After removal of the third object, we then treated the spectra with our disentangling code [@Mahy12; @Rauw16] based on the method introduced by @GL, in the same way as for HD 149404 [@Raucq16] and LSS 3074 [@Raucq17]. In the spectral disentangling procedure, the individual spectra are reconstructed in an iterative way by averaging the observed spectra shifted into the frame of reference of one binary component after having subtracted the current best approximation of the companion’s spectrum shifted to its current estimated RV. Improved estimates of the RVs of the stars can then be evaluated by cross-correlating the residual spectra, obtained after subtracting the companion’s spectrum, with a synthetic spectrum. The same steps are performed alternately for the primary and secondary star. This method allows in principle to reconstruct simultaneously the primary and secondary spectra and determine their RVs. In the present case, the RVs of the binary components were kept fixed to the values used for deriving the orbital solutions.
As any spectral disentangling procedure, our method also has its limitations [see also @PH10; @Mahy17]. In the present case, the most severe problem arises from the difficulties to reconstruct accurately the wings of the lines notably due to the blending with the lines of the tertiary component. This problem was at least partially solved via the subtraction of the synthetic tertiary spectrum in Sect.\[Adjustment\]. Another issue stems from the fact that small residual normalization uncertainties lead to low-frequency oscillations in the reconstructed spectra. Therefore, we re-normalized the disentangled spectra using the same continuum windows as for the normalization of the original spectra. Moreover, any spectral feature that does not follow the orbital motion of either star (e.g. emission from a wind interaction zone located between the stars) is erroneously distributed between the primary and secondary spectra. In the systems investigated here, we did not observe any such emission. Finally, the intrinsic spectra of the stars could be variable as a function of orbital phase (e.g. because of the temperature distribution over the surface of a distorted star). However, @Palate have shown that, as long as the binary is not in a contact configuration, spectral disentangling provides a very good description of the mean spectra averaged over the individual stellar surfaces.
Spectral types
--------------
Once we obtained the individual reconstructed spectra of the primary and secondary components of the close binary systems, we determined their spectral types. To do so, we applied Conti’s quantitative classification criteria for O-type stars [@Conti71; @Conti77; @vdHucht96] and we used a comparison with the catalogue of @Walborn90. For HD 17505Aa, we classified the primary and secondary as O7V((f)) stars, in excellent agreement with the spectral types given by @Hillwig06 who proposed an O7.5V((f)) classification for both stars. Applying the same approach to HD 206267Aa, we found that the primary and secondary are of spectral types O5.5V((f)) and O9.5V, respectively. Our determination of the spectral type of the secondary exactly matches that proposed by @Burkholder97, but we obtain a slightly earlier spectral type for the primary component (O5.5 versus O6.5 in the study of these authors).
Brightness ratio\[Brightness-ratio\]
------------------------------------
Whilst the spectral disentangling yields the strength of the lines in both primary and secondary spectra compared to the combined continuum, it does not permit us to directly establish the relative strengths of the individual continua. We thus used a similar technique as above based on the dilution of the spectral lines. We measured the equivalent widths of a number of selected spectral lines on the reconstructed spectra of the primary and secondary stars, but referring to the combined continuum of the two stars.
The results of our measurements are listed in Table\[tab\_EW\_17505\] and Table\[tab\_EW\_206267\]. From these numbers, we calculated the brightness ratio as $$\frac{l_1}{l_2}=\left(\frac{EW_1}{EW_2}\right)_{\rm obs}\left(\frac{EW_{ST2}}{EW_{ST1}}\right)_{\rm mean}$$ with the same notations as in the previous section. In the case of HD 17505Aa, since the spectral types of the primary and secondary are identical, the second term of the equation reduces to 1, and the brightness ratio of the two stars can be simply evaluated as the ratio of their respective equivalent widths, averaged over the selected lines. In this way, we obtained for HD 17505Aa a primary over secondary brightness ratio of $0.88 \pm 0.09$, which is very close to what we inferred from our preliminary study of the contributions of the different components to the observed spectra of the triple system, based on the multi-Gaussian fit, i.e. $l_1/l_2 = 0.85$. Our estimate is slightly lower than the brightness ratio of 1.00 proposed by @Hillwig06. For HD 206267Aa, we found a mean primary over secondary brightness ratio of $4.75 \pm 1.79$, coherent, within the error bars, with what we inferred from our preliminary study based on the multi-Gaussian fit, i.e. $l_1/l_2 = 4.00$.
-------------------------------- ----------------- ----------------- ------
Line $l_1/l_2$
Primary (Aa1) Secondary (Aa2)
He[i]{} + [ii]{} $\lambda$4026 0.11 0.15 0.73
He[ii]{} $\lambda$4200 0.09 0.10 0.94
H$\gamma$ 0.51 0.52 0.98
He[i]{} $\lambda$4471 0.12 0.14 0.88
He[ii]{} $\lambda$4542 0.14 0.17 0.87
$0.88 \pm 0.09$
-------------------------------- ----------------- ----------------- ------
: Determination of the brightness ratio of the close binary system HD 17505Aa from the dilution of prominent lines.\[tab\_EW\_17505\]
-------------------------------- ----------------- ------------ ------ ------ ------
Line
Pri. (Aa1) Sec. (Aa2) O5.5 O9.5
He[i]{} + [ii]{} $\lambda$4026 0.27 0.09 0.74 1.02 4.22
He[ii]{} $\lambda$4200 0.32 0.02 0.76 0.16 4.18
H$\gamma$ 1.27 0.19 2.11 2.52 8.16
He[i]{} $\lambda$4471 0.18 0.11 0.41 1.04 4.29
He[ii]{} $\lambda$4542 0.48 0.02 0.92 0.13 2.87
$4.75 \pm 1.79$
-------------------------------- ----------------- ------------ ------ ------ ------
: Determination of the brightness ratio of the close binary system HD 206267Aa from the dilution of prominent lines.\[tab\_EW\_206267\]
The compilation of @Reed yields a mean $V$ magnitude of $7.07 \pm 0.02$ and a $B-V$ colour index of $0.40$ for the entire HD 17505 system. @MaizApellaniz measured an angular separation of $2.153 \pm 0.016$arcsec and a magnitude difference of 1.70 between the A and B components. For the HD 17505A triple system, we thus obtained $V = 7.27 \pm 0.02$. Because the intrinsic $\left(B-V\right)_0$ of O7 stars is $-0.27$ [@Martins06], we inferred an extinction $A_V$ of $2.07 \pm 0.01$, assuming $R_V = 3.1$. For a distance of $\sim 1.9$kpc [@Hillwig06], we derived an absolute magnitude $M_V = -6.19 \pm 0.11$ for the triple system, where we included a 10% error on the distance. Accounting for a flux contribution of 37% by the tertiary component and using our above-determined $l_1/l_2$ brightness ratio, we then calculated individual absolute magnitudes of $M_V^{P} = -4.87 \pm 0.13$ and $M_V^{S} = -5.00 \pm 0.12$.
The mean $V$ magnitude of HD 206267A as evaluated from the measurements compiled by @Reed is $5.67 \pm 0.06$, and the mean ($B-V$) colour is $0.21 \pm 0.01$. The large dispersion of the $V$ magnitudes could hint at photometric variability[^4]. [*Hipparcos*]{} photometric measurements indeed confirm the presence of variability. A Fourier analysis using the @HMM method leads to the highest peak at $\nu = 0.3398$d$^{-1}$ with an amplitude of 0.013mag. This corresponds to a period of 2.94days, which is not compatible with the orbital period of HD 206267Aa, but is close to our best estimate of the rotation period of the secondary. We thus conclude that, whilst there is probably low-level photometric variability, it is not due to eclipses in the inner binary system. Adopting a mean ($B-V$)$_0$ of $-0.27$ for the system [@Martins06], we determined an extinction $A_V$ of $1.49 \pm 0.03$, assuming $R_V = 3.1$. With a distance modulus of $9.9 \pm 0.5$ [@Burkholder97], we inferred an absolute magnitude $M_ V = -5.73 \pm 0.50$ for the system. Using the previously determined brightness ratio, we then calculated individual absolute magnitudes of $M_V^{P} = -5.21 \pm 0.51$ and $M_V^{S} = -3.52 \pm 0.61$. Based on a correlation between the strength of interstellar Ca[ii]{} lines and distance, @Megier estimated a slightly larger distance modulus of $10.11 \pm 0.38$. This estimate leads to $M_V^{P} = -5.42 \pm 0.39$ and $M_V^{S} = -3.73 \pm 0.51$
The reconstructed normalized primary and secondary optical spectra of both systems are shown and discussed in Sect.\[results\].
Spectral analysis \[analysis\]
==============================
Rotational velocities and macroturbulence
-----------------------------------------
The reconstructed individual spectra also allowed us to estimate the values of the projected rotational velocities and macroturbulence of the primary and secondary stars. To assess the projected rotational velocity, we applied a Fourier transform method [@SimonDiaz07; @Gray08] to the profiles of isolated lines in the disentangled spectra. Since our spectra reveal very few suitable metallic lines (basically O[iii]{} $\lambda$5592 is the only one, and this line is not available in the secondary of HD 206267Aa), we also considered the He[i]{} $\lambda\lambda$4922, 5015 lines. We note that these two lines are less affected by Stark broadening than other He[i]{} lines present in the optical spectrum of O-type stars. The results are summarized in Table \[tab\_vsini\].
------------------------ ---------------- ---------------- ------------------ ----------------
Line Prim. Sec. Prim. Sec.
He[i]{} $\lambda$4922 49 55 166 99
He[i]{} $\lambda$5016 53 57 195 96
O[iii]{} $\lambda$5592 62 62 171 -
Mean value $54.7 \pm 5.4$ $58.0 \pm 2.9$ $177.3 \pm 12.7$ $97.5 \pm 1.5$
------------------------ ---------------- ---------------- ------------------ ----------------
: Projected rotational velocities ($v\,\sin{i}$ in kms$^{-1}$) of the primary and secondary components of HD 17505Aa and HD 206267Aa.\[tab\_vsini\]
To estimate the importance of macroturbulent broadening, we used the auxiliary program MACTURB of the stellar spectral synthesis program SPECTRUM v2.76 developed by @Gray10 and based on the radial-tangential anisotropic macroturbulent broadening formulation of [@Gray08]. The MACTURB program provided us the following values: 60 and 65kms$^{-1}$ for the primary and secondary stars of HD 17505Aa, respectively, as well as 80 and 120kms$^{-1}$ for the primary and secondary stars of HD 206267Aa, respectively. However, since most of our measurements are based on He[i]{} lines, these numbers should only be considered as upper limits on the actual value of the macroturbulence.
Both rotational and additional broadening effects were applied on the synthetic CMFGEN spectra before comparing the latter with the reconstructed spectra of the primary and secondary stars of both systems.
Fit of the separated spectra with the CMFGEN code\[results\]
------------------------------------------------------------
In this section, we undertake a quantitative spectral analysis of the reconstructed spectra by means of the CMFGEN model atmosphere code [@Hillier98]. In addition to the formal fitting errors, our parameters could be affected by possible systematic errors. The systematic errors of model atmosphere codes are difficult to estimate in an absolute way, but some insight comes from comparison of different model atmosphere codes applied to the same stars. @Massey13 compared the best-fit parameters for a set of 10 Magellanic Cloud O-stars obtained with the CMFGEN and FASTWIND [@FASTWIND; @Puls] model atmosphere codes. These authors reported differences in $T_{\rm eff}$ of about 1000K that are larger than the uncertainties in determining these parameters with each code, but they found no systematic difference. On the other hand, they found a systematic difference of 0.12dex between the $\log{g}$ values obtained with these codes. More recently, @Holgado compared the results of their FASTWIND analyses against the CMFGEN analyses available in the literature. For about 30 Galactic O-type stars in common, they found that the CMFGEN parameters yield $T_{\rm eff}$ that are lower by $\sim 800$K and $\log{g}$ higher by about 0.09dex. These results contrast with the analysis of 14 Galactic O-type stars by @Berlanas. These authours found no systematic difference in $T_{\rm eff}$ or $\log{g}$ between their CMFGEN and FASTWIND analyses. In their study of rapidly rotating Galactic O-type stars, @Cazorla compared the parameters inferred with the CMFGEN and DETAIL/SURFACE [@BG] codes for three O9 – O9.5 stars. Differences on $T_{\rm eff}$ and $\log{g}$ were found to be less than 500K and 0.1dex, respectively. Moreover, @Cazorla found no significant difference between the He and CNO abundances determined with both codes.
The results obtained may also depend on the wavelength domain considered for the spectral analysis. For instance, @Berlanas emphasized the importance of the H$\gamma$ line to correctly infer the $\log{g}$ of O-type stars. Whilst this line is included in our analysis, we stress that its wings could be subject to uncertainties due to the spectral disentangling. To circumvent this problem, we have thus adopted a somewhat different approach (see Sects.\[Results-HD-17505\] and \[Results-HD-206267\]).
### HD 17505Aa\[Results-HD-17505\]
Using the reconstructed primary and secondary spectra of HD 17505Aa, the brightness ratio, rotational velocities, and macroturbulence velocities, we improved our determination of the fundamental properties of both stars with the CMFGEN code. We followed the same procedure as described in Sect.\[Adjustment\] to constrain the different stellar parameters.
Unfortunately, the Balmer lines are too broad to be correctly recovered by the disentangling process, and their wings are thus not reliable to adjust the surface gravities. We instead used an iterative process to constrain the luminosities together with these gravities. From the first estimate of $\log{g}$ given by the fit of the triple system, performed in Sect.\[Adjustment\], and our determination of the effective temperatures, we inferred the bolometric corrections [@Lanz03] and hence the individual bolometric luminosities, using the absolute $V$ magnitudes of the components derived in Sect.\[Brightness-ratio\]. These bolometric luminosities and the effective temperatures then permitted us to compute the ratio of the stellar radii $\frac{R_{P}}{R_{S}}$. Together with the assumed surface gravities, this ratio yielded the spectroscopic mass ratio $\frac{M_{P}}{M_{S}}$, which we compared to the dynamical mass ratio inferred from the orbital solution (Sect.\[New-orbital-solutions\]). The difference between these mass ratios then resulted in a revised estimate of the surface gravities. This iterative process was repeated until the spectroscopic and dynamical mass ratios agreed with each other, and the CMFGEN synthetic spectra produced for the new surface gravities matched the observations as well as possible.
Figure\[fitCMFGEN\_17505\] shows the best fit of the optical spectra of the primary and secondary stars of HD 17505Aa obtained with CMFGEN, and Table\[tableCMFGEN\_17505\] lists the corresponding stellar parameters. Table\[abondancesCMFGEN\_17505\] compares the chemical abundances of these best-fit models with the solar abundances taken from @Asplund09.
Figure \[fitCMFGEN\_17505\] shows that the H, He, C, and N lines are well reproduced by the models for both stars. The case of oxygen is more problematic. Indeed, while the O[iii]{} $\lambda\lambda$5508, 5592 lines are well adjusted, several other lines (e.g. O[iii]{} $\lambda\lambda$4448, 4454, 4458) are present in the synthetic CMFGEN spectra of both stars, but are neither visible in the separated spectra, nor in the observed spectra before the disentangling procedure. We encountered similar problems with the same lines in the case of HD 149404 [see @Raucq16].
Prim. Sec.
---------------------------------- --------------------------- ----------------------------
$R$ (R$_{\odot}$) $9.7 \pm 0.8$ $10.4 \pm 0.9$
$M$ (M$_{\odot}$) $19.4 \pm 7.4$ $21.8 \pm 8.3$
$T_{\rm eff}$ (kK) $37.0 \pm 1.5$ $36.7 \pm 1.5$
$\log{\frac{L}{L_{\odot}}}$ $5.20 \pm 0.05$ $5.25 \pm 0.05$
$\log{g}$ (cgs) $3.75 \pm 0.15$ $3.74 \pm 0.15$
BC $-3.40$ $-3.38$
$\beta$ $\leq 1.07$ $\leq 1.07$
$v_{\infty}$ (kms$^{-1}$) $\geq 2200$ $\geq 2500$
$\dot{M}$ (M$_{\odot}$yr$^{-1})$ $\leq 7.3 \times 10^{-8}$ $\leq 1.65 \times 10^{-7}$
$f_{1}$ $\leq 0.1$ $\leq 0.2$
$f_{2}$ (kms$^{-1}$) $\leq 250$ $\leq 180$
: Best-fit CMFGEN model parameters of the primary and secondary stars of HD 17505Aa.
[c ccc]{} & Primary & Secondary & Sun\
He/H & 0.1 (fixed) & 0.1 (fixed) & 0.089\
\
C/H & $1.91_{-0.40}^{+0.37} \times 10^{-4}$ & $1.97_{-0.42}^{+0.39} \times 10^{-4}$ & $2.69 \times 10^{-4}$\
\
N/H & $1.37_{-0.21}^{+0.25} \times 10^{-4}$ & $9.70_{-0.84}^{+1.1} \times 10^{-5}$ & $6.76 \times 10^{-5}$\
\
O/H & $3.87_{-0.92}^{+1.2} \times 10^{-4}$ & $4.73_{-1.5}^{+2.2} \times 10^{-4}$ & $4.90 \times 10^{-4}$\
\
Combining the spectroscopic masses obtained with CMFGEN (Table \[tableCMFGEN\_17505\]) with the minimum masses obtained from the orbital solution (Table\[Orb\_sol\_17505\_tab\]), we compute an inclination of the orbit of $i \sim 57^{\circ}$. With this inclination, we can see from our determination of the stellar radii with CMFGEN compared to the radii of the Roche lobes obtained in the orbital solution (Table\[Orb\_sol\_17505\_tab\]) that both stars are well inside their Roche lobes: they have Roche lobe filling factors of $0.42 \pm 0.07$ and $0.45 \pm 0.07$, respectively.
There is a slight enhancement of the N/O and N/C surface abundance ratios of both stars. These modest abundance modifications are fully compatible with predictions from single star evolutionary models accounting for rotational mixing, and there is no need to assume a past mass-exchange episode in the system (see also Sect.\[Evolutionary-status\]).
From the inclination we estimated, we can derive the absolute rotational velocities of 65.2 and 69.2kms$^{-1}$ for the primary and secondary stars, respectively. Combining these rotational velocities with the stellar radii obtained with CMFGEN (Table \[tableCMFGEN\_17505\]), we find that the primary and secondary stars of HD 17505Aa are in nearly perfect synchronous rotation with each other: $P_P = 7.53$, $P_S = 7.61$days. These estimated rotation periods are shorter than the orbital period of $P_{\rm orb} = 8.569$days. This could indicate that the system is not fully synchronized yet, although we stress that this could also stem from the uncertainties on the projected rotation velocities or hint at a possible misalignment between the orbital and rotational axes. If we calculate the critical rotational velocities of the stars, $v_{\rm crit} = \left(\frac{2GM}{3R_P}\right)^{1/2}$, based on our results from the CMFGEN fit, we find that the current rotational velocities of the primary and secondary stars correspond each to $0.13\times v_{\rm crit}$, which is close to the median value of birth rotational velocities for stars of similar masses, according to the study of @Wolff06.
### HD 206267Aa\[Results-HD-206267\]
We applied the same method to HD 206267Aa. Here, we encountered a problem because the spectroscopic masses depend on the stellar radii which in turn are set by the stellar luminosities and thus the distance of the binary. Indeed, adopting a distance modulus of 9.9, we obtained best-fit spectroscopic masses that were lower than the minimum dynamical masses inferred from the orbital solution. We thus favour the solution corresponding to $DM = 10.11$, which leads to a better agreement between the spectroscopic masses and the minimum dynamical masses. Figure\[fitCMFGEN\_206267\] indicates the best fit of the optical spectra of the primary and secondary stars of HD 206267Aa obtained with CMFGEN. The H, He, C, N, and O lines are well reproduced by the models for both stars. The corresponding stellar parameters and abundances are listed in Table\[tableCMFGEN\_206267\] and Table\[abondancesCMFGEN\_206267\], respectively.
Prim. Sec.
---------------------------------- --------------------------- ----------------------------
$R$ (R$_{\odot}$) $11.7 \pm 2.3$ $5.9 \pm 1.5$
$M$ (M$_{\odot}$) $27.8 \pm 10.8$ $17.7 \pm 8.9$
$T_{\rm eff}$ (kK) $41.0 \pm 1.5$ $35.5 \pm 1.5$
$\log{\frac{L}{L_{\odot}}}$ $5.54 \pm 0.16$ $4.70 \pm 0.21$
$\log{g}$ (cgs) $3.75 \pm 0.15$ $4.14 \pm 0.15$
BC $-3.68$ $-3.28$
$\beta$ $\leq 0.85$ $\leq 0.50$
$v_{\infty}$ (kms$^{-1}$) $\geq 2300$ $\geq 3500$
$\dot{M}$ (M$_{\odot}$yr$^{-1})$ $\leq 4.0 \times 10^{-8}$ $\leq 5.02 \times 10^{-7}$
$f_{1}$ $\leq 0.2$ $\leq 0.3$
$f_{2}$ (kms$^{-1}$) $\leq 100$ $\leq 300$
: Best-fit CMFGEN model parameters of the primary and secondary stars of HD 206267Aa assuming $DM = 10.11$ \[tableCMFGEN\_206267\]
[c ccc]{} & Primary & Secondary & Sun\
He/H & 0.1 (fixed) & 0.1 (fixed) & 0.089\
\
C/H & $1.21_{-0.06}^{+0.06} \times 10^{-4}$ & $1.53_{-0.18}^{+0.17} \times 10^{-4}$ & $2.69 \times 10^{-4}$\
\
N/H & $4.15_{-0.30}^{+0.32} \times 10^{-4}$ & $2.32_{-0.82}^{+0.75} \times 10^{-4}$ & $6.76 \times 10^{-5}$\
\
O/H & $4.52_{-0.57}^{+0.80} \times 10^{-4}$ & $2.00_{-0.49}^{+0.64} \times 10^{-4}$ & $4.90 \times 10^{-4}$\
&\
Comparing the spectroscopic and minimum dynamical masses (Tables\[tableCMFGEN\_206267\] and \[Orb\_sol\_206267\]), we then estimated an orbital inclination of $i\sim76^{\circ}$. From the stellar radii determined with CMFGEN and the radii of the Roche lobes obtained in the orbital solution, we estimate mean Roche lobe filling factors of $0.77\pm0.21$ and $0.49\pm0.16$, respectively, for the primary and secondary stars of HD 206267Aa. At periastron, these Roche lobe filling factors become $0.89\pm0.22$ and $0.56\pm0.17$ for the primary and secondary stars, respectively. Whilst the secondary star is well inside its Roche lobe, the primary star, within the rather large error bars, might either be well inside its periastron Roche lobe or fill it up.
The chemical abundances indicate an enhancement of the N/O and N/C abundance ratios at the surface of both components of the binary. We come back to these abundances in Sect.\[Evolutionary-status\].
From the inclination determined above, we derived absolute rotational velocities of 182.7 and 100.5kms$^{-1}$ for the primary and secondary stars, respectively. By combining these rotational velocities with the stellar radii obtained with CMFGEN (Table\[tableCMFGEN\_206267\]), we estimated that the rotational periods of the primary and secondary stars of HD 206267Aa are 3.24 and 2.97days. Whilst the rotation of the primary is likely in a pseudo-synchronization state with the orbital motion [@Hut], the secondary star appears to rotate at a slightly higher rate. The primary and secondary stars rotate at $0.33\times v_{{\rm crit}}$ and $0.16\times v_{{\rm crit}}$ respectively, which is close to the median value of birth rotational velocities for stars of similar masses [@Wolff06].
Discussion and conclusions \[summary\]
======================================
Evolutionary status\[Evolutionary-status\]
------------------------------------------
In this section we compare the results of our study with single star evolutionary models from @Ekstrom12 and @Brott[^5]. We stress that the purpose of this comparison is mainly qualitative. Indeed, the evolution of the rotational angular momentum in these single star theoretical models is most probably not representative of the stars in our study. In the close binaries studied here, tidal coupling between the angular momentum of the orbital motion and that of the stellar spins affects the evolution of rotation rates. Therefore, it would be a mere coincidence if one of our stars were entirely described by these models. Nevertheless, this comparison can bring us some interesting pieces of information about the properties of our targets.
### HD 17505Aa
In Sect.\[Results-HD-17505\] we found that the spectra of the components of HD 17505Aa display the signatures of a slight modification of the CNO surface abundances. Figure\[figCNO\] compares our inferred N/C and N/O ratios with the predictions for evolutionary tracks of single massive stars from @Ekstrom12 without rotation and with an initial rotational velocity of $0.4 \times v_{crit}$, as well as with models from @Brott. As demonstrated by @Cazorla2, these abundance ratios allow a more robust comparison with theoretical models than absolute abundances with respect to hydrogen.
This figure shows that the current surface abundances of both stars are difficult to explain with models without rotation. Indeed, for such models, no modification of the CNO abundances is predicted on the main sequence for stars of initial mass below 60$M_{\odot}$. The spectroscopic masses of the components of HD 17505Aa are significantly lower than this number. On the other hand, the abundances of both stars can be perfectly well explained with single star models of the right initial mass when rotation is accounted for. We used the BONNSAI tool [@BONNSAI] to identify the single star rotating evolutionary tracks of @Brott that best match T$_{\rm eff}$, $\log{g}$, and $v\,\sin{i}$ of the stars investigated in this work. The results are provided in Table\[TabBonnsai\]. As becomes clear from this table, these models fail however to predict the currently observed abundance ratios.
[c c c c c]{} & &\
& Prim. & Sec. & Prim. & Sec.\
\
M$_{\rm init}$ (M$_{\odot}$) & $29.0^{+1.8}_{-1.5}$ & $30.2^{+1.8}_{1.6}$ & $42.0^{+7.8}_{-5.6}$ & $21.0^{+2.3}_{-2.0}$\
\
Age (Myr) & $3.2^{+0.6}_{-0.6}$ & $3.3^{+0.5}_{-0.5}$ & $2.0^{+0.5}_{-0.5}$ & $1.3^{+1.1}_{-1.1}$\
\
$v_{\rm rot, init}$ (kms$^{-1}$) & $70^{+58}_{-23}$ & $80^{+56}_{-28}$ & $200^{+114}_{-55}$ & $110^{+74}_{-19}$\
\
$\log{\rm (N/O)}$ & $-0.91^{+0.04}_{-0.04}$ & $-0.90^{+0.05}_{-0.05}$ & $-0.60^{+0.32}_{-0.32}$ & $-0.91^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$\
\
$\log{\rm (N/C)}$ & $-0.50^{+0.04}_{-0.04}$ & $-0.48^{+0.05}_{-0.05}$ & $-0.1^{+0.34}_{-0.34}$ & $-0.49^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$\
\
In Figure \[figHRD\] we present the positions of the components of HD 17505Aa in the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram (HRD) and the $\log{g}$–$\log{T_{\rm eff}}$ Kiel diagram, along with the evolutionary tracks from @Ekstrom12 with an initial rotational velocity of $0.4 \times v_{crit}$ and those of @Brott with initial rotational velocities that are nearest to those found in Table\[TabBonnsai\].
The positions of the primary and secondary stars in the HRD suggest initial evolutionary masses near to 30$M_{\odot}$, which is larger than, but relatively close to, their current spectroscopic masses of 19–22$M_{\odot}$. The stars may be located on a common isochrone between 3.0 and 5.0Myr.
{width="\textwidth"}
{width="\textwidth"}
{width="\textwidth"}
{width="\textwidth"}
Our results in Sect.\[Results-HD-17505\] and the Figures\[figCNO\] and \[figHRD\] show that the current properties of the primary and secondary stars of HD7505Aa can most probably be explained by single star evolutionary models accounting for rotation. These considerations suggest that HD 17505Aa has not yet experienced a Roche lobe overflow (RLOF) binary interaction during its evolution.
### HD 206267Aa
In Sect.\[Results-HD-206267\], we reported a modification of the CNO surface abundances of the primary and secondary components of HD 206267Aa. Comparison with single star models in Fig.\[figCNO\] reveals that the abundances we determined are once again difficult to explain without rotational mixing, but are close to the predictions of rotating single star evolutionary models for initial masses close to 30 and 20 – 25$M_{\odot}$ for the primary and secondary stars, respectively, which is reasonably close to the spectroscopic masses we have inferred (Table\[tableCMFGEN\_206267\]).
Their positions in the HRD and Kiel diagram (see Fig.\[figHRD\]) suggest an initial mass slightly above 20$M_{\odot}$ for the secondary, which is well within the errors of its current spectroscopic mass of $17.7 \pm 8.9$$M_{\odot}$. The position of the primary star in the HRD and in the Kiel diagram suggests an initial mass between 40 and 50$M_{\odot}$, which is significantly higher than the spectroscopic mass of this star.
Considering the slightly higher rotation rate of the secondary star of HD 206267Aa inferred in Sect.\[Results-HD-206267\] and the fact that the primary is close to filling its Roche lobe around periastron passage as well as our analysis of Fig.\[figHRD\], the system may have encountered some kind of binary interactions during its evolution. However, the CNO abundances are only mildly altered; this suggests that the system did not yet experience a full case-A RLOF process, which should have affected the surface abundances of the donor star in a much stronger way [see e.g. the cases of HD 149404 and LSS 3074, @Raucq16; @Raucq17] and should also have led to orbital circularization, which is currently not the case. One way to explain the current status of HD 206267Aa would be an intermittent RLOF process around periastron, where mass transfer occurs temporarily, and is then interrupted until the next periastron passage. Tidal interactions in eccentric binaries actually lead to a more complex picture than what we can estimate based on the conventional Roche lobe model applied to a system with changing orbital separation [@Moreno]. Indeed, the tidal interactions around periastron can force oscillations that could help set up an intermittent transfer of matter. At this stage, we stress however that our existing spectra of HD 206267 do not reveal any obvious observational signature of such an interaction, such as H$\alpha$ emission, which would appear at phases near to periastron. Therefore, if such intermittent RLOF has taken place, it might have ceased now, although a more dense spectroscopic monitoring of the phases around periastron is probably required to unveil a very short-lived periastron event.
One possible reason for the interruption of such a process could be the dynamical influence of the third component in a hierarchical triple system. Indeed, the presence of a third component in the system can lead to the appearance of Lidov-Kozai cycles [@Toonen16 and references therein]. In such cases, angular momentum exchange between the inner and outer orbits occurs owing to a mutual torque between these orbits. Since the orbital energy, and therefore the semi-major axes, are conserved, the orbital eccentricity of the inner binary system and the mutual inclination between the two orbits can vary periodically. This Lidov-Kozai mechanism could therefore lead to a periodic modulation of the binary interaction at periastron passage.
Given the angular separation of 0.1arcsec at an assumed distance of 1050pc, we find a separation of at least 105AU between the inner binary system and the third component. The orbital period of the third component would thus be at least 135years. Since the timescale of the Lidov-Kozai cycle scales with the square of the ratio of the outer to inner orbital periods [@Toonen16], we estimate a minimum timescale of the order 1.75Myr. The fact that this timescale is very long and the wide separation between the inner binary and the third component make a strong influence of the tertiary on the evolution of the close binary rather unlikely.
Summary and conclusions
-----------------------
We have studied the fundamental properties of the inner binary systems of the triple systems HD 17505A and HD 206267A. We first improved the orbital solutions of the inner binary systems. We then fitted the spectra of the triple systems with a combination of synthetic CMFGEN spectra of the three components shifted by their associated RVs for each observation to subtract the third component from the observed spectra and recover the spectra of the inner binary. We subsequently used our disentangling code to recover the individual spectra of the primary and secondary stars for both systems. From these reconstructed spectra, we determined a number of stellar parameters, partly with the CMFGEN model atmosphere code, and used them to constrain the evolutionary status of the systems.
We found that the CNO abundances and the properties of the primary and secondary spectra of HD 17505Aa can be explained by single star evolutionary models of initial mass of about 30$M_{\odot}$ accounting for rotational mixing. At this stage of its evolution, this system has thus not yet experienced binary interactions.
Whilst the CNO abundances of the components of HD 206267Aa can be similarly explained by single star evolutionary models accounting for rotational mixing, we found that the secondary star of this system displays a slightly higher rotation rate. Furthermore, the primary appears slightly overluminous for its mass. This suggests that the system could have experienced intermittent binary interactions around periastron in the past, but has not yet experienced a complete RLOF episode. In future studies, it would be highly interesting to collect photometric data of HD 206267A. Indeed, with a period near to 3.7days and an estimated inclination of $76^{\circ}$, it appears likely that the inner binary system displays ellipsoidal variations that might help to further constrain its parameters. Moreover, establishing whether or not the third component seen in the spectrum is gravitationally bound to the inner binary and deriving its orbital parameters would be important to check whether or not Lidov-Kozai cycles played a role in shaping the properties of the system as we observe it today.
[2011a]{} Aldoretta, E.J., Caballero-Nieves, S.M., Gies, D.R., et al. 2015, AJ, 149, 26 Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A.J.,& Scott, P. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 481 Berlanas, S.R., Herrero, A., Martins, F., Simón-Díaz, S., Mahy, L., Blomme, R., GES WG-13 2017, in Highlights on Spanish Astrophysics, IX, 453 Brott, I., de Mink, S.E., Cantiello, M., et al. 2011, A&A, 530, A115 Burkholder, V., Massey, P., & Morrell, N. 1997, ApJ, 490, 328 Butler, K., & Giddings, J.R. 1985, Newsletter of Analysis of Astronomical Spectra, 9 (Univ. London) Cazorla, C., Morel, T., Nazé, Y., Rauw, G., Semaan, T., Daflon, S., & Oey, M.S. 2017a, A&A, 603, A56 Cazorla, C., Nazé, Y., Morel, T., Georgy, C., Godart, M., & Langer, N. 2017b, A&A, 604, A123 Conti, P.S., & Alschuler, W.R. 1971, ApJ, 170, 325 Conti, P.S., & Frost, S.A. 1977, ApJ, 212, 728 Duchêne, G., & Kraus, A. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 269 Eggleton, P.P. 1983, ApJ, 268, 368 Ekstr[ö]{}m, S., Georgy, C., Eggenberger, P., et al. 2012, A&A, 537, A146 Garmany, C. D., & Stencel, R. E. 1992, A&AS, 94, 211 González, J.F., & Levato, H. 2006, A&A, 448, 283 Gosset, E., Royer, P., Rauw, G., Manfroid, J., & Vreux, J.-M. 2001, MNRAS, 327, 435 Gray, D.F. 2008, The Observation and Analysis of Stellar Photospheres, 3rd edition, Cambridge University Press Gray, R.O. 2010, http://www.appstate.edu/$\sim$grayro/spectrum /spectrum276/node38.html Harvin, J. A., Gies, D. R., & Penny, L.R. 2003, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 35, 1223 Heck, A., Manfroid, J., & Mersch, G. 1985, A&AS, 59, 63 Herrero, A., Kudritzki, R.P., Vilechez, J.M., Kunze, D., Butler, K., & Haser, S. 1992, A&A, 261, 209 Hillier, D.J., & Miller, D.L. 1998, ApJ, 496, 407 Hillwig, T. C., Gies, D. R., Bagnuolo, Jr., W. G., et al. 2006, ApJ, 639, 1069 Holgado, G., Simón-Díaz, S., Barbá, R.H., et al. 2018, A&A, in press, arXiv.1711.10043 Hut, P. 1981, A&A, 99, 126 Langer, N., Cantiello, M., Yoon, S.-C., et al. 2008, IAU Symp., 250, 167 Langer, N., & Petrovic, J. 2007, ASP Conf. Series, 367, 359 Lanz, T., & Hubeny, I. 2003, ApJS, 146, 417 Linder, N., Rauw, G., Martins, F., Sana, H., De Becker, M., & Gosset, E. 2008, A&A, 489, 713 Mahy, L., Martins, F., Machado, C., Donati, J.-F., & Bouret, J.-C. 2011, A&A, 533, A9 Mahy, L., Gosset, E., Sana, H., Damerdji, Y., De Becker, M., Rauw, G., & Nitschelm, C. 2012, A&A, 540, A97 Mahy, L., Damerdji, Y., Gosset, E., Nitschelm, C., Sana, H., & Klotz, A. 2017, A&A, 607, A96 Maiz Apellaniz, J. 2010, A&A, 518, A1 Martins, F., Schaerer, D., & Hillier, D.J. 2005, A&A, 436, 1049 Martins, F. 2011, BSRSL, 80, 29 Martins, F., Herv[é]{}, A., Bouret, J.-C., et al. 2015, A&A, 575, A34 Martins, F., & Plez, B. 2006, A&A, 457, 637 Mason, B.D., Gies, D.R., Hartkopf, W.I., et al. 1998, AJ, 115, 821 Mason, B.D., Hartkopf, W.I., & Hurowitz, H.M. 2013, AJ, 146, 56 Massey, P., Johnson, K. E., & Degioia-Eastwood, K. 1995, ApJ, 454, 151 Massey, P., Neugent, K.F., Hillier, D.J., & Puls, J. 2013, ApJ, 768, 44 Megier, A., Strobel, A., Galazutdinov, G.A., & Krelowski, J. 2009, A&A, 507, 833 Moreno, E., Koenigsberger, G., & Harrington, D.M. 2011, A&A, 528, A48 Muijres, L.E., Vink, J.S., de Koter, A., M[ü]{}ller, P.E., & Langer, N. 2012, A&A, 537, A37 Ninkov, Z., Walker, G.A.H., & Yang, S. 1987, ApJ, 321, 425 Palate, M., Rauw, G., Koenigsberger, G., & Moreno, E. 2013, A&A, 552, A39 Pavlovski, K., & Hensberge, H. 2010, in Binaries - Key to the Comprehension of the Universe, eds. A. Prša, & M. Zejda, ASPC 435, 207 Piskunov, N. E., & Valenti, J. A. 2002, A&A, 385, 1095 Plaskett, J. 1923, Publications of the Dominion Astrophysical Observatory Victoria, 2, 269 Prinja, R. K., Barlow, M. J., & Howarth, I. D. 1990, ApJ, 361, 607 Puls, J., Urbaneja, M.A., Venero, R., Repolust, T., Springmann, U., Jokuthy, A., & Mokiem, M.R. 2005, A&A, 435, 669 Raucq, F., Gosset, E., Rauw, G., et al. 2017, A&A, 601, A133 Raucq, F., Rauw, G., Gosset, E., et al. 2016, A&A, 588, A10 Rauw, G., Rosu, S., Noels, A., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A33 Reed, B.C. 1998, ApJS, 115, 271 Sana, H., Gosset, E., & Evans, C. J. 2009, MNRAS, 400, 1479 Santolaya-Rey, A.E., Puls, J., & Herrero, A. 1997, A&A, 323, 488 Schmitt, J.H.M.M., Schr[ö]{}der, K.-P., Rauw, G., et al. 2014, Astron. Nachr., 335, 787 Schmitt, J.H.M.M., Schr[ö]{}der, K.-P., Rauw, G., et al. 2016, A&A, 586, A104 Schneider, F.R.N., Langer, N., de Koter, A., Brott, I., Izzard, R.G., & Lau, H.H.B. 2014, A&A, 570, A66 Sim[ó]{}n-D[í]{}az, S., Castro, N., Garcia, M., Herrero, A., & Markova, N. 2011a, BSRSL Sim[ó]{}n-D[í]{}az, S., Garcia, M., Herrero, A., Ma[í]{}z Apell[á]{}niz, J., & Negueruela, I. 2011b, in Stellar Clusters Associations: A RIA Workshop on Gaia Sim[ó]{}n-D[í]{}az, S., & Herrero, A. 2007, A&A, 468, 1063 Sim[ó]{}n-D[í]{}az, S., Negueruela, I., Ma[í]{}z Apell[á]{}niz, J., et al. 2015, in Highlights of Spanish Astrophysics VIII, 576 Stickland, D. J. 1995, The Observatory,115, 180 Stickland, D. J., & Lloyd, C. 2001, The Observatory, 121, 1 Toonen, S., Hamers, A., & Portegies Zwart, S. 2016, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 3, 6 Underhill, A. B. 1995, ApJS, 100, 433 Vanbeveren, D., & Mennekens, N. 2017, ASP Conf. Series, 580, 121 van der Hucht, K.A. 1996, in Wolf-Rayet stars in the framework of stellar evolution, Li[è]{}ge International Astrophysical Colloquium, 33, eds. J.-M. Vreux, A. Detal, D. Fraipont-Caro, E. Gosset, & G. Rauw, 1 Walborn, N. R., & Fitzpatrick, E. L. 1990,PASP, 102, 379 Wolff, S. C., Strom, S. E., Dror, D., Lanz, L., & Venn, K. 2006, AJ, 132, 749
[^1]: FRS-FNRS Postdoctoral Researcher
[^2]: Based on observations collected with the TIGRE telescope (La Luz, Mexico), the 1.93 m telescope at Observatoire de Haute Provence (France), the Nordic Optical Telescope at the Observatorio del Roque de los Muchachos (La Palma, Spain), and the Canada-France-Hawaii telescope (Mauna Kea, Hawaii).
[^3]: We note that such biases should be rather small for binary systems consisting of detached main-sequence stars [@Palate].
[^4]: There are six magnitude determinations of this star in the compilation of @Reed: three at $V = 5.62$, one at 5.70, one at 5.71 and another one at 5.74.
[^5]: Whilst the models of @Ekstrom12 assume Z$_{\odot} = 0.014$, those of @Brott instead assume Z$_{\odot} = 0.008$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this article we study the principle of energy conservation for the Euler-Korteweg system. We formulate an Onsager-type sufficient regularity condition for weak solutions of the Euler-Korteweg system to conserve the total energy. The result applies to the system of Quantum Hydrodynamics.'
address:
- '*Tomasz Dbiec:* Institute of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics, University of Warsaw, Banacha 2, 02-097 Warszawa, Poland'
- '*Piotr Gwiazda:* Institute of Mathematics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Śniadeckich 8, 00-656 Warszawa, Poland, and Institute of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics, University of Warsaw, Banacha 2, 02-097 Warszawa, Poland'
- '*Agnieszka Świerczewska-Gwiazda:* Institute of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics, University of Warsaw, Banacha 2, 02-097 Warszawa, Poland'
- '*Athanasios Tzavaras:* Computer, Electrical, Mathematical Sciences and Engineering Division, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST), Thuwal, Saudi Arabia'
author:
- Tomasz Dbiec
- Piotr Gwiazda
- 'Agnieszka Świerczewska-Gwiazda'
- 'Athanasios Tzavaras.'
title: 'Conservation of energy for the Euler-Korteweg equations'
---
Introduction
============
It is known since the works of Scheffer [@scheffer] and Shnirelmann [@shnirel] that weak solutions of the incompressible Euler equations exhibit behaviour very different to that of classical solutions. These “wild solutions”, as they are called since the seminal works of DeLellis and Székelyhidi [@DLS09; @DLS10], are often highly unphysical - for instance there is a lack of uniqueness and the principle of conservation of energy can be violated.\
Dissipative solutions of incompressible Euler have been extensively studied in relation to the seminal Onsager conjecture [@On1949]. It states that there is a threshold regularity, namely $\frac13$-Hölder continuity, above which kinetic energy must be conserved, and below which anomalous dissipation might occur. This conjecture has been recently fully resolved, with non-conservative solutions of class ${\mathcal{C}}([0,T];{\mathcal{C}}^{\frac13 -}({\mathbb{T}}^3))$ constructed by Isett [@isett]. See also [@BucDeLSzV] and [@isett2] for further developments on the subject.\
The positive direction of Onsager’s conjecture has been settled already in the 1990’s by Constantin et al. [@ConstETiti] (after a partial result of Eyink [@eyink]). The method of mollification and estimation of commutator errors was employed to prove that, if a weak solution of the incompressible Euler system belongs to $u\in L^3([0,T],B_3^{\alpha,\infty}({\mathbb{T}}^3))\cap{\mathcal{C}}([0,T],L^2({\mathbb{T}}^3))$, then the energy ${\|u\|}_{L^2({\mathbb{T}}^3)}$ is conserved in time. The method of proof as well as the observation that Besov spaces provide a suitable environment for this kind of problem were later used by several authors in the context of other systems of fluid dynamics: like inhomogeneous incompressible Euler and compressible Euler [@FGSGW], incompressible and compressible Navier-Stokes (resp. [@DuRo], [@LeSh] and [@DrivasEyink], [@Yu]), incompressible magnetohydrodynamics [@KangLee], [@Cafetal], and general systems of first order conservation laws [@GMSG]. Onsager’s conjecture was recently studied for incompressible Euler equations in bounded domains, cf. [@BarTiti]. An overview of these results can be found in [@DGSG].\
In the present paper we adapt the strategy of Constantin et al. [@ConstETiti] and Feireisl et al. [@FGSGW] to obtain an Onsager-type sufficient condition on the regularity of weak solutions to the Euler-Korteweg equations so that they conserve the total energy. We consider the isothermal Euler-Korteweg system in the from $$\label{EKintro}
\begin{aligned}
\partial_t(\rho u)+\operatorname{div}(\rho u\otimes u)&=-\rho \nabla\left(h'(\rho)+\frac{\kappa'(\rho)}{2}|\nabla\rho|^{2}-\operatorname{div}(\kappa(\rho)\nabla\rho)\right),\\
\partial_t\rho+\operatorname{div}(\rho u)&=0,\\
\end{aligned}$$ in the domain $(0,T)\times{\mathbb{T}}^d$ for some fixed time $T>0$, where ${\mathbb{T}}^d$ is the $d$-dimensional torus. Here $\rho\geq0$ is the scalar density of a fluid, $u$ is its velocity, $h=h(\rho)$ is the energy density and $\kappa=\kappa(\rho)>0$ is the coefficient of capillarity. We place the assumption on the functions $h$ and $\kappa$: $$\label{regassumption}
h, \kappa \in {\mathcal{C}}^3(\mathcal{T})$$ where, depending on the actual form of $h$ and $\kappa$, the set $\mathcal{T}$ can be chosen to be $[0,\infty)$ or $(0,\infty)$. For instance when $\kappa(\rho) = \frac{1}{\rho}$, as for the QHD system below, then $\mathcal{T}=(0,\infty)$ and we have to be away from vacuum.\
While the analysis of the above system dates back to the 19th century, when the mathematical theory of phase interfaces and capillary effects was introduced, it still attracts much attention. A modern derivation of the system can be found in [@DunnSerrin]. Concerning smooth solutions: in [@BDD] and [@BDDJ] local-in-time well-posedness and stability of special solutions are analysed, respectively. A relative energy identity is developed in [@GLT], exploiting the variational structure of the system, and is used to show that solutions of converge to smooth solutions of the compressible Euler system (before shock formation) in the vanishing capillarity limit $\kappa \to 0$, see [@GT].\
\
The situation with weak solutions is much less understood. Most results concern the Quantum Hydrodynamics system, obtained from when $\kappa(\rho) = \frac{{\varepsilon}_{0}^{2}}{4\rho}$, with ${\varepsilon}_0$ denoting the Planck constant. This takes the form $$\label{intro-qhd}
\begin{aligned}
\partial_t\rho + \operatorname{div}(\rho u) &= 0,\\
\partial_t(\rho u) + \operatorname{div}(\rho u\otimes u) + \nabla p(\rho) &= \frac{{\varepsilon}_{0}^{2}}{2}\rho\nabla\left(\frac{\Delta\sqrt{\rho}}{\sqrt{\rho}}\right).
\end{aligned}$$ The interesting connection between QHD and the Schroedinger equation is used in [@GM] to provide conservative weak solutions for the special case of zero pressure, $p(\rho) = 0$. Existence of weak solutions for a (relatively limited) class of pressure functions is provided in [@AntMarc2] and [@AntMarc]. The existence of wild solutions is possible for , as pointed out in the recent work Donatelli et al. [@DonFeiMar], where the method of “convex integration” is adapted to show non-uniqueness in the class of dissipative global weak solutions.
The possibility of both conservative and dissipative solutions raises the issue of studying the Onsager conjecture for the Euler-Korteweg system . We use Besov spaces $B_p^{\alpha,\infty}(\Omega)$, with $1 \le p < \infty$, $0 < \alpha < 1$ (see section \[besov\] for the definition) and prove the following theorem:
\[EKTheorem\] Suppose that holds. Let $(\rho,u)$ be a solution of in the sense of distributions. Assume $$\label{besovhypo}
u \in (B_3^{\alpha,\infty}\cap L^\infty)((0,T)\times{\mathbb{T}}^d),\hspace{0.3cm}\rho, \nabla\rho, \Delta\rho \in (B_3^{\beta,\infty}\cap L^\infty)((0,T)\times{\mathbb{T}}^d),\hspace{0.3cm}$$ where $1>\alpha\geq\beta> 0$ such that $\min(2\alpha+\beta,\alpha+2\beta)>1.$\
Then the energy is locally conserved, i.e. $$\label{EnergyEq}
\begin{aligned}
\int_0^T\int_{{\mathbb{T}}^d}&\left(\frac{1}{2}\rho|u|^{2} + h(\rho) +\frac12\kappa(\rho)|\nabla\rho|^{2}\right)\partial_t{\varphi}\ { dx dt}\\
&\hspace{-2.5cm}+\int_0^T\int_{{\mathbb{T}}^d}\left(\rho u\left(\frac12|u|^{2} + h'(\rho)+ \frac12\kappa'(\rho)|\nabla\rho|^2 -\operatorname{div}(\kappa(\rho)\nabla\rho)\right) + \kappa(\rho)\nabla\rho\operatorname{div}(\rho u)\right)\cdot\nabla{\varphi}\ { dx dt}= 0
\end{aligned}$$ holds for every ${\varphi}\in{\mathcal{C}}_c^1((0,T)\times{\mathbb{T}}^d)$.
If in addition we assume the following conditions on $u$ and $\rho$ $$\lim\limits_{|\xi|,\tau\to 0}\frac{1}{\tau}\int_0^T\frac{1}{|\xi|}{\int_{{\mathbb{T}}^d} |}u(t+\tau,x+\xi)-u(t,x)|^3{ dx dt}= 0,$$ $$\lim\limits_{|\xi|,\tau\to 0}\frac{1}{\tau}\int_0^T\frac{1}{|\xi|}{\int_{{\mathbb{T}}^d} |}\rho(t+\tau,x+\xi)-\rho(t,x)|^3{ dx dt}= 0,$$ then, as pointed out by Shvydkoy [@shvydkoy], see also Duchon and Robert [@DuRo], one can allow for the case $\alpha=\beta=\frac13$. For details see e.g. Proposition 3 in [@DuRo].
The short proof of the main theorem is presented in the following section: it is preceded by an outline of Besov spaces and their basic relevant properties, some preliminary material on the structure of the Euler-Korteweg system, followed by he main part of the proof in section \[sec:energy\].
Proof of the main theorem
=========================
Besov Spaces {#besov}
------------
Let $\Omega = (0,T)\times{\mathbb{T}}^d$. The Besov space $B_p^{\alpha,\infty}(\Omega)$, with $1 \le p < \infty$, $0 < \alpha < 1$, is the space of functions $w\in L^{p}$ for which the norm $$\label{besovnorm}
{\|w\|}_{B_p^{\alpha,\infty}(\Omega)}:={\|w\|}_{L^p(\Omega)}+\sup_{t>0}\left\{t^{-\alpha}\sup\limits_{|\xi|\leq t}{\|w(\cdot+\xi)-w\|}_{L^p(\Omega\cap(\Omega-\xi))}\right\}$$ is finite, cf. [@BenShar]. In fact, we can replace the semi-norm in with the following one $$\label{besovseminorm}
\sup_{\xi\in\Omega}\left\{|\xi|^{-\alpha}{\|w(\cdot+\xi)-w\|}_{L^p(\Omega\cap(\Omega-\xi))}\right\}.$$ Indeed, if $\xi^*$ and $t^*$ realize the suprema in with $|\xi^*|<t^*$, then taking $|\xi^*|<t<t^*$ would contradict the supremality of $t^*$. Therefore neccesarily $\xi^*=t^*$, thus producing . We choose to think of the Besov norm in terms of , as it is more convienient for our purposes.
We observe that if $\alpha\geq\beta$, then there is an inclusion $B_p^{\alpha,\infty}(\Omega)\subset B_p^{\beta,\infty}(\Omega)$. Further we remark that the space $(B_p^{\alpha,\infty}\cap L^\infty)(\Omega)$ is a Banach algebra. For details we refer the reader to [@BenShar].
Let $\eta\in C_c^\infty({\mathbb{R}}^{d+1})$ be a standard mollification kernel and we denote $$\eta^{\varepsilon}(x)=\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}^{d+1}}\eta\left(\frac{x}{{\varepsilon}}\right), \quad w^{\varepsilon}=\eta^{\varepsilon}*w \quad \text{and} \quad f^{\varepsilon}(w) = f(w)*\eta^{\varepsilon}.$$ Note that the function $w^{\varepsilon}$ is well-defined on $\Omega^{\varepsilon}=\{x\in\Omega: \operatorname{dist}(x,\partial\Omega)>{\varepsilon}\}$. The following inequalities will be extensively used in the proof of the main theorem.
\[lemma:besovgrad\] For any function $u\in B_p^{\alpha,\infty}(\Omega)$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\|u(\cdot+\xi)-u(\cdot)\|}_{L^p(\Omega\cap(\Omega-\xi))}&\leq |\xi|^\alpha{\|u\|}_{B_p^{\alpha,\infty}(\Omega)}\label{besovshift}\\
{\|u^{\varepsilon}-u\|}_{L^p(\Omega)}&\leq {\varepsilon}^\alpha{\|u\|}_{B_p^{\alpha,\infty}(\Omega)} \label{besoveps}\\
{\|\nabla u^{\varepsilon}\|}_{L^p(\Omega)}&\leq C{\varepsilon}^{\alpha-1}{\|u\|}_{B_p^{\alpha,\infty}(\Omega)} \label{besovepsgradient}\end{aligned}$$
Inequality follows directly from the definition of the norm in the space $B_p^{\alpha,\infty}(\Omega)$. To show we write $$\begin{aligned}
|u^{\varepsilon}(x) - u(x)| &\leq\int_{\operatorname{supp}\eta^{\varepsilon}}\eta^{\varepsilon}(y)|u(x-y)-u(x)|\ d y\leq\left(\int_{\operatorname{supp}\eta^{\varepsilon}}\eta^{\varepsilon}(y)|u(x-y)-u(x)|^p\ d y\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}.
\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, by virtue of Fubini and $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\Omega}|u^{\varepsilon}(x) - u(x)|^p\ { dx}&\leq\int_{\operatorname{supp}\eta^{\varepsilon}}\eta^{\varepsilon}(y)\int_{\Omega}|u(x-y)-u(x)|^p\ { dx}\ d y\\
&\leq \int_{\operatorname{supp}\eta^{\varepsilon}}\eta^{\varepsilon}(y)|y|^{p\alpha}{\|u\|}^p_{B_p^{\alpha,\infty}(\Omega)}\ dy \leq {\varepsilon}^{p\alpha}{\|u\|}^p_{B_p^{\alpha,\infty}(\Omega)}.
\end{aligned}$$ For the last of the claimed inequalities we consider the convolution $\nabla u^{\varepsilon}= \nabla\eta^{\varepsilon}*u$ as a bounded linear operator $T:L^p(\Omega)\to L^p(\Omega)$. Then $${\|Tu\|}_{L^p}\leq C{\varepsilon}^{-1}{\|u\|}_{L^p}.$$ On the other hand, writing $\nabla u^{\varepsilon}= \eta^{\varepsilon}*\nabla u$, we can think of $T$ as mapping $W^{1,p}(\Omega)$ into $L^p(\Omega)$. It then has unit norm.
Therefore, as the Besov space $B_p^{\alpha,\infty}$ is an interpolation space of exponent $\alpha$ for $L^p$ and $W^{1,p}$ (cf. [@BenShar Corollary 4.13]), $T$ is bounded as an operator $B_p^{\alpha,\infty}(\Omega)\to L^p(\Omega)$ with $${\|Tu\|}_{L^p}\leq C{\varepsilon}^{-(1-\alpha)}{\|u\|}_{B_p^{\alpha,\infty}}.$$
\[lemma:compositiongrad\] Let $v\in B_p^{\alpha,\infty}(\Omega,{\mathbb{R}}^m)$. Suppose $f:{\mathbb{R}}^m\to{\mathbb{R}}$ is a $C^1$ function with $\frac{\partial f}{\partial v_i}\in L^\infty$ for each $i=1,\dots,m$. Then $${\|\nabla f(v^{\varepsilon})\|}_{L^p}\leq C{\varepsilon}^{\alpha-1}{\|v\|}_{B_p^{\alpha,\infty}}$$
Since $\nabla f(v^{\varepsilon}) = \sum\limits_{i=1}^m\frac{\partial f}{\partial v_i}(v^{\varepsilon})\nabla v^{\varepsilon}_i$, we have $${\|\nabla f(v^{\varepsilon})\|}_{L^p}\leq\sum\limits_{i=1}^m{\|\frac{\partial f}{\partial v_i}(v^{\varepsilon})\|}_{L^\infty}{\|\nabla v^{\varepsilon}_i\|}_{L^p}\leq\max_{1\leq i\leq m}{\|\frac{\partial f}{\partial v_i}\|}_{L^\infty}\sum\limits_{i=1}^m{\|\nabla v^{\varepsilon}_i\|}_{L^p}\leq C{\varepsilon}^{\alpha-1}\sum\limits_{i=1}^m{\|v_i\|}_{B_p^{\alpha,\infty}}$$ where the last inequality follows from Lemma \[lemma:besovgrad\].
Preliminaries
-------------
System can be written in conservative form $$\label{EKintroConservative}
\begin{aligned}
\partial_t(\rho u)+\operatorname{div}(\rho u\otimes u)&=\operatorname{div}\mathbb{S},\\
\partial_t\rho+\operatorname{div}(\rho u)&=0,\\
\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbb{S}$ is the Korteweg stress tensor $$\mathbb{S} = \left( -p(\rho) - \frac{\rho\kappa'(\rho)+\kappa(\rho)}{2}|\nabla\rho|^{2} + \operatorname{div}(\rho\kappa(\rho)\nabla\rho) \right)\mathbb{I}
- \kappa(\rho)\nabla\rho\otimes\nabla\rho$$ with $\mathbb{I}$ denoting the $d$-dimensional identity matrix and the local pressure defined as $$p(\rho) = \rho h'(\rho) - h(\rho).$$ It is routine to show that a strong solution $(\rho, u)$ of the above system will satisfy the following local balance of total (kinetic and internal) energy $$\label{EnergyEq}
\begin{aligned}
\partial_t&\left(\frac{1}{2}\rho|u|^{2} + h(\rho) +\frac12\kappa(\rho)|\nabla\rho|^{2}\right)\\
&\hspace{-1cm}+ \operatorname{div}\left(\rho u\left(\frac12|u|^{2} + h'(\rho)+ \frac12\kappa'(\rho)|\nabla\rho|^2 -\operatorname{div}(\kappa(\rho)\nabla\rho)\right) + \kappa(\rho)\nabla\rho\operatorname{div}(\rho u)\right) = 0.
\end{aligned}$$ Theorem \[EKTheorem\] gives sufficient conditions for regularity of weak solutions so that they obey the above energy equality in the sense of distributions. To prove the theorem we employ the strategy of [@ConstETiti], which was used in many works in the subject, including [@FGSGW] and [@GMSG], where variants of the following lemma are an important ingredient.
\[CommutatorEstimates\] Let $1\leq q<\infty$ and suppose $v\in L^{2q}((0,T)\times{\mathbb{T}}^d;{\mathbb{R}}^k)$ and $f\in {\mathcal{C}}^2({\mathbb{R}}^k,{\mathbb{R}}^N)$. If $$\sup\limits_{i,j}{\|\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial v_i\partial v_j}\|}_{L^\infty} < \infty,$$ then there exists a constant $C>0$ such that $$\label{quadestimate}
{\|f(v^{\varepsilon})-f^{\varepsilon}(v)\|}_{L^q}\leq C\left({\|v^{\varepsilon}-v\|}^2_{L^{2q}} + \sup\limits_{(s,y)\in\operatorname{supp}\eta_{\varepsilon}}{\|v(\cdot,\cdot)-v(\cdot-s,\cdot-y)\|}^2_{L^{2q}}\right).$$
We observe that by Taylor’s theorem we have $$\label{Taylor1}
\left|f(v^{\varepsilon}(t,x))-f(v(t,x)))-Df(v(t,x))(v^{\varepsilon}(t,x)-v(t,x))\right|\leq C|v^{\varepsilon}(t,x)-v(t,x)|^2$$ where the constant $C$ does not depend on the choice of $x$ and $t$. Similarly $$\label{Taylor2}
\left|f(v(s,y))-f(v(t,x))-Df(v(t,x))(v(s,y)-v(t,x))\right|\leq C|v(s,y)-v(t,x)|^2.$$ Mollification of the last inequality with respect to $(s,y)$ yields, by virtue of Jensen’s inequality $$\label{Taylor3}
\left|f^{\varepsilon}(v(t,x))-f(v(t,x)-Df(v(t,x))(v^{\varepsilon}(t,x)-v(t,x))\right|\leq C|v(\cdot,\cdot)-v(t,x)|^2*_{(s,y)}\eta^{\varepsilon}.$$ Combining and and using the triangle inequality we deduce the estimate $$\label{nonlinearestimate}
\left|f(v^{\varepsilon}(t,x))-f^{\varepsilon}(v(t,x))\right|\leq C\left(|v^{\varepsilon}(t,x)-v(t,x)|^2 + |v(\cdot,\cdot)-v(t,x)|^2*_{(s,y)}\eta^{\varepsilon}\right).$$ Finally, we observe that $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{(0,T)\times{\mathbb{T}}^d}&\left||v(\cdot,\cdot)-v(t,x)|^2*_{(s,y)}\eta^{\varepsilon}\right|^q\ { dx dt}\\
&\leq \int_{\operatorname{supp}\eta^{\varepsilon}}\eta^{\varepsilon}(s,y)\int_{(0,T)\times{\mathbb{T}}^d}|v(t-s,x-y)-v(t,x)|^{2q}\ { dx dt}\ d y d s\\
&\leq \sup\limits_{(s,y)\in\operatorname{supp}\eta_{\varepsilon}}{\|v(\cdot,\cdot)-v(\cdot-s,\cdot-y)\|}^{2q}_{L^{2q}}.
\end{aligned}$$
Energy equality {#sec:energy}
---------------
We begin the proof of the theorem by mollifying the momentum equation in both space and time with kernel and notation as in section \[besov\] to obtain $$\label{smoothMomentum}
\partial_t(\rho u)^{\varepsilon}+ \operatorname{div}(\rho u\otimes u)^{\varepsilon}= -\nabla p^{\varepsilon}(\rho) + \operatorname{div}{S^{\varepsilon}(\rho,\nabla\rho, \Delta \rho)},$$ where $$\begin{split}
S(\rho,q,r)& = \left( - \frac12( \rho \kappa'(\rho)+\kappa(\rho))q^2+\operatorname{div}(\rho\kappa(\rho)q)\right)\mathbb{I} - \kappa(\rho)q\otimes q\\
&= \left( \frac12( \rho \kappa'(\rho)+\kappa(\rho))q^2+\rho \kappa(\rho)r\right)\mathbb{I} - \kappa(\rho)q\otimes q
\end{split}$$ Equation can be rewritten in terms of appropriate commutators to give $$\label{smoothEK}
\begin{aligned}
\partial_t&(\rho^{\varepsilon}u^{\varepsilon})+\operatorname{div}((\rho u)^{\varepsilon}\otimes u^{\varepsilon})+\nabla p(\rho^{{\varepsilon}})-\operatorname{div}(S(\rho^{\varepsilon},\nabla\rho^{\varepsilon},\Delta \rho^{\varepsilon}))\\
&=\partial_t(\rho^{\varepsilon}u^{\varepsilon}- (\rho u)^{\varepsilon}) + \operatorname{div}((\rho u)^{\varepsilon}\otimes u^{\varepsilon}- (\rho u\otimes u)^{\varepsilon}) + \nabla\left(p(\rho^{\varepsilon}) - p^{\varepsilon}(\rho)\right)\\ &\hspace{0.5cm}-\operatorname{div}{\left(S(\rho^{\varepsilon},\nabla\rho^{\varepsilon}, \Delta \rho^{\varepsilon}) - S^{\varepsilon}(\rho,\nabla\rho, \Delta \rho)\right)}.
\end{aligned}$$ We observe the following identities $$\operatorname{div}((\rho u)^{\varepsilon}\otimes u^{\varepsilon}) = u^{\varepsilon}\operatorname{div}{(\rho u)^{\varepsilon}} + ((\rho u)^{\varepsilon}\cdot\nabla)u^{\varepsilon}$$ and $$-\rho^{\varepsilon}\;\nabla\left(\frac12\kappa'(\rho^{\varepsilon})|\nabla\rho^{\varepsilon}|^2-\operatorname{div}(\kappa(\rho^{\varepsilon})\nabla\rho^{\varepsilon})\right) = \operatorname{div}S(\rho^{\varepsilon},\nabla\rho^{\varepsilon}, \Delta \rho^{\varepsilon}).$$ Thus the left-hand side of equation can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
(\partial_t\rho)u^{\varepsilon}&+ \rho^{\varepsilon}\partial_t u^{\varepsilon}+ u^{\varepsilon}\operatorname{div}(\rho u)^{\varepsilon}+ ((\rho u)^{\varepsilon}\cdot\nabla)u^{\varepsilon}\\
&+ \rho^{\varepsilon}\;\nabla\left(h'(\rho^{\varepsilon})-\frac12\kappa'(\rho^{\varepsilon})|\nabla\rho^{\varepsilon}|^2-\kappa(\rho^{\varepsilon})\Delta\rho^{\varepsilon}\right).
\end{aligned}$$ Hence, upon multiplying with $u^{\varepsilon}$, equation becomes $$\label{smoothEK2}
\begin{aligned}
\rho^{\varepsilon}&\partial_t\left(\frac12|u^{\varepsilon}|^2\right)+\left((\rho u)^{\varepsilon}\cdot\nabla\right)\frac12|u^{\varepsilon}|^2 + \rho^{\varepsilon}u^{\varepsilon}\;\nabla\left(h'(\rho^{\varepsilon})-\frac12\kappa'(\rho^{\varepsilon})|\nabla\rho^{\varepsilon}|^2-\kappa(\rho^{\varepsilon})\Delta\rho^{\varepsilon}\right)\\
&=r_1^{\varepsilon}+ r_2^{\varepsilon}+ r_3^{\varepsilon}+ r_4^{\varepsilon},
\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
r_1^{\varepsilon}&= \partial_t(\rho^{\varepsilon}u^{\varepsilon}- (\rho u)^{\varepsilon})\cdot u^{\varepsilon},\\
r_2^{\varepsilon}&= \operatorname{div}((\rho u)^{\varepsilon}\otimes u^{\varepsilon}- (\rho u\otimes u)^{\varepsilon})\cdot u^{\varepsilon},\\
r_3^{\varepsilon}&= \nabla\left(p(\rho^{\varepsilon}) - p^{\varepsilon}(\rho)\right)\cdot u^{\varepsilon},\\
r_4^{\varepsilon}&= -\operatorname{div}{\left(S(\rho^{\varepsilon},\nabla\rho^{\varepsilon}, \Delta \rho^{\varepsilon}) - S^{\varepsilon}(\rho,\nabla\rho, \Delta \rho)\right)}\cdot u^{\varepsilon}.
\end{aligned}$$ Using the mollified continuity equation $$\label{eq:smoothMass}
\partial_t\rho^{\varepsilon}+\operatorname{div}(\rho u)^{\varepsilon}=0,$$ we can write the first two terms of as $$\label{eq:eulerterms}
\begin{aligned}
\rho^{\varepsilon}&\partial_t\left(\frac12|u^{\varepsilon}|^2\right)+\left((\rho u)^{\varepsilon}\cdot\nabla\right)\frac12|u^{\varepsilon}|^2 + \left(\partial_t\rho^{\varepsilon}+\operatorname{div}(\rho u)^{\varepsilon}\right)\frac12|u^{\varepsilon}|^2 \\
&=\partial_t\left(\frac12\rho^{\varepsilon}|u^{\varepsilon}|^2\right) + \operatorname{div}\left((\rho u)^{\varepsilon}\;\frac12|u^{\varepsilon}|^2\right).
\end{aligned}$$ Combining equations and we obtain $$\label{smoothEK3}
\begin{aligned}
\partial_t&\left(\frac12\rho^{\varepsilon}|u^{\varepsilon}|^2\right) + \operatorname{div}\left((\rho u)^{\varepsilon}\;\frac12|u^{\varepsilon}|^2\right) + \rho^{\varepsilon}u^{\varepsilon}\;\nabla\left(h'(\rho^{\varepsilon})-\frac12\kappa'(\rho^{\varepsilon})|\nabla\rho^{\varepsilon}|^2-\kappa(\rho^{\varepsilon})\Delta\rho^{\varepsilon}\right)\\
&=r_1^{\varepsilon}+ r_2^{\varepsilon}+ r_3^{\varepsilon}+ r_4^{\varepsilon}.
\end{aligned}$$ We now rewrite the mollified continuity equation in the form $$\partial_t\rho^{\varepsilon}+\operatorname{div}(\rho^{\varepsilon}u^{\varepsilon})=\operatorname{div}(\rho^{\varepsilon}u^{\varepsilon}-(\rho u)^{\varepsilon}).$$ After multiplying this equation with $$h'(\rho^{\varepsilon}) - \frac12\kappa'(\rho^{\varepsilon})|\nabla\rho^{\varepsilon}|^2 - \kappa(\rho^{\varepsilon})\Delta\rho^{\varepsilon}$$ and rearranging, we obtain $$\label{smoothMass2}
\begin{aligned}
&\partial_t\left(h(\rho^{\varepsilon}) + \frac12\kappa'(\rho^{\varepsilon})|\nabla\rho^{\varepsilon}|^2\right) - \operatorname{div}\left(\kappa(\rho^{\varepsilon})\nabla\rho^{\varepsilon}\partial_t\rho^{\varepsilon}\right)\\
&\hspace{0.5cm}+\operatorname{div}(\rho^{\varepsilon}u^{\varepsilon})\left(h'(\rho^{\varepsilon}) - \frac12\kappa'(\rho^{\varepsilon})|\nabla\rho^{\varepsilon}|^2 - \kappa(\rho^{\varepsilon})\Delta\rho^{\varepsilon}\right)\\
&=r_5^{\varepsilon}+ r_6^{\varepsilon}+ r_7^{\varepsilon},
\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
r_5^{\varepsilon}&= \operatorname{div}(\rho^{\varepsilon}u^{\varepsilon}- (\rho u)^{\varepsilon})\;h'(\rho^{\varepsilon}),\\
r_6^{\varepsilon}&= -\operatorname{div}(\rho^{\varepsilon}u^{\varepsilon}- (\rho u)^{\varepsilon})\;\frac12\kappa'(\rho^{\varepsilon})|\nabla\rho^{\varepsilon}|^2,\\
r_7^{\varepsilon}&= -\operatorname{div}(\rho^{\varepsilon}u^{\varepsilon}- (\rho u)^{\varepsilon})\kappa(\rho^{\varepsilon})\Delta\rho^{\varepsilon}.
\end{aligned}$$ Combining equations and we obtain $$\label{smoothEnergy}
\begin{aligned}
\partial_t&\left(\frac12\rho^{\varepsilon}|u^{\varepsilon}|^2 + h(\rho^{\varepsilon}) + \frac12\kappa(\rho^{\varepsilon})|\nabla\rho^{\varepsilon}|^2\right) + \operatorname{div}{\left((\rho u)^{\varepsilon}\;\frac12|u^{\varepsilon}|^2\right)}\\
&+\operatorname{div}\left(\rho^{\varepsilon}u^{\varepsilon}\left(h'(\rho^{\varepsilon}) - \frac12\kappa'(\rho^{\varepsilon})|\nabla\rho^{\varepsilon}|^2 - \kappa(\rho^{\varepsilon})\Delta\rho^{\varepsilon}\right) + \kappa(\rho^{\varepsilon})\nabla\rho^{\varepsilon}\operatorname{div}(\rho^{\varepsilon}u^{\varepsilon}) \right)\\
&\hspace{-0.5cm}=r_1^{\varepsilon}+ r_2^{\varepsilon}+ r_3^{\varepsilon}+ r_4^{\varepsilon}+ r_5^{\varepsilon}+ r_6^{\varepsilon}+ r_7^{\varepsilon}.
\end{aligned}$$ It follows that to prove the theorem it is sufficient to show that each commutator error term converges to zero in the distributional sense on $(0,T)\times{\mathbb{T}}^d$ as ${\varepsilon}\to 0$.
Commutator Estimates
--------------------
Let ${\varphi}\in {\mathcal{C}}_{c}^{1}((0,T)\times\mathbb{T}^{d})$ and take ${\varepsilon}>0$ small enough so that $\operatorname{supp}{\varphi}\subset ({\varepsilon},T-{\varepsilon})\times{\mathbb{T}}^d$. We will show that for each $1\leq i\leq 7$ we have $$R_i^{\varepsilon}\coloneqq\int_0^T{\int_{{\mathbb{T}}^d} r}_i^{\varepsilon}{\varphi}\ { dx dt}\xrightarrow{{\varepsilon}\to 0^+} 0.$$ The terms $R_1^{\varepsilon}$ and $R_2^{\varepsilon}$ are dealt with in the same way as in [@FGSGW]. We recall these estimates for the reader’s convenience. For $R_1^{\varepsilon}$ we observe that $$\label{pointwisedecomp}
\begin{aligned}
\rho^{\varepsilon}u^{\varepsilon}-(\rho u)^{\varepsilon}&= (\rho^{\varepsilon}-\rho)(u^{\varepsilon}-u)\\
&\hspace{0.3cm}-\int_{-{\varepsilon}}^{\varepsilon}{\int_{{\mathbb{T}}^d} \eta}^{\varepsilon}(\tau,\xi)(\rho(t-\tau,x-\xi)-\rho(t,x))(u(t-\tau,x-\xi)-u(t,x)) d\xi d\tau.
\end{aligned}$$ The first part of $R_1^{\varepsilon}$ therefore can be estimated by virtue of an integration by parts, Hölder inequality and estimates and as $$\begin{aligned}
&\left|\int_0^T{\int_{{\mathbb{T}}^d} {\varphi}}\partial_t\left((\rho^{\varepsilon}-\rho)(u^{\varepsilon}-u)\right)\cdot u^{\varepsilon}\ { dx dt}\right|\\
&\hspace{0.5cm}\leq\int_0^T{\int_{{\mathbb{T}}^d} |}(\rho^{\varepsilon}-\rho)(u^{\varepsilon}-u)|(|\partial_t{\varphi}\; u^{\varepsilon}| + |{\varphi}\partial_t u^{\varepsilon}|)\ { dx dt}\\
&\hspace{0.5cm}\leq{\|{\varphi}\|}_{{\mathcal{C}}^1}{\|\rho^{\varepsilon}-\rho\|}_{L^3}{\|u^{\varepsilon}-u\|}_{L^3}{\|u^{\varepsilon}\|}_{L^3} + {\|{\varphi}\|}_{{\mathcal{C}}^0}{\|\rho^{\varepsilon}-\rho\|}_{L^3}{\|u^{\varepsilon}-u\|}_{L^3}{\|\nabla u^{\varepsilon}\|}_{L^3}\\
&\hspace{0.5cm}\leq C{\varepsilon}^\beta{\varepsilon}^\alpha{\|\rho\|}_{B_3^{\beta,\infty}}{\|u\|}^2_{B_3^{\alpha,\infty}}+ C{\varepsilon}^\beta{\varepsilon}^\alpha{\varepsilon}^{\alpha-1}{\|\rho\|}_{B_3^{\beta,\infty}}{\|u\|}^2_{B_3^{\alpha,\infty}}
\end{aligned}$$ For the second part of $R_1^{\varepsilon}$ according to , we estimate (using integration by parts, Fubini, and ) $$\begin{aligned}
&\left|\int_0^T{\int_{{\mathbb{T}}^d} {\varphi}}\partial_t\int_{-{\varepsilon}}^{\varepsilon}{\int_{{\mathbb{T}}^d} \eta}^{\varepsilon}(\tau,\xi)(\rho(t-\tau,x-\xi)-\rho(t,x))(u(t-\tau,x-\xi)-u(t,x)) d\xi d\tau\cdot u^{\varepsilon}{ dx dt}\right|\\
&\leq C{\|{\varphi}\|}_{{\mathcal{C}}^1}{\varepsilon}^\beta{\varepsilon}^\alpha{\|\rho\|}_{B_3^{\beta,\infty}}{\|u\|}^2_{B_3^{\alpha,\infty}}+C{\|{\varphi}\|}_{{\mathcal{C}}^0}{\varepsilon}^\beta{\varepsilon}^\alpha{\varepsilon}^{\alpha-1}{\|\rho\|}_{B_3^{\beta,\infty}}{\|u\|}^2_{B_3^{\alpha,\infty}}.
\end{aligned}$$ A similar estimation can be carried out for $R_2^{\varepsilon}$. We write $$\begin{aligned}
(\rho u)^{\varepsilon}\otimes u^{\varepsilon}&-(\rho u\otimes u)^{\varepsilon}=((\rho u)^{\varepsilon}-\rho u)\otimes(u^{\varepsilon}-u)\\
&-\int_{-{\varepsilon}}^{\varepsilon}{\int_{{\mathbb{T}}^d} \eta}^{\varepsilon}(\tau,\xi)(\rho u(t-\tau,x-\xi)-\rho u(t,x))\otimes(u(t-\tau,x-\xi)-u(t,x))d\xi d\tau.
\end{aligned}$$ We observe that since $\alpha\geq\beta$ and the space $B_3^{\beta,\infty}\cap L^\infty$ is an algebra, we have $\rho u\in (B_3^{\beta,\infty}\cap L^\infty)((0,T)\times{\mathbb{T}}^d)$. Thus the first part of $R_2^{\varepsilon}$ can be estimated as $$\begin{aligned}
&\left|\int_0^T{\int_{{\mathbb{T}}^d} \operatorname{div}}\left(((\rho u)^{\varepsilon}-\rho u)\otimes(u^{\varepsilon}-u)\right)\cdot {\varphi}u^{\varepsilon}\ { dx dt}\right|\\
&\leq{\|{\varphi}\|}_{C^1}{\|(\rho u)^{\varepsilon}-\rho u\|}_{L^3}{\|u^{\varepsilon}-u\|}_{L^3}{\|u^{\varepsilon}\|}_{L^3}+{\|{\varphi}\|}_{C^0}{\|(\rho u)^{\varepsilon}-\rho u\|}_{L^3}{\|u^{\varepsilon}-u\|}_{L^3}{\|\nabla u^{\varepsilon}\|}_{L^3}
\\
&\leq C{\varepsilon}^\beta{\varepsilon}^\alpha{\|\rho\|}_{B_3^{\beta,\infty}}{\|u\|}^2_{B_3^{\alpha,\infty}} + C{\varepsilon}^\beta{\varepsilon}^\alpha{\varepsilon}^{\alpha-1}{\|\rho u\|}_{B_3^{\beta,\infty}}{\|u\|}^2_{B_3^{\alpha,\infty}}.
\end{aligned}$$ Likewise, for the second part of $R_2^{\varepsilon}$ we get $$\begin{aligned}
&\left|\int_0^T{\int_{{\mathbb{T}}^d} \operatorname{div}}\left\{\int_{-{\varepsilon}}^{\varepsilon}{\int_{{\mathbb{T}}^d} \eta}^{\varepsilon}(\tau,\xi)(\rho u(t-\tau,x-\xi)-\rho u(t,x))\otimes(u(t-\tau,x-\xi)-u(t,x))d\xi d\tau\right\}\cdot {\varphi}u^{\varepsilon}{ dx dt}\right|\\
&\leq C{\|{\varphi}\|}_{{\mathcal{C}}^0}{\varepsilon}^\beta{\varepsilon}^\alpha{\varepsilon}^{\alpha-1}{\|\rho u\|}_{B_3^{\beta,\infty}}{\|u\|}^2_{B_3^{\alpha,\infty}}+C{\|{\varphi}\|}_{{\mathcal{C}}^1}{\varepsilon}^\beta{\varepsilon}^\alpha{\|\rho\|}_{B_3^{\beta,\infty}}{\|u\|}^2_{B_3^{\alpha,\infty}}.
\end{aligned}$$ These estimates show that $R_1^{\varepsilon}$ and $R_2^{\varepsilon}$ vanish as ${\varepsilon}\to 0$.\
To estimate terms $R_3^{\varepsilon}$ and $R_4^{\varepsilon}$ we integrate by parts and apply Lemma \[CommutatorEstimates\] to get the following $$\begin{aligned}
|R_3^{\varepsilon}|&\leq{\|{\varphi}\|}_{{\mathcal{C}}^1}\int_0^T{\int_{{\mathbb{T}}^d} |}p(\rho^{\varepsilon})-p^{\varepsilon}(\rho)||u^{\varepsilon}|\ { dx dt}+{\|{\varphi}\|}_{{\mathcal{C}}^0}\int_0^T{\int_{{\mathbb{T}}^d} |}p(\rho^{\varepsilon})-p^{\varepsilon}(\rho)||\nabla u^{\varepsilon}|\ { dx dt}\\
&\leq C{\|p(\rho^{\varepsilon})-p^{\varepsilon}(\rho)\|}_{L^{3/2}}({\|u^{\varepsilon}\|}_{L^3}+{\|\nabla u^{\varepsilon}\|}_{L^3})\\
&\leq C\left({\|\rho^{\varepsilon}-\rho\|}_{L^3}^2+ \sup\limits_{y\in\operatorname{supp}\eta^{\varepsilon}}{\|\rho(\cdot)-\rho(\cdot-y)\|}_{L^3}^2
\right)\left(1+{\varepsilon}^{\alpha-1}\right){\|u\|}_{B_3^{\alpha,\infty}}\\
&\leq C\left({\varepsilon}^{2\beta}{\|\rho\|}_{B_3^{\beta,\infty}}^2+ \sup\limits_{|y|\leq{\varepsilon}}|y|^{2\beta}{\|\rho\|}_{B_3^{\beta,\infty}}^2
\right)\left(1+{\varepsilon}^{\alpha-1}\right){\|u\|}_{B_3^{\alpha,\infty}}\\
&\leq C({\varepsilon}^{2\beta}+{\varepsilon}^{2\beta+\alpha-1}){\|u\|}_{B_3^{\alpha,\infty}}{\|\rho\|}^2_{B_3^{\beta,\infty}}
\end{aligned}$$ and similarly $$\begin{aligned}
|R_4^{\varepsilon}|
&\leq C{\|S(\rho^{\varepsilon}, \nabla\rho^{\varepsilon}, \Delta\rho^{\varepsilon})-S^{\varepsilon}(\rho,\nabla\rho, \Delta\rho)\|}_{L^{3/2}}({\|u^{\varepsilon}\|}_{L^3}+{\|\nabla u^{\varepsilon}\|}_{L^3})\\
&\leq C({\varepsilon}^{2\beta}+{\varepsilon}^{2\beta+\alpha-1}){\|u\|}_{B_3^{\alpha,\infty}}({\|\rho\|}^2_{B_3^{\beta,\infty}}+{\|\nabla\rho\|}^2_{B_3^{\beta,\infty}}+{\|\Delta\rho\|}^2_{B_3^{\beta,\infty}}).
\end{aligned}$$ It now remains to estimate the last three commutator errors $R_5^{\varepsilon}$, $R_6^{\varepsilon}$ and $R_7^{\varepsilon}$. To this end we employ Lemma \[lemma:compositiongrad\] with function $f$ being $h'(\rho)$, $\kappa'(\rho)|\nabla\rho|^2$, and $\kappa(\rho)\Delta\rho$, respectively. We observe that by assumptions and these functions belong to $L^\infty$. Using again equality we can estimate as follows. $$\begin{aligned}
|R_5^{\varepsilon}| &\leq \int_0^T{\int_{{\mathbb{T}}^d} |}(\rho^{\varepsilon}-\rho)(u^{\varepsilon}-u)|(|h'(\rho^{\varepsilon})\nabla{\varphi}|+|{\varphi}\nabla h'(\rho^{\varepsilon})|)\ { dx dt}\\
&\leq {\|{\varphi}\|}_{{\mathcal{C}}^1}{\|\rho^{\varepsilon}-\rho\|}_{L^3}{\|u^{\varepsilon}-u\|}_{L^3}{\|h'(\rho^{\varepsilon})\|}_{L^3} + {\|{\varphi}\|}_{{\mathcal{C}}^0}{\|\rho^{\varepsilon}-\rho\|}_{L^3}{\|u^{\varepsilon}-u\|}_{L^3}{\|\nabla h'(\rho^{\varepsilon})\|}_{L^3}\\
&\leq C{\varepsilon}^\beta{\varepsilon}^\alpha{\|\rho\|}_{B_3^{\beta,\infty}}{\|u\|}_{B_3^{\alpha,\infty}} + C{\varepsilon}^\beta{\varepsilon}^\alpha{\varepsilon}^{\beta-1}{\|\rho\|}^2_{B_3^{\beta,\infty}}{\|u\|}_{B_3^{\alpha,\infty}},\\ \\
|R_6^{\varepsilon}|
&\leq C ({\|\kappa'(\rho^{\varepsilon})|\nabla\rho^{\varepsilon}|^2\|}_{L^3}+{\|\nabla(\kappa'(\rho^{\varepsilon})|\nabla\rho^{\varepsilon}|^2)\|}_{L^3}){\|\rho^{\varepsilon}-\rho\|}_{L^3}{\|u^{\varepsilon}-u\|}_{L^3}\\
&\leq C{\varepsilon}^\beta{\varepsilon}^\alpha{\|\rho\|}_{B_3^{\beta,\infty}}{\|u\|}_{B_3^{\alpha,\infty}} + C{\varepsilon}^\beta{\varepsilon}^\alpha{\varepsilon}^{\beta-1}{\|\rho\|}^2_{B_3^{\beta,\infty}}{\|u\|}_{B_3^{\alpha,\infty}},
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
|R_7^{\varepsilon}|
&\leq C ({\|\kappa(\rho^{\varepsilon})\Delta\rho^{\varepsilon}\|}_{L^3}+{\|\nabla(\kappa(\rho^{\varepsilon})\Delta\rho^{\varepsilon})\|}_{L^3}){\|\rho^{\varepsilon}-\rho\|}_{L^3}{\|u^{\varepsilon}-u\|}_{L^3}\\
&\leq C{\varepsilon}^\beta{\varepsilon}^\alpha{\|\rho\|}_{B_3^{\beta,\infty}}{\|u\|}_{B_3^{\alpha,\infty}} + C{\varepsilon}^\beta{\varepsilon}^\alpha{\varepsilon}^{\beta-1}{\|\rho\|}^2_{B_3^{\beta,\infty}}{\|u\|}_{B_3^{\alpha,\infty}}.
\end{aligned}$$ For brevity the above calculations include only the first term coming from , with the second term easily seen to produce estimates of the same order.\
Thus the proof of the theorem is complete.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
---------------
This work was partially supported by the Simons - Foundation grant 346300 and the Polish Government MNiSW 2015-2019 matching fund; AET thanks the Institute of Mathematics of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, for their hospitality during his stay as a Simons Visiting Professor. P.G. and A.Ś-G. received support from the National Science Centre (Poland), 2015/18/M/ST1/00075. T.D acknowledges the support of the National Science Centre (Poland), 2012/05/E/ST1/02218.
[10]{}
P. Antonelli, P. Marcati. On the finite energy weak solutions to a system in quantum fluid dynamics. , [**287**]{}(2):657–686, 2009.
P. Antonelli, P. Marcati. The quantum hydrodynamics system in two space dimensions. , [**203**]{}(2):499–527, 2012.
C. Bardos, E. Titi. Onsager’s Conjecture for the Incompressible Euler Equations in Bounded Domains. , 2017, DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00205-017-1189-x.
C. Bennett, R. Sharpley. . Pure and Applied Mathematics [**129**]{}, Academic Press Inc., Boston, 1988.
T. Buckmaster, C. De Lellis, L. Székelyhidi, Jr., and V. Vicol. Onsager’s conjecture for admissible weak solutions. , (1701.08678), 2017.
R. E. Caflisch, I. Klapper, and G. Steele. Remarks on singularities, dimension and energy dissipation for ideal hydrodynamics and [MHD]{}. , [**184**]{}(2):443–455, 1997.
S. Benzoni-Gavage, R. Danchin, and S. Descombes. On the well-posedness for the euler-korteweg model in several space dimensions. , [**56**]{}:1499–1579, 2007.
S. Benzoni-Gavage, R. Danchin, S. Descombes, and D. Jamet. Structure of [K]{}orteweg models and stability of diffuse interfaces. , [**7**]{}(4):371–414, 2005.
S. Benzoni-Gavage. Planar traveling waves in capillary fluids. , [**26**]{}(3-4):439–485, 2013.
A. Cheskidov, P. Constantin, S. Friedlander, and R. Shvydkoy. Energy conservation and [O]{}nsager’s conjecture for the [E]{}uler equations. , [**21**]{}(6):1233–1252, 2008.
P. Constantin, W. E, and E. S. Titi. Onsager’s conjecture on the energy conservation for solutions of [E]{}uler’s equation. , [**165**]{}(1):207–209, 1994.
C. De Lellis and L. Sz[é]{}kelyhidi, Jr. The [E]{}uler equations as a differential inclusion. , [**170**]{}(3):1417–1436, 2009.
C. De Lellis and L. Sz[é]{}kelyhidi, Jr. On admissibility criteria for weak solutions of the Euler equations. , [**195**]{}:225–260, 2010.
T. Dbiec, P. Gwiazda, A. Świerczewska-Gwiazda. A tribute to energy conservation for weak solutions. , (1707.09794), 2017.
D. Donatelli, E. Feireisl, P. Marcati. Well/ill posedness for the Euler-Korteweg-Poisson system and related problems. , [**40**]{}(7):1314–1335, 2015.
T. D. Drivas and G. L. Eyink. An onsager singularity theorem for turbulent solutions of compressible euler equations. , 2017.
J. Duchon and R. Robert. Inertial energy dissipation for weak solutions of incompressible [E]{}uler and [N]{}avier-[S]{}tokes equations. , [**13**]{}(1):249–255, 2000.
J. E. Dunn, J. Serrin. On the thermomechanics of interstitial working. :95-133, 1985.
G. L. Eyink. Energy dissipation without viscosity in ideal hydrodynamics. [I]{}. [F]{}ourier analysis and local energy transfer. , [**78**]{}(3-4):222–240, 1994.
E. Feireisl, P. Gwiazda, A. [Ś]{}wierczewska-Gwiazda, and E. Wiedemann. Regularity and [E]{}nergy [C]{}onservation for the [C]{}ompressible [E]{}uler [E]{}quations. , [**223**]{}(3):1–21, 2017.
I. Gasser, P. Markowich. Quantum Hydrodynamics, Wigner transforms and the classical limit. , [**14**]{}: 97-116, 1997
J. Giesselmann, A. Tzavaras. Stability properties of the Euler-Korteweg system with nonmonotone pressures. (9):1528–1546, 2017
J. Giesselman, C. Lattanzio, A. Tzavaras. Relative energy for the korteweg theory and related hamiltonian flows in gas dynamics. , [**223**]{}(3):1427–1484, 2017.
P. Gwiazda, M. Michálek, A. [Ś]{}wierczewska-Gwiazda. A note on weak solutions of conservation laws and energy/entropy conservation. , (1706.10154), 2017
P. Isett. A [P]{}roof of [O]{}nsager’s [C]{}onjecture. , (1608.08301), 2016.
P. Isett. On the Endpoint Regularity in [O]{}nsager’s [C]{}onjecture. , (1706.0154), 2017.
E. Kang and J. Lee. Remarks on the magnetic helicity and energy conservation for ideal magneto-hydrodynamics. , [**20**]{}(11):2681–2689, 2007.
T. M. Leslie and R. Shvydkoy. The energy balance relation for weak solutions of the density-dependent [N]{}avier-[S]{}tokes equations. , [**261**]{}(6):3719–3733, 2016.
L. Onsager. Statistical hydrodynamics. , 6(Supplemento, 2 (Convegno Internazionale di Meccanica Statistica)):279–287, 1949.
V. Scheffer. An inviscid flow with compact support in space-time. , [**3**]{}(4):343–401, 1993.
A. Shnirelman. Weak solutions with decreasing energy of incompressible [E]{}uler equations. , [**210**]{}(3):541–603, 2000.
R. Shvydkoy. On the energy of inviscid singular flows. , [**349**]{}:583–595, 2009.
C. Yu. Energy conservation for the weak solutions of the compressible [N]{}avier–[S]{}tokes equations. , [**225**]{}(2):1073–1087, 2017.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We investigate the observability of higher harmonics in gravitational wave signals emitted during the coalescence of binary black holes. We decompose each mode into an overall amplitude, dependent upon the masses and spins of the system, and an orientation-dependent term, dependent upon the inclination and polarization of the source. Using this decomposition, we investigate the significance of higher modes over the parameter space and show that the $\ell = 3$, $m = 3$ mode is most significant across much of the sensitive band of ground-based interferometric detectors, with the $\ell = 4$, $m = 4$ having a significant contribution at high masses. We introduce the higher mode signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and show that a simple threshold on this SNR can be used as a criterion for observation of higher harmonics. Finally, we investigate observability in a population of binaries and observe that higher harmonics will only be observable in a few percent of binaries, typically those with unequal masses and viewed close to edge-on.'
author:
- Cameron Mills
- Stephen Fairhurst
bibliography:
- 'gw1204-refs.bib'
title: 'Measuring gravitational-wave higher-order modes'
---
Introduction
============
The Gravitational Waveform {#sec:waveform}
==========================
The Significance of Higher Harmonics {#sec:significance}
====================================
Dependence upon intrinsic parameters
------------------------------------
Dependence upon extrinsic parameters
------------------------------------
Observing Higher Harmonics {#sec:observing}
==========================
Higher Harmonics in a Population of Binary Mergers {#sec:population}
==================================================
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The authors have benefitted from many valuable discussions with Edward Fauchon-Jones, Cecilio Garc[í]{}a-Quir[ó]{}s, Rhys Green, Eleanor Hamilton, Mark Hannam, Charlie Hoy, Sebastian Khan, Lionel London, Frank Ohme, Vaibhav Tiwari and Vivien Raymond. SF and CM acknowledge support from the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) grant ST/L000962/1, European Research Council Consolidator Grant 647839ST/L000962/1. Finally, the authors are grateful for computational resources provided by the Cardiff University and LIGO Laboratory and supported by STFC grant ST/I006285/1 and National Science Foundation Grants PHY-0757058 and PHY-0823459.
Spin-weighted spherical harmonic polarizations {#sec:Ylm}
==============================================
Derivation of $p(R_{lm})$ {#sec:derive_R}
=========================
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The role of the final state interactions (FSI) in the inclusive quasi-elastic disintegration of the deuteron is investigated treating the two-nucleon final state within the exact continuum solutions of the non-relativistic Schroedinger equation, as well as within the Glauber multiple scattering approach. It is shown that for values of the Bjorken scaling variable $x_{Bj}\simeq 1$ both approaches provide similar results, unless the case $x_{Bj}\gtrsim 1$, where they appreciably disagree. It is demonstrated that present experimental data, which are mostly limited to a region of four-momentum transfer ($Q^2 \lesssim 4 (GeV/c)^2$) where the Center-of-Mass energy of the final state is below the pion threshold production, can be satisfactorily reproduced by the approach based on the exact solution of the Schroedinger equation and not by the Glauber approach. It is also pointed out that the latter, unlike the former, does not satisfy the inelastic Coulomb sum rule, the violation being of the order of about 20%.'
address:
- ' Department of Physics, University of Perugia, and INFN, Sezione di Perugia, via A. Pascoli, Perugia, I-06100, Italy'
- 'Department of Theoretical Physics, University of Trieste, Strada Costiera 11, INFN, Sezione di Trieste and ICTP, I-34014 Trieste, Italy'
author:
- 'C. Ciofi degli Atti, L.P. Kaptari [^1]'
- 'D. Treleani'
title: 'On the effects of the final state interaction in the electro-disintegration of the deuteron at intermediate and high energies'
---
\#1[ ]{}
.01cm
INTRODUCTION {#sec:introduction}
============
The role played by the effects of final state interaction (FSI) in electro-disintegration processes is a very relevant issue, for they may in principle hinder the extraction of reliable information not only on nuclear structure, but also on fundamental hadronic properties in the medium, which could be obtained from different kinds of lepton scattering processes off nuclear targets. Apart from the few-body systems at low energies, for which exact solutions of the Schroedinger equation in the continuum are becoming to be available (see e.g. [@gloeckle; @rosati]), the treatment of FSI effects in complex systems at intermediate and high energies still requires the use of several approximations. This concerns both the semi-inclusive processes $A(e,e'p)X$ (see e.g. [@semiincl]), and the fully inclusive process $A(e,e')X$, for which several methods have been proposed with conflicting results (see e.g. [@incl]). Most of these approaches rely on the use of the Glauber multiple scattering theory, assuming that the struck nucleon, after $\gamma^*$ absorption, is on shell and propagates in the medium with total energy $\sqrt {({\bf q}+ {\bf p})^2 +M^2}
\simeq \sqrt {{\bf q}^2 +M^2}$ ($\bf q$ and $\bf p$ are the three-momentum transfer and the momentum of the struck nucleon before interaction, respectively). The latter assumption, which is a very reasonable one at $x_{Bj} \simeq 1$ ($x_{Bj}=Q^2/(2M\nu)$ is the Bjorken scaling variable [@Bjork], $Q^2={\bf q}^2 -{\nu}^2$ the four-momentum transfer, and $M$ the nucleon mass), could be questionable at higher or lower values of $x_{Bj}$, where the struck nucleon, after $\gamma^*$ absorption, is far off-shell; moreover, even at high values of $|{\bf q}|$, the two nucleon relative energy might be not sufficiently high to justify the use of the Glauber high energy approximation, so that a careful consideration of the two-nucleon kinematics is called for. As a matter of fact, it has been shown [@ciofideut] that existing data on the inclusive electro-disintegration of the deuteron, $D(e,e')X$ [@Bosted], correspond, at $x_{Bj}> 1$, to a very low relative energy of the two nucleon final state even if $|\bf q|$ is very large, and that they can be satisfactorily explained by using for the continuum state the solution of the non relativistic Schroedinger equation [^2] . It is however clear that, given a fixed value of $x_{Bj}$, if $|\bf q|$ (i.e. $Q^2$) is further increased, inelastic processes could become operative and the Schroedinger approach becomes inadequate. Within these kinematical conditions, i.e. at high relative energies of the $np$-pair in the continuum, the Glauber approach has been frequently used to calculate FSI effects, which, however, requires several approximations in case of complex nuclei. In the deuteron case, FSI effects can be calculated exactly within both the Schroedinger and the Glauber approaches. It is just the aim of this paper to present the results of such a calculation for the inclusive electro-disintegration of the deuteron $D(e,e')X$ in the quasi-elastic region, i.e. at $\nu \le Q^2/2M $, or $x_{Bj}>1$. In order to better display the effects of the FSI, our results will be presented not only in terms of cross sections, but also in terms of y-scaling functions[@ciofideut]. Our paper is organized as follows: in Chapter II the basic formalism of inclusive processes within the Plane Wave Impulse Approximation (PWIA) is recalled; the formalism pertaining to the treatment of the FSI within the Schroedinger and the Glauber approaches is illustrated in Chapter III; the results of calculations are given in Chapter IV; the Conclusions are drawn in Chapter V.
The One Photon Exchange and the Plane Wave Impulse Approximations {#sec:Basic}
=================================================================
In this Section the relevant formulae describing the inclusive cross section $D(e,e')X$ will be recalled. In the One Photon Exchange Approximation, depicted in fig.\[pict1\], the inclusive cross section reads as follows $$\frac{d^3\sigma}{d\Omega'd{\cal E}'}
=\sum\limits_f |< \textbf{P}_f,f|\, \hat O\, |i,\textbf{P}_i>|^{\,2}\,
\delta (\nu +\varepsilon_i -\varepsilon_f),
\label{eq1}$$ where $|i>$ and $|f>$ are the initial and final eigenfunctions of the intrinsic nuclear Hamiltonian, $\hat O = K\cdot j_\mu\displaystyle\frac{1}{Q^2}J^\mu$, $j_\mu$ and $J_\mu$ are the electromagnetic currents of the electron and the deuteron, respectively, and $K$ is a kinematical factor (see below).
The 4-momenta of the initial and final electrons in the laboratory system are $k=({\cal
E},{\bf k})$ and $k'=({\cal E'},{\bf k'})$, respectively, the four momentum transfer is $q=k-k'=(\nu, {\bf q})$, and the orientation of the coordinate system is defined by ${\bf q}=(0,0,q_z)$.
At high energies the electron mass can be disregarded, so that $$\begin{aligned}
k^2 = (k')^2 \simeq 0,\quad kk'= -kq =
\frac{-q^2}{2} = \frac{Q^2}{2}, \label{kin10}\\
Q^2 \equiv - q^2 = 4{\cal E
E}'\sin^2{\frac{\theta}{2}}.\label{kin11}\end{aligned}$$ where $\theta$ is the scattering angle. The following relations will be used in what follows: $$\begin{aligned}
&& {\cal E} = \frac{\nu}{2}\left( 1+ \frac{
\sqrt{\sin^2{\frac{\theta}{2}}+\frac{Q^2}{\nu^2}}
}{\sin{\frac{\theta}{2}}}\right),\quad
{\cal E}' = {\cal E} -\nu \label{kin20}\\[1mm]
&& \left | {\bf q}\right| = \left | q_z\right|
=\sqrt{Q^2+\nu^2}. \label{kin22}\end{aligned}$$
In PWIA, depicted in fig. \[pict2\], the three-nucleon momenta in the deuteron, before interaction, are ${\bf p}_1=-{\bf p}_2$ and, after interaction, ${\bf p}{_1}'={\bf q}+ {\bf p}_1$ and ${\bf p}{_2}'= {\bf
p}_2$; the relative and center of mass (CM) momenta are ${\bf p}=(1/2)({\bf p}_1- {\bf p}_2)={\bf p}_1$ and ${\bf P}=({\bf p}_1+ {\bf p}_2)=0$. The PWIA cross section in the lab system has the following form ($\bf p_1 = -{\bf p_2}$): $$\begin{aligned}
&& {d^3 \sigma \over d \Omega ' d {\cal E}'
}=\int \sigma_{Mott} \ \sum\limits_{N_i=1,2}\left
[ V_L|\langle p_1|\hat
J_L^{N_i}(Q^2)|p_1'\rangle|^2+ V_T|\langle
p_1|\hat J_T^{N_i}(Q^2)|P_1'\rangle|^2 \right
]\times\nonumber
\\&&\phantom{{d^3 \sigma \over d \Omega d {\cal E}' }=\int}
\left [ \frac{M^2 d {\bf p}_2 }{E_1'E_2} \delta
(M_D+\nu -E_1'-E_2) \right ]\ n(|{\bf p}|),
\label{pwia}\end{aligned}$$ where $L(T)$ refer to the longitudinal (transverse) part of the nucleon current operator, $V_{L(T)}$ are the corresponding well-known kinematical factors $(V_L = \displaystyle\frac{Q^4}{ |{\bf q}|^4},
V_T = \tan^2(\theta / 2) + \displaystyle\frac{Q^2}{ 2|{\bf q}|^2})$, and $ n^D(|{\bf p|})$ is the nucleon momentum distribution in the deuteron $$n^{D}(|{\bf p}|) =\frac{1}{3(2\pi)^3} \sum\limits_{{\cal M}_D}
\left |\int \Psi_{{1,\cal M}_D} ({\bf r})\ \exp (i{\bf
p}{\bf r}) d{\bf r} \right |^2, \label{deutwf}$$ where $ \Psi_{1,\cal M_D}^D (\textbf{r})$ is the non relativistic deuteron wave function, with the two nucleon relative co-ordinate given by $\textbf{r}=\textbf{r}_1 - \textbf{r}_2$. It is a common practice to express the cross section (\[pwia\]) in terms of the free electron-nucleon cross section for an on mass-shell nucleon, i.e. to extrapolate the Rosenbluth cross section to the off-mass shell case [@forest]. Since energy conservation in the two cases is different (whereas the three momentum conservation is the same) the extrapolation unavoidably requires additional, [*ad hoc*]{} assumptions. In this paper we adopt the prescription of [@forest], according to which the hit nucleon is considered to be on-shell, i.e. with a four momentum equal to the one of a free nucleon, [ *[*viz.*]{}*]{} $p_1 ^ {on} = ( \sqrt{ {\bf p}_1^2 + {M}^2 }, {\bf p}_1)$, and in (\[pwia\]) the replacement $\nu \longrightarrow \bar\nu= \nu + M_D - \sqrt
{ M ^2 + {\bf p}_1^2 } - \sqrt{ M^2+{\bf p}_2^2
}$ is done, so that $\delta (M_D + \nu - E_1' -E_2)
\longrightarrow \delta ( \sqrt{ {\bf p}_1^2 + M^2 }+\bar\nu - E_1')$ ; by this way, the electromagnetic vertex of the nuclear tensor corresponds to that of a free nucleon, evaluated at the same ${\bf
q}$, but at the transferred energy $\bar\nu$ instead of $\nu$ , which means that the nucleon hadronic tensor has to be evaluated for $p_N = p_N^{on}$ and $Q_N^2=\bar Q^2 = {\bf q}
^2 - \bar \nu^2 \neq Q^2$. By such a procedure one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
&& {d^3 \sigma \over d \Omega ' d {\cal E}' }=
\int \overline \sigma_{eN} \ n^{D}(|{\bf p|}) d{\bf p}
\delta (\bar\nu +\sqrt{M^2+{\bf
p}^2}-\sqrt{M^2+({\bf p}+{\bf q})^2})=
\nonumber\\ && =(2\pi)
\int\limits_{|y|}^{p_{max}}
\overline \sigma_{eN}\, \frac{E_{\bf p +q }}{|{\bf q}|}
n^{D}(|{\bf p}|)|{\bf p}| d|{\bf p}|,
\label{pwia1}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mbox{$\overline\sigma_{eN}$}$ is the extrapolated electron -nucleon cross section for an off-mass shell nucleon [@forest], $E_{\bf p+q}=E_1'=\sqrt{M^2+({\bf p}+{\bf q})^2}$, and the limits of integration, which are obtained from the energy conservation provided by the $\delta$- function, are as follows $$\begin{aligned}
&&|{\bf p}|_{min} = \frac{1}{2}\left | \left \{
(M_D+\nu)\sqrt{1-\frac{4m^2}{s}} -|{\bf q}|\right
\} \right | \equiv \left | y \right|
\label{ime093} \\ &&|{\bf p}|_{max} = \frac 12
\left \{ (M_D+\nu)\sqrt{1-\frac{4m^2}{s}} +|{\bf
q}|\right \} \equiv p_{max}, \label{ime094}\end{aligned}$$ where $s$ denotes the Mandelstam variable for the $\gamma^* D$ vertex $$s=(P_D+q)^2 =M_D(M_D+2\nu)-Q^2. \label{sman}$$ and $y$ is the scaling variable according to [@ciofideut] $$y = \frac{1}{2}\left\{|{\bf q}|-
(M_D+\nu)\sqrt{1-\frac{4m^2}{s}}\right\}
\label{uai}$$ When the value of $|{\bf q}|$ becomes large enough, one has $p_{max}\sim \infty$ and the dependence of $\overline\sigma_{eN}$ upon $|{\bf p}|$ becomes very weak. In such a case eq. (\[pwia1\]) can be cast in the following form [@ciofideut] $$\frac{d\sigma}{d{\Omega}' d{\cal E}'}
=
\left (s_{ep}+s_{en}\right )
\frac{E_{y+|\vec q|} }{|{\bf q}|}\,
(2\pi)\,
\int\limits_{|y|}^{\infty}|{\bf p}| \, d|{\bf p}|
n^D(|{\bf p}|),
\label{nonrelappr}$$ where $s_{eN}$ and $E_{y +|\vec q| }$ represent $\overline\sigma_{eN}$ and $E_{\vec p +\vec q }$, calculated at $|{\bf p}|=|{\bf p}|_{min}=|y|$, and can therefore be taken out of the integral. Such an approximation, which has been carefully investigated in ref. [@ciofideut], turns out to be valid within few percents, provided $Q^2 >0.5 \, GeV^2/c^2$. It is clear therefore, that at large values of $|{\bf q}|$ the following quantity (the [*non relativistic scaling function*]{}) $$\begin{aligned}
&& F(|{\bf q}|,y) \equiv \frac{|{\bf
q}|}{E_{y+|\vec q |}}\cdot \left(\frac{d\sigma}{
{d{\Omega}'d\cal E}'}\right) / \left(s_{ep}
+s_{en}\right ) \label{scfunnon}\end{aligned}$$ will be directly related to the longitudinal momentum distribution $$F(|{\bf q}|,y)\,
\longrightarrow \,f(y)
=2\pi\int\limits_{|y|}^{\infty} |{\bf p}| d |{\bf
p}| n^D(|{\bf p}|), \label{add1}$$ Thus the condition for the occurrence of non relativistic $y$-scaling is that eq. (\[pwia1\]) could be cast in the form (\[nonrelappr\]), which means that: i) $ Q^2 > 0.5 \, GeV^2/c^2 $, in order to make the replacement $\overline \sigma_{eN}\to \,
s_{eN}$ and $E_{\vec p+\vec q}\to\,E_{y+|\vec
q|}$ possible, and ii) $p_{max}=(|{\bf
q}|-|y|)\gg |y|$ (cf. (\[ime093\]) and (\[ime094\])) in order to saturate the integral of the momentum distribution, $\int\limits_{|y|}^{p_{max}} |{\bf p}| d|{\bf p}|
n^D(|{\bf p}|)\to
\int\limits_{|y|}^\infty |{\bf p}| d|{\bf p}| n^D(|{\bf p}|)$. Condition ii) obviously implies that the larger the value of $|y|$, the larger the value of $|{\bf q}|$ at which scaling will occur. The satisfaction of the inequalities $|{\bf q}|\gg 2|y|,\, x_{Bj} > 1 $ leads, for any well-behaved $ n(|{\bf p}|)$, to the following conditions for the occurrence of non relativistic $y$-scaling: $$2m/3\, \lesssim \nu\, < |{\bf q}|,\quad|{\bf q}|\gtrsim 2m.
\label{conditions}$$ Note, that the above conditions are very different from the conditions for Bjorken scaling $\nu \simeq |{\bf q}|$.
The Final State Interaction
===========================
The Schroedinger Approach
-------------------------
In the calculation of the FSI, depicted in Fig. \[pict3\], it is more convenient to perform calculations in the frame where the interacting $np$-pair in the final state is at rest. The phase-space factor can be written as follows $$\frac{d {\bf p}_1' d {\bf p}_2 }{E_1'E_2}
\delta^{(4)}(P_D+q-P_f) =\frac{ d {\bf P}_f d
{\bf p}_{rel}}{2E^{* 2}}\delta^{(3)}\left({\bf
q}-{\bf P}_f\right)\,
\delta\left(E^*-\frac{\sqrt{s}}{2}\right),
\label{delta}$$ where ${\bf p}_{rel}$ is the relative momentum of the $np$-pair which is defined by the Mandelstam variable $s=4\,({\bf p}_{rel}^2+M^2)$. For the longitudinal current one has $$\begin{aligned}
G_E(Q^2) \exp(i{\bf q\,r}/2)= (4\pi)^2 G_E(Q^2)
\sum\limits_{\lambda,\mu} i^\lambda j_\lambda
(qr/2) {\rm Y_{\lambda \mu}^*(\hat q) Y_{\lambda
\mu}(\hat r)} \equiv (4\pi)^2
G_E(Q^2)\sum\limits_{\lambda,\mu}
{\rm Y_{\lambda \mu}^*(\hat q)} {\rm \hat O_{\lambda \mu}} .
\label{multipole}
\end{aligned}$$ with ${\rm \hat O_{\lambda \mu}}= i^\lambda j_\lambda
(qr/2) Y_{\lambda
\mu}(\hat r)$, and the corresponding cross section is $$\begin{aligned}
{d^3 \sigma^L \over d \Omega' d {\cal E}'
}=\frac{4}{3} \frac{ M^2\, \sigma_{Mott} }{2\pi}
V_L\, G_E(Q^2)^2
\sum\limits_{J_f}\sum\limits_\lambda \left |
\langle J_D|| \hat O_\lambda(|{\bf q}|)
||p_{rel}; J_f L_f S_f \rangle \right |^2
\frac{|{\bf p}_{rel}|}{\sqrt{s}}.
\label{wigner}\end{aligned}$$ where the radial part of the two-nucleon wave function in the continuum $| p_{rel};J_f L_f S_f \rangle $ has the following behaviour $$u_{LS}^J(r)
\stackrel{r\to\infty}{\longrightarrow}\,\frac{1}{p_{rel}}\,
\sin \left(p_{rel}\, r- \frac{L\pi}{2}
+\delta_L\right). \label{asym}$$ It can be seen that equation (\[wigner\]) differs from the PWIA result (\[pwia1\]). However, by using the identity $\displaystyle\frac{1}{2|{\bf
q}|}\displaystyle\int\limits_{|y|}^{p_{max}}
\displaystyle\frac{| {\bf p}| d | {\bf
p}|}{E}=\frac{p_{rel}}{\sqrt{s}}$ one may cast the cross section in the following form $$\frac{d\sigma^{L}}{d\Omega' d{{\cal E}'}}
=
\left (s_{ep}+s_{en}\right )^{L}
\frac{E_{y+|\vec q|} }{|{\bf q}|}\,
\int\limits_{|y|}^{p_{max}}|{\bf p}| \, d|{\bf p}|
n_S^D(|{\bf p}|, |\textbf{q}|, \nu),
\label{xschr}$$ where, the following quantity has been introduced $$n_S^D(|{\bf p}|, |\textbf{q}|, \nu)
=\frac{1}{4\pi}\,\frac{1}{3}\sum\limits_{J_f}\sum\limits_\lambda
\left | \langle J_D|| \hat O_\lambda(|{\bf q}|)
|| p_{rel};J_f L_f S_f \rangle \right |^2,
\label{newdist}$$
The Glauber Approach
--------------------
In the Glauber approach the exact two-nucleon continuum wave function $|f>$ is approximated by its eikonal form. Then the cross section can be written in the same form as equation (\[pwia1\]) with the deuteron momentum distribution (\[deutwf\]) replaced by the Glauber distorted momentum distribution $n_G^D$ [@nikolaev], $$n^D( {\bf p}) \to n_G^D( {\bf p}_m) =
\frac13\frac{1}{(2\pi)^3} \sum\limits_{{\cal
M}_D} \left | \int\, d {\bf r} \Psi_{{1,\cal
M}_D}^*( {\bf r}) S( {\bf r}) \chi_f\,\exp (-i
{\bf p}_m {\bf r}) \right |^2, \label{ddistr}$$ where $${\bf p}_m = {\bf q}-{\bf p}_1' \label{missing}$$ is the missing momentum, $\chi_f$ the spin wave function of the final $np$-pair and $S( {\bf r})$ the $S$-matrix describing the final state interaction between the hit nucleon and the spectator, [*[*viz.*]{}*]{} (see Ref. [@nikolaev]) $$S({\bf r}) = 1-\theta(z)\,\Gamma_{el}({\bf b}),
\label{sg}$$ with the elastic profile function $\Gamma_{el}({\bf b})$ being $$\Gamma_{el}({\bf b})=\frac{\sigma_{tot}(1-i\alpha)}{4\pi b_0^2}\,
\exp(-b^2/2b_0^2). \label{gama}$$ In eqs. (\[sg\]) and (\[gama\]) ${\bf r} =
{\bf b} + z\, {\bf q}/|{\bf q}|$ defines the longitudinal, $z$, and the perpendicular, ${\bf b}$, components of the relative coordinate [**r**]{}, $\sigma_{tot}=\sigma_{el} + \sigma_{in}$, $\alpha$ is the ratio of the real to the imaginary part of the forward elastic $pn$ scattering amplitude, and, eventually, the step function $\theta(z)$ originates from the Glauber’s high energy approximation, according to which the struck nucleon propagates along a straight-line trajectory and can interact with the spectator only provided $z
> 0$. The following relations will be useful in what follows $$\sigma_{el} = \int \left | \Gamma_{el}({\bf
b})\right |^2d^2b=
\frac{\sigma_{tot}^2(1+\alpha^2)}{16\pi b_0^2}
\label{uno}$$ $$f_{el}({{\Delta}_{\perp}}) =
\frac{ik}{2\pi}\frac{\sigma_{tot}(1-i\alpha)}{4\pi
b_0^2} \int d^2 b\, {\rm e}^{i{\bf \Delta b}}\, {\rm
e}^{-b^2/2b_0^2} = \frac{ik}{4\pi}
\sigma_{tot}(1-i\alpha) \, {\rm
e}^{-b_0^2\Delta_{\perp}^2/2}
\label{due}$$ $$\frac{d\sigma_{el}}{d^2 \Delta} =\frac{1}{k^2} \left |
f_{el}({\bf \Delta})\right |^2=
\frac{\sigma_{tot}^2(1+\alpha^2)}{16\pi^2}
\exp(-b_0^2 \Delta_{\perp}^2)
\label{tre}$$ where $\Delta$ is the transferred momentum in the $N-N$ collision, and $$b_0^2=\frac{\sigma_{tot}^2(1+\alpha^2)}{16\pi\sigma_{el}}
\label{quattro}$$ is the slope of the $q$-dependence of the elastic proton-neutron cross section. Assuming that at high relative energies of the $np$-pair the differences between the absorbtion of longitudinal (L) and transverse (T) photons connected with the spin dependence of FSI effects can be disregarded, eq.(\[nonrelappr\]) becomes $$\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega' d{{\cal E}'}}
=
\left (s_{ep}+s_{en}\right )
\frac{E_{y+|\vec q|} }{|{\bf q}|}\,
(2\pi)\,
\int\limits_{|y|}^{p_{max}}|{\bf p}_m| \, d|{\bf p}_m|
n_G^D(|{\bf p}_m|, \cos\theta_{{\bf qp}_m}).
\label{glauberfy}$$ It should be stressed, first, that in absence of any FSI, the distorted momentum distribution $n_G^D({\bf
p}_m)$ reduces to the undistorted momentum distribution $n^D({\bf p})$ (${\bf p}_m =-{\bf p}_1$) and, secondly, that unlike $n^D({\bf
p})$, $n_G^D({\bf
p}_m)$ depends also upon the orientation of ${\bf p}_m$ with respect to the momentum transfer ${\bf q}$, with the angle $\theta_{{\bf qp}_m}$ being fixed by the energy conserving $\delta$-function, namely $\cos \theta_{{\bf qp}_m}=[(2(M_D+\nu)\sqrt{|\textbf{p}_m|^2+M^2}
-s)]/(2|\textbf{q}||\textbf{p}_m|)$; thus $n_G^D({\bf p}_m)$ depends implicitly on the kinematics of the process, and the values of $y$ and $|{\bf q}|$ fix the value of the total energy (\[sman\]) of the final $np$ pair, i.e. the relative energy of the nucleons in the final states. Consequently, the quantities $\sigma_{tot}$, $\alpha$ and $b_0$ in (\[gama\]) also depend upon the kinematics of the process. In this sense, the distorted momentum distribution $n_G^D({\bf p}_m)$ implicitly depends upon $|{\bf q}|$ and $y$ as well.
The longitudinal sum rule
-------------------------
Let us now briefly discuss the charge conservation sum rule in the quasi-elastic processes. The longitudinal part of the hadronic current is the charge density of the target and the longitudinal cross section may be written in the form $$\begin{aligned}
&& {d^3 \sigma^L \over d \Omega' d {\cal E}'
}=\int \frac{V_L}{3} \sum\limits_{{\cal
M}_D,J_f,{\cal M}_f} |\langle P_D,{\cal M}_D|\hat
J_L^D(Q^2)|P_f,{\cal M}_f\rangle|^2 \left [
\frac{ d {\bf p}_2 }{(2\pi)^3} \delta (\nu
+E_i-E_f) \right ]. \label{long}\end{aligned}$$ Integrating over the energy loss $\nu$, summing over the final states and, disregarding, for ease of presentation, the neutron form factor $G_E^n$, the longitudinal sum rule can be obtained (see for details ref.[@ciofiprogress]) $${\cal S}= \int\, \left ( G_E^2(Q^2)\, V_L\right
)^{-1} \frac{d^3 \sigma^L}{ d \Omega d {\cal E}'
}\, d\nu = \frac{1}{3} \sum\limits_{{\cal M}_D}
\int \left | \int\, \Psi_{1,\cal M}({\bf r})\, \exp (i{\bf
pr})) d {\bf r}\right |^2 \frac{ d {\bf p}
}{(2\pi)^3} = 1. \label{sr}$$ Note that the sum over the final states contains also the contribution from elastic scattering, so that in order to obtain the longitudinal sum rule corresponding to the inelastic scattering the elastic part, $F^2_p(Q^2)=|\langle D| \exp(i{\bf
qr}_p)| D\rangle |^2$, has to be subtracted from eq. (\[sr\]), obtaining $${\cal S}_{in}=\lim\limits_{Q^2\to\infty} \left (
{\cal S} -F^2_p(Q^2)\right )\,
\longrightarrow\,\,\, 1. \label{sr1}$$
The longitudinal sum rule (\[sr1\]) is fulfilled exactly within the PWIA, as well as when the Schroedinger approach is used to include the FSI; if the latter are considered within the Glauber approach, as described in the previous paragraph, the sum rule is not satisfied. As a matter of fact by using eqs. (\[uno\])-(\[quattro\]) and introducing the inelastic profile function $\Gamma_{inel}({\bf b})$ through the unitarity relation $$\begin{aligned}
2 Re \,\Gamma_{el}({\bf b}) = \Gamma_{el}({\bf b})+\Gamma_{inel}({\bf b}),
\label{gl}\end{aligned}$$ one obtains $${\cal S}_{in}=\int d{\bf r} \left | \Psi_{1,\cal M}({\bf
r}) \right |^2 \left ( 1-\theta(z)\left |
\Gamma_{inel}({\bf b})\right |^2\right ),
\label{glsr}$$ which shows that if the inelastic channels are absent, the longitudinal sum rule (\[sr\]) is fulfilled, whereas in the presence of open inelastic channels one has $ {\cal S}_{in} < 1$, i.e. the incident nucleon flux is partially absorbed by inelastic processes.
Results of calculations
=======================
The Schroedinger approach.
---------------------------
The calculation of the cross section and the scaling function by eqs. (\[xschr\]) and (\[scfunnon\]), requires the knowledge of the wave functions $| p_{rel};J_f L_f S_f \rangle$ of the final $np$-pair, which are solutions of the Schroedinger equation in the continuum with a given nucleon-nucleon potential. It is well known that the non relativistic deuteron momentum distributions calculated with different realistic potentials, [*viz.*]{} the Bonn [@bonn], Paris [@paris] and Reid [@Reid] ones, exhibit rather different behaviours at moderate and large momenta. It has also been shown that relativistic calculations of the deuteron momentum distribution within the Bethe-Salpeter formalism, yield results which are very close to those obtained with the Reid Soft Core (RSC) potential (see ref. [@ciofiBS]). Therefore we have used the RSC potential to solve the Schroedinger equation for the $| p_{rel};J_f L_f
S_f \rangle$ states, taking into account all partial waves with $J_f < 3$. For higher values of $J_f$ the PWIA has been adopted. For the sake of comparison with the experimental data we have also assumed that the effects of the FSI on the longitudinal and transverse parts of the cross section is the same, and is governed by the quantity (\[newdist\]). In the Schroedinger approach, FSI arise from the elastic rescattering of the two nucleons in the final states. The threshold for inelastic channels corresponds to a value of the total energy of the $np$-pair $\sqrt{s} \gtrsim 2\, GeV$, or equivalently, $p_{lab} \gtrsim 0.8\, GeV/c$, where $p_{lab}$ is the laboratory momentum of the struck nucleon (i.e. with the spectator at rest), corresponding to a total energy $\sqrt{s} =
\sqrt{2M^2+2M\sqrt{p_{lab}^2+M^2}}$. Experimentally [@baldini], the inelastic channel contribution starts to be relevant at $p_{lab} \simeq 1.2\, GeV/c$. The inclusive $D(e,e')X$ cross section corresponding to electron beam energy ${\cal E} = 9.761 GeV$ and scattering angle $\theta = 10^0$ is shown in fig. \[xshr\]. The dotted line corresponds to the PWIA and the solid curve is the result which includes the FSI. It can be seen that in the range $0.8\, GeV < \nu < 1.2\, GeV$, FSI increases the cross section and substantially improve the description of the data; on the contrary, near the quasi-elastic peak FSI decrease the cross section, as it should be, since in agreement with the sum rule (\[sr1\]) the integral over $\nu$ must be conserved. Our results fully agree with those obtained in Ref. [@arenhovel]. In the kinematics we have considered the variation of $\nu$, from threshold to the quasi-elastic peak, corresponds to a variation of $p_{lab}$ in the range $0.6\,
GeV/c\, <\, p_{lab}\, < 2\,GeV/c $ (cf. the upper scale in fig. \[xshr\] and Table \[tablitza\]) where the elastic nucleon-nucleon scattering still dominates. Note, that in this case the corresponding values of $y$ and $|{\bf
q}|$ change in the range $-500 \, MeV/c\, < \,y\, \lesssim 0 \,$ and $3.3 \, GeV^2/c^2 \,< \,|{\bf q}|^2\,< 4.3\, GeV^2/c^2 $ respectively. Let us now keep $y$ fixed and vary the values of $|{\bf q}|$, i.e. check the effects of FSI on the scaling function $F(|{\bf q}|,y)$, defined by eqs. (\[scfunnon\]). The results are presented in fig. \[scaleschr\]. The dotted line is the scaling function within the PWIA, and the solid curve includes the effects of FSI. On the top horizontal axes the corresponding value of $p_{lab}$ is also shown. At low values of $|{\bf q}|$ the effects of FSI are very large and no scaling behaviour can be observed. With increasing $y$, the scaling violation near the threshold values of $|{\bf q}|$, increases. This is due to the fact that a larger value of $y$ results in a lower value of $p_{lab}$, in correspondence of which the elastic cross section is much higher [@baldini]. FSI decreases with $|{\bf q}|$, and at values corresponding to $p_{lab} \gtrsim
1\,GeV/c$ the function $F(|{\bf q}|,y)$ exhibits a scaling behaviour. It should be stressed, that values of $p_{lab}\sim 1 \,GeV/c$ are still in the kinematics region where the Schroedinger approach can be applied. At asymptotic values, $|{\bf q}|\to\infty$, the total energy of the $np$-pair $\sqrt{s} \to \infty$, consequently the phase shifts $\delta_L$ in eq. (\[asym\]) vanish and the final states $| p_{rel};J_f L_f S_f \rangle$ become just the partial decomposition of plane waves, so that the Schroedinger approach and the PWIA coincide.
The Glauber approach
--------------------
The inclusive cross section calculated within the Glauber approach, using the RSC and Bonn potentials, is presented in fig. \[xgl\]. It can be seen that: i)the two potentials give very different results at low values of $\nu$, ii) Glauber FSI appreciably depend upon the potential model. Our analysis shows that such a potential dependence in the kinematical region at low $\nu$, can be explained by considering that the corrections to the deuteron $S$ and $D$-waves generated by the FSI are opposite in sign. In the Glauber approach FSI are entirely driven by the distorted momentum distribution $n_G^D$; let us therefore discuss the properties of the latter within the kinematical conditions relevant to $y$-scaling (for a detailed analysis of $n_G^D$ at asymptotic energies see ref.[@nikolaev]). It turns out that $n_G^D$ depends upon $p_{lab}$, which is a function of $y$ and $|{\bf q}|$. More explicitly, the $p_{lab}$-dependence of $n_G^D$ arises from the $p_{lab}$-dependence of the parameters $\alpha$ and $b_0$, appearing in the profile function $\Gamma_{el}({\bf b})$ ((\[gama\])); such a dependence is shown in Figure \[alfab0\]. It can be seen that when the energy is high enough, ($p_{lab}\gtrsim 1.5-2\, GeV/c$), the parameters $\alpha$ and $b_0$ become almost constant and, consequently, the distorted momentum distribution $n_G^D$ becomes independent of the kinematics of the process. In the region $p_{lab} < 2\, GeV/c$, the parameters $\alpha$ and $b_0$ exhibit a strong $p_{lab}$ dependence, and so does the momentum distribution $n_G^D$. The $|{\bf q}|$ dependence of $n_G^D$ calculated at $| {\bf p}_m|
= |y|$ and $\theta_m =0$ is shown in fig. \[distotq\]. It turns out that: i)the undistorted momentum distributions $n^D$ at large values of $y$ strongly depend upon the potential model; ii) $n_G^D$ exhibits a strong $|{\bf q}|$ behaviour at low values of ${\bf q}$; iii) at high values of $|{\bf q}|$ ( which correspond to high values of $\sqrt{s}$ and $p_{lab}$) the distorted momentum distribution $n_G^D$ scales to a quantity which, at large negative values of $y$, may differ from the undistorted momentum distributions $n^D(|y|)$ (the straight lines in fig. \[distotq\]), at variance with the Schroedinger result, which predicts $n_S^D \simeq n^D(|y|)$ at high values of $|{\bf q}|$; iv) at high values of $y$ the potential model dependence of $n^D(|y|)$. The explanation of points i) and ii) is clear: at low values of $|{\bf q}|$ the Glauber FSI is driven by the elastic cross section, which strongly decreases with $|{\bf q}|$; with increasing $|{\bf q}|$, $p_{lab}$ reaches the inelastic threshold value ( $p_{lab} \simeq 0.8 GeV/c $) and the total cross section scales to its asymptotic value $\sigma_{tot}\sim\, 44 \, mb$ ($\alpha=-0.4$, $b_0=0.5 \, fm$), and so does $n_G^D$. The possible reasons for the differences between the asymptotic $n_G^D$ and $n^D(y)$ (point iii)) will be briefly discussed later on. The comparison between the Schroedinger and the Glauber approaches for the scaling function $F(|{\bf q}|,y)$ is shown in fig. \[fyglaub\]. It can be seen that, for large values of $y$, and below the pion production threshold ($p_{lab} \simeq 0.8 GeV/c$), which is the region of existing experimental data, the Schroedinger approach provides a satisfactory description of the experimental scaling function $F(|{\bf q}|,y)$ , unlike the Glauber approach, which overestimate the data at low $|{\bf q}|$ and underestimate them at high $|{\bf q}|$. The difference between the Schroedinger and Glauber results is strongly reduced at low values of $y$ ($x_{Bj} \simeq 1$), where, being the target nucleon almost free, the small-scattering-angle requirement necessary for the validity of the Glauber approximation, is probably better fulfilled.
A common approximation, adopted by various authors in the Glauber type calculation of the FSI, is to consider that at $Q^2 \simeq 1 GeV^2$ the asymptotic $\sigma_{tot}\sim\, 44 \, mb$ should be used. The validity of such an approximation is illustrated in Figure \[fyconst\], where the dashed line represents the results obtained using the asymptotic $n-p$ cross section, the full lines the results with the quantities $\alpha$, $b_0$ and $\sigma_{tot\,( el)}$ which properly include the dependence upon the relative momentum $p_{lab}$, and the dotted line the PWIA.
Summary and Conclusions
=======================
The aim of this paper was to address the longstanding problem of the evaluation of FSI effects in inclusive processes $A(e,e')X$, which have been described, to date, by various approximate approaches. To this end, we have considered the electro-disintegration of the deuteron, and have performed exact calculations within two different approaches to treat the final state, viz: i) the Schroedinger approach, in which, given a realistic two-nucleon interaction, the Schroedinger equation is solved to generate bound and continuum two -nucleon states, with the latter describing elastic $n-p$ rescattering, and ii) the Glauber high energy approximation, paying, in this case, particular attention to a correct treatment of the kinematics. Our aim was to understand the limits of validity of the two approaches, and to pin down the main features of the FSI mechanism, having also in mind a better understanding of these effects in complex nuclei, where calculations cannot be performed exactly. From the calculations we have exhibited, the following remarks are in order:
1\) the existing experimental data on the $D(e,e')X$ process at $x_{Bj}>1$ (negative values of $y$) are, to a large extent, limited to a kinematical range where the invariant mass of the final hadronic state $\sqrt s$ is below the inelastic channel threshold ${s} \lesssim 4 GeV^2$ (or $p_{lab} \lesssim
0.8 GeV$) (cf fig. \[fyglaub\] and Table \[tablitza\]); therefore, in spite of the large value of $Q^2$ involved, the two nucleons in the continuum mostly undergo elastic scattering, so that the Schroedinger approach should represent the correct description of the process and, as a matter of fact, the calculations describe the experimental data rather well.
2\) The Glauber results overestimate the Schroedinger results at low values of $|{\bf q}|$, and underestimate them at high values of $|{\bf q}|$. The reason for such a disagreement between the two approaches, which is particularly relevant at large values of $x_{Bj}>1$ (large, negative values of $y$), has to be ascribed to the fact that at $x_{Bj}>1$, the direction of the ejected nucleon sizably differs from the direction of the momentum transfer.
3\) At values of ${s} \gtrsim 4 GeV^2$ (or $p_{lab} \gtrsim
1 GeV$), i.e. above the pion production threshold, both the Schroedinger and the Glauber approaches might become inadequate, for the propagation of nucleon excited states (inelastic rescattering) have to be explicitly taken into account. Calculations of this type, within the approach proposed in Ref. [@braun], are in progress and will be reported elsewhere.
.15in This work was partially supported by the Ministero dell’Università e della Ricerca Scientifica e Tecnologica (MURST) through the funds COFIN99. Discussions with M. Braun, S. Dorkin and B. Kopeliovitch are gratefully acknowledged. L.P.K. thanks INFN, Sezione di Perugia, for warm hospitality and financial support.
S. Ishikawa, J. Golak, H. Witala, H. Kamada, W. Gloeckle and D. Huber, Phys. Rev. [**C57**]{} (1998) 39. A. Kievsky, S. Rosati and M. Viviani, Phys. Rev. Lett. [ **82**]{} (1999) 3759.
N. N. Nikolaev et al., Phys. Lett. [**B317**]{} (1993) 281;\
R. Seki et al., Phys. Lett. [**B383**]{} (1996) 133;\
A. S. Rinat and B. K. Jennings, Nucl. Phys. [**A597**]{} (1996) 636;\
L. L. Frankfurt, M. Sargsian and M. I. Strikman, Phys. Rev. C[**56**]{} (1997) 1124;\
C. Ciofi degli Atti and D. Treleani, Phys. Rev. [**C60**]{} (1999) 024602;\
H. Morita, C. Ciofi degli Atti and D. Treleani, Phys. Rev. [**C60**]{} (1999) 034603. O. Benhar et al., Phys. Rev C [**44**]{} (1991) 2328, Phys. Lett. [**B359**]{} (1995) 8;\
C. Ciofi degli Atti and S. Simula, Phys. Lett. [**B325**]{} (1994) 276;\
A. Rinat and M. F. Taragin, Nucl.Phys. [**A598**]{} (1996) 349;\
A. Kohama, K. Yazaki and R. Seki, Nucl.Phys. [**A662**]{} (2000) 175.
J.D. Bjorken, Phys. Rev. [**179**]{} (1969) 1547. C. Ciofi degli Atti, E. Pace and G. Salme, Phys. Rev. [**C36**]{} (1987) 1208; [**C43**]{} (1991) 1155. S. Rock et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**49** ]{} (1982) 1139.
T. de Forest Jr., Nucl. Phys. [**A392**]{} (1983) 232;\
L. Heller and A. W. Thomas, Phys. Rev. [**C 41**]{} (1990) 2756;\
U. Oelfke, P.U. Sauer and F. Coester, Nucl. Phys. [**A518**]{} (1990) 593. N.N.Nikolaev, J. Speth and B.G.Zakharov, J. Exp. Theor. Phys. [**82**]{} (1996) 1046;\
A. Bianconi, S. Jeshonnek, N. N. Nikolaev and B. G. Zakharov, Phys. Lett. [**B343**]{} (1995) 13. S. Boffi, C. Giusti and F.D. Pacati, Phys. Rep. [**226**]{} (1993) 1.
C. Ciofi degli Atti, D. Faralli, A.Yu. Umnikov, L.P. Kaptari, Phys. Rev. [**C60**]{} (1999) 034003. R. Machleid, K. Holinde, Ch. Elster, Phys. Rep. [**149**]{}(1987) 1. L. Lacombe et al., Phys. Rev [**C21**]{} (1980) 861; (1995) 52. R.V. Reid Jr., Ann. Phys. [**50**]{} (1968) 411; Phys. Rev. [**C60**]{} (1999) 034003. A. Baldini *et al* in “Total cross Sections for Reactions of High Energy particles”, Ed. H. Schopper, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1987. H. Arenhövel, W. Liedemann and E. Tomusiak, Phys. Rev. [**C 46**]{} (1992) 455;\
G. Beck and H. Arenhövel, Few Body Systems [**13**]{} (1992) 165. R.A. Arndt et al., “Partial-Wave Analysis Facility (SAID)”, http://said.phys.vt.edu/ M. Braun, C. Ciofi degli Atti and D. Treleani Nucl-th 0004049
2.2cm Fig. \[pict1\]. C. Ciofi degli Atti....On the FSI effects....
2.2cm Fig. \[pict2\]. C. Ciofi degli Atti....On the FSI effects....
2.2cm Fig. \[pict3\]. C. Ciofi degli Atti....On the FSI effects....
2.2cm Fig. \[xshr\]. C. Ciofi degli Atti....FSI effects....
Fig. \[scaleschr\]. C. Ciofi degli Atti....FSI effects..
Fig. \[xgl\]. C. Ciofi degli Atti....FSI effects..
2.2cm
Fig. \[alfab0\]. C. Ciofi degli Atti....FSI effects..
0.2cm
Fig. \[distotq\]. C. Ciofi degli Atti....FSI effects..
Fig. \[fyglaub\]. C. Ciofi degli Atti....FSI effects..
Fig. \[fyconst\]. C. Ciofi degli Atti....FSI effects..
y=-200 MeV/c
------------- -------- ------------- ---------- ------------ ----------- --------------- ----------------
$|{\bf q}|$ $\nu$ $Q^2 $ $x_{Bj}$ $p_{lab} $ $ s$ $\sigma_{el}$ $\sigma_{tot}$
$ GeV/c$ $ GeV$ $GeV^2/c^2$ $ GeV/c$ $ GeV^2$ $ mb$ $mb $
.50 .07 .25 1.86 .10 3.53 1744.52 1744.52
.85 .23 .67 1.58 .42 3.69 94.85 94.85
1.20 .46 1.23 1.44 .73 3.99 45.58 45.58
1.55 .73 1.87 1.37 1.03 4.37 31.96 35.71
1.90 1.03 2.56 1.33 1.32 4.81 25.85 35.78
2.25 1.34 3.27 1.30 1.62 5.27 22.44 37.06
2.60 1.66 4.00 1.28 1.90 5.74 20.29 38.57
2.95 1.99 4.74 1.27 2.19 6.24 18.82 39.99
3.30 2.32 5.49 1.26 2.48 6.73 17.76 41.19
3.65 2.66 6.25 1.25 2.77 7.24 16.95 42.17
4.00 3.00 7.00 1.24 3.05 7.75 16.32 42.92
------------- -------- ------------- ---------- ------------ ----------- --------------- ----------------
y=-400 MeV/c
------------- -------- ------------- ---------- ------------ ----------- --------------- ----------------
$|{\bf q}|$ $\nu$ $Q^2 $ $x_{Bj}$ $p_{lab} $ $ s$ $\sigma_{el}$ $\sigma_{tot}$
$ GeV/c$ $ GeV$ $GeV^2/c^2$ $ GeV/c$ $ GeV^2$ $ mb$ $mb$
.90 .21 .77 1.96 .09 3.53 2057.63 2057.63
1.25 .41 1.39 1.80 .38 3.66 109.40 109.40
1.60 .67 2.11 1.68 .66 3.91 51.82 51.82
1.95 .96 2.89 1.61 .91 4.22 35.89 36.61
2.30 1.26 3.69 1.56 1.16 4.56 28.72 35.47
2.65 1.58 4.52 1.52 1.41 4.93 24.71 36.08
3.00 1.91 5.35 1.49 1.65 5.32 22.16 37.23
3.35 2.24 6.20 1.47 1.89 5.72 20.40 38.48
3.70 2.58 7.05 1.46 2.12 6.12 19.13 39.67
4.05 2.91 7.91 1.45 2.36 6.53 18.16 40.72
4.40 3.25 8.77 1.44 2.60 6.94 17.40 41.62
------------- -------- ------------- ---------- ------------ ----------- --------------- ----------------
y=-600 MeV/c
------------- -------- ------------- ---------- ------------ ----------- --------------- ----------------
$|{\bf q}|$ $\nu$ $Q^2 $ $x_{Bj}$ $p_{lab} $ $ s$ $\sigma_{el}$ $\sigma_{tot}$
$ GeV/c$ $ GeV$ $GeV^2/c^2$ $ GeV/c$ $ GeV^2$ $ mb$ $mb$
1.30 .41 1.52 1.98 .08 3.53 2572.76 2572.76
1.65 .65 2.30 1.90 .35 3.64 129.73 129.73
2.00 .92 3.14 1.81 .58 3.83 59.87 59.87
2.35 1.23 4.02 1.75 .81 4.08 40.76 38.37
2.70 1.54 4.92 1.70 1.02 4.36 32.19 35.75
3.05 1.86 5.83 1.67 1.23 4.66 27.39 35.54
3.40 2.19 6.75 1.64 1.44 4.98 24.35 36.20
3.75 2.53 7.68 1.62 1.64 5.30 22.25 37.17
4.10 2.86 8.61 1.60 1.84 5.63 20.72 38.22
4.45 3.20 9.55 1.59 2.04 5.97 19.56 39.24
4.80 3.54 10.49 1.58 2.23 6.31 18.65 40.17
------------- -------- ------------- ---------- ------------ ----------- --------------- ----------------
: Kinematical variables for the inclusive $D(e,e' )X$ process corresponding to the results shown in Figs \[xshr\]-\[fyconst\]. The various quantities are as follows: $|{\bf q}|$, $\nu$, and $Q^2 $, are the energy, three-momentum and four-momentum transfers, respectively; $x_{Bj}$ is the Bjorken scaling variable; $p_{lab}$ is the momentum of the struck nucleon in the final state, defined by the equation $s =
2M^2+2M\sqrt{p_{lab}^2+M^2}$, where $ s$ is the Mandelstam variable (cf Eq.(\[sman\])); finally, $\sigma_{el}$ and $\sigma_{tot}$ are the elastic and total cross sections used in the Glauber calculation[]{data-label="tablitza"}
Table. \[tablitza\]. C. Ciofi degli Atti....FSI effects..
[^1]: On leave from Bogoliubov Lab. Theor. Phys., JINR, Dubna, Russia.
[^2]: From now on, the method based upon the exact solution of the non-relativistic Schroedinger equation to generate bound and continuum two-nucleon states, will be referred to a as the *[Schroedinger approach]{}*
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A search for tau neutrino induced showers with the MAGIC telescopes is presented. The MAGIC telescopes located at an altitude of 2200 m a.s.l. in the Canary Island of La Palma, can point towards the horizon or a few degrees below across an azimuthal range of about 80 degrees. This provides a possibility to search for air showers induced by tau leptons arising from interactions of tau neutrinos in the Earth crust or the surrounding ocean. In this paper we show how such air showers can be discriminated from the background of very inclined hadronic showers by using Monte Carlo simulations. Taking into account the orography of the site, the point source acceptance and the event rates expected have been calculated for a sample of generic neutrino fluxes from photo-hadronic interactions in AGNs. The analysis of about 30 hours of data taken towards the sea leads to a 90% C.L. point source limit for tau neutrinos in the energy range from $1.0 \times 10^{15}$ eV to $3.0 \times 10^{18}$ eV of about $E_{\nu_{\tau}}^{2}\times \phi (E_{\nu_{\tau}}) < 2.0 \times 10^{-4}$ GeV cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ for an assumed power-law neutrino spectrum with spectral index $\gamma$=-2. However, with 300 hours and in case of an optimistic neutrino flare model, limits of the level down to $E_{\nu_{\tau}}^{2}\times \phi (E_{\nu_{\tau}}) < 8.4 \times 10^{-6}$ GeV cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ can be expected.'
address:
- 'ETH Zurich, CH-8093 Zurich, Switzerland'
- ' Università di Udine, and INFN Trieste, I-33100 Udine, Italy'
- ' National Institute for Astrophysics (INAF), I-00136 Rome, Italy'
- ' Università di Padova and INFN, I-35131 Padova, Italy'
- 'Technische Universität Dortmund, D-44221 Dortmund, Germany'
- ' Croatian MAGIC Consortium: University of Rijeka, 51000 Rijeka, University of Split - FESB, 21000 Split, University of Zagreb - FER, 10000 Zagreb, University of Osijek, 31000 Osijek and Rudjer Boskovic Institute, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia.'
- ' Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, HBNI, 1/AF Bidhannagar, Salt Lake, Sector-1, Kolkata 700064, India'
- ' Max-Planck-Institut für Physik, D-80805 München, Germany'
- ' now at Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Físicas (CBPF), 22290-180 URCA, Rio de Janeiro (RJ), Brasil'
- ' Unidad de Partículas y Cosmología (UPARCOS), Universidad Complutense, E-28040 Madrid, Spain'
- ' Inst. de Astrofísica de Canarias, E-38200 La Laguna, and Universidad de La Laguna, Dpto. Astrofísica, E-38206 La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain'
- ' University of Łódź, Department of Astrophysics, PL-90236 Łódź, Poland'
- ' Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron (DESY), D-15738 Zeuthen, Germany'
- ' Institut de Física d’Altes Energies (IFAE), The Barcelona Institute of Science and Technology (BIST), E-08193 Bellaterra (Barcelona), Spain'
- ' Università di Siena, and INFN Pisa, I-53100 Siena, Italy'
- ' Universität Würzburg, D-97074 Würzburg, Germany'
- ' Finnish MAGIC Consortium: Tuorla Observatory and Finnish Centre of Astronomy with ESO (FINCA), University of Turku, Vaisalantie 20, FI-21500 Piikkiö, Astronomy Division, University of Oulu, FIN-90014 University of Oulu, Finland'
- ' Departament de Física, and CERES-IEEC, Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona, E-08193 Bellaterra, Spain'
- 'Universitat de Barcelona, ICC, IEEC-UB, E-08028 Barcelona, Spain'
- 'Japanese MAGIC Consortium: ICRR, The University of Tokyo, 277-8582 Chiba, Japan; Department of Physics, Kyoto University, 606-8502 Kyoto, Japan; Tokai University, 259-1292 Kanagawa, Japan; The University of Tokushima, 770-8502 Tokushima, Japan'
- 'Inst. for Nucl. Research and Nucl. Energy, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, BG-1784 Sofia, Bulgaria'
- ' Università di Pisa, and INFN Pisa, I-56126 Pisa, Italy'
- ' Humboldt University of Berlin, Institut für Physik D-12489 Berlin Germany'
- ' also at Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Trieste, I-34127 Trieste, Italy'
- ' also at Port d’Informació Científica (PIC) E-08193 Bellaterra (Barcelona) Spain'
- |
also at INAF-Trieste and Dept. of Physics & Astronomy, University of Bologna\
$^{aa}$ also at Institute of Nuclear Physics PAS, Radzikowskiego 152, Cracow, Poland
author:
- 'M. L. Ahnen'
- 'S. Ansoldi'
- 'L. A. Antonelli'
- 'C. Arcaro'
- 'D. Baack'
- 'A. Babić'
- 'B. Banerjee'
- 'P. Bangale'
- 'U. Barres de Almeida'
- 'J. A. Barrio'
- 'J. Becerra González'
- 'W. Bednarek'
- 'E. Bernardini'
- 'R. Ch. Berse'
- 'A. Berti'
- 'W. Bhattacharyya'
- 'A. Biland'
- 'O. Blanch'
- 'G. Bonnoli'
- 'R. Carosi'
- 'A. Carosi'
- 'G. Ceribella'
- 'A. Chatterjee'
- 'S. M. Colak'
- 'P. Colin'
- 'E. Colombo'
- 'J. L. Contreras'
- 'J. Cortina'
- 'S. Covino'
- 'P. Cumani'
- 'P. Da Vela'
- 'F. Dazzi'
- 'A. De Angelis'
- 'B. De Lotto'
- 'M. Delfino'
- 'J. Delgado'
- 'F. Di Pierro'
- 'A. Domínguez'
- 'D. Dominis Prester'
- 'D. Dorner'
- 'M. Doro'
- 'S. Einecke'
- 'D. Elsaesser'
- 'V. Fallah Ramazani'
- 'A. Fernández-Barral'
- 'D. Fidalgo'
- 'M. V. Fonseca'
- 'L. Font'
- 'C. Fruck'
- 'D. Galindo'
- 'R. J. García López'
- 'M. Garczarczyk'
- 'M. Gaug'
- 'P. Giammaria'
- 'N. Godinović'
- 'D. Góra$^{aa,}$'
- 'D. Guberman'
- 'D. Hadasch'
- 'A. Hahn'
- 'T. Hassan'
- 'M. Hayashida'
- 'J. Herrera'
- 'J. Hose'
- 'D. Hrupec'
- 'K. Ishio'
- 'Y. Konno'
- 'H. Kubo'
- 'J. Kushida'
- 'D. Kuveždić'
- 'D. Lelas'
- 'E. Lindfors'
- 'S. Lombardi'
- 'F. Longo'
- 'M. López'
- 'C. Maggio'
- 'P. Majumdar'
- 'M. Makariev'
- 'G. Maneva'
- 'M. Manganaro'
- 'K. Mannheim'
- 'L. Maraschi'
- 'M. Mariotti'
- 'M. Martínez'
- 'S. Masuda'
- 'D. Mazin'
- 'K. Mielke'
- 'M. Minev'
- 'J. M. Miranda'
- 'R. Mirzoyan'
- 'A. Moralejo'
- 'V. Moreno'
- 'E. Moretti'
- 'T. Nagayoshi'
- 'V. Neustroev'
- 'A. Niedzwiecki'
- 'M. Nievas Rosillo'
- 'C. Nigro'
- 'K. Nilsson'
- 'D. Ninci'
- 'K. Nishijima'
- 'K. Noda'
- 'L. Nogués'
- 'S. Paiano'
- 'J. Palacio'
- 'D. Paneque'
- 'R. Paoletti'
- 'J. M. Paredes'
- 'G. Pedaletti'
- 'M. Peresano'
- 'M. Persic'
- 'P. G. Prada Moroni'
- 'E. Prandini'
- 'I. Puljak'
- 'J. R. Garcia'
- 'I. Reichardt'
- 'W. Rhode'
- 'M. Ribó'
- 'J. Rico'
- 'C. Righi'
- 'A. Rugliancich'
- 'T. Saito'
- 'K. Satalecka'
- 'T. Schweizer'
- 'J. Sitarek'
- 'I. Šnidarić'
- 'D. Sobczynska'
- 'A. Stamerra'
- 'M. Strzys'
- 'T. Surić'
- 'M. Takahashi'
- 'L. Takalo'
- 'F. Tavecchio'
- 'P. Temnikov'
- 'T. Terzić'
- 'M. Teshima'
- 'N. Torres-Albà'
- 'A. Treves'
- 'S. Tsujimoto'
- 'G. Vanzo'
- 'M. Vazquez Acosta'
- 'I. Vovk'
- 'J. E. Ward'
- 'M. Will'
- 'D. Zarić'
title: Limits on the flux of tau neutrinos from 1 PeV to 3 EeV with the MAGIC telescopes
---
Gamma-ray astronomy,Cherenkov telescopes,tau neutrinos
Introduction
============
The discovery of an astrophysical flux of high-energy neutrinos by IceCube [@HESE2] was a major step forward in the ongoing search for the origin of cosmic rays, since neutrino emission needs to be produced by hadronic interactions in astrophysical accelerators. The observed neutrino flux by IceCube and its compostion is in agreement with equal fractions of all neutrino flavours [@icecuflavour; @icecuflavour1]. Tau neutrinos in the IceCube flux should also be expected, due to neutrino oscillation, but up to now, $\nu_{\tau}$ have not been identified.
{width="40.00000%" height="8.5cm"} {width="55.00000%" height="6.5cm"}
\[tab:aa\]
The detection of $\nu_{\tau}$ is very important from both the astrophysical and particle physics point of view. It would give new information about the astrophysical $\nu_{\tau}$ flux and serve as an additional confirmation of the astrophysical origin of the IceCube high energy diffuse neutrino signal [@icecuflavour; @icecuflavour1]. It also would shed light on the emission mechanisms at the source, test the fundamental properties of neutrinos over extremely long baselines, and better constrain new physics models which predict significant deviations from equal fractions of all flavors.
[*seaOFF* ]{} [*seaON* ]{} Roque HET
------------------------------------ --------------- -------------- ------- -------------
Zenith angle $\theta$ ($^{\circ}$) 87.5 92.5 89.5 85-93
Azimuth $\phi$ ($^{\circ}$) -30 -30 170 -80 - (-75)
Observation time (h) 9.2 31.5 7.5 4.5
Large detectors like IceCube[^1], ANTARES[^2], the Pierre Auger Observatory [@augerneutrino], the Telescope Array [^3], or radio detectors like ANITA [@anita], have the capability to detect neutrino induced showers. Especially if tau neutrinos interact close to the Earth surface, the so-called Earth’s skimming neutrinos [@fargion; @feng; @bertou] can produce tau leptons which can emerge from the Earth, decay and produce extended air showers. If the decay vertex of a tau lepton is close enough to a surface detector, it can be detected and distinguished from very inclined proton and nuclei induced showers due to the presence of its electromagnetic component.
Above PeV energies, the Earth becomes opaque to electron and muon neutrinos, while the tau neutrino flux is regenerated through subsequent tau lepton decays to neutrinos. At high-energies, the tau neutrino interacts in the Earth producing a tau lepton which in turn decays into a $\nu_{\tau}$ with lower energy due to its short lifetime. The regeneration chain $\nu_{\tau} \rightarrow \tau \rightarrow \nu_{\tau} $ ... continues until the tau lepton reaches the detector. This effect can lead to a significant enhancement of the tau lepton flux of up to about 40% more than the initial cosmic flux of tau neutrinos of energies between 1-100 PeV [@jones; @reya].
Tau neutrinos that pass through the earth crust, are the only ones that can produce particle showers that can be detected by Imaging Atmospheric Cherenkov Telescopes (IACTs). In the interaction all neutrino types loose part of their energy due to charged current and neutral current interactions. In the case of $\nu_{\rm e}$’s crossing the Earth, an electron is produced which is rapidly brought to rest in matter. In the case of muon neutrinos $\nu_{\mu}$’s, a muon is created which subsequently decays. However, before decaying the muon propagates through matter, too. As its radiation length in matter is much smaller than its decay length at our energies of interest, it loses most of its energy. The produced muon can occasionally escape from the Earth, but it decays only rarely in the atmosphere since the decay length is about $10^8$ times larger than the one of a tau lepton[^4]. Energetic tau neutrinos, produce extended air showers at the decay of the tau-particle, which itself loses much less energy while it travels through matter and which can be efficiently detected by IACTs and discriminated against background. Thus the earth-skimming method is suitable for the detection of tau neutrinos[^5].
To detect neutrino-induced showers with an IACT system, it needs to be pointed towards the ground, e.g. the side of a mountain or the sea surface [@fargion; @Asaoka:2012em; @Sasaki:2014; @gora:2015; @gora:2016].
In this paper we present limits on the flux of tau neutrinos from the MAGIC telescopes. MAGIC is located at the Roque de los Muchachos Observatory at an altitude of about 2200 m above sea level (28.8$^{\circ}$ N, 17.9$^{\circ}$ W), in the Canary Island of La Palma (Spain). The observatory consists of two telescopes placed at a distance of 85 m from one another. The MAGIC telescopes have a mirror of 17 m diameter and a field of view (FOV) of 3.5$^{\circ}$. They have been built to detect cosmic $\gamma$-rays in the energy range from $\sim$50 GeV to $\sim$50 TeV [@magicperformance]. For this search, MAGIC was used as a neutrino detector, in order to look for air showers induced by tau neutrinos ($\tau$-induced showers) in the PeV to EeV energy range. Here we report final results of our preliminary studies presented in [@icrc2017; @epsvhe2017].
The search of tau neutrinos with MAGIC is performed pointing the telescopes in the direction of $\nu_{\tau}$ which escape the Earth crust and later cross the ocean (see Figure \[fig::sea\], left). The telescopes can point up to 6 degrees below the horizontal plane, covering an azimuthal range of 80 degrees (see Figure \[fig::sea\], right). The location of MAGIC contains the right distance of the telescope to the average point of the tau lepton decay vertex. This distance should be at least a few tens of times larger than the decay length of the tau lepton. At 10/1000 PeV the tau decay length is about $0.5$/$50$ km. If such a condition is not fulfilled, the induced air-shower is not fully developed, leading to a too small amount of produced Cherenkov light reaching the Cherenkov telescopes.
In [@upgoing_magic], the effective area for up-going tau neutrino observations for MAGIC was calculated analytically and found to reach $5 \cdot 10^5$ m$^2$ at 100 EeV. An analytical approximation results in tau neutrino effective areas from $\sim$10$^3$ m$^2$ (at 100 TeV) to $6 \times 10^4$ m$^2$ (at 300 PeV) for an observation angle of about 1.5$^{\circ}$ below the horizon[^6], rapidly diminishing with larger inclination. However, the sensitivity for diffuse neutrinos was found to be very poor compared to the IceCube or Pierre Auger experiments due to the limited FOV, and the shorter observation times with MAGIC.
In the case the telescopes are pointed to flaring or disrupting point sources such as gamma ray bursts (GRBs) or active galactic nuclei (AGNs), one can expect to observe a signal from neutrinos. Indeed, it was shown by the Ashra (All-sky Survey High Resolution Air-shower detector) team [@Asaoka:2012em] and by [@upgoing_magic], that Cherenkov telescopes can be sensitive to close-by GRBs ($z < 0.1$). It is also known that a large amount of rock surrounding the site, like mountains, can lead to a significant enhancement of the tau lepton flux, see for example [@gora:2015]. However, in the case of the MAGIC site, the mountain is too close to the telescopes, and the possible $\tau$-leptons emerging from the mountain would not have sufficient time to create the electromagnetic showers before reaching the telescopes.
It is worth to mention that this kind of observations can be performed during the presence of high clouds above the detector. In such a case, the regular MAGIC gamma-ray observations are not possible, but such conditions allow to perform horizontal observations for tau neutrinos. The amount of observation time varies from one to another MAGIC observation season, but amounts to about 100 hours per year [@frac].
{width="27.00000%"} {width="27.00000%"}
The structure of this paper is the following: Section 2 describes the recent MAGIC observation at very large zenith angles ( $>85^{\circ}$) and presents the Monte Carlo (MC) simulation chain. In Section 3, we study the properties of shower images on the camera focal plane from $\tau$-induced showers, and we show that MAGIC can discriminate $\tau$-induced showers from the background of large-zenith angle cosmic-ray (CR) induced showers. In Section 4 and 5 details of the acceptance calculations are presented, together with the expected event rates and the MAGIC sensitivity for tau neutrinos. Finally, in Section 6, a short summary is given.
MAGIC observations and Monte Carlo simulations
==============================================
The MAGIC telescopes have collected approximately 30 hours of data at very large zenith angles ($\theta = 92.5^{\circ}$) in the direction of Sea, referred to as [*seaON*]{}. Events from slightly above the sea ([*seaOFF*]{}), towards the Roque de los Muchachos mountain or pointing to the Highest Energy Track (HET) [@het] event from IceCube[^7] have also been obtained. Details about all event samples are shown in Table \[tab:aa\]. A significant amount of data, about 91%, was accumulated during the presence of high clouds at the MAGIC site.
The rate of events seen by both MAGIC telescopes the so-called stereo event rate, in case of [*seaOFF* ]{} data, due to increasing attenuation of the Cherenkov light as a function of the zenith angle, is about 27 times larger ($\sim$ 4.6 Hz) than for [*seaON* ]{} ($\sim$0.17 Hz) observations. Thus, [*seaOFF* ]{} observations provide a high-statistics background estimate for the [*seaON* ]{} data. In principle, the expected [*seaON* ]{} background should be almost zero. However, due to the specific location of MAGIC, the curvature of Earth and the fact that the MAGIC telescopes can point up to about 6 degrees below horizon, the contribution of cosmic rays is not exactly zero. This also means that in the case of MAGIC telescopes with FOV of $3^{\circ}\times3^{\circ}$ the expected signal of tau neutrinos on the camera is not uniform as a function of zenith angle. The camera sees not only the earth crust but also part of the atmosphere or the sea. In principle, pointing to the larger inclinations ($> 95$ degrees) should decrease the fraction of atmosphere seen by the camera and significantly reduce the background level, but in such a case the expected flux of tau neutrinos decreases as well. In [@upgoing_magic] it was found that the maximum effective tau neutrino area on the camera is at 91.6 degrees, and reduces almost to zero at 90.5 degrees, and is more than one order of magnitude smaller, in comparison with its maximum value, at 93.5 deg. It was also found that the maximum effective neutrino area integrated over the MAGIC FOV is for pointing at 92.5 degrees. This allows to catch the most sensitive part in the outskirts of the camera and add the additional contribution of the effective area above $ 92.5^{\circ}$. Thus, the [*seaON* ]{} data were taken with a zenith angle of $\theta=92.5^{\circ}$.
The software tool used in the present paper to simulate the signatures expected from neutrino-induced showers by MAGIC is based on the code ANIS (All Neutrino Interaction Simulation) [@anis] with some extension described in [@goraanis].
--------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------- ------------------------------- --
Decay Secondaries Probability Air-shower
$\tau \rightarrow \mu^{-}\bar{\nu}_{\mu} \nu_{\tau} $ $\mu^{-}$ 17.4% weak showers
$\tau \rightarrow e^{-}\bar{\nu}_{e} \nu_{\tau} $ $e^{-}$ 17.8% 1 Electromagnetic
$\tau \rightarrow \pi^{-} \nu_{\tau} $ $\pi^{-}$ 11.8% 1 Hadronic
$\tau \rightarrow \pi^{-}\pi^{0} \nu_{\tau} $ $\pi^{-}$, $\pi^{0}\rightarrow 25.8% 1 Hadronic, 2 Electromagnetic
2\gamma$
$\tau \rightarrow \pi^{-}2\pi^{0} \nu_{\tau} $ $\pi^{-}$, $2\pi^{0}\rightarrow 4\gamma$ 10.79% 1 Hadronic, 4 Electromagnetic
$\tau \rightarrow \pi^{-}3\pi^{0} \nu_{\tau} $ $\pi^{-}$, $3\pi^{0}\rightarrow 6\gamma$ 1.23% 1 Hadronic, 6 Electromagnetic
$\tau \rightarrow \pi^{-}\pi^{-} \pi^{+}\nu_{\tau} $ $2\pi^{-}$,$\pi^{+}$ 10% 3 Hadronic
$\tau \rightarrow \pi^{-}\pi^{+} \pi^{-} \pi^{0} \nu_{\tau} $ $2\pi^{-}$,$\pi^{+}$,$\pi^{0}\rightarrow2\gamma$ 5.18% 3 Hadronic, 2 Electromagnetic
--------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------- ------------------------------- --
CORSIKA version 6.99 [@corsika], with activated CERENKOV, CURVED-EARTH, TAULEP and THIN options, was used to simulate the shower development of $\tau$-induced showers and its Cherenkov light production. Tau lepton decays have been simulated with PYTHIA version 6.4 [@pythia]. The output of the CORSIKA simulations are then passed to a simulation of the atmospheric extinction and the MAGIC Telescope response [@mars]. Due to technical difficulties, only showers simulated between 86 degrees and 90 degrees have been used to study the properties of upward-going tau neutrinos. This limitation is not a problem, as the response of IACTs to Cherenkov light from showers of the same energy and equal column depth depends only slightly on the zenith angle [@gora:2016]. In our MC, we also performed simulations for inclined showers induced by CRs. This gives the possibility to compare simulated images on the MAGIC camera plane with images from real data.
In the studied energy range, from 1 PeV to 1 EeV, the main background for IACTs are proton induced showers. The background from photon and electron induced showers can be expected to be considerably smaller, especially beyond the spectral break in the electron spectrum at about 1 TeV [@hesseleectron].
In the case of showers induced by CRs and observed at large zenith angles, the hadronic and electromagnetic component of extensive air showers (EAS) is almost absorbed [@innes] because of the deep horizontal column depth of about $\simeq 10^{4}$ up to $5\times10^{4}$ g cm$^{-2}$ in such directions. In the case of CR showers of lower energy (from tens of GeV up to PeV) only a few pixels in the camera are triggered, yielding dimmer and smaller images (see Figure \[fig::backimages\] left). The larger shower images come from high energetic muons (from tens to hundred of GeV) produced at the first stages of shower development or muon bundles from later stages. Penetrating muons from bundles can decay into electrons not far from the telescopes, which induce small air-showers producing detectable flashes of Cherenkov light. This produces different image topologies in the camera, e.g. a few clusters of triggered pixels, as is shown in [@icrc2017]. The estimated event rate for such showers in the case of a MAGIC-like detector is at the level of about one event per two minutes for CR showers of energies above $E_{\mbox{\small CR}}> 60$ PeV [@fargion:0511597].
High energy muons (E $>$ 1 TeV) at large zenith angles have an interaction length, via $e^+e^-$-pair production, bremsstrahlung, and photo-nuclear scattering, comparable to the depth of the atmosphere. In these events produced by interacting muons via radiative processes, additional electromagnetic sub-showers are induced [@kiraly; @kiraly2]. If these sub-showers are induced close to the detector, it can lead to a strong flash of Cherenkov light and a bright image in the camera (see Figure \[fig::backimages\] right). All classes of simulated events shown in Figure \[fig::backimages\] and presented also in [@icrc2017] have been observed in the data taken with the MAGIC telescopes at large zenith.
{width="95.00000%" height="8.0cm"}
{width="\textwidth" height="7.5cm"}
The expected signature of tau leptons in the camera depends on the different tau decay channels. Tau leptons decay mainly to hadrons, pions and kaons, and in 35% of the cases to electrons and muons (see Table \[tab::decay-modes\]). In [@icrc2017] we show shower images from our MC signal simulations for a 1 PeV tau lepton decaying into an electron, pion or muon close to the detector, i.e. for a typical detector-to-shower distance of about 50 km. The showers produced by tau leptons have in general larger size and contain many more photons compared to the ones of the background coming from protons. This is not only due to the closer distance to the detector, but also because the tau lepton mostly decays into electrons and pions, which induce electromagnetic sub-showers producing a large amount of Cherenkov light. Electromagnetic showers or a superposition of electromagnetic sub-showers come from decays of neutral pions, while hadronic sub-showers come from interaction and decay of charged pions. Tau leptons can also decay into muons, see Table \[tab::decay-modes\]. At energies of $>$ 1 PeV, the muon has a large interaction length of a few thousand kilometers in air, so the muon mainly interacts with the atmosphere through secondary bremmstrahlung processes [@muonshower]. This makes the muon ring image hardly visible in the camera [@icrc2017] .
Discrimination of $\tau$-induced showers
=========================================
Simulated events of $\tau$-induced showers are calibrated following the same procedure as real data. The number of photoelectrons per camera pixel are extracted using a sliding window algorithm [@magicperformance]. In order to remove the pixels which are most likely due to the night sky background, an image cleaning procedure is carried out [@magicperformance]. The cleaned camera images are characterized by a set of image parameters which were introduced by Hillas [@hillas].
These parameters provide a geometrical description of the images of showers and are used to infer the energy of the primary particle, its arrival direction, and to distinguish between $\gamma-$ray and hadron induced showers. A typical spatial distribution of Cherenkov photons on the camera can be parameterized as an ellipse. The rms spread of Cherenkov light along the major/minor axis of image is known as the [*Length*]{}/[*Width*]{} of an image. The [*Length*]{} and the [*Width*]{} parameter are a measure of the lateral and the vertical development of the shower. The [*Size*]{} parameter measures the total amount of detected light (in p.e.) in all camera pixels, and is correlated with the primary energy of the shower. In the following we study these parameters also for the case of deep i.e. with the first interaction point deep in the atmosphere, $\tau$-induced simulated showers and compare the corresponding distributions with data.
{width="48.00000%" height="7cm"} {width="48.00000%" height="7cm"}
The MAGIC telescopes took data at zenith angles of 92.5 degrees ([*seaON* ]{}) and 87.5 degrees ([*seaOFF* ]{}). In the [*seaOFF* ]{} data, a negligible signal of neutrinos events is expected. This is due to the fact, that the relative rate of neutrino interactions is lower for [*seaOFF* ]{} because of the Earth skimming channel enhances the rate, although this enhancement may not be so high at 1 PeV. The [*seaOFF* ]{} data is used to estimate the background contribution in the [*seaON* ]{} data and also to construct the selection criterion to identify tau-neutrino showers, see [@epsvhe2017] for a detailed description.
Here, in Figure \[fig::dist2\] (left) we show a 2D distriution of [*Size*]{} versus [*Length*]{} parameter for all [*seaON*]{} data, but in Figure \[fig::dist2\] (right) the distribution of the [*seaON*]{}, [*seaOFF*]{} and signal MC events in the direction perpendicular to the selection line. The Y coordinate was obtained from the following formula: $\log_{10}(Y)=\log_{10}(\textit{Size}[\mathrm{p.e.}])*\cos(\alpha)-\log_{10}( \textit{Length}[\mathrm{deg}])*\sin(\alpha)$, where $\alpha=63.435^{\circ}$. In this representation the selection line shown in Figure \[fig::dist2\] (left) transforms to a single cut value given by: $\log_{10}(Y)=2.35$. For showers with impact distance smaller than 0.3 km we use the following selection cut: $\log_{10}(Y)>2.35$, while for showers with larger impact distance (0.3 - 1.3 km) a slightly relaxed cut was used i.e. $\log_{10}(Y)>2.10$. The impact distance is defined as the distance between the shower axis and the telescope axis, see also Figure \[sketch\]. The distribution of impact distances in CORSIKA simulations can be set by using the option CSCAT [@corsika]. Their reconstruction procedure has been described in [@magicperformance].
In any case we did not find any neutrino candidate, if this selection criterion is applied to all [*seaON* ]{} data, see Figure \[fig::dist2\]. The selection criterion was optimized by maximization of MC signal efficiency, which finally reached a level of about 40%, and minimization of the background contribution. The selection cut was placed in the Y range where the signal distribution starts to be flat, in order to avoid a significant drop of the signal efficiency for larger values of the Y cut parameter.
As can be seen from the Figure \[fig::dist2\] (right) the MC signal distributions look rather similar, as a consequence of the small dependence of the Hillas parameters on the primary energy of the tau lepton, as shown in [@icrc2017].
It is also worth noting that we see the universal character of the Hillas parameters at large zeniths. This is seen in MC simulations [@gora:2016] but also in MAGIC data taken during periods of good weather conditions. As an example, in Figure \[zenithbins\] the normalized distribution of Hillas parameters for data taken in the [*seaOFF* ]{} ($\sim$5.5 hrs, 87.5$^\circ$ zenith angle) and [*seaON* ]{} ($\sim$6 hrs, 92.5$^\circ$ zenith angle) direction are shown. The data were taken during one night, under similar weather conditions. As we can see, the [*Size*]{} distribution for [*seaOFF* ]{} data is similar compared to [*seaON* ]{} data. A similar behavior is seen for the [*Length*]{} parameter. In the case when we merge larger time periods, the shape of the Hillas [*Size*]{} and [*Length*]{} parameters may be slightly different from one night to another breaking this universality behavior. This is due to different weather conditions and thus different attenuation of Cherenkov light. The effect influence a small fraction of low energetic events with $\log_{10}(Y) <1.6$ (see as an example Figure \[fig::dist2\], right). Figure \[zenithbins\] and Figure \[fig::dist2\] support our previous assumption when performing MC simulations only at large zenith angles, in order to study the response of MAGIC for upward-going $\tau$-induced showers.
Event rate estimation
======================
In this section, we discuss first different models for neutrino production, then show details on the calculations of the acceptance of the MAGIC telescopes, and finally we present the expected sensitivity for $\tau$-induced showers in MAGIC.
Astrophysical target flux
-------------------------
The detection of ultra-high energy neutrinos, with energies in the PeV range or above, is a topic of great interest in modern astrophysics. The importance comes from the fact that these neutrinos point back to the most energetic particle accelerators in the Universe, and provide information about their underlying acceleration mechanisms. Neutrinos in the PeV range and above are suspected to be produced by AGNs [@atoyan; @neronow; @mucke], GRBs [@grbneutrino] or by the interactions of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays with low energy photon backgrounds, such as the cosmic microwave background and the extragalactic background light [@gzkneutrinos; @gzkneutrinos1; @gzkneutrinos2; @gzkneutrinos3; @gzkneutrinos4].
The IceCube Collaboration has recently reported the first observation of a cosmic diffuse neutrino flux (all-flavours) in the 100 TeV to PeV range, which can be described by the power law [@icecuflavour1; @icrc2017hese]: $$\frac{d\Phi_{\nu}(E_{\nu})}{dE_{\nu}} = \phi \times \left( \frac{E_{\nu}}{100 \; \mbox{TeV}} \right)^{-\gamma}\label{neutrinoflux}$$ where $E_{\nu}$ is energy of neutrino.
The best-fit power law corresponds to a normalization $\phi = 6.7^{+1.1}_{-1.2}\times10^{-18} \mbox{ GeV$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ sr$^{-1}$ s$^{-1}$} $ and $\gamma = 2.50\pm 0.09$. A somewhat harder slope $\gamma =2.2\pm0.2$ is found in the muon neutrino signal for upgoing muon neutrinos detected above $\sim 100$ TeV [@muonicecubes]. The spectrum of the neutrino signal is for the all-flavour high-energy starting events with neutrino vertex contained in the detector volume. Individual neutrino sources, however, could not be identified up to now. While many sources of astrophysical origin have been suggested to be responsible for the IceCube signal, like for example star-forming and/or starburst galaxies [@starburst; @starburst1; @starburst2; @starburst3; @starburst4] there is not yet enough information to narrow down the possibilities to any particular source or source class. For a review on possible source candidates see [@Anchordoqui; @icecuflavour; @icecuflavour1].
Expected neutrino flux from GRBs
--------------------------------
GRBs are short gamma-ray flashes lasting from fractions of a second to tens of minutes in most cases. During their prompt emission they are the brightest sources in the Universe. GRBs reach an isotropic-equivalent energy of up to $10^{54}$ ergs, and are likely powered by the core-collapse of a very massive star or the merger of two compact objects. The central engine produces highly relativistic collimated jets, which are predicted to host internal shocks, where particles are efficiently accelerated to high energies. In hadronic scenarios accelerated protons interact with ambient synchrotron photons and produce high-energy neutrinos in the PeV-EeV range [@grbneutrino; @wintergrb]. The neutrino emission is expected to be collimated and in temporal coincidence with the prompt gamma-ray emission. However, recent results from the IceCube Collaboration [@grbicecube] strongly disfavor classical GRBs as sources of the highest energy cosmic rays and neutrinos. Only more complex models assuming multiple emission regions [@llgrb; @wintergrb] can predict a neutrino flux at the level of the IceCube neutrino astrophysical signal. As it is shown in [@llgrb], a class of interesting objects are the chocked jet GRBs proposed as a way to model and unify the Low Luminosity GRBs and hypernovae. The basic concept is that a supernova explosion takes place in a dense surrounding medium and the emerging jet is a) completely choked, b) partially choked, with a shock front emerging or c) emerging without obstacles. In case a) we expect only a prompt (duration 10$^{1.5}$ s) neutrino emission. In case b) we expect neutrinos from the chocked jet and a delayed (10$^{2}$ -10$^{3}$ s) gamma-ray flare from the shock front, with duration of $> $10$^{3}$ s. Case c) predicts prompt and simultaneous neutrino and gamma-ray emission of 10$^{3.5}$ s duration.
Expected neutrino flux from AGNs {#agnflux}
--------------------------------
For AGNs the probability of discovering extraterrestrial neutrino point sources varies with the supposed phenomenology of the accelerators and of their emission mechanisms at high energies [@atoyan; @neronow; @mucke]. Neutrino emission might be possible for sources where charged and neutral mesons are produced simultaneously from hadronic $p-p$ or $p-\gamma$ interactions. These hadronic processes may be present in variable extragalactic objects such as BL Lacs or flat-spectrum radio quasars (FSRQs), as well as in Galactic systems like microquasars and magnetars. Blazars, a subset of radio-loud active galactic nuclei with relativistic jets pointing towards the Earth, can significantly contribute to the diffuse (extragalactic) $\gamma$-ray background [@ajello]. If these $\gamma$-rays originate from proton interactions, the energy budget will be sufficient to account for the intensity of the IceCube neutrino flux [@starburst2]. However, a recent stacking analysis using IceCube data suggest that AGN blazars contribute at most 27% of the observed neutrino intensity [@glusen2016]. A recent review of a possible correlation between gamma-rays and PeV neutrinos from blazars can be found in [@winter].
Nevertheless, flaring AGNs can provide a boosted flux of neutrinos which in some cases could be at the level of the IceCube neutrino signal. In this paper we consider predictions for a sample of generic neutrino fluxes, from photo-hadronic interactions in the case of a few powerful AGNs flares, as shown in Figure \[fig::spectrum2\]. Flux-1 and Flux-2 are calculations for the Feb 23, 2006 $\gamma$-ray flare of 3C 279 [@2009IJMPD]. Flux-3 and Flux-4 represent predictions for PKS 2155-304 in low-state and high-state, respectively [@Becker2011269]. Flux-5 corresponds to a theoretical prediction for 3C 279 calculated in [@PhysRevLett.87.221102].
![Sketch illustrating the different selections cuts performed in the analysis, to guarantee that the estimated position of the shower maximum of simulated events used in the acceptance calculation is in the FOV of MAGIC (see Section \[acceptnace:chapter\] for details). The subscript of 5 km corresponds to estimate position of the shower maximum, which is for shower energies relevant in this analysis i.e. 1 PeV - 3 EeV is reached approximately after 600 g/cm$^2$ on average, which in the lower part of the atmosphere translates to the distance of about 5 km.[]{data-label="sketch"}](Fig6.pdf){width="49.00000%" height="6cm"}
Background estimation
---------------------
{width="49.00000%" height="6cm"} {width="49.00000%" height="6cm"}
As already mentioned, high energetic muons or muon bundles can reach the detector and produce large shower images. The muon bundles are the dominant background contribution of the analysis. A possible contribution from showers induced by cosmic ray electrons can be neglected. At horizontal directions the Cherenkov light from electromagnetic showers will be strongly attenuated, even more than for proton primaries of similar energy, and the shower images in the camera will be too small, see e.g. Figure 4 of [@gora:2016].
In order to calculate the expected number of background events, we used the characterization of the atmospheric muon flux above 15 TeV measured by IceCube [@icecubemuons], which can be modeled by an unbroken power law: $$\label{eq-bckg}
\frac{d\Phi_{\mu}}{dE_{\mu}} = \phi_{\mu} \times \left( \frac{E_{\mu}}{10 \; \mbox{TeV}} \right)^{-\delta}.$$ The values of the parameters that maximize the likelihood for the parametrized muon flux are: $\phi_{\mu} = 1.06^{+0.42}_{-0.32} \times 10^{-10} \mbox{ TeV$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ sr$^{-1}$s$^{-1}$} $ and a spectral index of $\delta=3.78\pm0.02(\mathrm{stat.})\pm0.03 (\mathrm{syst.}) $.
This is a conservative assumption, because we do not include here a dependency on the zenith angle which leads to a lower flux of muons at large zenith angles [@icecubemuons]. Using the acceptance with height cut shown in Figure \[fig2\] (right panel) and the muon flux given by Eq. \[eq-bckg\], the expected background event rate is at a level of $4.3 \times 10^{-7}$ events for one hour of observation.
Acceptance of the MAGIC Telescopes {#acceptnace:chapter}
----------------------------------
The propagation of a given neutrino flux through the Earth and the atmosphere is simulated using an extended version of the ANIS code [@goraanis]. The extended version gives a possibility to simulate the lepton tau propagation in air for different orographic condition of considered site. For a set of fixed neutrino energies, $10^{6}$ events are generated each on top of the atmosphere for a zenith angle $\theta=92.5^{\circ}$ and an azimuth angle $\phi=-30^{\circ}$. The tau is propagated in small steps until the age of the tau lepton exceeds the tau lepton lifetime. The different amount of energy loss in the Earth’s crust and air have been also taken into account, see [@goraanis] for more details. All computations are done using Digital Elevation Map[^8] to model the surrounding mass distribution of the La Palma site. As a results of these simulations, the flux of leptons emerging from the ground as well as their energy and the decay vertex positions are calculated inside an interaction volume. The interaction volume for a given incoming neutrino with energy $E_{\nu}$ is defined by a particular plane $A_{gen}(\theta)$ and distance $\Delta l$,which is a multiple of a few times of the average lepton range. The plane $A_{gen}(\theta)$ is also the cross-sectional area of the detector volume. The detector volume is modeled by a cylinder with radius of 50km and 10km height with its z-axis (height) pointing upwards, see Figure 3 in [@goraanis]. Since the plane $A_{gen}(\theta)$ was used as reference plane for the generation of incoming neutrinos, by definition, it is orthogonal to the incoming neutrino direction.
In such an approach the detector aperture/acceptance for an initial neutrino energy $E_{\nu_\tau}$ can be calculated from: $$\begin{aligned}
A^{\mathrm{ps}}(E_{\nu_\tau}, \theta,\phi) =N(E_{\nu_\tau})_{\mathrm{gen}}^{-1} \times \sum_{i=1}^{N_{\mathrm{DISTcut}}} P_{i}(E_{\nu_\tau},E_{\tau},\theta,\phi) \nonumber \\
\times A_{gen,i}(\theta) \times T_{\mathrm{eff},i}(E_{\tau},r_{5 \mathrm{km}},d_{5 \mathrm{km}},\theta),
\label{aperture}\end{aligned}$$ where $\theta$, $\phi$ are the simulated zenith and azimuth pointing angles of the MAGIC telescope, and $N_{\mathrm{gen}}(E_{\nu_\tau})$ is the number of generated neutrino events per neutrino energy bin. The interaction probability is given by $P(E_{\nu_\tau},E_{\tau},\theta,\phi)$, the probability that a neutrino with energy $E_{\nu_\tau}$ and zenith angle $\theta$ and azimuth angle $\phi$ produces a lepton with energy $E_{\tau}$, which can reach the detector volume, see again [@goraanis] for more details.
In order to calculate the point source neutrino aperture for the MAGIC, we consider only events which are in the FOV of the MAGIC. Thus, $N_{\mathrm{DISTcut}}$ is the number of $\tau$ leptons with energies $E_{\tau}$ larger than the threshold energy $E_{\mathrm{th}}=1$ PeV and after selection cut, which guarantees that the estimated position of the shower maximum lies in the FOV of the MAGIC telescopes. At its maximum, a shower has the largest lateral extension and Cherenkov light production, thus is capable of producing the largest signal seen by IACTs telescopes. The following FOV condition was then used: $\alpha_{5 \mathrm{km}}= \arcsin(d_{5\mathrm{km}}/r_{5 \mathrm{km}})< (\delta_{\mathrm{FOV}}/2+\alpha_{\mathrm{Cher.}}) \simeq 3.10^{\circ}$, where $d_{5 \mathrm{km}}$ is the distance of the estimated shower maximum to the shower axis, the $r_{5\mathrm{km}}$ is the vector pointing from the telescope to the estimated position of the shower maximum and $\delta_{\mathrm{FOV}}=3.5^{\circ}$ is the FOV of the MAGIC camera, (see Figure \[sketch\]). In this selection criterion, called here DISTcut, we ensure that a least good fraction of the shower is imaged into the MAGIC camera, see [@epsvhe2017] for more detailed desription of this cut
In Eq.¬\[aperture\], $T_{\mathrm{eff},i}(E_{\tau},r_{5 \mathrm{km}},d_{5 \mathrm{km}},\theta)$ is the trigger and reconstruction/cut efficiency for $\tau$-lepton induced showers with its estimated position of the shower maximum at distance $r_{5 \mathrm{km}}$ from the telescope and the distance $d_{5 \mathrm{km}}$. In case of the aperture calculations, Eq. \[aperture\] was used with $T_{\mathrm{eff},i}$ set to 1, while for the acceptance calculations the trigger and identifications cuts are included i.e. $T_{\mathrm{eff},i} < 1$.
{width="49.00000%" height="7cm"} {width="48.00000%" height="7cm"}
The trigger efficiency depends on the response of a given detector and is usually estimated based on MC simulations. The trigger efficiency in an energy interval, $\Delta E$, is defined as the number of the simulated showers with positive trigger decision over the total number of generated showers for fixed zenith angle $\theta$, initial energy of the primary particle $E_{\tau}$, and the impact distance. The impact distance of simulated showers was randomized in the CORSIKA simulations (by using the CSCAT option) and later the Cherenkov telescope orientation for such showers was randomized over the MAGIC camera FOV. In order to evaluate the identification efficiency for tau neutrino showers we apply in addition the selection criterion shown in Figure \[fig::dist2\] (right panel). Figure \[fig1\] shows an example of the trigger/identification efficiency for two example energy bins. It is well seen that for smaller distances ($r_{\mathrm{decay}} < 20$ km) the efficiency drops. In such a case the shower maximum is too close to the detector, and the shower does not reach yet the maximum of shower. In general, these plots provide an estimate of the typical distance for $\tau$-induced showers seen by MAGIC.
In Figure \[fig2\] (left panel) we show an estimate of the MAGIC point-source aperture (for $T_{\mathrm{eff},i}=1$) to tau neutrinos. The aperture is shown for four cases: (1) for simulations including the orography of the La Palma island, but with the spherical model of Earth, with the rock density of about 2.65 g/cm$^2$, outside the island, and with $\alpha_{r_{5 \mathrm{km}}}<3.1^{\circ}$; (2) with an additional impact distance selection criterion $d_{5 \mathrm{km}} <1.3$ km; (3) with a 3.0 km deep water layer around island [^9]; (4) for aperture calculated using a simple analytical approximation (described in Section \[analytical\_check\]). The contribution of the water layer is important, leading to a factor two change in the aperture compared to the simulation which includes the orography of La Palma only, case 1). This is because the $\nu_\tau$ has a much smaller interaction probability in water, and can produce hence smaller escaping $\tau$-lepton fluxes.
An important effect in the analysis is the presence of possible clouds during observations, that needs to be taken into account. At the MAGIC site due to the location of the detector, two classes of clouds can be found: one expected above the MAGIC telescopes and other one below. As mentioned in the introduction the presence of high clouds above the detector can make impossible normal “gamma-ray” observations but allow to perform horizontal observations for tau neutrinos. The MAGIC lidar system [@lidar] indicates, whenever high clouds in the vertical directions are present at the MAGIC site. This information is usually used to start observations at large zenith angles, i.e. observations are performed if the transmission for the aerosol component from 9 km to ground is below 0.55 and from 3 km to ground is close to 1.0. However, during horizontal observations, we can also expect clouds below the MAGIC telescopes. These clouds usually form the quasi-stable layer of cumulus between 1.5 km and 1.9 km a.s.l. due to the temperature inversion at these altitudes [@Carrillo2016]. For such case, we did not have any information about clouds present in the directions of the [*seaON* ]{} and [*seaOFF* ]{} observations, due to the lack of lidar measurements in these directions[^10].
Thus, in our acceptance calculations, as the most conservative case, we assumed the presence of the quasi-stable layer of cumulus between 1.5 km and 1.9 km a.s.l., With this assumption all the Cherenkov light generated below 1.9 km is absorbed. To estimate this effect, all decaying tau leptons below 1.5 km a.s.l. were discarded (referred to as “height cut”). We assume that in this case, the Cherenkov light is absorbed when it crosses the layer between 1.5 and 1.9 km a.s.l. This selection provides a conservative upper limit of this effect. Figure \[fig2\] (right panel) shows the acceptance obtained with and without the “height cut” applied. As we can see in the plot this selection criterion leads to a smaller (about factor two) acceptance, showing the influence of the quasi-stable layer of cumulus and gives the uncertainty associated to the fact that there are no lidar measurements in the horizontal direction. After simulating the effects of the orography of the site, the sea and the layer of clouds, and also taking into account the trigger and identification efficiency, we obtain an acceptance which is one or two orders (for $10^{18}$ eV) of magnitude smaller than calculated aperture.
------------------ --------------------------------- ------------------------ ------------------ ----------------------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------------
$E_{\nu_{\tau}}$ $\sigma_{CC}({E_{\nu_{\tau}}}$) $\lambda_{\nu_{\tau}}$ $\lambda_{\tau}$ $P(E_{\nu_\tau},E_{\tau},\theta)$ $A_{\mathrm{geom}}$ $A(E_{\nu_{\tau}})$ $A^{ps}(E_{\nu_{\tau}})$
(PeV) (pb) (km) (km) (km$^2$) (km$^2$) (km$^2$)
2 950 6596 0.073 $1.0\times 10^{-5 }$ 5.33 $5.3\times10^{-5}$ $1.5\times10^{-4}$
10 1900 3298 0.367 $9.4\times10^{-5}$ 5.33 $5.0\times10^{-4}$ $2.7\times10^{-4}$
100 4800 1305 3.670 $1.9\times 10^{-3}$ 5.33 $1.0\times10^{-2}$ $8.0\times10^{-3}$
1000 11000 569 36.70 $2.6\times 10^{-2}$ 5.33 $1.4\times10^{-1}$ $2.6\times10^{-2}$
------------------ --------------------------------- ------------------------ ------------------ ----------------------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------------
Analytical aperture estimation of the MAGIC Telescopes {#analytical_check}
------------------------------------------------------
A simple analytical estimate is found to yield the correct order of magnitude for the effective aperture of MAGIC. We focus first on the geometry of the system. As the horizon is observed at a zenith angle of $\theta > 90^{\circ}$, the particle path through the Earth is $L \simeq -2 R_{\mathrm{Earth}} \cdot \cos(\theta)$, where $R_{\mathrm{Earth}}$ is the Earth radius, see Figure \[fig::sea\] (left panel). The geometric area seen by telescopes $A_{\rm geom}$ along the line-of-flight of the neutrino can be approximated by: $$\begin{aligned}
A_{\mathrm{geom}}(\theta) = a\cdot b \cdot \pi = H^2 \cdot
\frac{\delta_{\mathrm{FOV}}}{4} \cdot \pi \cdot \big(\tan(\theta+\delta_{\mathrm{FOV}}/2) \\ \nonumber
-\tan(\theta-\delta_{\mathrm{FOV}}/2) \big), \end{aligned}$$\[elipsa\_area1\] where $a$ and $b$ is the major and minor axis of ellipse (see Figure \[elipsa\]), $H = 2.2$ km a.s.l. is the altitude of the telescope and $\delta_{\mathrm{FOV}}=0.061$ rad ($3.5^{\circ}$) is the FOV of the MAGIC camera. The Taylor expansion given in Eq. 4 is accurate within 20%. The ellipse is actually truncated, because the horizon appears already at $ \theta_{horizon} = 180^{\circ} - ( 180^{\circ} / \pi \times \arcsin(R_\mathrm{Earth}/(R_\mathrm{Earth}+H)) ) = 91.5$ deg. This effect reduces the geometrical area $A_{\mathrm{geom}}(92.5^{\circ})$ from 14.3 km$^2$ to about 5.33 km$^2$.
The conversion efficiency for tau neutrinos along the distance $L$ is calculated from [@huang]: $$\begin{aligned}
P(E_{\nu_\tau},E_{\tau},\theta)=
\int_0^L \exp{\left(-x/\lambda_{\nu_{\tau}}\right)}\cdot \exp{\big(-(L-x)/\lambda_{\tau}\big)} \cdot
\frac{dx}{\lambda_{\nu_{\tau}}} \\ \nonumber
= \frac{\lambda_{\tau}}{\lambda_{\nu_{\tau}} - \lambda_{\tau}} \cdot
\big( \exp{\left(-L/ \lambda_{\nu_{\tau}}\right)} - \exp{\left(-L/ \lambda_{\tau}\right)} \big),
\label{eq:convert}\end{aligned}$$ where $\lambda_{\nu}=1/(\sigma_{\textrm{CC}}N_{A}\rho)$ is the neutrino mean free path, $N_{A}$ the Avogadro constant, $\sigma_{\textrm{CC}}$ the charged current neutrino interaction cross-section [@sarkar] and $\rho$ the density of the rock. The decay length of the tau particle $\lambda_{\tau}=48910 \mbox{ } \mathrm{m} \times (E_{\tau}/{ 1000 \mbox{ } \mathrm{ PeV}})$. The effective area can be estimated as $A(E_{\nu_\tau},\theta) = P(E_{\nu_\tau},E_{\tau},\theta) \times A_{\mathrm{geom}}(\theta)$, under the approximation that all tau leptons decay close to the sea surface, which is true only for tau lepton energies below $\sim$30 PeV, and without taking into account trigger and cut efficiencies. If a tau lepton above an energy of a few tens of PeV still escapes the sea, its decay length can be too large to initiate an air shower before reaching the telescopes.
![The geometrical area opened by the FOV of the MAGIC telescopes.[]{data-label="elipsa"}](Fig_9.pdf){width="48.00000%" height="8cm"}
In Table \[tab:a\], the conversion efficiencies and comparison of the effective area ($A(E_{\nu_\tau})$) with our MC estimate ($A^{ps}(E_{\nu_\tau})$) are shown for five energies. The simple analytical calculations agree (apart from the last point at 1000 PeV), with the aperture estimate from MC simulations within a factor of 2 (see Figure \[fig2\], left).
-- -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
**Flux-1 &**Flux-2& **Flux-3 & **Flux-4 & **Flux-5\
& & **($\times 10^{-5}/3$ hrs) & **($\times 10^{-5}/3$ hrs) & **($\times 10^{-5}/3$ hrs) &**($\times 10^{-5}/3$ hrs) &**($\times 10^{-5}/3$ hrs)\
$N_{\mathrm{Events}}$& without height cut & 2.4 & 1.4 & 0.74 &7.4 &2.4\
$N_{\mathrm{Events}}$& with height cut & 1.1& 0.6 & 0.30 & 2.9 & 1.2\
********************
-- -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
.
Event rates
-----------
The total number of expected signal events N is obtained as: $$N=\Delta T \times \int_{E_{\mathrm{th}}}^{E_{\mathrm{max}}} A^{\mathrm{ps}}
(E_{\nu_\tau})\times\Phi(E_{\nu_\tau})\times dE_{\nu_\tau},$$ where $\Delta T$ is the observation time, $A^{\mathrm{ps}}(E_{\nu_\tau})$ the point source acceptance and $\Phi(E_{\nu_\tau})$ the expected neutrino flux. Since $A^{\mathrm{ps}}(E_{\nu_\tau})$ depends on the zenith angle and hence on time (since all sources move in the sky), in reality, an integral from 0 to $\Delta T$ must be made over time $t$, and $A^{\mathrm{ps}}(E_{\nu_\tau})$ should be replaced by $ A^{\mathrm{ps}}(E_{\nu_\tau}, t)$. Thus, all numbers presented in the following have to be considered approximations since they used a time-independent value of $A^{\mathrm{ps}}(E_{\nu_\tau})$.
Here we provide an estimate of the event rate for a sample of generic neutrino fluxes, from photo-hadronic interactions in case of flaring AGNs, if observed at the most efficient zenith angle. Flaring AGNs can produce a boosted flux of neutrinos. Table \[table3\] shows the expected event rates for MAGIC, using the flux benchmark models shown in Figure \[fig::spectrum2\].
The rates are calculated for tau neutrinos assuming that the source is in the MAGIC FOV for a period of 3 hours and with the acceptance calculated with and without the ”height cut” applied. In the case of Flux-3 and Flux-4 for events with energies of the $\sim$$10^{8}$ GeV, the expected event rate with the “height cut” applied is of the order $3 \times 10^{-5}$ events per 3 hours. In the case of Flux-1, Flux-2 and Flux-5, for events below $\sim$$ 5 \times 10^{7}$ GeV, the number of expected events is below $1.1 \times 10^{-5} $ in 3 hours. In case the “height cut” selection is not applied, the expected number of events increases by a factor 2. We give results for both cases, because sometimes it is also possible that observations can be performed during absence of quasi-stable layer of cumulus in [*seaON*]{} direction.
model cross-section $\beta_{\tau}$ Total
-------- ------------------- ------------------- -------------------- --
Flux-1 $^{+14\%}_{-2\%}$ $^{+2\%}_{-7\%}$ $^{+14\%}_{-7\%}$
Flux-3 $^{+42\%}_{-7\%}$ $^{+7\%}_{-14\%}$ $^{+43\%}_{-16\%}$
: \[tab::rate\] [Relative contributions to the systematic uncertainties on the up-going tau neutrino rate. Systematic uncertainty on the expected tau neutrino rate due the neutrino-nucleon cross section and the tau-lepton energy loss. Both uncertainties have been added in quadrature. As a reference GRV98lo and ALLM model for Flux-1 and Flux-3 was used. ]{}
The systematic uncertainties on the event rates due to the tau-lepton energy loss and the neutrino-nucleon cross section have been taken into account. The average energy loss of tau particles per distance travelled (unit depth $X$ in gcm$^{-2}$) can be described as $\left\langle dE/dX \right \rangle = \alpha(E) + \beta(E) E$. The factor $\alpha(E)$, which is nearly constant, is due to ionization. $\beta(E)$ is the sum of $e^+e^-$-pair production and bremsstrahlung and photonuclear scattering, which is not only the dominant contribution at high energies but at the same time subject to relatively large uncertainties. In this work, the factor $\beta_{\tau}$ is calculated using the following models describing the contribution of photonuclear scattering: ALLM [@allm], BB/BS [@bbbs], CMKT [@ckmt], and different neutrino-nucleon cross-sections: GRV98lo [@GRVlo], CTEQ66c [@cteq], HP [@hp], ASSS [@sarkar], ASW [@Albacete:2005ef]. The results are listed in Table \[tab::rate\] for Flux-1 and Flux-3, and show that the combined systematic uncertainty of both effects can be considerable, namely of the order of 40%, but nevertheless much smaller than the effect of the quasi-stable layer of cumulus below the observatory, included in the ”height cut”, which can lead to a factor two of the lower event rate.
{width="55.00000%"}
Tau neutrino flux limit
=======================
From the estimated acceptance with height cut, the sensitivity for an injected spectrum $K\times\Phi(E_{\nu})$ with a known shape $\Phi(E_{\nu})$ was calculated. As no events survived after event selection, 90% C.L. upper limits [@limit] on the tau neutrino flux have been obtained. Assuming a reference spectrum of $\Phi(E_{\nu})=1 \times 10^{-8} E^{-2} \mbox{ GeV$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$}$ of a point-like source, the upper limit obtained is: $K_{90\%}=2.44/N_\mathrm{Events}$. The limit for a point source search is then: $$E_{\nu_\tau}^{2}\Phi^{ps}(E_{\nu_\tau}) < 2.0 \times 10^{-4} \mbox{ GeV cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$} \label{limit}$$ where $E_{\nu_\tau}$ is in the range between 1 and 3000 PeV. The neutrino flux upper limit is obtained for an expected number of tau neutrino events of $N_{\rm Events}=1.2 \times 10^{-4}$, in the case of Flux-5, and is shown in Figure 11 (solid red line). The result is also compared to the 90% C.L. upper limit on the single flavor neutrino flux from the Pierre Auger experiment [@auger] from the active galaxy Centaurus A. The expected MAGIC limit could be improved in the case of 300 hours of observations during a strong flare as in Flux-4, where a limit of $E_{\nu_\tau}^{2}\Phi^{ps}(E_{\nu_\tau}) < 8.4\times 10^{-6}$ can be obtained. This expectation is shown in Figure \[fig111\] as the dashed red line, and is only a factor 3.4 worse than the Pierre-Auger “down-going” analysis.
Summary
=======
In this paper, a search for tau neutrinos of astrophysical origin in the energy range between 1 PeV and 3 EeV with the MAGIC telescopes is presented. The data was collected during a special pointing of the telescopes below the horizon, to detect Earth-skimming tau-lepton induced showers. These observations can take place during periods of high clouds, which prevent standard gamma ray observations. A 90% C.L. upper limit on the tau-neutrino flux of $ E_{\nu_\tau}^{2}\Phi^{ps}(E_{\nu_\tau}) < 2.0 \times 10^{-4}$ GeV cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ was obtained, with 30 hours of observation. The limit is not competitive with other experiments, hovewer to our knowledge this is first time that is has been calculated with realistics assumptions and using backround data collected by MAGIC. Thus our search gives a realistic illustration of the potential of the Cherenkov technique for this present active topic of research. The presented results can also be important for future Cherenkov experiments like for example the Cherenkov Telescope Array. This next generation ground-base observatory can have a much better possibility to detect tau neutrinos, given its a larger FOV (e.g. in extended observation mode) and much larger effective area
Acknowledgments
===============
We would like to thank the Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias for the excellent working conditions at the Observatorio del Roque de los Muchachos in La Palma. The financial support of the German BMBF and MPG, the Italian INFN and INAF, the Swiss National Fund SNF, the ERDF under the Spanish MINECO (FPA2015-69818-P, FPA2012-36668, FPA2015-68378-P, FPA2015-69210-C6-2-R, FPA2015-69210-C6-4-R, FPA2015-69210-C6-6-R, AYA2015-71042-P, AYA2016-76012-C3-1-P, ESP2015-71662-C2-2-P, CSD2009-00064), and the Japanese JSPS and MEXT is gratefully acknowledged. This work was also supported by the Spanish Centro de Excelencia “Severo Ochoa” SEV-2012-0234 and SEV-2015-0548, and Unidad de Excelencia “María de Maeztu” MDM-2014-0369, by the Croatian Science Foundation (HrZZ) Project IP-2016-06-9782 and the University of Rijeka Project 13.12.1.3.02, by the DFG Collaborative Research Centers SFB823/C4 and SFB876/C3, the Polish National Research Centre grant UMO-2016/22/M/ST9/00382 and by the Brazilian MCTIC, CNPq and FAPERJ.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[99]{} M.G. Aartsen, et al., [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{}, 113 (2014) 101101 \[arxiv:1405.5303\]. M.G. Aartsen, et al., [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{}, 114 (2015) 171102. M.G. Aartsen, et al., [ApJ]{}, 809 1 (2015) 98. A. Aab, et al., [Phys. Rev. D]{}, 91 (2015) 092008 \[astro-ph 1504.05397\]. J.H. Adams, et al., Experimental Astronomy, 40 (2015) 315 . D. Fargion, [ApJ]{}, 570 (2002) 909 \[astro-ph 0002453\]. J.J. Feng, P. Fisher, F. Wilczek, and T.M. Yu, [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{}, 88 (2002) 161102 \[hep-ph/0105067\]. X. Bertou, P. Billoir, O. Deligny, C. Lachaud and A. Letessier-Selvon, Astropart. Phys., 17 (2002) 183 \[astro-ph/0104452\]. J. Jones, I. Mocioiu, M.H. Reno, and I. Sarcevic, [Phys. Rev. D]{}, 69 (2004) 033004. E. Reya, and J. Rodiger, [Phys. Rev. D]{}, 72 (2005) 053004. Y. Asaoka, and M. Sasaki, Astropart. Phys. [**41**]{} (2013) 7. M.S. Sasaki, et al., (2014) \[arXiv:1408.6244\]. D. Góra, et al. 2015, Astropart. Phys., 61 (2015) 12. D. Góra, and E. Bernardini,. Astropart. Phys., 82 (2016) 77. J. Aleksić, et al., Astropart. Phys., 72 (2016) 76. D. Góra et. al., [*Proc of 35th I.C.R.C.*]{} (Busan) (2017), POS(ICRC2017)992 \[arXiv:1708.06147\]. D. Góra et. al., [*Proc of EPS-HEP*]{} (Venice) (2017),PoS(EPS-HEP2017)017 \[arXiv:1710.04165\]. M. Gaug, C. Hsu, J.K. Becker, et al., [*Proc of 30th I.C.R.C.*]{} (Merida) (2007) 1273. S. Cavazzani, et al., MNRAS 411 2 (2011) 1271. ATel \#: 7856; http://www.astronomerstelegram.org/?read=7856 D. Góra, M. Roth, and A. Tamburro, Astropart. Phys., 26 (2007) 402. A.Z. Gazizow, and M. Kowalski, Comput. Phys. Commun.,172 (2005) 203. D. Heck, J. Knapp, J.N. Capdevielle, G. Schatz, T. Thouw, [*Report FZKA*]{} (1998) [**6019**]{}. T. Sjöstrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Skands, JHEP 0605 (2006) 026. R. Zanin, et al., [*Proc of 33rd I.C.R.C.*]{} (Rio de Janeiro) (2013). F. Aharonian, et al., [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{}, 101 (2008) 261104. I. Valino, et al., Astropart. Phys., 32 (2010) 304. D. Fargion, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys., 57 (2006) 384. P. Kiraly, et al., J. Phys., A4 (1971) 367. A.N. Cillis, and S.J. Sciutto, [Phys. Rev. D]{}, 64 (2001) 013010. M. Ambrosio, et al. (2003) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0302602\]. M.A. Hillas, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl., 52B (1997) 29. A.M. Atoyan,C.D. Dermer, New Astron. Rev., 48 (2004) 381. A. Neronov, and M. Ribordy, [Phys. Rev. D]{}, 80 (2009) 083008. A. Mucke, et al., Astropart. Phys., 18 6 (2003) 593. E. Waxman, and J. Bahcall, [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{}, 78 (1997) 2292; K. Murase, and S. Nagataki, [Phys. Rev. D]{}, 73 (2006) 063002. V.S. Berezinsky, and G. Zatsepin, Phys. Lett. B, 28 (1969) 423. F.W. Stecker, Astrophys. Space Sci., 20 (1973) 47. V.S. Berezinsky, and A.I. Smirnov, Astrophys. Space Sci., 32, (1975) 461. R. Engel, D. Seckel, and T. Stanev, [Phys. Rev. D]{}, 64 (2001) 093010 \[astro-ph/0101216\]. D.V. Semikoz, and G. Sigl, JCAP 4 (2004) 003 \[hep-ph/0309328\]. C. Kopper, et al., PoS(ICRC2017) (2017) 981 \[arXiv:1710.01191 p. 54\] M.G. Aartsen, et al., [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{}, 115 (2015) 081102 \[arxiv: 1507.04005\]. G. Giacinti, M. Kachelriess, O. Kalashev, D.V. Semikoz, and A.N. Neronov, [Phys. Rev. D]{}, 92 (2015) 083016 \[astro-ph:1507.07534\] A. Loeb, and E. Waxman, JCAP, 5 (2006) 003 \[astroph/0601695\] K. Murase, M. Ahlers, M., and B.C. Lacki, [Phys. Rev. D]{}, 88 (2013) 121301, \[arXiv:1306.3417\] I. Tamborra, S. Ando, and K. Murase, JCAP 9 (2014) 043, \[astro-ph: 1404.1189\]. K. Bechtol, M. Ahlers, M. Di Mauro, M. Ajello, and J. Vandenbroucke, [ApJ]{}, 836 47 (2017) 9 \[astro-ph:1511.00688\]. L.A. Anchordoqui, et al., Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 1-2 (2014) 1. M. Bustamante, K. Murase, and W. Winter, [ApJ]{}, 833 (2017) 17 \[arXiv:1606.02325\]. M.G. Aartsen, et al., [ApJ]{}, 824 2 (2016) 115. N. Senno, K. Murase, P. Meszaros, [Phys. Rev. D]{}, 93 (2016) 083003 \[arxiv:1512.08513\]. M. Ajello, D. Gasparrini, M. , Sánchez-Conde, et al., Astrophysical Journal Letters, 800 (2015) L27. T. Glusenkamp, EPJ Web Conf., 121 (2016) 05006. S. Gao,M. Pohl, and W. Winter, [ApJ]{}, 843, 2 (2017) 19 \[astro-ph 1610.05306\]. A. Reimer , Int. Journ. of Mod. Phys. D, 18 (2009) 1511.
K. Becker, K. et al., Nucl. Instr. and Meth. in Phys. Res. Sect. A, 630, 1 (2011) 269. A.M. Atoyan, and C.D. Dermer, [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{}, 87 (2001) 221102 . M.G. Aartsen, et al, Astropart. Phys., 78 (2016) 1. K.H. Kampert., and M. Unger, Astropart. Phys. 35, 10 (2012) 660 \[arXiv:1201.0018\]. R. Abbasi, Y. Abdou, T. Abu-Zayyad, et al., [ApJ]{}, 732 (2011) 18.
H. Abramowicz, and A. Levy, 1997 \[hep-ph/9712415\] P. Abreu, et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 755 (2012) L4 \[arXiv:1210.3143\]. Ch. Fruck, et al.. [*Proc of 33rd I.C.R.C.*]{} (Rio de Janeiro) (2013) \[arXiv:1403.3591\]. J. Carrillo, et al., Boundary-Layer Meteorology, 158 (2016) 311. G.W.S. Hou, and M.A. Huang, Proc, of NCTS Work. on Astropart. Phys., Taiwan (2001) \[astro-ph:0204145\]. A. Cooper-Sarkar,P. Mertsch, S. Sarkar, JHEP, 08 (2011) 042. E.V. Bugaev, and Y.V. Shlepin, [Phys. Rev. D]{}, 67, (3) (2003) 034027. A. Cappella, A. Kaidalov, C. Merino, J. Tran Thanh, Phys. Lett. B, 337, (1994) 358. H. Lai, et al. 2000, Eur. Phys. J., C12 (2000) 375 \[hep-ph/9903282\]. A.Z. Gazizov, and S.I. Yanush, [Phys. Rev. D]{}, 65 (9) (2002) 093003. A. Cooper-Sarkar,P. Mertsch, S. Sarkar, JHEP, 08 (2011) 042. J.L. Albacete, N. Armesto, J.G. Milhano, C.A. Salgado, U.A. Wiedemann, Eur. Phys. J., C43 (2005) 353. G.J. Feldman, and R.D. Cousins, [Phys. Rev. D]{}, 57 (1998) 3889. A. Cuoco, S. Hannestad, [Phys. Rev. D]{}, 78 (2008) 023007. M. Gluck, E. Reya, and A. Vogt, Eur. Phys. J., C5 (1998) 461. C.W. James,R.J. Protheroe, R.D. Ekers, et al., MNRAS, 410 (2011) 885. M. Kachelriess, S. Ostapchenko., and R. Tomas, New J. Phys., 11, (2009) 065017. A. Kusenko, and T.J. Weiler, [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{}, 86, 16 (2002) 161101. H.L. Vargas, A.S.E. Belmont, and R. Alfaro, Advances in Astronomy, (2017) 1932413 \[astro-ph 1610.04820\].
[^1]: <http://icecube.wisc.edu>
[^2]: <http://antares.in2p3.fr>
[^3]: <http://www.telescopearray.org>
[^4]: The muon decay length is about $6.6 \times 10^6$ km for a muon energy of 1 PeV.
[^5]: The flux of $\mu$ leptons produced due to charged current interaction of $\nu_{\mu}$ is more than one order of magnitude lower than for $\tau$ leptons [@kusenko; @hawcneutrino].
[^6]: In[@upgoing_magic] the fluorescence emission above 300 PeV was also included in the aperture calculation, thus the aperture can reach about $2 \times 10^5$ m$^2$ at 1 EeV. In this work we do not included fluorescence emission.
[^7]: Up to now, the HET is the highest energy neutrino event seen in the IceCube data, with a pointing accuracy of about 0.27$^{\circ}$ (median), thus particularly interesting for IACTs, given their FOV of a few degrees.
[^8]: Consortium for Spatial Information (CGIAR-CSI) <http://srtm.csi.cgiar.org/>
[^9]: A 4 and 4.5 km deep water layer have been tested as well, which causes a change in the estimated aperture of less than 30%.
[^10]: With existing setup, the MAGIC lidar can monitor only clouds layer up to a few tens of kilometers, which is not enough for large zenith angle observations, where we need to know if the clouds are present or not at much larger distances, at least one hundred of kilometers.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper characters of the normaliser of $d$-split Levi subgroups in ${{\operatorname{SL}}}_n(q)$ and ${{\operatorname{SU}}}_n(q)$ are parametrized with a particular focus on the Clifford theory between the Levi subgroup and its normalizer. These results are applied to verify the Alperin-McKay conjecture for primes $\ell$ with $\ell\nmid 6(q^2-1)$ and the Alperin weight conjecture for $\ell$-blocks of those quasi-simple groups with abelian defect. The inductive Alperin-McKay condition and inductive Alperin weight condition by the second author are verified for certain blocks of ${{\operatorname{SL}}}_n(q)$ and ${{\operatorname{SU}}}_n(q)$.'
address: 'School of Mathematics and Natural Sciences University of Wuppertal, Gaußstr. 20, 42119 Wuppertal, Germany'
author:
- Julian Brough and Britta Späth
date:
-
-
title: 'On the Alperin-McKay conjecture for simple groups of type $\mathrm{A}$'
---
[^1] [^2]
Introduction
============
The McKay conjecture and its blockwise version, the Alperin-McKay conjecture, are two fundamental conjectures in representation theory of finite groups.
For a finite group $G$, a prime $\ell$ and $N$ the normalizer of a Sylow $\ell$-subgroup of $G$, the McKay conjecture is concerned with the cardinality of ${\operatorname{Irr}}_{\ell '}(X)$ where ${\operatorname{Irr}}_{\ell'}(X)=\{ \chi\in {\operatorname{Irr}}(X)\mid \chi(1)_{\ell}=1\}$ and states that $$|{\operatorname{Irr}}_{\ell '}(G)|=|{\operatorname{Irr}}_{\ell '}(N)|.$$
For an $\ell$-block $B$ of $G$ with defect group $D$ and $b$ the Brauer correspondent of $B$, an $\ell$-block of the normalizer in $G$ of $D$, the Alperin-McKay conjecture claims that $$|{\operatorname{Irr}}_0(B)|=|{\operatorname{Irr}}_0(b)|,$$ where ${\operatorname{Irr}}_0(C)$ is the set of height $0$ characters in a block $C
$. By summing over blocks with maximal defect, the Alperin-McKay conjecture implies the McKay conjecture.
Alperin introduced with the Alperin Weight Conjecture a similar global-local conjecture that claimed that the number of irreducible Brauer characters of a given $\ell$-block coincides with the number of weights of this $\ell$-block. If the block $B$ has abelian defect group, the conjecture is equivalent to $$|{\operatorname{IBr}}(B)|=|{\operatorname{IBr}}(b)|,$$ where $b$ is as before the Brauer correspondent of $B$. A more structural explanation of both conjectures was suggested by Broué, namely that in case of abelian defect the blocks $B$ and $b$ are derived equivalent.
In [@IMNRedMcKay; @AMSp] the McKay and the Alperin-McKay conjecture have been reduced to finite simple groups. It remains to check the corresponding so-called [*inductive condition*]{} for all finite simple groups and primes $\ell$. Substantial progress has been made towards proving the McKay conjecture along that line. In particular, using the inductive McKay condition, Malle and the second author established the McKay conjecture for $\ell=2$ [@MalSpOddDegree]. Furthermore for odd primes the inductive McKay condition has been verified in multiple cases of simple groups [@SpIMDefChar; @CabSpMZ; @CabSpIMTypeC; @CabSpCharTypeA]. Less cases have been checked for the inductive Alperin-McKay (AM) condition. [@AMSp] verified the inductive AM condition for simple groups of Lie type, when $\ell$ is the defining characteristic, and for alternating groups, when the prime $\ell$ is odd. Additionally [@BAWMa; @ASF_Sp6] have dealt with simple groups of types $^2\mathrm{B}_2, {}^2\mathrm{G}_2$ and $^2\mathrm{F}_4$. Further results have been established in [@CabSpAMTypeA; @KosSpAMBAWCy; @KosSpAM2BlCy] by considering particular structures of the defect group of the block.
The present paper is concerned with the Alperin-McKay condition for quasi-simple groups of type ${\mathrm A}$ and primes $\ell$ different from the defining characteristic with $\ell\geq 5$. Note that the inductive Alperin-McKay (AM) and the blockwise Alperin weight (BAW) conditions hold for most blocks in the defining characteristic according to [@AMSp] and [@BAWSp]. In order to verify the inductive Alperin-McKay condition a new criterion is introduced in Theorem \[NewIndAmCond\], which will have applications to other series of simple groups, see [@CabASFSp]. It complements the criterion given in [@CabSpAMTypeA]. This leads to the following statement, where we write ${\operatorname{SL}}_n(-q)$ for ${\operatorname{SU}}_n(q)$ and ${\operatorname{GL}}_n(-q)$ for ${\operatorname{GU}}_n(q)$.
\[IndAMAbBl\]\[thmA\] Let $\ell$ be a prime, $q$ a prime power and $\epsilon\in \{\pm 1\}$ with $\ell\nmid 3q( q-\epsilon)$, ${{{\mathbf G}}}:={\operatorname{SL}}_n(\overline{\ensuremath{\mathbb{F}}}_q)$, $G:={\operatorname{SL}}_n(\epsilon q)$, $B_0$ an $\ell$-block of $G$ with defect group $D$, and $B$ the ${\operatorname{GL}}_n(\epsilon q)$-orbit containing $B_0$. Assume that ${\operatorname{PSL}}_n(\epsilon q)$ is simple, $G$ is its universal covering group and the stabilizer ${\operatorname{Out}}(G)_B$ is abelian.
\[thm11a\] The inductive AM condition from Definition 7.2 of [@AMSp] holds for $B_0$.
\[thm11b\] Let $d$ be the order of $q$ in $({\mathbb{Z}}/\ell{\mathbb{Z}})^\times$. If $D$ is abelian and ${\operatorname{C}}_{{{{\mathbf G}}}}(D)$ is a $d$-split Levi subgroup of ${{{\mathbf G}}}$, then the inductive BAW condition from [@BAWSp] holds for $B_0$.
In Corollary \[corindAM\], the inductive AM condition is also proven for blocks that are ${\operatorname{GL}}_n(\epsilon q)$-stable and satisfy another similar assumption.
For unipotent blocks Feng has established in [@Z_Feng] the inductive BAW condition for unipotent blocks and Li-Zhang have treated in [@LiZhang] other blocks under additional assumptions on the outer automorphism group. Also Li constructed in [@Li_Sp2nq] an equivariant bijection for the inductive BAW condition in symplectic groups under some assumption on the $\ell$-modular decomposition matrix. More particular cases of simple groups of small rank were checked in [@FengLiLi; @Schulte; @ASF_Sp6].
In the proof of Theorem \[thmA\] a main step is to parametrize the characters of the normalizers of $d$-split Levi subgroups. These normalizers serve as local subgroups in the inductive AM condition, see Theorem \[71b\]. We investigate the action of automorphisms on those characters in terms of their parameters. Essential is to understand the Clifford theory of irreducible characters of a $d$-split Levi subgroup $L$ in ${\operatorname{N}}_{G}(L)$. Furthermore, we consider the action of the stabilizer ${{\operatorname{Aut}}}(G)_{B,L}$ on the irreducible characters and verify that the corresponding inertia groups are of a particular structure.
\[StarConddSpLevi\] Let ${{{\mathbf G}}}:={\operatorname{SL}}_n(\overline {\mathbb{F}}_q)$, ${\widetilde}{{{\mathbf G}}}:={\operatorname{GL}}_n(\overline {\mathbb{F}}_q)$ , $F:{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}\rightarrow {{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}$ a Frobenius endomorphism defining an ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{F}}}_q$-structure, ${{{\mathbf L}}}$ a $d$-split Levi subgroup of $({{{{\mathbf G}}}}, F)$, $N_0:={{\rm N}_{{ {{{{\mathbf G}}}^F}}}({{\bf L}})}$ and ${\widetilde}N_0:={{\rm N}_{{{\widetilde}{{{\mathbf G}}}^F}}({{{{\mathbf L}}}})}$.
Every $\lambda\in{\operatorname{Irr}}({{{\mathbf L}}}^F)$ extends to its inertia group in $N_{0}$.
\[thm12b\] Let $E_0\leq{\operatorname{Aut}}({\widetilde}{{{\mathbf G}}}^F)$ be the image of $E$ defined in 3.A and let $\psi\in {\operatorname{Irr}}( {\operatorname{N}}_0)$. Then there exists a ${\widetilde}{\operatorname{N}}_0$-conjugate $\psi_0$ of $\psi$ such that
$O_0=({\widetilde}{{{{\mathbf G}}}}^F\cap O_0)\rtimes (E_0\cap O_0)$ for $O_0:={{{{\mathbf G}}}}^F({\widetilde}{{{{\mathbf G}}}}^F\rtimes E_0)_{{{{\mathbf L}}},\psi_0}$, and
$\psi_0$ extends to $({{{{\mathbf G}}}}^F\rtimes E_0)_{{{{\mathbf L}}},\psi_0}$.
For groups of Lie type with abelian Sylow $\ell$-subgroup, bijections implying the Alperin-McKay conjecture and blockwise Alperin weight were constructed in [@BAWMa Theorem 2.9] assuming the above \[thm12b\](a) for analogous local subgroups. As a consequence of our proof of Theorem \[StarConddSpLevi\], Alperin-McKay conjecture holds via [@BAWMa Theorem 2.9 and Corollary 3.7] for special linear and unitary groups with abelian Sylow $\ell$-subgroup. Thanks to Theorem \[Conjunip\] we are able to generalize Malle’s approach from [@MalleHeight0], where he constructed a bijection for the inductive McKay condition. By considerations inspired by [@SpExz §10] we deduce from this the Alperin-McKay conjecture for all blocks, using results of Puig and Zhou on the so-called [*inertial blocks*]{}. Note that for $\ell\mid q$ the Alperin-McKay conjecture was proven in [@AMSp] based on earlier work by Green-Lehrer-Lusztig while for $\ell\mid (q-\epsilon)$ results of Puig in [@Puig_Scope §5] imply the conjecture for most $\ell$-blocks of ${\operatorname{SL}}_n(\epsilon q)$ with abelian defect.
\[AMTypeA\] Let $G ={\operatorname{SL}}_n(\epsilon q)$. Let $\ell$ be a prime with $\ell\nmid 3q(q-\epsilon)$.
\[thm13a\] The Alperin-McKay Conjecture holds for all $\ell$-blocks of $G$.
\[thm13b\] The Alperin weight Conjecture holds for all $\ell$-blocks of $G$ with abelian defect.
This paper is organised in the following way: in Section \[RefomIndAM\] we provide a criterion for the inductive AM condition and give some helpful statements using inertial blocks. Then in Section \[dSplitLevi\] we construct explicitly the $d$-split Levi subgroups, their normalizers and we highlight some important properties of the irreducible characters. The Clifford theory between $d$-split Levi subgroups and their normalizers is studied in Section \[CliffThdSpLevi\] in order to prove Theorem \[StarConddSpLevi\]. The final sections deduce from this the main results using $d$-Harish-Chandra theory and Jordan decomposition.
[**Acknowledgement.**]{} The authors thank Lucas Ruhstorfer for useful discussions on the subject. Additionally we thank Gunter Malle for many useful comments on an earlier version.
The inductive AM condition {#RefomIndAM}
==========================
In this section we recall the inductive AM condition and give a criterion for proving it in our situation. The proof requires some arguments relying on Dade’s ramification group. We also give a short lemma that will later be used to verify the Alperin-McKay conjecture.
For characters of finite groups and blocks we will freely make use of the notation from [@IsaChTh] and [@NavBl]. Our blocks are considered with regard to a prime $\ell$. For an $\ell$-block $c$ of a subgroup of a finite group $H$ we denote the induced block by $c^H$. For a generalized character $\chi$ of $H$ we denote by ${\operatorname{Irr}}(\chi)\subseteq{\operatorname{Irr}}(H)$ its set of irreducible constituents and for an irreducible character $\chi$ we denote by ${\operatorname{bl}}(\chi)$ the $\ell$-block that it belongs to. We denote by $\chi^\circ$ the restriction of $\chi$ to the $\ell '$-elements of $H$. Recall that whenever the group $A$ acts on a set $M$ we denote by $A_m$ the stabilizer of an element $m$ of $M$ in $A$.
The inductive AM condition for a set of blocks
----------------------------------------------
In [@AMSp Definition 7.1] the inductive AM condition for a simple group and a prime $\ell$ were introduced. An alternative version, relative to a radical $\ell$-subgroup was given in [@CabSpMZ Section 7.1]. In addition [@KosSpAMBAWCy Def. 3.2] provided one related to a single block.
First recall the following standard notations. For $D$ an $\ell$-subgroup of a finite group $X$ we denote by ${\operatorname{Bl}}(X\mid D)$ the set of $\ell$-blocks of $X$ which have $D$ as a defect group. Recall the notation ${\operatorname{Irr}}_0(B)$ for the set of height zero characters in a block $B$. For any subset ${{\mathcal B}}\subset {\operatorname{Bl}}(X)$ let the sets ${\operatorname{Irr}}({{\mathcal B}})$ and ${\operatorname{Irr}}_0({{\mathcal B}})$ be analogously defined.
\[IndAMCond\] Let $S$ be a finite non-abelian simple group and $\ell$ a prime. Let $G$ be the universal covering group of $S$ and $B\in {\operatorname{Bl}}(G)$ with defect group $D$. Then we say that [**the inductive AM condition holds for $B$**]{} if
there exists some ${\operatorname{Aut}}(G)_{B,D}$-stable subgroup $M$ such that ${\operatorname{N}}_G(D)\leq M\lneq G$.
\[indAmii\] For $B'\in{\operatorname{Bl}}(M)$ with $B'^G=B$ there exists an ${\operatorname{Aut}}(G)_{B,D}$-equivariant bijection $$\Omega_B:{\operatorname{Irr}}_0(B) \longrightarrow {\operatorname{Irr}}_0(B'),$$ such that
- $\Omega_B\left( {\operatorname{Irr}}_0(B) \cap {\operatorname{Irr}}(G\mid \nu ) \right)\subseteq {\operatorname{Irr}}(M\mid \nu)$ for every $\nu\in {\operatorname{Irr}}({\operatorname{Z}}(G))$,
- ${{\operatorname{bl}}}(\chi)={{\operatorname{bl}}}\left( \Omega_B(\chi)\right) ^G$ for every $\chi\in {\operatorname{Irr}}_0(B)$.
For every character $\chi\in{\operatorname{Irr}}_0(B)$ there exists a group $A$ and characters ${\widetilde}\chi$ and ${\widetilde}\chi'$ such that
1. For $Z:=\ker (\chi)\cap {\operatorname{Z}}(G)$ and ${\overline}{G}:=G/Z$ the group $A$ satisfies ${\overline}{G}\lhd A$, ${\operatorname{C}}_A({\overline}{G})={\operatorname{Z}}(A)$ and $A/{\operatorname{Z}}(A)\cong {\operatorname{Aut}}(G)_{\chi}$,
2. ${\widetilde}{\chi}\in {\operatorname{Irr}}(A)$ is an extension of ${\overline}{\chi}$, where ${\overline}{\chi}\in {\operatorname{Irr}}({\overline}{G})$ lifts to $\chi$,
3. for ${\overline}{M}:=MZ/Z$ and ${\overline}{D}:=DZ/Z$ the character ${\widetilde}{\chi}'\in {\operatorname{Irr}}\left( {\overline}{M}{\operatorname{N}}_A({\overline}{D}) \right)$ is an extension of ${\overline}{\chi}'$, where ${\overline}{\chi}'$ lifts to $\chi':=\Omega_B(\chi)\in {\operatorname{Irr}}(M)$,
4. ${\operatorname{bl}}\left( {\operatorname{Res}}^A_J({\widetilde}{\chi})\right) = {\operatorname{bl}}\left( {\operatorname{Res}}^{{\overline}{M}{\operatorname{N}}_A({\overline}{D})}_{{\overline}{M}{\operatorname{N}}_J({\overline}{D})}({\widetilde}{\chi}') \right)^J$ for every $J$ with ${\overline}{G}\leq J\leq A$,
5. ${\operatorname{Irr}}({\operatorname{Res}}^{A}_{{\operatorname{Z}}(A)}( {\widetilde}{\chi}))={\operatorname{Irr}}(
{\operatorname{Res}}^{\overline M{\operatorname{N}}_A(\overline D)}_{{\operatorname{Z}}(A)}( {\widetilde}{\chi}')
)$.
In particular, [@CabSpAMTypeA Proposition 2.2] shows that if the inductive AM condition holds for any $B\in{\operatorname{Bl}}(G)$, then $S$ satisfies the inductive AM condition [@AMSp Definition 7.2] with respect to $\ell$. Furthermore, [@CabSpAMTypeA Theorem 4.1], an alternative version of the above condition was given in the case the radical subgroup is a Sylow $\ell$-subgroup. In other words, a modified version to consider blocks with maximal defect. The aim is to provide an analogous statement which focuses on blocks with a “nice” stabilizer subgroup in the automorphism group of $G$.
Some block theory
-----------------
To prove Theorem \[NewIndAmCond\] below, Dade’s [*ramification group*]{} provides a fundamental tool. It was introduced in [@DadeBlExt] and then reformulated in [@MurBlNorSub] by Murai. We use it to study blocks and to define a bijection required for Definition \[IndAMCond\].
For each block $b$ we denote by ${\lambda}_b$ the associated map defined in [@NavBl §3]. For a group $G$ and $x\in G$ we denote by ${\operatorname{Cl}}_G(x)^+$ the sum of the $G$-conjugacy class containing $x$ in the group algebra ${\mathbb{Z}}[G]$.
Let $X\lhd {\widetilde}X$ and $B\in {\operatorname{Bl}}(X)$, then the group ${\widetilde}X[b]$ is defined by $${\widetilde}X[B]:=\Big\{ x\in {\widetilde}X_B \mid \lambda_{b^{(x)}}\big( {\operatorname{Cl}}_{\langle X,x\rangle }(y)^+\big)\ne 0 \text{ for some } y\in xX\Big\},$$ where $b^{(x)}$ denotes an arbitrary block of $\langle X,x\rangle$ which covers $B$. (This definition of ${\widetilde}X[B]$ is independent of the choice of $b^{(x)}$, see [@MurBlNorSub 3.3].)
In the above situation let $\chi\in{\operatorname{Irr}}(B)$. Then ${\widetilde}X[B]\leq {\widetilde}X_\chi\leq {\widetilde}X_B$ (see [@KosSpCliffTh Lemma 3.2]).
For the proof of Theorem \[NewIndAmCond\] we use the following technical lemma. Recall that for $X\lhd {\widetilde}X$ and $B\in{\operatorname{Bl}}(X)$ we denote by ${\operatorname{Bl}}({\widetilde}X\mid B)$ the set of all blocks of ${\widetilde}X$ covering $B$.
\[CovBlBrCorr\] Let $X\lhd {\widetilde}X$ be finite groups with abelian quotient ${\widetilde}X/X$, and $B\in {\operatorname{Bl}}(X)$ with defect group $D$. Let $M\leq X$ with $M\geq {{\operatorname{N}}}_X(D)$, ${\widetilde}M\leq {\widetilde}X$ with ${\widetilde}M\cap X=M$ and ${\widetilde}M\geq M {\rm N}_{{\widetilde}X}(D)$, $b\in{\operatorname{Bl}}(M)$ with $b^X=B$ and ${\widetilde}b\in{\operatorname{Bl}}({\widetilde}M\mid b)$.
Let ${\widehat}M\leq {\widetilde}M_b$, ${\widehat}X:=X{\widehat}M$ and ${\widetilde}B:={\widetilde}b^{{\widetilde}X}$.
If $\widehat b \in{\operatorname{Bl}}({\widehat}M \mid b)$ is covered by ${\widetilde}b$, $\widehat B=\widehat b^{{\widehat}M X}$ covers $B$ and is covered by ${\widetilde}B$.
If $\widehat B\in{\operatorname{Bl}}({\widehat}X \mid B)$ is covered by ${\widetilde}B$, then ${\widetilde}b$ covers some ${\widehat}b\in{\operatorname{Bl}}({\widehat}M\mid b)$ with ${\widehat}b^{{\widehat}X}={\widehat}B$.
Note that since ${\widetilde}X/X$ is abelian, $\widehat M\lhd {\widetilde}M$. By [@NavBl 9.28], $\widehat B$ is defined, covers $B=b^X$, and is covered by ${\widetilde}b^{{\widetilde}X}={\widetilde}B$.
Via [@NavBl 9.28] we see that $\widehat c\mapsto \widehat c^{\widehat X}$ defines a bijection ${\operatorname{Bl}}({\widehat}M\mid b)\rightarrow {\operatorname{Bl}}({\widehat}X\mid B)$. Hence there exists a block $\widehat b$ with ${\widehat}b^{{\widehat}X}={\widehat}B$. The set ${\operatorname{Bl}}({\widetilde}M\mid {\widehat}b)$ is contained in ${\operatorname{Bl}}({\widetilde}M\mid b)$ and is, via block induction, in bijection with ${\operatorname{Bl}}({\widetilde}X\mid {\widehat}B)$. Clearly ${\widetilde}B\in {\operatorname{Bl}}({\widetilde}X\mid {\widehat}B)$ and hence there exists some ${\widetilde}b'\in {\operatorname{Bl}}({\widetilde}M\mid {\widehat}b)$ with ${\widetilde}b'^{{\widetilde}X}={\widetilde}B$. Since ${\widetilde}b^{{\widetilde}X}={\widetilde}B$, this implies ${\widetilde}b={\widetilde}b'$ and hence ${\widetilde}b$ covers ${\widehat}b$.
Alternative inductive condition
-------------------------------
In this section a criterion for the inductive AM condition adapted to simple groups of Lie type is given. The condition is closely related to the one in [@CabSpAMTypeA Theorem 4.1]. In fact conditions $(i)-(iv)$ are the same, and condition $(v)$ which considers the structure of stabilizers of a block is altered. Naturally, this will limit which blocks these conditions can be considered for.
\[NewIndAmCond\] Let $S$ be a finite non-abelian simple group and $\ell$ a prime dividing $|S|$. Let $G$ be the universal covering group of $S$, $D$ a radical $\ell$-subgroup of $G$ and ${{\mathcal B}}\subseteq {\operatorname{Bl}}(G\mid D)$ a ${\widetilde}G_D$-stable subset with $({\widetilde}GE)_B\leq ({\widetilde}GE)_{{\mathcal B}}$. Assume we have a semi-direct product ${\widetilde}G \rtimes E$, a ${\operatorname{Aut}}(G)_{{{\mathcal B}},D}$-stable subgroup $M$ with ${\operatorname{N}}_G(D)\leq M\lneq G$ and a group ${\widetilde}M\leq {\widetilde}G$ with ${\widetilde}M\geq M{\operatorname{N}}_{{\widetilde}G}(D)$ and $M={\widetilde}M\cap G$ such that the following conditions hold:
- $G=[{\widetilde}G,{\widetilde}G]$ and $E$ is abelian,
- ${\operatorname{C}}_{{\widetilde}G\rtimes E}(G)={\operatorname{Z}}({\widetilde}G)$ and ${\widetilde}GE/{\operatorname{Z}}({\widetilde}G)\cong {\operatorname{Inn}}(G){\operatorname{Aut}}(G)_{D}$ by the natural map,
- any element of ${\operatorname{Irr}}_0({{\mathcal B}})$ extends to its stabiliser in ${\widetilde}G$,
- any element of ${\operatorname{Irr}}_0({{\mathcal B}}')$ extends to its stabiliser in ${\widetilde}M$.
\[thm24ii\] Let ${{\mathcal B}}'\subseteq {\operatorname{Bl}}(M)$ be the set of all Brauer correspondents of the blocks in ${{\mathcal B}}$. For ${\mathcal G}:={\operatorname{Irr}}\left( {\widetilde}G\mid {\operatorname{Irr}}_0({{\mathcal B}}) \right)$ and ${\mathcal M}:={\operatorname{Irr}}\left( {\widetilde}M\mid {\operatorname{Irr}}_0({{\mathcal B}}') \right)$ there exists an ${\operatorname{N}}_{{\widetilde}GE}(D)_{{\mathcal B}}$-equivariant bijection $${\widetilde}{\Omega}:{\mathcal G}\longrightarrow {\mathcal M}$$ with
1. ${\widetilde}{\Omega}\left( {\mathcal G}\cap {\operatorname{Irr}}({\widetilde}G\mid {\widetilde}{\nu}) \right)={\mathcal M}\cap {\operatorname{Irr}}({\widetilde}M\mid {\widetilde}{\nu})$ for all ${\widetilde}{\nu}\in {\operatorname{Irr}}\left( {\operatorname{Z}}({\widetilde}G) \right)$,
2. ${\operatorname{bl}}\left( {\widetilde}{\Omega}({\widetilde}{\chi}) \right)^{{\widetilde}G}={\operatorname{bl}}({\widetilde}{\chi})$ for all ${\widetilde}{\chi}\in {\mathcal G}$, and
3. ${\widetilde}{\Omega}({\widetilde}{\chi}{\widetilde}{\mu})={\widetilde}{\Omega}({\widetilde}{\chi}){\operatorname{Res}}_{{\widetilde}M}^{{\widetilde}G}({\widetilde}{\mu})$ for every ${\widetilde}{\mu}\in {\operatorname{Irr}}({\widetilde}G\mid 1_G)$ and every ${\widetilde}{\chi}\in {\mathcal G}$.
For every ${\widetilde}{\chi}\in {\mathcal G}$ there exists some $\chi_0\in {\operatorname{Irr}}(G\mid {\widetilde}{\chi})$ such that
- $({\widetilde}G\rtimes E)_{\chi_0}={\widetilde}G_{\chi_0}\rtimes E_{\chi_0}$, and
- $\chi_0$ extends to $G\rtimes E_{\chi_0}$.
For every ${\widetilde}{\psi}\in {\mathcal M}$ there exists some $\psi_0\in {\operatorname{Irr}}(M\mid {\widetilde}{\psi})$ such that
- $O=({\widetilde}G\cap O)\rtimes (E\cap O)$ for $O:=G({\widetilde}G\times E)_{D,\psi_0}$, and
- $\psi_0$ extends to $M(G\rtimes E)_{D,\psi_0}$.
\[NewIndAmCondv\] For any ${\widetilde}G$-orbit $B$ in $ {{\mathcal B}}$ the group ${\operatorname{Out}}(G)_B$ is abelian.
Then the inductive AM condition holds for all $\ell$-blocks in ${{\mathcal B}}$
Note that assumption \[NewIndAmCondv\] implies that the stabilizer subgroup in ${\operatorname{Out}}(G)$ of characters of $G$ is stable under ${\widetilde}G$-conjugation. The following statement highlights a situation, based upon the underlying central character, for which this condition of Theorem \[NewIndAmCond\] holds.
The above criterion is tailored to simple groups $S$ of Lie type and there are canonical candidates for the groups $G$, ${\widetilde}G$ and $E$. If $S$ is of Lie type $\mathrm{B}, \mathrm{C}$ or $\mathrm{E}_7$, then condition \[NewIndAmCondv\] holds with the usual choices of the groups.
Let $\nu\in{\operatorname{Irr}}({\operatorname Z}(G))$ with ${\operatorname Z}(G)_\ell\leq\ker(\nu)$. If ${\operatorname{Z}}(G) \rtimes E_\nu$ is abelian, then ${\operatorname{Out}}(G)_b$ is abelian for every ${\widetilde}G$-orbit $b$ in ${\operatorname{Bl}}(G\mid {\operatorname{bl}}(\nu))$. If the character $\nu$ is faithful, condition \[NewIndAmCondv\] holds for every ${\widetilde}G$-orbit $b$ in ${\operatorname{Bl}}(G\mid {\operatorname{bl}}(\nu))$.
As said before, Theorem \[NewIndAmCond\] and [@CabSpAMTypeA Theorem 4.1] coincide in all but the last assumption. Hence the proof of Theorem \[NewIndAmCond\] requires altering the previous proof in all situations where the last assumption is used. We now construct a bijection $\Omega_{{\mathcal B}}:{\operatorname{Irr}}_0({{\mathcal B}})\rightarrow {\operatorname{Irr}}_0({{\mathcal B}}')$. Note that the proof [@CabSpAMTypeA Theorem 4.1] gives in all cases a bijection $\Omega_{{\mathcal B}}:{\operatorname{Irr}}_0({{\mathcal B}})\rightarrow {\operatorname{Irr}}_0({{\mathcal B}}')$ but it is not clear if the other requirements are satisfied.
### A bijection $\Omega_{{\mathcal B}}$ for Definition \[IndAMCond\](ii):
We first choose in ${{\mathcal B}}$ a $({\widetilde}G E)_D$-transversal ${{\mathcal B}}_0$. The idea is to define $\Omega_{{\mathcal B}}$ on a $({\widetilde}G E)_D$-transversal ${\mathcal G}_0$ in ${\operatorname{Irr}}_0({{\mathcal B}})$.
Let $\chi_0\in {\mathcal G}_0$. Note that $({\widetilde}G E)_{\chi_0}={\widetilde}G_{\chi_0} E_{\chi_0}$ by assumption (iii) and (v). Let $\chi\in{\operatorname{Irr}}({\widetilde}G\mid \chi_0)$ and set $\phi:={\widetilde}\Omega(\chi)$, $B:={\operatorname{bl}}(\chi_0)$, ${\widetilde}B:={\operatorname{bl}}(\chi)\in {\operatorname{Bl}}({\widetilde}G\mid B)$ and ${\widetilde}b={\operatorname{bl}}(\phi)$. Then ${\widetilde}b^{{\widetilde}G}={\widetilde}B$ by condition \[NewIndAmCond\]$(ii).2$. By [@NavBl 9.28] the block $b\in{\operatorname{Bl}}(M)$ with $b^G=B$ is covered by ${\widetilde}b$.
Let ${\widehat}G$ to be the group with $G\leq {\widehat}G\leq {\widetilde}G_{B}[B]$ such that ${\widehat}G/G$ is a $\ell'$-Hall subgroup of ${\widetilde}G_B[B]/G$. As every character of $G$ extends to its stabilizer in ${\widetilde}G$, it follows that $\chi_0$ extends to ${\widehat}G\leq {\widetilde}G_{B}[B]\leq {\widetilde}G_{\chi_0}$. Moreover by Clifford theory ${\operatorname{Irr}}({\operatorname{Res}}^{{\widetilde}G}_{{\widehat}G}(\chi))\cap {\operatorname{Irr}}({\widehat}G\mid \chi_0)=\{{\widehat}\chi_0\}$, so set ${\widehat}B:={\operatorname{bl}}({\widehat}\chi_0)$.
According to Lemma \[CovBlBrCorr\] there exists ${\widehat}b\in{\operatorname{Bl}}({\widehat}M \mid b)$ for ${\widehat}M:={\widetilde}M\cap {\widehat}G $ with ${\widehat}b^{{\widehat}G}={\widehat}B$ that is covered by ${\widetilde}b$. Since ${\operatorname{bl}}(\phi)$ covers ${\widehat}b$ there exists some ${\widehat}\phi_0\in {\operatorname{Irr}}({\operatorname{Res}}^{{\widetilde}M}_{{\widehat}M}(\phi))\cap{\operatorname{Irr}}( {\widehat}b)$. As $\chi_0$ extends to ${\widetilde}G$, restriction gives a bijection between ${\operatorname{Irr}}({\widehat}b)$ and ${\operatorname{Irr}}(b)$, see [@KosSpCliffTh Lemma 3.7]. Thus $\phi_0:= {\operatorname{Res}}^{{\widehat}M }_M( {\widehat}\phi_0)\in {\operatorname{Irr}}(b)$ and we set $\Omega_{{\mathcal B}}(\chi_0)=\phi_0$.
We first ensure that $\Omega_{{\mathcal B}}$ satisfies the properties from \[indAmii\]: In order to prove $$\Omega_{{\mathcal B}}\left( {\operatorname{Irr}}_0({{\mathcal B}}) \cap {\operatorname{Irr}}(G\mid \nu ) \right)\subseteq {\operatorname{Irr}}(M\mid \nu)$$ for every $\nu\in {\operatorname{Irr}}({\operatorname{Z}}(G))$ it is sufficient to check that for $\chi_0$ as above $\Omega_{{\mathcal B}}(\chi_0) \in {\operatorname{Irr}}(M\mid \nu)$ where $\nu\in{\operatorname{Irr}}({\operatorname{Res}}^G_{{\operatorname{Z}}(G)} \chi_0)$. Note that ${\widetilde}{\Omega}(\chi)\in{\operatorname{Irr}}({\widetilde}M\mid {\widetilde}\nu)$ for some ${\widetilde}\nu\in {\operatorname{Irr}}({\operatorname{Z}}({\widetilde}G)\mid \nu)$, where $\chi\in {\operatorname{Irr}}({\widetilde}{G}\mid \nu)$. This implies $\Omega_{{\mathcal B}}(\chi_0)=\phi_0 \in {\operatorname{Irr}}(M\mid \nu)$.
To prove the second half of \[indAmii\] it is sufficient to check ${{\operatorname{bl}}}(\chi)={{\operatorname{bl}}}\left( \Omega_{{\mathcal B}}(\chi)\right) ^G$. By the construction of $\Omega_{{\mathcal B}}$, the block ${\operatorname{bl}}(\chi_0)$ is covered by ${\widehat}B$ and ${\operatorname{bl}}(\phi_0)$ is covered by ${\widehat}b$, where $\phi_0=\Omega_{{\mathcal B}}(\chi_0)$ and ${\widehat}b^{{\widehat}G}={\widehat}B$. Let $b\in{\operatorname{Bl}}(M)$ with $b^G=B$. Then by construction, both $b$ and ${\operatorname{bl}}(\phi_0)$ are covered by ${\widehat}b$. By definition of ${\widehat}M$ this implies $b={\operatorname{bl}}(\phi_0)$, since ${\widehat}M\leq M[b]$ as ${\widetilde}G[B]=G{\widetilde}M[b]$.
For the proof of Theorem \[NewIndAmCond\], it remains to show that any $\chi_0\in {\operatorname{Irr}}_0({{\mathcal B}})$ satisfies the condition given by Definition \[IndAMCond\](iii). By assumption \[NewIndAmCond\](v), we can focus on $\chi_0\in {\mathcal G}_0$. Furthermore, by the proof of [@CabSpAMTypeA Theorem 4.1], it is enough to verify the following proposition, which is an analogue of [@CabSpAMTypeA Proposition 4.2].
Let $\chi\in{\mathcal G}_0$ and $\Omega_{{\mathcal B}}$ be the bijection constructed above. Then there exists a group $A$ and characters ${\widetilde}{\chi}$ and ${\widetilde}{\phi}$ such that
for $Z:=\ker(\chi)\cap {\operatorname{Z}}(G)$ and ${\overline}G:=G/Z$, then ${\overline}G\lhd A$, ${\operatorname{C}}_A({\overline}G)={\operatorname{Z}}(A)$ and $A/{\operatorname{Z}}(A)\cong {\operatorname{Aut}}(G)_\chi$,
${\widetilde}{\chi}\in{\operatorname{Irr}}(A)$ is an extension of the character ${\overline}{\chi}\in{\operatorname{Irr}}({\overline}G)$ that lifts to $\chi$,
${\widetilde}{\phi}\in {\operatorname{Irr}}\left({\overline}M{\operatorname{N}}_A({\overline}D)\right)$ is an extension of the character ${\overline}{\phi}\in {\operatorname{Irr}}({\overline}M)$ that lifts to $\phi:=\Omega(\chi)$ where ${\overline}M:=M/Z$ and ${\overline}D:=DZ/Z$,
there exists a group $J$ with ${\overline}G{\operatorname{Z}}(A)\leq J\lhd A$ with abelian quotients $A/J$ and $J/{\overline}G$, such that $${\operatorname{bl}}\left({\operatorname{Res}}^A_{J_2}({\widetilde}{\chi})\right) = {\operatorname{bl}}\left({\operatorname{Res}}^{{\overline}M{\operatorname{N}}_A({\overline}D)}_{{\overline}M{\operatorname{N}}_{J_2}({\overline}D)}({\widetilde}{\phi})\right)^{J_2}
\text{ for every $J_2$ with $G\leq J_2\leq J$}$$
${\operatorname{Irr}}({\operatorname{Res}}^A_{ {\operatorname{Z}}(A)}({\widetilde}{\chi}))={\operatorname{Irr}}(
{\operatorname{Res}}^{\overline M {\operatorname{N}}_A(\overline D)}_{{\operatorname{Z}}(A)}({\widetilde}{\phi}))$.
Let $\chi_1\in {\operatorname{Irr}}({\widetilde}G_{\chi_0}\mid \chi_0)$ and $\phi_1 \in
{\operatorname{Irr}}({\widetilde}M_{\phi_0}\mid \phi_0)$ be the Clifford correspondents to $\chi$ and $\phi$ respectively. They satisfy ${\operatorname{Res}}^{{\widetilde}G_{\chi_0}}_{{\widehat}G}( \chi_1)= {\widehat}\chi_0$ and ${\operatorname{Res}}^{{\widetilde}M_{\phi_0}}_{{\widehat}M}( \phi_1)= {\widehat}\phi_0$ and hence ${\operatorname{bl}}({\operatorname{Res}}^{{\widetilde}G_{\chi_0}}_{{\widehat}G}(\chi_1))=
{\operatorname{bl}}({\operatorname{Res}}^{{\widetilde}M_{\phi_0}}_{{\widehat}M}(\phi_1))^{{\widehat}G}$. In addition ${\widetilde}G[B]=G{\widetilde}M[b]$ by [@MurBlNorSub] and thus ${\widehat}G={\widehat}G\cap G{\widetilde}M[b]=G({\widehat}G\cap {\widetilde}M[b])=G{\widehat}M$. Note that $M=G\cap {\widehat}M$ and $\ell \nmid | {\widehat}G:G|$. Hence $
{\operatorname{bl}}(
{\operatorname{Res}}^{{\widehat}G_{}}_{{{\langleG,x\rangle}}}({\widehat}\chi_0)
)=
{\operatorname{bl}}( {\operatorname{Res}}^{{\widehat}M_{ }}_{{\langleM,x\rangle}} ({\widehat}\phi_0))^{{\langleG,x\rangle}} $ for every $x\in {\widehat}M$, see [@KosSpCliffTh Lemma 2.4].
Let $G\leq J_1\leq {\widetilde}G[B]$, then $J_1=G(J_1\cap {\widetilde}M[b])$. Since $(J_1\cap {\widetilde}M[b])_{\ell '}\leq {\widehat}M$ we see $ {\operatorname{bl}}( {\operatorname{Res}}^{{\widetilde}G_{\chi_0}}_{J_1}(\chi_1)
)={\operatorname{bl}}({\operatorname{Res}}^{{\widetilde}M_{\phi_0}}_{{J_1\cap {\widehat}M}} (\phi_1))^{J_1}$ according to [@KosSpCliffTh Lemma 2.5].
Let $G\leq J_2\leq {\widetilde}G_{\chi_0}$ and $J_1:=J_2\cap {\widetilde}G[B]=J_2[B]$. Then $
{\operatorname{bl}}({\operatorname{Res}}^{{\widetilde}G_{\chi_0}}_{J_1}(\chi_1))=
{\operatorname{bl}}({\operatorname{Res}}^{{\widetilde}M_{\phi_0}}_{J_1\cap {\widetilde}M[b]} (\phi_1))^{J_1}$. Furthermore, as $B$ is $J_2$-stable, it follows that $${\operatorname{bl}}({\operatorname{Res}}^{{\widetilde}G_{\chi_0}}_{J_2}(\chi_1) )={\operatorname{bl}}({\operatorname{Res}}^{{\widetilde}G_{\chi_0}}_{J_1}(\chi_1))^{J_2}.$$ As $H[B]=H\cap {\widetilde}G[B]=G(H\cap {\widetilde}M)[b]$ for each $G\leq H\leq {\widetilde}G$ it follows that $$J_2[B]\cap{\widetilde}M_{\phi_0}=G(J_2\cap {\widetilde}M)[b]\cap {\widetilde}M_{\phi_0}=(G\cap {\widetilde}M_{\phi_0})(J_2\cap {\widetilde}M)[b]=M(J_2\cap {\widetilde}M)[b]=(J_2\cap {\widetilde}M)[b]$$ and so $ {\operatorname{bl}}( {\operatorname{Res}}^{{\widetilde}M_{\phi_0}}_{{J_1\cap {\widetilde}M_{\phi_0}}} (\phi_1)
)$ is covered by ${\operatorname{bl}}({\operatorname{Res}}^{{\widetilde}M_{\phi_0}}_{J_2\cap {\widetilde}M_{\phi_0}} (\phi_1))$. Since ${\operatorname{bl}}( {\operatorname{Res}}^{{\widetilde}G_{\chi_0}}_{J_2}(\chi_1))$ is the unique block of $J_2$ covering $ {\operatorname{bl}}({\operatorname{Res}}^{{\widetilde}M_{\phi_0}}_{J_1\cap {\widetilde}M_{\phi_0}} (\phi_1)
)^{J_1}$ and $ {\operatorname{bl}}(
{\operatorname{Res}}^{{\widetilde}M_{\phi_0}}_{{J_1\cap {\widetilde}M_{\phi_0}}} (\phi_1)
)$ is uniquely covered by ${\operatorname{bl}}({\operatorname{Res}}^{{\widetilde}M_{\phi_0}}_{{J_2\cap {\widetilde}M_{\phi_0}}} (\phi_1))$, we see ${\operatorname{bl}}( {\operatorname{Res}}^{{\widetilde}G_{\chi_0}}_{J_2}(\chi_1))=
{\operatorname{bl}}({\operatorname{Res}}^{{\widetilde}M_{\phi_0}}_{{J_2\cap {\widetilde}M_{\phi_0}}} (\phi_1))^{J_2}
$.
Now combining this equality with the proof of [@CabSpAMTypeA Proposition 4.2] verifies our statement.
For the proof of the statements in \[thm11b\] and \[thm13b\] about the blockwise Alperin weight condition we point out the following property of $\Omega_{{\mathcal B}}$, which is clear from its construction.
\[cor\_AWC\] Assume that in the situation of Theorem \[IndAMCond\]. If $\mathbb B\subset{\operatorname{Irr}}_0(\mathcal B)$ is a union of ${\widetilde}G$-orbits and $\mathbb B'\subset{\operatorname{Irr}}_0(\mathcal B')$ is a union of ${\widetilde}M$-orbits with ${\widetilde}\Omega({\operatorname{Irr}}({\widetilde}G\mid \mathbb B))=
{\operatorname{Irr}}_0( {{\mathcal B}}')\cap {\operatorname{Irr}}({\widetilde}M\mid \mathbb B')$. Then $\Omega_{{\mathcal B}}(\mathbb B)=\mathbb B'$.
Application of inertial blocks
------------------------------
For Puig’s notion of [*inertial blocks*]{} we refer to [@Puig_nilpotent_extensions 1.5]. Here are two propositions showing an instance where the McKay conjecture for a quotient group implies the Alperin-McKay conjecture for a certain block. It will later be used in the proof of Theorem \[thm13a\]. The idea, inspired by [@SpExz §10], is to use Clifford-theoretic properties of the Brauer correspondence for inertial blocks in order to verify that a block satisfies the Alperin-McKay Conjecture. Recall that an [*extension map*]{} $\Lambda$ with respect to $X\lhd Y$ for $M\subseteq {\operatorname{Irr}}(X)$ is a map such that for every $\chi\in M$, $\Lambda(\chi)$ is an extension of $\chi$ to $Y_\chi$. For $L\lhd N$ and $\mathbb L\subset {\operatorname{Irr}}(L)$ recall ${\operatorname{Irr}}(N\mid \mathbb L):=\bigcup _{\chi \in \mathbb L}{\operatorname{Irr}}(N\mid \chi)$.
\[prop75\] Let $L\lhd N$ and $C\in{\operatorname{Bl}}(N)$ with a defect group $D$ satisfying ${\operatorname{C}}_N(D)\leq L$. Let $C_0\in{\operatorname{Bl}}(L)$, such that some ${\widetilde}C_0\in{\operatorname{Bl}}(N_{C_0}\mid C_0)\cap {\operatorname{Bl}}(N_{C_0}\mid D)$ satisfies ${\widetilde}C_0^N=C$. (Note that $C_0$ exists by [@NavBl 9.14].) Let $\mathbb{B}:=\left (\bigcup_{\kappa\in{\operatorname{Irr}}_0(B)} {\operatorname{Irr}}({\operatorname{Res}}^N_L(\kappa)) \right ) \cap {\operatorname{Irr}}(C_0)$. Assume that every $\xi\in \mathbb B$. extends to $N_\xi$ and $N_\xi/L$ satisfies the McKay Conjecture for $\ell$. Assume that ${\widetilde}C_0$ is inertial. Then the Alperin-McKay Conjecture holds for $C$.
Let $C'$ be the Brauer correspondent in ${\operatorname{N}}_N(D)$ of $C$.
According to [@NavBl 9.14] induction defines a bijection between ${\operatorname{Irr}}_0({\widetilde}C_0)$ and ${\operatorname{Irr}}_0(C)$. Let $\Lambda$ be an extension map with respect to $L\lhd N$ for $\left (\bigcup_{\kappa\in{\operatorname{Irr}}_0(B)} {\operatorname{Irr}}({\operatorname{Res}}^N_L(\kappa)) \right ) \cap {\operatorname{Irr}}(C_0)$. The characters in ${\operatorname{Irr}}_0({\widetilde}C_0)$ are of the form ${\operatorname{Ind}}_{N_{\xi}}^{N_{C_0}}(\Lambda(\xi)\eta)$ where $\xi\in\mathbb B$ with $D\leq N_\xi$ and $\eta\in{\operatorname{Irr}}(N_\xi/L)$ with $\ell\nmid \eta(1)$. Since ${\operatorname{C}}_N(D)\leq L$, all characters of this form belong to ${\widetilde}C_0$. Since ${\widetilde}C_0$ is the only block of $N_{C_0}$ that covers $C_0$ we have $\ell \nmid |N_{C_0}:LD|$ according to [@NavBl 9.17].
Then $\{ \kappa \in {\operatorname{Irr}}(N_\xi\mid \xi)\mid \kappa(1)_\ell=\xi(1)_{\ell}\}$ corresponds to $\{ \eta \in {\operatorname{Irr}}(N_\xi/L )\mid \eta (1)_\ell=1\}={\operatorname{Irr}}_{\ell'}(N_\xi/L)$. Let $M:={\operatorname{N}}_{N_{C_0}}(LD)$. Now the McKay conjecture for $N_\xi/L$ implies $|{\operatorname{Irr}}_{\ell'}(N_\xi/L)|= |{\operatorname{Irr}}_{\ell'} (M_\xi)|$. The later set corresponds to $\{\kappa \in {\operatorname{Irr}}(M_\xi \mid \xi)\mid \kappa(1)_\ell=\xi(1)_{\ell}\}$. Let ${\widetilde}C_0'$ be the block of $M$ with $({\widetilde}C_0')^{N_{C_0}}={\widetilde}C_0$. The above implies $|{\operatorname{Irr}}_0({\widetilde}C_0')|=|{\operatorname{Irr}}_0(C)|$.
Recall that by assumption the block $C_1\in {\operatorname{Bl}}(LD\mid C_0)$ is inertial in the sense of [@Puig_nilpotent_extensions 1.5]. Because of $\ell \nmid |N_{C_0}:LD|$ we see that $LD\lhd M$ with $\ell'$-index. Then ${\widetilde}C_0'$ covers $C_1$ and is inertial according to [@Zhou_pp_ext Corrollary]. Accordingly ${\widetilde}C_0'$ is basic Morita equivalent in the sense of [@Puig_book §7] to the corresponding block ${\widetilde}c_0$ of its stabilizer subgroup ${\operatorname{N}}_{M}(D,{c_0})$, where $c_0\in {\operatorname{Bl}}({\operatorname{C}}_M(D))$ that is covered by the Brauer correspondent ${\widehat}c_0'\in {\operatorname{Bl}}({\operatorname{N}}_M(D))$ of ${\widetilde}C_0'$. Note that the stabilizer subgroup from [@Puig_nilpotent_extensions 1.5] is defined in terms of local pointed groups, while here we use the equivalent description of this group in terms of a maximal Brauer pairs, see [@Thevenaz_book 40.13(d)]. A basic Morita equivalence implies $|{\operatorname{Irr}}_0({\widetilde}C_0')|=|{\operatorname{Irr}}_0({\widetilde}c_0)|$. By definition, ${\widetilde}c_0$ is the Fong-Reynolds correspondent of $C'$ with respect to $c_0$, i.e., ${\widetilde}c_0^{{\operatorname{N}}_{N}(D)}=C'$ and $|{\operatorname{Irr}}_0({\widetilde}c_0)|=|{\operatorname{Irr}}_0(C')|$. This implies the statement.
For proving the blockwise Alperin weight conjecture we can prove the following analogue of the above.
Assume that $D$ is abelian in the situation of Proposition \[prop75\].
\[prop29a\] Then $C$ satisfies the blockwise Alperin weight conjecture.
\[prop29b\] If $\mathbb B' \subset \left (\bigcup_{\kappa\in{\operatorname{Irr}}_0(B)} {\operatorname{Irr}}({\operatorname{Res}}^N_L(\kappa)) \right ) \cap {\operatorname{Irr}}(C_0)$ forms an $N_{C_0}$-stable basic set of $C_0$ in the sense of [@CabEnRedGp 14.3] whose corresponding $\ell$-modular decomposition matrix is unitriangular, then $|{\operatorname{Irr}}(N\mid \mathbb B')|=|{\operatorname{IBr}}(C)|$.
Since $D$ is abelian, $D\leq {\operatorname{C}}_N(D)\leq L$, hence $LD=L$ and $C_0$ is inertial. Recall $\ell\nmid |N_{C_0}:L|$ by the proof of Proposition \[prop75\], hence $M:={\operatorname{N}}_{N_{C_0}}(LD)=N_{C_0}$. By the above proof the Fong-Reynolds correspondent ${\widetilde}C_0'\in {\operatorname{Bl}}(M)$ of $C$ covering $C_0$ is inertial, as well. We see that $|{\operatorname{IBr}}(C)|=|{\operatorname{IBr}}({\widetilde}C_0')|$. Let ${\widetilde}c_0'\in {\operatorname{Bl}}({\operatorname{N}}_M(D))$ be the Brauer correspondent of ${\widetilde}C_0$. Now ${\widetilde}C_0'$ and ${\widetilde}c_0'$ are basic Morita equivalent and hence satisfy $|{\operatorname{IBr}}({\widetilde}C_0')|=|{\operatorname{IBr}}({\widetilde}c_0))|$.
Since $\mathbb B'$ is an $N_{C_0}$-stable set and the $\ell$-modular decomposition matrix of ${\operatorname{Irr}}(C_0)$ is unitriangular with respect to $\mathbb B'_0$ there exists a $N_{C_0}$-equivariant bijection $\Upsilon:\mathbb B'\longrightarrow {\operatorname{IBr}}(C_0)$ such that $\Upsilon(\xi)$ has multiplicity one in $\xi^\circ$, where $\xi^\circ $ denotes the restriction of $\xi$ to $\ell$-regular elements. Let $\xi\in\mathbb B'$. Then $N_{\xi}=N_{\Upsilon(\xi)}$ because of the equivariance of $\Upsilon$. Some extension of $\Upsilon(\xi)$ is a constituent of $\Lambda({\widetilde}\xi)^\circ$, since $\Lambda({\widetilde}\xi)^\circ$ has a constituent $\phi$ in ${\operatorname{IBr}}(N_\xi\mid \Upsilon(\xi))$ and ${\operatorname{Res}}^{N_\xi}_L(\phi)$ is a summand of $ {\operatorname{Res}}^{N_\xi}_L(\Lambda({\widetilde}\xi)^\circ)=\xi^\circ$. Let $\Lambda'$ be the $N_{C_0}$-equivariant extension map with respect to $L\lhd N_{C_0}$ for $\mathbb B'$ where for $\xi\in \mathbb B'$, $\Lambda'(\Upsilon(\xi))$ is defined as the unique extension of $\Upsilon(\xi)$ that is a constituent of $\Lambda(\xi)^\circ$. Recall $\ell\nmid |N_{C_0}:L|$. Then via $\Lambda'$ there is a correspondence between ${\operatorname{Irr}}(N\mid \mathbb B')$ and ${\operatorname{IBr}}(C)$.
$d$-Split Levi subgroups in type $\mathrm{A}_{n-1}$ {#dSplitLevi}
===================================================
The conditions presented in Theorem \[NewIndAmCond\] are aimed specifically at groups of Lie type. We will apply it for simple groups $S$ such that $G={\operatorname{SL}}_n(q)$ or ${\operatorname{SU}}_n(q)$ for $q$ a power of a prime $\not=\ell$.
For that purpose it is important to study the Clifford theory arising from $d$-split Levi subgroups and their normalizers. The case of minimal $d$-split Levi subgroups is the subject of [@CabSpCharTypeA §5]. Here we treat the general case.
Notation for type $\mathrm{A}_{n-1}$
------------------------------------
This section is used to fix some of the standard notation that will be used throughout.
Fix a prime $p$ and $q=p^m$ for some positive integer $m$. Let $n\geq 2$. We denote $${{{{\mathbf G}}}}:={\operatorname{SL}}_n({\overline}{{\mathbb{F}}}_p)\leq {\widetilde}{{{{\mathbf G}}}}:={\operatorname{GL}}_n({\overline}{{\mathbb{F}}}_p).$$ Let ${\widetilde{\bf T}}$ the maximal torus of diagonal matrices in ${\widetilde}{{{{\mathbf G}}}}$ and ${\bf T}:={\widetilde{\bf T}}\cap {{{{\mathbf G}}}}$. The corresponding root system $\Gamma$ identifies with the subset $\{ e_i-e_j\mid 1\leq i,j\leq n, i\ne j\}$ of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$, where $(e_i)_{1\leq i\leq n}$ denotes the standard orthonormal basis [@GLS3 1.8.8]. For every root $\alpha\in\Gamma$, let ${\bf x}_{\alpha}(t)$ the matrix such that ${\bf x}_{e_i-e_j}(t)-{\rm Id}_n$ is the elementary matrix with entry $t$ at position $(i,j)$. Set ${\bf n}_{\alpha}:={\bf x}_\alpha(1){\bf x}_{-\alpha}(-1){\bf x}_{\alpha}(1)$. For $1\leq i\leq n-1$, denote ${\bf n}_{e_{i+1}-e_i}\in {\operatorname{N}}_{{{{\mathbf G}}}}({\bf T})$ by ${\bf n}_i$.
Set $\gamma_0: {\widetilde}{{{{\mathbf G}}}}\rightarrow {\widetilde}{{{{\mathbf G}}}}$ to be the automorphism defined by $g\mapsto (g^{tr})^{-1}$, where $g^{tr}$ denotes the transpose matrix of $g$. Let $v_0\in{\widetilde}{{{{\mathbf G}}}}$ be the matrix with the entry $(-1)^{k+1}$ at position $(k,n+1-k)$ and $0$ elsewhere [@GLS3 2.7]. Then $$\gamma:{\widetilde}{{{{\mathbf G}}}}\rightarrow {\widetilde}{{{{\mathbf G}}}}, \text{ } g\mapsto v_0\gamma_0(g)v_0^{-1},$$ is a graph automorphism of ${\widetilde}{{{{\mathbf G}}}}$ with $\gamma({\bf x}_{\alpha}(t))={\bf x}_{\gamma(\alpha)}((-1)^{|\alpha|+1}t)$ where $|e_i-e_j|:=|i-j|$ and $\gamma(e_i-e_j)=e_{n+1-j}-e_{n+1-i}$. Also denote by $$F_q:{\widetilde}{{{{\mathbf G}}}}\rightarrow {\widetilde}{{{{\mathbf G}}}}$$ the raising of matrix entries to the $q$-th power for $q=p^m$ ($m\geq 1$), so that $F_q=F_p^m$. For $\epsilon\in\{\pm 1\}$ set $F=\gamma^{\frac{1-\epsilon}{2}}\circ F_q$, ${\widetilde}{G}:={\widetilde}{{{{\mathbf G}}}}^F={\rm GL}_n({\epsilon}q)$ and $G:={{{{\mathbf G}}}}^F={\operatorname{SL}}_n(\epsilon q)$. As $F_q$ commutes with $v_0$, it follows that ${{{\mathbf G}}}^F$ is ${\widetilde}{{{{\mathbf G}}}}$-conjugate to ${{{\mathbf G}}}^{\gamma_0^{\frac{1-\epsilon}{2}}F_q}$, in particular they are isomorphic.
For each root $\alpha$, it is clear that ${\bf n}_{\alpha}$ is fixed by $F_p$. Moreover, by considering the action of $\gamma_0$ on ${\bf n}_{\alpha}$, it can be seen that $\gamma_0$ also fixes each such element.
Let $V:=\langle {\bf n}_{\alpha}\mid \alpha\in \Gamma\rangle$, $H:={\bf T}\cap V$. Let $e:=2|V|$ and define $$\label{eq:EAuto}
E:=C_{em}\times C_2$$ which acts on ${{\widetilde}{{{\mathbf G}}}}^{F_p^{em}}$ such that the generating element of the first factor acts by $F_p$ and the second factor acts by $\gamma$. Denote by $\widehat{F}$ the element $\gamma\widehat{F}_p^m$ of $E$ inducing the automorphism $F$ on ${{{{\mathbf G}}}}^{F_p^{em}}$. Observe that $F^e=F_p^{em}$ and thus $G\leq {{{{\mathbf G}}}}^{F_p^{em}}$, an $E$-stable subgroup. For any $F$-stable subgroup ${\bf H}\leq {{{{\mathbf G}}}}$ the normalizer in ${{{{\mathbf G}}}}^F\rtimes E$ is well-defined and will be denoted by $({{{{\mathbf G}}}}^F\rtimes E)_{\bf H}$.
Construction of $d$-spit Levi subgroups {#ConstdSplitLevi}
---------------------------------------
The aim is to study how ${\operatorname{Aut}}({{{{\mathbf G}}}}^F)_{{{\mathbf L}}}$ acts on ${\operatorname{Irr}}({\operatorname{N}}_{{{{\mathbf G}}}}({{{\mathbf L}}})^F)$ for $d$-split Levi subgroups ${{{\mathbf L}}}$ of ${{{{\mathbf G}}}}$. The groups are studied by considering the corresponding subgroups of ${{{\mathbf G}}}^{vF}$ for some well chosen element $v\in {{{{\mathbf G}}}}^{F_p}$.
Let ${{{\mathcal V}}}$ be the ${\mathbb{R}}$-span of $\Gamma$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ and fix $1\leq d\leq n$ and $d_0\geq 1$ the integer such that $\Phi_{d_0}(-x)=\pm\Phi_d(x)$, where $\Phi_d(x)$ denotes the $d^{\rm th}$-cyclotomic polynomial. Set $a:=\left \lfloor{\frac{n}{d_0}}\right \rfloor$ and $$v:={\bf n}_1\dots {\bf n}_{d_0-1}{\bf n}_{d_0+1}\dots {\bf n}_{ad_0-1}$$ that is the product ${\bf n}_1\dots {\bf n}_{ad_0}$ where the $ {\bf n}_{id_0}$’s for $1\leq i\leq a$ are removed. Then $w:=\rho(v)\in {\operatorname{N}}_{{{{\mathbf G}}}}({{{\mathbf T}}})/{{{\mathbf T}}}\cong {\mathfrak{S}}_n$ is a product of $a$ disjoint $d_0$-cycles and $v$ acts on $\Gamma$ by $v(e_i-e_j)=e_{w(i)}-e_{w(j)}$. Let $\zeta$ be a primitive $d_0^{\rm th}$-root of unity in ${\mathbb{C}}$ and set ${{{\mathcal V}}}(w,\zeta)$ to be the eigenspace of $w$ on ${{{\mathcal V}}}$ with eigenvalue $\zeta$. Let $\Gamma'$ be a $w$-stable parabolic root subsystem of $\Gamma$ such that $$\label{eq:wStabRoot}
\left( {{{\mathcal V}}}(w,\zeta)\cap \Gamma'^{\perp} \right)^{\perp}\cap \Gamma=\Gamma'.$$ Then the corresponding $d$-split Levi subgroup of ${\widetilde}{{{{\mathbf G}}}}$ is given by $${\widetilde{{{\mathbf L}}}}_{\Gamma'}:={\langle{\widetilde{\bf T}}, {\bf X}_{\alpha}\mid \alpha\in\Gamma'\rangle}={\operatorname{C}}_{{\widetilde}{{{\mathbf G}}}}({\widetilde}{{\mathbf S}}) ,$$ where ${\widetilde}{{{\mathbf S}}}$ is a $vF$-stable $\Phi_d$-torus of ${\widetilde}{{{{\mathbf G}}}}$. In addition, taking ${{{\mathbf S}}}$ and ${{{{\mathbf L}}}}_{\Gamma'}$ to be the kernel of the determinant map restricted to ${\widetilde}{{{\mathbf S}}}$ respectively ${\widetilde{{{\mathbf L}}}}_{\Gamma'}$, yields the corresponding $d$-split Levi subgroup of ${{{{\mathbf G}}}}$.
Identification by partitions
----------------------------
A parabolic root subsystem $\Gamma'\subseteq \Gamma$ yields an equivalence relation on ${\underline}n:=\{1,\dots, n\}$ by saying $i\sim j$ if and only if $e_i-e_j\in \Gamma'\cup\{0\}$ and the equivalence classes provide a partition of ${\underline}n$. Conversely, a partition $\lambda=(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_t)\vdash {\underline}n$ yields a parabolic root subsystem $$\Gamma_{\lambda}:=\{e_i-e_j\mid \{i,j\}\subseteq \lambda_k \text{ for some } k \}.$$
\[wStableBij\] There is a bijection $\gamma$ between the set of $\sigma$-stable parabolic root subsystems of $\Gamma$ and the set of $w$-stable partitions of ${\underline}n$.
\[PartwStableRootSubsys\] The following are equivalent for a $w$-stable partition $\lambda$:
$\Gamma_{\lambda}$ satisfies Equation [(\[eq:wStabRoot\])]{}.
$w$ acts on $\lambda$ with at most one fixed point and all other orbits have length $d_0$.
Assume $\Gamma'$ satisfies Equation [(\[eq:wStabRoot\])]{} and set $\lambda=\gamma(\Gamma')$. Set $X={{{\mathcal V}}}(w,\zeta)\cap (\Gamma')^\perp$ so that $\Gamma'=X^\perp\cap \Gamma$ and $e_i-e_j\in \Gamma'$ if and only if $v_i=v_j$ for all $v\in X$. Let $\lambda_0:=\{i\mid e_i\in X^\perp \}$. If $i\in\lambda_0$, and $e_i-e_j\in \Gamma'$, then $j\in \lambda_0$ and thus $\lambda_0\in\lambda$ and is fixed by $w$. Take $\mu\in\lambda\setminus\{\lambda_0\}$ and $i\in \lambda_k$. If $j=w^k(i)\in\mu$, then $v_i=v_j=\zeta^{-k}v_i$ for all $v\in X$ and so $i\in \lambda_0$, which is a contradiction. This shows that all $w$-orbits on $\lambda\setminus\{\lambda_0\}$ have length $d_0$.
In the converse direction, assume that $w$ acts on $\lambda$ with at most one fixed point and all other orbits have length $d_0$. Let $e_i-e_j\in\left( {{{\mathcal V}}}(w,\zeta)\cap \Gamma_{\lambda}^{\perp} \right)^{\perp}\setminus\{\Gamma_{\lambda}\}$. Then there must exist a root of the form $e_i-e_{w^k\cdot j}\in \Gamma_{\lambda}$, with $k\ne 0$. Thus $v_j=v_i=v_{w^k\cdot j}$, which implies $\{i,j\}$ is contained within the fixed set of $\lambda$ giving a contradiction. Thus $\Gamma_\lambda$ satisfies Equation (\[eq:wStabRoot\]).
Some notation associated to partitions {#NotPart}
--------------------------------------
Assume $\lambda\vdash \underline{n}$ satisfies condition (ii) of Proposition \[PartwStableRootSubsys\]. If $\lambda$ has a set fixed by $w$, then we denote this set by $\lambda_0$ and $\lambda':=\lambda\setminus\{\lambda_0\}$, otherwise $\lambda'$ coincides with $\lambda$. Let ${\overline}{\mu}$ denote the $w$-orbit of $\mu\in\lambda'$ and ${\overline}{\lambda'}$ the set of all $w$-orbits. As all $w$-orbits on $\lambda'$ have length $d_0$, for each $f\in \{1,\dots,n\}$ define $\lambda_f:=\{ \mu\in\lambda'\mid |\mu|=f\}$ and $$t_f:=\frac{|\lambda_f|}{d_0},$$ so that $t:=\sum_{f=1}^n t_f$ equals the number of $w$-orbits on $\lambda'$. In addition, for each $w$-orbit ${\overline}{\mu}\in{\overline}{\lambda'}$ define $$I_{{\overline}{\mu}}:=\{ i \mid \text{ there exists } \mu'\in{\overline}{\mu} \text{ such that } i\in\mu'\}.$$
Take $\mu,\mu'\in\lambda'$ such that $|\mu|=|\mu'|=f$ but ${\overline}{\mu}\ne {\overline}{\mu}'$. Set $I_{{\overline}{\mu}}=\{I_{{\overline}{\mu}}(1),\dots,I_{{\overline}{\mu}}(d_0f)\}$ with $I_{{\overline}{\mu}}(i)< I_{{\overline}{\mu}}(i')$ if and only if $i<i'$. This labelling yields an order preserving bijection $$\label{eq:BijMu}
\begin{array}{crcl}
\tau_{{\overline}{\mu},{\overline}{\mu}'}: & I_{{\overline}{\mu}} & \longrightarrow & I_{{\overline}{\mu}'}\\
& I_{{\overline}{\mu}}(i) & \longmapsto & I_{{\overline}{\mu}'}(i).\\
\end{array}$$ Furthermore, up to conjugation of $\lambda$ by an element of the centraliser in the symmetric group $\mathfrak{S}_n$ of $w$, it can be assumed that $\tau_{{\overline}{\mu},{\overline}{\mu}'}(w^k(\mu))\in {\overline}{\mu}'$.
The structure of $d$-split Levi subgroups
-----------------------------------------
Let $\lambda\vdash {\underline}n$ be a partition satisfying condition (ii) of Proposition \[PartwStableRootSubsys\]. We will make use of the notation from Section \[NotPart\]. For each $\mu\in \lambda$ define $${\widetilde{\bf T}}_{\mu}:=\{ {\operatorname{diag}}(z_1,\dots,z_n)\in {\widetilde{\bf T}}\mid z_j=1 \text{ if } j\not\in \mu\} \text{ and }
{\widetilde{{{\mathbf L}}}}_{\mu}:={\langle {\widetilde{\bf T}}_{\mu}, X_{\alpha}\mid \alpha\in \Gamma_{\mu}\rangle}.$$ Then $${\widetilde{{{\mathbf L}}}}_\lambda:={\langle {\widetilde{\bf T}}, {\bf X}_{\alpha}\mid \alpha\in\Gamma_{\lambda}\rangle}={\widetilde{{{\mathbf L}}}}_{\lambda_0}\times \prod_{\mu\in\lambda'} {\widetilde{{{\mathbf L}}}}_{\mu}\cong {\operatorname{GL}}_{|\lambda_0|}({\overline}{{\mathbb{F}}}_p)\times \prod_{f=1}^n {\operatorname{GL}}_{f}({\overline}{{\mathbb{F}}}_p)^{d_0t_f}.$$ Furthermore, by construction $F_p({\widetilde{{{\mathbf L}}}}_{\mu})={\widetilde{{{\mathbf L}}}}_{\mu}$ and $v({\widetilde{{{\mathbf L}}}}_{\mu})={\widetilde{{{\mathbf L}}}}_{w(\mu)}$. Therefore $${\widetilde}{L}_\lambda:={\widetilde{{{\mathbf L}}}}_\lambda^{vF_q}\cong {\operatorname{GL}}_{|\lambda_0|}(\epsilon q)\times \prod_{f=1}^n {\operatorname{GL}}_{f}(\epsilon q^{d_0})^{t_f}.$$ In addition ${{{\mathbf L}}}_{\lambda}$ and $L_{\lambda}$ are the kernel of the determinant maps on ${\widetilde{{{\mathbf L}}}}_{\lambda}$ and ${\widetilde}{L}_{\lambda}$ respectively.
The structure of $N_{\lambda}/L_{\lambda}$
------------------------------------------
Given ${{{{\mathbf G}}}}$ and an $F$-stable Levi subgroup ${{{\mathbf L}}}$, let $W_{{{{\mathbf G}}}}$ and $W_{{{\mathbf L}}}$ denote the Weyl groups of ${{{{\mathbf G}}}}$ and ${{{\mathbf L}}}$ respectively. In addition, set ${\bf N}:={\operatorname{N}}_{{{{\mathbf G}}}}({{{\mathbf L}}})$ so that $N={\bf N}^{vF}$. The relative Weyl group of ${{{\mathbf L}}}$ in ${{{{\mathbf G}}}}$ (see [@BMGenHC Section 4]) is defined to be $$W_{{{{\mathbf G}}}}({{{\mathbf L}}}):={\bf N}/{{{\mathbf L}}}\cong {\operatorname{N}}_{W_{{{{\mathbf G}}}}}(W_{{{\mathbf L}}})/W_{{{\mathbf L}}}.$$ If ${{{\mathbf L}}}$ is $vF$-stable, it follows that ${\bf N}$ is also $vF$-stable, and therefore $vF$ induces an automorphism $\sigma$ on $W_{{{{\mathbf G}}}}({{{\mathbf L}}})$. Furthermore, by the Lang-Steinberg Theorem $$N/L\cong {\operatorname{C}}_{W_{{{{\mathbf G}}}}({{{\mathbf L}}})}(\sigma).$$
For a partition $\lambda\vdash {\underline}n$ set $W_{\lambda}=\cap_{\mu\in\lambda} W_\mu$ the intersection of the setwise stabilisers of $\mu\in\lambda$ in $W\cong {\mathfrak{S}}_n$. If $\lambda$ is a partition satisfying condition (ii) of Proposition \[PartwStableRootSubsys\] and ${{{\mathbf L}}}:={{{\mathbf L}}}_{\lambda}$, then $$N/L\cong \{x\in {\mathfrak{S}}_n\mid \lambda^x=\lambda \text{ and } w^xw^{-1}\in W_{\lambda}\}/W_{\lambda}.$$ If $x\in {\mathfrak{S}}_n$ fixes $\lambda$ and $w^xw^{-1}\in W_{\lambda}$, then $w^xw^{-1}$ fixes $\lambda_0$ and so $(\lambda_0)^x$ is fixed by $w$. Therefore $(\lambda_0)^x=\lambda_0$. Furthermore, as $|\mu^x|=|\mu|$ for all $\mu\in \lambda'$, it follows that $${\operatorname{C}}_{W_{{{{{\mathbf G}}}}}({{{\mathbf L}}}_{\lambda})}(w)=\prod\limits_{e=1}^n {\operatorname{C}}_{{\rm Sym}(\lambda_f)}(w),$$ where we recall that $\lambda_f:=\{\mu\in\lambda\mid |\mu|=f\}$.
\[RelWeylGpPart\] Let $\lambda$ be a $w$-stable partition of ${\underline}n$ satisfying condition (ii) of Proposition \[PartwStableRootSubsys\]. Then for $L={{{\mathbf L}}}_\lambda^{vF}$ and $N={\operatorname{N}}_{{{{\mathbf G}}}}({{{\mathbf L}}}_\lambda)^{vF}$, $$N/L \cong \prod\limits_{e=1}^n C_{d_0}\wr {\mathfrak{S}}_{t_f}.$$
The structure of $N_{\lambda}$
------------------------------
Let $\lambda\vdash {\underline}n$ satisfying Proposition \[PartwStableRootSubsys\] and recall that $\lambda_f=\{ \mu\in\lambda' \mid |\mu|=f\}$ and set ${\overline}{\lambda}_f$ to be the set of $w$-orbits on $\lambda_f$, so $t_f=|{\overline}{\lambda}_f|$. Then for ${\rm Sym}({\overline}{\lambda}')_{\{ {\overline}{\lambda}_1,\dots,{\overline}{\lambda}_n\} }$, the intersection of the setwise stabilisers ${\rm Sym}({\overline}{\lambda}')_{{\overline}{\lambda}_f}$, Proposition \[RelWeylGpPart\] shows that $$N/L\cong (C_{d_0})^t \rtimes {\rm Sym}({\overline}{\lambda}')_{\{ {\overline}{\lambda}_1,\dots,{\overline}{\lambda}_n\} }.$$ We construct subgroups $V_0,S\leq V\cap N$ such that $\rho(V_0)=C_{d_0}^t$ and $\rho(S)={\rm Sym}({\overline}{\lambda}')_{\{ {\overline}{\lambda}_1,\dots,{\overline}{\lambda}_n\} }$.
### The construction of $V_0$
Let ${\overline}{\mu}\in{\overline}{\lambda}'$ and recall the elements ${\bf n}_i$ as defined in Section \[ConstdSplitLevi\]. Then define $$v_{{\overline}{\mu}}:=\prod\limits_{i\in I_{{\overline}{\mu}}\setminus d{\mathbb{Z}}}{\bf n}_i,$$ where the product is taken with respect to the natural ordering “$\leq$ ” on ${\mathbb{N}}$. Then by construction $[v_{{\overline}{\mu}},v]=1$ and the two elements $v_{{\overline}{\mu}}$ and $v$ induce the same action on ${\widetilde}{ L}_{{\overline}{\mu}}$ while $[v_{{\overline}{\mu}},{\widetilde}{L}_{{\overline}{\mu}'}]=1$ whenever ${\overline}{\mu}'\ne {\overline}{\mu}$. Set $$V_f:={\langle v_{{\overline}{\mu}}\mid |\mu|=f\rangle}
\text{ and }
V_0:={\langle v_{{\overline}{\mu}}\mid {\overline}{\mu}\in{\overline}{\lambda'}\rangle}.$$ Then $\rho(V_f)=C_{d_0}^{t_f}$ and $\rho(V_0)=C_{d_0}^t$.
### The construction of $S$
Let ${\overline}{\mu}\ne {\overline}{\mu}'\in{\overline}{\lambda}_f$ and $\tau_{{\overline}{\mu},{\overline}{\mu}'}$ the bijection between $I_{{\overline}{\mu}}$ and $I_{{\overline}{\mu}'}$ from Equation (\[eq:BijMu\]). Define an element $$s_{{\overline}{\mu},{\overline}{\mu}'}:=\prod\limits_{i\in I_{{\overline}{\mu}}} {\bf n}_{e_i-e_{\tau_{{\overline}{\mu},{\overline}{\mu}'}(i)}}(1).$$ Then $s_{{\overline}{\mu},{\overline}{\mu}'}$ acts on ${\widetilde}{L}$ by permuting ${\widetilde}{L}_{{\overline}{\mu}}$ and ${\widetilde}{L}_{{\overline}{\mu}'}$, while $[s_{{\overline}{\mu},{\overline}{\mu}'},{\widetilde}{L}_{{\overline}{\mu}''}]=1$ for every $\mu''\not\in {\overline}{\mu}$ or ${\overline}{\mu}'$. Let $$S_f:={\langle s_{{\overline}{\mu},{\overline}{\mu}'}\mid {\overline}{\mu},{\overline}{\mu}'\in{\overline}{\lambda}_f\rangle}
\text{ and }
S={\langleS_f\mid 1\leq f\leq n\rangle}.$$ Then by construction $\rho(S_f)={\rm Sym}({\overline}{\lambda}_f)$, and $\rho(S)={\rm Sym}({\overline}{\lambda}')_{\{ {\overline}{\lambda}_1,\dots,{\overline}{\lambda}_n\} }$. Furthermore, $v_{{\overline}{\mu}}^{s_{{\overline}{\mu},{\overline}{\mu}'}}=v_{{\overline}{\mu}'}$ so $S$ is in the normalizer of $V_0$ and $[s_{{\overline}{\mu},{\overline}{\mu}'},v]=1$.
\[StructN\] Let $\lambda$ be a $w$-stable partition satisfying condition (ii) of Proposition \[PartwStableRootSubsys\]. Let $L={{{\mathbf L}}}_\lambda^{vF}$ and $N={\operatorname{N}}_{{{{\mathbf G}}}^{vF}}({{{\mathbf L}}}_\lambda)$. Then there exist subgroups $V_0,S\leq V\cap N$ such that $$N=LV_0S$$ where $\rho(V_0)=C_{d_0}^t$ and $\rho(S)=\rho(S)={\rm Sym}({\overline}{\lambda}')_{\{ {\overline}{\lambda}_1,\dots,{\overline}{\lambda}_n\} }$.
### Constructing an extension map with respect to $L\cap S\lhd S$
Let $f\in\{1,\dots, n\}$ and write ${\overline}{\lambda}_f=\{{\overline}{\mu}_1,\dots,{\overline}{\mu}_{t_f}\}$. Set $V^{(f)}:={\langle {\bf n}_{e_i-e_j}(1)\mid 1\leq i,j\leq t_f\rangle} \leq {\operatorname{SL}}_{t_f}(p)$. There is a natural isomorphism from $S_f$ to $V^{(f)}$ given by $s_{{\overline}{\mu}_i,{\overline}{\mu}_j}\mapsto {\bf n}_{e_i-e_j}(1)$. Moreover, for $T_f$ the diagonal maximal torus of ${\operatorname{SL}}_{t_f}(p)$, it follows that the image of $L\cap S_f$ is $T_f\cap V^{(f)}$.
\[ExtK0ToS\] There exists an extension map with respect to $L\cap S\lhd S$.
This follows from observing that $$L\cap S={\langles_{{\overline}{\mu},{\overline}{\mu}'}^2\mid {\overline}{\mu},{\overline}{\mu}'\in {\overline}{\lambda}_f \text{ for some }f\rangle}=\prod\limits_{f=1}^n L\cap S_f$$ and that there is an extension map with respect to $T_f\cap V^{(f)}\lhd V^{(f)}$ by [@CabSpCharTypeA Proposition 5.5].
Characters of $d$-split Levi subgroups
--------------------------------------
Define $L_0:=[L,L]=[{\widetilde}{L},{\widetilde}{L}]$, $L_f:=[{\widetilde}{L}_f,{\widetilde}{L}_f]$ and $L_{{\overline}{\mu}}:=[{\widetilde}{L}_{{\overline}{\mu}},{\widetilde}{L}_{{\overline}{\mu}}]$ so that $$L_0=L_{\lambda_0}\times \prod_{f=1}^{n} L_f=L_{\lambda_0}\times \prod_{f=1}^{n} \left( \prod_{{\overline}{\mu}\in{\overline}{\lambda}_f} L_{{\overline}{\mu}}\right) \cong {\operatorname{SL}}_{|\lambda_0|}(\epsilon q)\times \prod_{f=1}^n {\operatorname{SL}}_{f}(\epsilon q^{d_0})^{t_f}.$$
\[CliffCorrRest\] Let $\chi\in {\operatorname{Irr}}(L)$ and $\chi_0\in {\operatorname{Irr}}({\operatorname{Res}}^L_{L_0}(\chi))$, then the Clifford correspondent of $\chi$ over $\chi_0$ restricts irreducibly to $\chi_0$.
Write $$\chi_0=\chi_{\lambda_0}\times \prod_{{\overline}{\mu}\in{\overline}{\lambda}'} \chi_{{\overline}{\mu}},$$ with $\chi_{{\overline}{\mu}}\in {\operatorname{Irr}}(L_{{\overline}{\mu}})$ and $\chi_{\lambda_0}\in {\operatorname{Irr}}(L_{\lambda_0})$. Then $${\widetilde}{L}_{\chi_0}=({\widetilde}{L}_{\lambda_0})_{\chi_{\lambda_0}}\times \prod_{{\overline}{\mu}\in{\overline}{\lambda}'} ({\widetilde}{L}_{{\overline}{\mu}})_{\chi_{{\overline}{\mu}}}.$$ Each factor ${\widetilde}{L}_{{\overline}{\mu}}/L_{{\overline}{\mu}}$ and ${\widetilde}{L}_{\lambda_0}/L_{\lambda_0}$ is cyclic, therefore $\chi_0$ extends from $L_0$ to ${\widetilde}{L}_{\chi_0}$ and hence to $L_{\chi_0}$. Moreover as $L_{\chi_0}/L_0$ is abelian, it follows from Gallagher’s Theorem that ${\operatorname{Res}}^{{\widetilde}L_\chi}_{L_0}({\widetilde}{\chi})=\chi_0$.
\[InertiaL\] Let $\chi\in {\operatorname{Irr}}(L)$ and $\chi_0\in {\operatorname{Irr}}({\operatorname{Res}}^L_{L_0}(\chi))$. Then ${\widetilde}{L}_{\chi}=L{\widetilde}{L}_{\chi_0}$.
As ${\widetilde}{L}_\chi\leq L{\widetilde}{L}_{\chi_0}$, it suffices to show that $\chi$ extends to $L{\widetilde}{L}_{\chi_0}$. Let $\psi\in {\operatorname{Irr}}(L{\widetilde}{L}_{\chi_0}\mid \chi)$. Then $\chi_0\in {\operatorname{Irr}}({\operatorname{Res}}^{L{\widetilde}{L}_{\chi_0}}_{L_0}(\psi))$ and hence there exists a unique ${\widetilde}{\psi}\in {\operatorname{Irr}}({\widetilde}{L}_{\chi_0}\mid \chi_0)$ such that ${\operatorname{Ind}}_{{\widetilde}{L}_{\chi_0}}^{L{\widetilde}{L}_{\chi_0}}({\widetilde}{\psi})=\psi$. However, ${\widetilde}{\psi}$ restricts to an irreducible character of $L_{\chi_0}$ as ${\widetilde}{\psi}$ restricts to $\chi_0$ by Lemma \[CliffCorrRest\]. Therefore ${\operatorname{Ind}}_{L_{\chi_0}}^L({\operatorname{Res}}_{L_{\chi_0}}^{{\widetilde}{L}_{\chi_0}}({\widetilde}{\psi}))$ is irreducible and thus ${\operatorname{Res}}_{L}^{L{\widetilde}{L}_{\chi_0}}(\psi)=\chi$.
Let us recall the fundamental property of stabilizers of characters in type $\mathrm{A}$.
\[StarCondSL\] Let $E$ be defined as in Equation (\[eq:EAuto\]). If $\psi\in {\operatorname{Irr}}({\widetilde}{\bf G}^F)$, then there exists a $\psi_0\in {\operatorname{Irr}}({\bf G}^F\mid \psi)$ such that $$({\widetilde}{\bf G}^F\rtimes E)_{\psi_0}=({\widetilde}{\bf G}^F)_{\psi_0}\rtimes E_{\psi_0}$$ and $\psi_0$ extends to a character of ${\bf G}^F\rtimes E_{\psi_0}$.
We apply this result to the Levi subgroups $L_{{\overline}{\mu}}$. That is, set $\mathbb{T}_{{\overline}{\mu}}\subseteq {\operatorname{Irr}}(L_{{\overline}{\mu}})$ to be an $(E\langle v_{{\overline}{\mu}}\rangle )$-transversal on ${\operatorname{Irr}}(L_{{\overline}{\mu}})$ satisfying Theorem \[StarCondSL\] with respect to $(L_{{\overline}{\mu}}$ and $({\widetilde}{L}_{{\overline}{\mu}}$. Furthermore, each $\mathbb{T}_{{\overline}{\mu}}$ is chosen so that if $\theta\in \mathbb{T}_{{\overline}{\mu}}$ and $s_{{\overline}{\mu},{\overline}{\mu}'}\in S_f$ then $\theta^{s_{{\overline}{\mu},{\overline}{\mu}'}}\in \mathbb{T}_{{\overline}{\mu}'}$. Then we can define $\mathbb{T}\subseteq {\operatorname{Irr}}(L_0)$ by $$\label{eq:CharTrans}
\mathbb{T}:=\{ \chi_{\lambda_0}\times \prod_{{\overline}{\mu}\in{\overline}{\lambda}'} \chi_{{\overline}{\mu}} \mid \chi_{\lambda_0}\in \mathbb{T}_{\lambda_0} \text{ and } \chi_{{\overline}{\mu}}\in \mathbb{T}_{{\overline}{\mu}} \}.$$
\[InterialNChi0\] Let $\chi_0\in \mathbb{T}\subset {\operatorname{Irr}}(L_0)$ from Equation (\[eq:CharTrans\]) and $V_0$, $S$ as in Proposition \[StructN\]. Then $$({\widetilde}{L}V_0ES)_{\chi_0}={\widetilde}{L}_{\chi_0}(V_0E)_{\chi_0}S_{\chi_0}.$$ In particular, for ${\widehat}N:=NE$ it follows that $${\widetilde}{N}_{\chi_0}={\widetilde}{L}_{\chi_0}V_{0,\chi_0}S_{\chi_0} \text{ , } N_{\chi_0}=L_{\chi_0} V_{0,\chi_0}S_{\chi_0} \text{ and } {\widehat}{N}_{\chi_0}=L_{\chi_0} (V_{0}E)_{\chi_0}S_{\chi_0}.$$
Take $x\in {\widetilde}{L}V_0E$ and $s\in S$. If $xs\in N_{\chi_0}$ and ${\overline}{\mu}\in{\overline}{\lambda}'$, then $\chi_{{\overline}{\mu}}^x$ and $\chi_{\rho(s)({\overline}{\mu})}$ give the same character on $L_{\rho(s)({\overline}{\mu})}$. Thus by the choice of characters in $\mathbb{T}$, it follows that $\chi_{{\overline}{\mu}}^{s}=\chi_{\rho(s)({\overline}{\mu})}$. Therefore $s\in S_{\chi_0}$ and $$({\widetilde}{L}V_0ES)_{\chi_0}=({\widetilde}{L}V_0E)_{\chi_0}S_{\chi_0}.$$ Furthermore, the choice of $\mathbb{T}$ implies that $({\widetilde}{L}V_0E)_{\chi_0}={\widetilde}{L}_{\chi_0}(V_0E)_{\chi_0}$.
\[IntCond\] Let $\chi\in {\operatorname{Irr}}(L)$. Then ${\widetilde}{N}_{\chi}={\widetilde}{L}_{\chi}N_{\chi}$. Moreover, there exists $\mathcal{T}$ an ${\widetilde}{L}$-transversal on ${\operatorname{Irr}}(L)$ such that $$({\widetilde}{N}{\widehat}{N})_{\chi}={\widetilde}{N}_{\chi}{\widehat}{N}_{\chi}$$ for each $\chi\in \mathcal{T}$.
It suffices to prove these properties hold for an ${\widetilde}{L}{\widehat}{N}$-transversal of ${\operatorname{Irr}}(L)$. In particular, it can be assumed that there exists a $\chi_0\in {\operatorname{Irr}}({\operatorname{Res}}_{L_0}^L(\chi))\cap \mathbb{T}$. Let ${\widetilde}{\chi}_0\in {\operatorname{Irr}}(L_{\chi_0}\mid \chi_0)$ be the Clifford correspondent inducing to $\chi$. Hence by Lemma \[InterialNChi0\] and Lemma \[InertiaL\] $${\widetilde}{N}_{\chi}=L({\widetilde}{N}_{\chi_0})_{{\widetilde}{\chi}_0}=L({\widetilde}{L}_{\chi_0}V_{0,\chi_0}S_{\chi_0})_{{\widetilde}{\chi}_0}={\widetilde}{L}_{\chi}(V_{0,\chi_0}S_{\chi_0})_{{\widetilde}{\chi}_0}={\widetilde}{L}_{\chi}N_{\chi}.$$ This proves the first statement. Similarly by Lemma \[InterialNChi0\] $$({\widetilde}{N}_{\chi_0})_{{\widetilde}{\chi}_0}({\widehat}{N}_{\chi_0})_{{\widetilde}{\chi}_0}= \left( {\widetilde}{L}_{\chi_0}(V_{0,\chi_0}S_{\chi_0})_{{\widetilde}{\chi}_0} \right)\left( L_{\chi_0}({\widehat}{V}_{0,\chi_0}S_{\chi_0})_{{\widetilde}{\chi}_0} \right)={\widetilde}{L}_{\chi_0}\left( {\widehat}{V}_{0,\chi_0}S_{\chi_0} \right)_{{\widetilde}{\chi}_0}= \left( ({\widetilde}{N}{\widehat}{N})_{\chi_0}\right)_{{\widetilde}{\chi}_0}.$$ Thus the second statement follows.
The Clifford theory for $d$-split Levi subgroups {#CliffThdSpLevi}
================================================
In [@CabSpIMTypeC] the authors provide a criterion to check property $2.2(iv)$ of [@SpIMDefChar] which arises in the inductive McKay condition. In this section we consider the generalisation of this criterion to the case of a $d$-split Levi subgroup, which will be used to prove Theorem \[StarConddSpLevi\].
Clifford-theoretic tools
------------------------
There are two technical statements that will be applied in our context but have appeared in the context of the McKay Conjecture.
\[MainThmReq\] Let $d$ be a positive integer and ${\widetilde{{{\mathbf L}}}}$ a $vF$-stable $d$-split Levi subgroup of ${\widetilde}{{{{\mathbf G}}}}$. Assume the groups $N:={\operatorname{N}}_{{{{{\mathbf G}}}}}({{{\mathbf L}}})^{vF}$, ${\widetilde}{N}:={\operatorname{N}}_{{\widetilde}{{{{\mathbf G}}}}}({{{\mathbf L}}})^{vF}$ and ${\widehat}{N}:=({\operatorname{C}}_{{{{{\mathbf G}}}}^{F_0^{em}}E}(v{\widehat}{F}))_{{{\mathbf L}}}$ satisfy the following conditions:
There exists some set $\mathcal{T}\subseteq {\operatorname{Irr}}(L)$, such that
1. ${\widetilde}{N}_{\xi}={\widetilde}{L}_{\xi}N_{\xi}$ for every $\xi\in\mathcal{T}$,
2. $({\widetilde}{N}{\widehat}{N})_{{\operatorname{Ind}}_L^N(\xi)}={\widetilde}{N}_{{\operatorname{Ind}}_L^N(\xi)}{\widehat}{N}_{{\operatorname{Ind}}_L^N(\xi)}$ for every $\xi\in \mathcal{T}$, and
3. $\mathcal{T}$ contains some ${\widehat}N$-stable ${\widetilde}{L}$-transversal of ${\operatorname{Irr}}(L)$.
There exists an extension map $\Lambda$ with respect to $L\lhd N$ such that
1. $\Lambda$ is ${\widehat}{N}$-equivariant.
2. Every character $\xi\in \mathcal{T}$ has an extension ${\widehat}{\xi}\in{\operatorname{Irr}}({\widehat}{N}_{\xi})$ with ${\operatorname{Res}}_{{\operatorname{N}}_{\xi}}^{{\widehat}{N}_{\xi}}({\widehat}{\xi})=\Lambda(\xi)$ and $v{\widehat}{F}\in \ker({\widehat}{\xi})$.
Let $W_d:=N/L$ and ${\widehat}{W}_d:={\widehat}{N}/L$. For $\xi \in {\operatorname{Irr}}(L)$ and ${\widetilde}{\xi}\in {\operatorname{Irr}}({\widetilde}{L}_\xi\mid \xi)$ let $W_{{\widetilde}{\xi}}:=N_{{\widetilde}{\xi}}/L$, $W_\xi:=N_{\xi}/L$, $K:={\operatorname{N}}_{W_d}(W_\xi,W_{{\widetilde}{\xi}})$ and ${\widehat}{K}:={\operatorname{N}}_{{\widehat}{W}_d}(W_\xi,W_{{\widetilde}{\xi}})$. Then there exists for every $\eta_0\in{\operatorname{Irr}}(W_{{\widetilde}{\xi}})$ some $\eta\in {\operatorname{Irr}}(W_{\xi}\mid \eta_0)$ such that
1. $\eta$ is ${\widehat}{K}_{\eta_0}$-invariant.
2. If $D$ is non-cyclic, $\eta$ extends to some ${\widehat}{\eta}\in {\operatorname{Irr}}({\widehat}{K}_{\eta})$ with $v{\widehat}{F}\in \ker ({\widehat}{\eta})$.
Then:
For every $\chi\in {\operatorname{Irr}}({\widetilde}{N})$ there exists some $\chi_0\in {\operatorname{Irr}}(N\mid \chi)$ such that
1. $({\widetilde}{N}{\widehat}{N})_{\chi_0}={\widetilde}{N}_{\chi_0}{\widehat}{N}_{\chi_0}$, and
2. $\chi_0$ has an extension ${\widetilde}{\chi}_0$ to ${\widehat}{N}_{\chi_0}$ with $v{\widehat}{F}\in \ker ({\widetilde}{\chi})$.
Moreover, there exists some ${\widehat}N$-equivariant extension map with respect to ${\widetilde}L \lhd {\widetilde}N$ that is compatible with ${\operatorname{Irr}}({\widehat}N/N)$.
The proof of part (a) is the same as the proof of [@CabSpIMTypeC Theorem 4.3]. Part (b) uses the assumption that $\mathcal T$ is ${\widehat}N$-stable. The proof follows from the considerations as in the proof of Theorem 4.2 of [@CS_typeBE].
The following result helps to construct extensions in our context. Recall that for a finite group $X$ and $\xi\in{\operatorname{Irr}}(X)$ there is an associated subgroup ${\operatorname{Z}}(\xi):=\{ z\in X\mid |\xi(z)|=\xi(1) \}$, see [@IsaChTh 2.26].
\[prop\_tool\] Let $K\lhd M$, $K_0\lhd M$ with $K_0\leq K$ and $M$ a finite group. Let $\xi\in{\operatorname{Irr}}(K)$ a character with $\xi_0:= {\operatorname{Res}}^K_{K_0}(\xi)\in{\operatorname{Irr}}(K_0)$. Assume
\[prop32i\] $K={\operatorname{Z}}(\xi)K_0$;
assume there exists some group $V\leq M$ such that
1. \[prop23ii1\] $M=KV$ and $H:=V\cap K\leq {\operatorname{C}}_K (K_0)$; and
2. \[prop23ii2\] there is a $\zeta\in{\operatorname{Irr}}({\operatorname{Res}}_H^K(\xi))$ which extends to some ${\widetilde}\zeta\in{\operatorname{Irr}}(V_\zeta)$;
\[prop\_toolext\] $\xi_0$ extends to $K_0\rtimes \epsilon(V_{\xi_0})$, where $\epsilon: V \rightarrow V/H$ is the canonical epimorphism.
Then there exists an extension of $\xi$ to $M_\xi$ that is afforded by a representation ${\widetilde}{{\mathcal D}}$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
\label{wtcD}
{\widetilde}{{\mathcal D}}( kv)&= {\widetilde}\zeta(v){{\mathcal D}}' (\rho(v)) \mathcal D(k) \text{ for every }
k\in K \text{ and }v\in V_{\lambda},\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal D$ is a representation of $K$ affording $\xi$, and ${{\mathcal D}}'$ is a representation of $K_0\rtimes \epsilon(V)_{\xi_0}$ extending $ {{\mathcal D}}_{K_0}$.
An extension map with respect to $L\lhd N$
------------------------------------------
Let $\lambda\vdash {\underline}n$ satisfying condition (ii) of Proposition \[PartwStableRootSubsys\]. Set ${\widetilde}{L}:={\widetilde{{{\mathbf L}}}}_{\lambda}^{vF}$, $L:={\widetilde}{L}\cap {{{\mathbf G}}}^{vF}$ and $N={\operatorname{N}}_{{{{\mathbf G}}}^{vF}}({{{\mathbf L}}})$. All the notations from Section \[dSplitLevi\] will be used without further reference. The aim in this section is to prove Theorem \[AMTypeA\] via the following stronger statement.
\[NEquivExt\] Let ${\widehat}{N}:=NE$. Then there exists an extension map $\Lambda$ with respect to $L\lhd N$ such that
$\Lambda$ is ${\widehat}{N}$-equivariant,
there exists a set $\mathcal{T}\subseteq {\operatorname{Irr}}(L)$ which contains an ${\widetilde}{L}$-transversal of ${\operatorname{Irr}}(L)$ such that if $D$ is non-cyclic, then every character $\chi\in \mathcal{T}$ has an extension ${\widehat}{\chi}\in{\operatorname{Irr}}({\widehat}{N}_{\chi})$ with ${\operatorname{Res}}_{N_{\chi}}^{{\widehat}{N}_{\chi}}({\widehat}{\chi})=\Lambda(\chi)$ and $v{\widehat}{F}\in \ker ({\widehat}{\chi})$.
Clearly $N$ is normalised by ${\widetilde}{L}$ and therefore it suffices to produce an extension for characters in a ${\widetilde}{L}$-transversal of ${\operatorname{Irr}}(L)$. Furthermore, to prove Theorem \[NEquivExt\] it suffices to define $\Lambda$ on a ${\widehat}{N}$-transversal in ${\operatorname{Irr}}(L)$ and the remaining values of $\Lambda$ can be constructed using ${\widehat}{N}$-conjugation. In particular for the remainder of this section we assume that $\chi\in{\operatorname{Irr}}(L)$ and $\chi_0\in {\operatorname{Irr}}({\operatorname{Res}}^L_{L_0}(\chi))\cap \mathbb{T}$, where $\mathbb{T}$ is taken from Equation (\[eq:CharTrans\]). Let ${\widetilde}{\chi}_0\in {\operatorname{Irr}}(L_{\chi_0}\mid \chi_0)$ with ${\operatorname{Ind}}_{L_{\chi_0}}^L({\widetilde}{\chi}_0)=\chi$. Then Lemma \[CliffCorrRest\] shows that ${\widetilde}{\chi}_0$ restricts to $\chi_0$.
Consider the structure of ${\widehat}{N}_{\chi}$. As $L_{\chi_0}\lhd L$ and ${\widehat}{N}_{\chi}$ permutes the $L$-conjugates of $\chi_0$, it follows that $L_{\chi_0}\lhd {\widehat}{N}_{\chi}$. Hence ${\widehat}{N}_{\chi}\leq L({\widehat}{N}_{\chi_0})_{{\widetilde}{\chi}_0}$. However ${\widetilde}{\chi}_0$ induces to $\chi$ and $L_{\chi_0}\lhd {\widehat}{N}_{\chi_0}$, therefore $({\widehat}{N}_{\chi_0})_{{\widetilde}{\chi}_0}\leq {\widehat}{N}_{\chi}$. Thus $${\widehat}{N}_{\chi}=L({\widehat}{N}_{\chi_0})_{{\widetilde}{\chi}_0}.$$ Furthermore for ${\widehat}{V}_0:=V_0E$, Lemma \[InterialNChi0\] shows that $$({\widehat}{N}_{\chi_0})_{{\widetilde}{\chi}_0}=L_{\chi_0}\left( ({\widehat}{V}_0)_{\chi_0}S_{\chi_0}\right)_{{\widetilde}{\chi}_0}.$$
### A useful subgroup of $L_{\chi_0}$ containing $L_0$
As $L_0\cap S$ can be a proper subgroup of $L\cap S$, we need to consider a subgroup $L_0\leq K\leq L_{\chi_0}$ such that $K\cap S=L\cap S$. Define $-{\rm Id}_{{\widetilde}{L}_{{\overline}{\mu}}}$ to be the unique central element of order two in ${\widetilde}{L}_{{\overline}{\mu}}$ and set $$Z_2:={\langle -{\rm Id}_{{\widetilde}{L}_{{\overline}{\mu}}} \mid {\overline}{\mu}\in {\overline}{\lambda}\rangle}.$$ In addition define $K_{{\overline}{\mu}}:={\langle L_{{\overline}{\mu}}, L_{{\overline}{\mu}}\cap Z_2\rangle}$ and $${\widetilde}{K}:={\langle L_0,Z_2\rangle}=K_{\lambda_0}\times \prod_{{\overline}{\mu}\in{\overline}{\lambda}'} K_{{\overline}{\mu}}.$$ Then for $K:=L\cap {\widetilde}{K}=\ker(\det_{{\widetilde}{K}})$, it follows that $K\cap S=L\cap S$. Set $\psi:={\operatorname{Res}}_{K}^{L_{\chi_0}}({\widetilde}{\chi}_0)\in {\operatorname{Irr}}(K)$ and let ${\widetilde}{\psi}\in {\operatorname{Irr}}({\widetilde}{K})$ be an extension of $\psi$. The restriction of ${\widetilde}{\psi}$ to $Z_2$ determines the extension of $\chi_0$ to ${\widetilde}{K}$. However $[Z_2,{\widehat}{V}_0]=1$ and therefore ${\widehat}{V}_0$ fixes the restriction of ${\widetilde}{\psi}$ to $Z_2$. Thus $({\widehat}{V}_0)_{{\widetilde}{\psi}}=({\widehat}{V}_0)_{\chi_0}$ and hence $$({\widehat}{V}_0)_{\psi}=({\widehat}{V}_0)_{\chi_0}.$$
Let $M:=K{\widehat}{V}_0S$. If $\psi$ extends to $M_{\psi}$, then $\chi$ extends to ${\widehat}{N}_{\chi}$.
By construction ${\widehat}{N}_{\chi}=L(L_{\chi_0}M_{\chi_0})_{{\widetilde}{\chi}_0}$. Moreover $L_{\chi_0}\cap (M_{\chi_0})_{{\widetilde}{\chi}_0}=K$ and $(M_{\chi_0})_{{\widetilde}{\chi}_0}\leq M_{\psi}$. Thus an extension of $\psi$ to $M_{\psi}$ gives an extension $\phi$ of ${\widetilde}{\chi}_0$ to $(L_{\chi_0}M_{\chi_0})_{{\widetilde}{\chi}_0}$ by [@SpSylowTori2 Lemma 4.1]. Moreover, by the Mackey formula,
$${\operatorname{Res}}_L^{{\widehat}{N}_{\chi}}\left( {\operatorname{Ind}}_{(L_{\chi_0}M_{\chi_0})_{{\widetilde}{\chi}_0}}^{{\widehat}{N}_{\chi}}(\phi)\right) ={\operatorname{Ind}}_{L_{\chi_0}}^L({\widetilde}{\chi})=\chi.
\qedhere$$
### Extending $\psi$ to $M_{\psi}$
First we observe that $M_{\psi}\leq M_{\chi_0}$ and so $$M_{\psi}=K({\widehat}{V}_0)_{\psi}S_{\psi}.$$
For each ${\overline}{\mu}\in{\overline}{\lambda}$, define a group $$E_{{\overline}{\mu}}:={\langle {\widehat}{F}_{{\overline}{\mu}},\gamma_{0,{\overline}{\mu}}\rangle}$$ where ${\widehat}{F}_{{\overline}{\mu}}$ and $\gamma_{0,{\overline}{\mu}}$ act as ${\widehat}{F}$ and $\gamma_0$ on ${\widetilde}{L}_{{\overline}{\mu}}$, while $[E_{{\overline}{\mu}},{\widetilde}{L}_{{\overline}{\mu}'}]=1$ whenever ${\overline}{\mu}\ne {\overline}{\mu}'$. Then the group $$E_0:=E_{\lambda_0}\times\prod\limits_{{\overline}{\mu}\in{\overline}{\lambda}'} E_{{\overline}{\mu}}$$ contains $E$ as a diagonally embedded subgroup. Set ${\widehat}{V}_{{\overline}{\mu}}=V_{{\overline}{\mu}}E_{{\overline}{\mu}}$. Then by Theorem \[StarCondSL\] and the choice of $\chi_0\in \mathbb{T}$, each factor $\chi_{{\overline}{\mu}}$ of $\chi_0$ extends to $L_{{\overline}{\mu}}({\widehat}{V}_{{\overline}{\mu}})_{\chi_{{\overline}{\mu}}}/{\langlev_{{\overline}{\mu}}{\widehat}{F}_{{\overline}{\mu}}\rangle}$. Hence $\chi_{{\overline}{\mu}}$ extends to some $\phi_{{\overline}{\mu}}\in {\operatorname{Irr}}\left( L_{{\overline}{\mu}}({\widehat}{V}_{{\overline}{\mu}})_{\chi_{{\overline}{\mu}}} \right)$ such that $v_{{\overline}{\mu}}{\widehat}{F}_{{\overline}{\mu}}\in \ker (\phi_{{\overline}{\mu}})$. Furthermore, these extensions can be taken so that, $\phi_{{\overline}{\mu}}^{s_{{\overline}{\mu},{\overline}{\mu}'}}=\phi_{{\overline}{\mu}'}$ whenever $\chi_{{\overline}{\mu}}^{s_{{\overline}{\mu},{\overline}{\mu}'}}=\chi_{{\overline}{\mu}'}$. Therefore $$\phi_0:=\phi_{\lambda_0}\times \prod\limits_{{\overline}{\mu}\in{\overline}{\lambda}'} \phi_{{\overline}{\mu}}$$ provides an extension of $\chi_0$ to $L_0(V_0E_0)_{\chi_0}$ with $v{\widehat}{F}\in \ker (\phi_0)$ and $S_{\chi_0}=S_{\phi_0}$.
As ${\widetilde}{K}$ is the central product of $L_0$ and $Z_2$, there is a character $\tau \in {\operatorname{Irr}}(Z_2)$ such that ${\widetilde}{\psi}(lz)=\chi_0(l)\tau(z)$. Furthermore, ${\widetilde}{K}(V_0E_0)_{{\widetilde}{\psi}}$ is the central product of $Z_2$ and $L_0(V_0E_0)_{\chi_0}$ and therefore ${\widetilde}{\phi}:=\phi_0.\tau$ defines an extension of ${\widetilde}{\psi}$. Set $\phi:={\operatorname{Res}}_{K(V_0E_0)_{\psi}}^{{\widetilde}{K}(V_0E_0)_{{\widetilde}{\psi}}}({\widetilde}{\phi})$ which then forms an extension of $\psi$. Thus $\eta:={\operatorname{Res}}_{K({\widehat}{V}_0)_{\psi}}^{K(V_0E_0)_{\psi}}(\phi)$ provides an extension of $\psi$ to $ K({\widehat}{V}_0)_{\psi}$ and by construction contains $v{\widehat}{F}$ in its kernel.
It is clear that $S_{\phi}\leq S_{\psi}$. Therefore let $s\in S_{\psi}$ and consider $\phi^s$. As ${\widetilde}{\psi}^s$ is also an extension of $\psi$, it follows that ${\widetilde}{\psi}^s=\chi_0.\tau$ or $\chi_0.(\tau\cdot \det_{Z_2})$. However $S_{\psi}\leq S_{\chi_0}$ and therefore ${\widetilde}{\psi}^s=\chi_0.\tau^s$ and so $\tau^s=\tau$ or $\tau\cdot \det_{Z_2}$. Hence ${\widetilde}{\phi}^s=\phi_0.\tau$ or $\phi_0.(\tau\cdot \det_{Z_2})$ and thus $$\phi^s={\operatorname{Res}}_{K(V_0E_0)_{\psi}}^{{\widetilde}{K}(V_0E_0)_{{\widetilde}{\psi}}}({\widetilde}{\phi}^s)={\operatorname{Res}}_{K(V_0E_0)_{\psi}}^{{\widetilde}{K}(V_0E_0)_{{\widetilde}{\psi}}}({\widetilde}{\phi})=\phi.$$ In particular, $S_{\phi}=S_{\psi}=S_{\eta}$.
By construction, $K=L_0{\operatorname{Z}}(K)$ with $S\cap K\leq {\operatorname{Z}}(K)$. Therefore ${\operatorname{Res}}^K _{S\cap K}(\psi)=m\zeta$ for some $m\in {\mathbb{N}}$ and $\zeta\in {\operatorname{Irr}}\left( {\operatorname{Res}}_{S\cap K}^K(\psi)\right)$. Furthermore, $\zeta$ extends to a character ${\widetilde}{\zeta}\in {\operatorname{Irr}}(S_{\zeta})$ by Corollary \[ExtK0ToS\]. As $$L_0\rtimes \rho(S)=L_{\lambda_0}\times \prod_{f=1}^n \left( L_f\rtimes \rho(S_f) \right),$$ it follows that $\chi_0$ extends to $L_0\rtimes \rho(S_{\chi_0})$ by [@NavMcKay Corrollary 10.2]. Hence by Proposition \[prop\_tool\], $\psi$ extends to $KS_{\psi}$.
Observe that $L{\widehat}{V}_0\cap S\leq K$ and therefore $K{\widehat}{V}_0\cap KS=K(K{\widehat}{V}_0\cap S)=K$. As $\psi$ extends to $KS_{\psi}$, [@SpSylowTori2 Lemma 4.1] implies that $\eta$ extends to $\left( K({\widehat}{V}_0)_{\psi}\right) \left(KS\right)_{\eta}=K({\widehat}{V}_0)_{\psi}S_{\psi}$. Hence $\psi$ extends to $M_{\psi}$ with $v{\widehat}{F}$ contained in its kernel. This completes the proof of Theorem \[NEquivExt\].
Characters of the quotient $N/L$
--------------------------------
Fix $\lambda\vdash {\underline}n$ satisfying condition (ii) of Proposition \[PartwStableRootSubsys\], ${\widetilde}L:={\widetilde{{{\mathbf L}}}}_{\lambda}^{vF}$, $L:={{\widetilde}{L}}\cap {{{\mathbf G}}}^{vF}$ and $N={\operatorname{N}}_{{{{\mathbf G}}}^{vF}}({{{\mathbf L}}}_\lambda)$. All the notations from Section \[dSplitLevi\] will be used without further reference. The aim in this section is to study characters of certain subgroups of the relative Weyl group $W:=N/L$.
Let $\chi\in {\operatorname{Irr}}(L)$ and ${\widetilde}{\chi}\in{\operatorname{Irr}}({\widetilde}L_{\chi}\mid \chi)$. The quotient ${\widetilde}L/L$ is cyclic and therefore ${\operatorname{Res}}^{{\widetilde}L_\chi}_L({\widetilde}{\chi})=\chi$. Moreover, ${\overline}{\chi}:={\operatorname{Ind}}_{{\widetilde}L_{\chi}}^{{\widetilde}L}({\widetilde}{\chi})\in {\operatorname{Irr}}({\widetilde}L)$. Because ${\widetilde}L_{\chi}\lhd N$, we see that $N_{{\widetilde}{\chi}}\leq N_{{\overline}{\chi}}\leq {\widetilde}LN_{{\widetilde}{\chi}}$. However all elements in $N$ have determinant one and therefore $N_{{\overline}{\chi}}=LN_{{\widetilde}{\chi}}=N_{{\widetilde}{\chi}}$. Furthermore, if $x\in N_{\chi}$, then ${\widetilde}{\chi}^x={\widetilde}{\chi}\beta$ for some $\beta\in {\operatorname{Irr}}({\widetilde}L_{\chi}/L)$. However, $\beta$ is a power of the determinant homomorphism and therefore $N_{{\widetilde}{\chi}}\lhd N_{\chi}$.
\[RelWeylExt\] Let $\chi\in {\operatorname{Irr}}(L)$, ${\widetilde}{\chi}\in {\operatorname{Irr}}({\widetilde}L_{\chi}\mid \chi)$, $$W_{\chi}:=N_{\chi}/L,\indent W_{{\widetilde}{\chi}}:=N_{{\widetilde}{\chi}}/L,\indent W_{{\overline}{\chi}}:=N_{{\overline}{\chi}}/L, \indent K:={\operatorname{N}}_W(W_{\chi},W_{{\widetilde}{\chi}})$$ and $\eta_0\in {\operatorname{Irr}}(W_{{\widetilde}{\chi}})$. Then there exists a character $\eta\in {\operatorname{Irr}}(W_{\chi}\mid \eta_0)$ such that
$\{ \eta^w\mid w\in K\}\cap {\operatorname{Irr}}(W_{\chi}\mid \eta_0)=\{\eta\}$,
$\eta$ extends to $K_{\eta}$,
$\eta$ has an extension ${\widetilde}{\eta}\in {\operatorname{Irr}}(K_{\eta}\times E)$ with $v{\widehat}{F}\in \ker ({\widetilde}{\eta})$.
For each $f\in \{1,\dots, n\}$ set $W_f=LV_fS_f/L$, ${\widehat}{Z}_f=LV_f/L$ and ${\widehat}{S}_f=LS_f/L$. Then ${\widehat}{Z}_f\cong (C_{d_0})^{t_f}$, ${\widehat}{S}_f\cong {\mathfrak{S}}_{t_f}$ and $W_f={\widehat}{Z}_f\rtimes {\widehat}{S}_f$. Moreover $W=\prod\limits_{f=1}^n W_f$ and for ${\overline}{\chi}_f:={\operatorname{Res}}_{{\widetilde}L_f}^{{\widetilde}L}({\overline}{\chi})$ it follows that $$W_{{\overline}{\chi}}=\prod\limits_{f=1}^n (W_f)_{{\overline}{\chi}_f}.$$ Therefore $\eta_0\in {\operatorname{Irr}}(W_{{\overline}{\chi}})$ can be written as $\eta_0=\prod\limits_{f=1}^n \eta_{0,f}$, where $\eta_{0,f}:={\operatorname{Res}}_{(W_f)_{{\overline}{\chi}_f}}^{(W)_{{\overline}{\chi}}}(\eta_0)$.
After suitable $V_f$-conjugation, the character ${\overline}{\chi}_f$ has a stabiliser in $W_{{\overline}{\lambda}_f}$ with the following description: there exists positive integers $r_f, d_{f,j}$, $a_{f,j}$ with $1\leq j\leq r_f$ and a partition $M_{f,1},\dots,M_{f,r_f}$ of $\{1,\dots, t_f\}$ such that $|M_{f,j}|=a_{f,j}$ and $$W_{f,{\overline}{\chi}_f}=\left\{ \left( (\zeta_1,\dots,\zeta_{t_f}),\sigma \right) \in C_{d_0}\wr {\mathfrak{S}}_{t_f}\mid \sigma(M_{i,j})=M_{i,j} \text{ for all } 1\leq j\leq r_i \text{ and } \zeta_k^{d_{i,j}}=1 \text{ for all } k\in M_{i,j} \right\}.$$ The group $W_{f,{\overline}{\chi}_f}$ is isomorphic to a group as considered in [@CabSpCharTypeA Proposition 5.12]. Therefore the following constructions from [@CabSpCharTypeA Proposition 5.12] are taken:
For $\nu_f\in {\operatorname{Irr}}\left( {\operatorname{Res}}_{{\widehat}{Z}_{f,{\overline}{\chi}_f}}^{(W_f)_{{\overline}{\chi}_f}}(\eta_{0,f})\right)$, there exists an extension $\psi_f\in{\operatorname{Irr}}\left({\widehat}Z_f(W_{f,{\overline}{\chi}_f})_{\nu_f}\right)$ with $(S_{f,{\overline}{\chi}_f})_{\nu_f}\in \ker (\psi_f)$. Furthermore there exists another character ${\widetilde}{\kappa}_f\in{\operatorname{Irr}}\left({\widehat}{Z}_f(W_{f,{\overline}{\chi}_f})_{\nu_f}\right)$ with ${\widehat}{Z}_f\in \ker ({\widetilde}{\kappa}_f)$ so that the character $${\widetilde}{\eta}_{0,f}:={\operatorname{Ind}}_{{\widehat}Z_{f}(W_{f,{\overline}{\chi}_f})_{\nu_f}}^{{\widehat}Z_{f}W_{f,{\overline}{\chi}_f}}(\psi_f {\widetilde}{\kappa}_f)$$ satisfies $${\operatorname{Res}}_{W_{f,{\overline}{\chi}_f}}^{{\widehat}Z_{f}W_{f,{\overline}{\chi}_f}}({\widetilde}{\eta}_{0,f})=\eta_{0,f}.$$ Moreover ${\operatorname{N}}_{W_f}(W_{f,{\overline}{\chi}_f})_{\eta_{0,f}}\leq {\operatorname{N}}_{W_f}({\widehat}Z_fW_{f,{\overline}{\chi}_f})_{{\widetilde}{\eta}_{0,f}}$ and ${\widetilde}{\eta}_{0,f}$ has an extension $\phi_f\in {\operatorname{Irr}}\left( {\operatorname{N}}_{W_f}({\widehat}Z_fW_{f,{\overline}{\chi}_f})_{{\widetilde}{\eta}_{0,f}}\right)$.
Define ${\widetilde}{\eta}_0:=\prod\limits_{f=1}^n {\widetilde}{\eta}_{0,f}$ and ${\widehat}Z:=\prod\limits_{f=1}^n {\widehat}Z_f$ so that $${\operatorname{Res}}_{W_{{\overline}{\chi}}}^{{\widehat}ZW_{{\overline}{\chi}}}({\widetilde}{\eta}_0)=\eta_0.$$ Then $${\operatorname{N}}_W(W_{{\overline}{\chi}})_{\eta_0}=\prod\limits_{f=1}^n {\operatorname{N}}_{W_f}(W_{f,{\overline}{\chi}_f})_{\eta_{0,f}}\leq \prod\limits_{f=1}^n {\operatorname{N}}_{W_f}({\widehat}Z_fW_{f,{\overline}{\chi}_f})_{{\widetilde}{\eta}_{0,f}}= {\operatorname{N}}_W({\widehat}ZW_{{\overline}{\chi}})_{{\widetilde}{\eta}_0}$$ and so $\phi:=\prod\limits_{f=1}^n \phi_f\in {\operatorname{Irr}}\left( {\operatorname{N}}_W({\widehat}ZW_{{\overline}{\chi}})_{{\widetilde}{\eta}_0}\right)$ is an extension of ${\widetilde}{\eta}_0$. Hence as $W_{\chi}\leq {\operatorname{N}}_W(W_{{\overline}{\chi}})$, the character $${\widetilde}{\eta}_0:={\operatorname{Res}}_{(W_{\chi})_{\eta_0}}^{{\operatorname{N}}_W({\widehat}ZW_{{\overline}{\chi}})_{{\widetilde}{\eta}_0}}(\phi)$$ is an extension of $\eta_0$ and $$\eta:={\operatorname{Ind}}_{(W_{\chi})_{\eta_0}}^{W_{\chi}}({\widetilde}{\eta}_0)\in {\operatorname{Irr}}(W_{\chi}\mid \eta_0).$$
If $w\in K$ and $\eta^w\in {\operatorname{Irr}}(W_{{\overline}{\chi}}\mid \eta_0)$ then $w\in W_{\chi}K_{\eta_0}$ and hence it can be assumed that $w\in K_{\eta_0}$. Furthermore, $K_{\eta_0}\leq {\operatorname{N}}_W({\widehat}ZW_{{\overline}{\chi}})_{{\overline}{\eta}_0}$ and so $\phi^w=\phi$. However this implies that ${\widetilde}{\eta}_0^w={\widetilde}{\eta}_0$ as ${\widetilde}{\eta}_0$ is the restriction of $\phi$, and thus $\eta^w=\eta$ as $\eta$ arises as the induced character which is fixed by elements of $K_{\eta_0}$, proving the first statement. Moreover, the observation $K_{\eta}=W_{\chi}K_{\eta_0}$ yields that $${\widetilde}{\eta}:={\operatorname{Ind}}_{K_{\eta_0}}^{K_{\eta}}\left( {\operatorname{Res}}_{K_{\eta_0}}^{{\operatorname{N}}_W({\widehat}ZW_{{\overline}{\chi}})_{{\widetilde}{\eta}_0}} (\phi) \right)\in {\operatorname{Irr}}(K_{\eta})$$ is an extension of $\eta$ proving the second statement. The final property is the same as the property given in [@CabSpCharTypeA Proposition 5.12] and the proof is the same.
The explicit description allows us to see that the relative Weyl groups $ W_\chi$ satisfy the McKay Conjecture. This is applied in the proof of Theorem \[thm13a\].
\[propMcKayrelWeyl\] The McKay Conjecture holds for $W_\chi$ from \[RelWeylExt\], whenever $\chi\in{\operatorname{Irr}}(L)$.
Recall that $W={\widehat}Z\rtimes {\widehat}S$ and $W_{{\widetilde}\chi}=Z\rtimes S$ for an extension ${\widetilde}\chi$ of $\chi$ to ${\widetilde}L_\chi$. By construction $W_\chi / W_{{\widetilde}\chi}$ is isomorphic to a subgroup of ${\widetilde}L_\chi /L$, hence cyclic. The group $Z\lhd W_\chi$ is abelian and by the constructions given in the previous proof, every character of $Z$ extends to its stabilizer in $ W_\chi$. Let $\mu\in {\operatorname{Irr}}(Z)$. Then $S_\mu$ is a direct product of symmetric groups and $(W_\chi)_\mu /(ZS_\mu)$ is cyclic. According to [@SpSylowTori1 Lemma 12.4], $(W_\chi)_\mu/Z$ satisfies the McKay conjecture. This allows us to apply [@SpSylowTori1 Lemma 12.1] and obtain that the McKay conjecture holds for $W_\chi$.
\[ExtNToNE\]
For every $\chi\in{\operatorname{Irr}}({\widetilde}N)$ there exists some $\chi_0\in{\operatorname{Irr}}(N\mid \chi)$ such that
$({\widetilde}N{\widehat}N)_{\chi_0}={\widetilde}N_{\chi_0}{\widehat}N_{\chi_0}$, and
$\chi_0$ has an extension ${\widetilde}{\chi}_0$ to ${\widehat}N_{\chi_0}$ with $v{\widehat}F\in \ker ({\widetilde}{\chi})$.
\[extmapwt\] There exists some ${\widehat}N$-equivariant extension map ${\widetilde}\Lambda$ with respect to ${\widetilde}L \lhd {\widetilde}N$ that is compatible with ${\operatorname{Irr}}({\widehat}N/N)$.
This follows by combining Theorem \[MainThmReq\] with the verification of the required conditions in Theorem \[NEquivExt\], Proposition \[RelWeylExt\] and Corollary \[IntCond\].
\[Results\] We are finally able to verify Theorem \[StarConddSpLevi\].
Using the proof of [@CabSpCharTypeA Proposition 5.3] there exists an isomorphism $\epsilon: {\widetilde}{{{{\mathbf G}}}}^F\rtimes E_0 \rightarrow {\operatorname{C}}_{{\widetilde}{{{{\mathbf G}}}}^{F_0^{em}E}}(v{\widehat}F)/\langle v{\widehat}F\rangle$. Let ${{{\mathbf L}}}'$, $N'$ and ${\widetilde}N'$ be the images of ${{{\mathbf L}}}_0$, $N_0$ and ${\widetilde}N_0$ respectively under this isomorphism. By the proof of [@CabSpCharTypeA Proposition 5.3], Corollary \[ExtNToNE\] implies the statement.
Block-theoretic considerations
==============================
The aim in this section is to study the $\ell$-blocks of ${\operatorname{SL}}_n(\epsilon q)$ via relating the normalizer of a defect subgroup with normalizers of $d$-split Levi subgroups ($d$ is the multiplicative order of $q$ mod $\ell$) and constructing a bijection between height zero characters.
Here we rely on Broué-Malle-Michel’s theory of generic Sylow $d$-tori and generic blocks for finite reductive groups from [@BMM]. Using this language, Cabanes-Enguehard parametrized the $\ell$-blocks of finite reductive groups ${{{\mathbf G}}}^F$ with $d$-cuspidal pairs $({{{\mathbf L}}},\zeta)$ where ${{{\mathbf L}}}$ is a $d$-split Levi subgroup and $\zeta$ a so-called $d$-cuspidal character of ${{{\mathbf L}}}^F$, see [@CabEngAdv 4.1]. The $\ell$-block $B$ of finite reductive group $({{{\mathbf G}}},F)$ associated with $({{{\mathbf L}}},\zeta)$, denoted by $b_{{ {{{{\mathbf G}}}^F}}}({{{\mathbf L}}},\zeta)$, is the $\ell$-block that contains all irreducible constituents of ${\operatorname{R}}_{{{{\mathbf L}}}}^{{{{\mathbf G}}}}(\zeta)$.
In order to prove Theorem \[thmA\], via an application of the criterion introduced in Theorem \[NewIndAmCond\], it is necessary to prove that the normalizers of the $d$-split Levi subgroups from Theorem \[StarConddSpLevi\] can be chosen as the group denoted by $M$ in Theorem \[NewIndAmCond\]. We prove this in the case where $\ell\nmid 3q(q-\epsilon)$.
In a second step we construct a bijection $\widetilde \Omega_{{\widetilde}B}$ with the properties required in \[thm24ii\]. This bijection has obvious similarities with the one constructed for the inductive McKay condition, which was first developed in [@MalleHeight0] and then later in [@CabSpCharTypeA]. As main ingredients it uses the so-called $d$-Harish-Chandra theory, the Jordan decomposition of characters and extension maps for $d$-split Levi normalizers. This bijection has to be transferred to the new context where also blocks and the height of the characters have to be taken into account.
Normalizers of defect groups and height zero characters
-------------------------------------------------------
Recall that for a odd prime $\ell$ and a prime power $q$ with $\ell\nmid q$ we denote by $d_\ell(q)$ the order of $q$ in $({\mathbb{Z}}/\ell{\mathbb{Z}})^\times$. For $({{{\mathbf H}}},F)$ a reductive group defined over a finite field, denote by ${\mathcal{E}}_{\ell'}({{{\mathbf H}}}^F)$ the union of Lusztig series associated to semi-simple $\ell'$-elements of ${{{\mathbf H}}}^*{}^F$.
\[71b\] Let ${\widetilde}{{{\mathbf G}}}={\operatorname{GL}}_{n}(\overline{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{F}}}}_q)$ , $F:{\widetilde}{{{\mathbf G}}}\to {\widetilde}{{{\mathbf G}}}$ a Frobenius endomorphism defining an ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{F}}}_q$-structure, $\epsilon\in\{\pm 1\}$ with ${ {{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}^F}}={\operatorname{GL}}_n(\epsilon q)$ and $\ell$ a prime with $\ell\nmid 3q(q-\epsilon)$. Let ${\widetilde}B\in {\operatorname{Bl}}( {\widetilde}{{{\mathbf G}}}^F)$ and set $d:=d_\ell(q)$. Let $({{{\mathbf L}}},\zeta)$ be a $d$-cuspidal pair of $({{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}},F)$ associated to ${\widetilde}B$ as in [@CabEngAdv 4.1]. Let ${{\mathbf S}}$ be the Sylow $\Phi_d$-subtorus of ${\operatorname{Z}}^\circ({{{\mathbf L}}})$. Then there exists some defect group $D$ of ${\widetilde}B$ such that ${\operatorname{N}}_{[{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}},{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}]^F}({{\mathbf S}})$ is ${\operatorname{Aut}}([{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}},{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}]^F)_{{\widetilde}B,D}$-stable and ${\operatorname{N}}_{{ {{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}^F}}}(D)\leq {\operatorname{N}}_{{ {{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}^F}}}({{\mathbf S}})$. Moreover ${\operatorname{C}}_{{ {{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}^F}}}(D)\leq {\operatorname{C}}_{{ {{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}^F}}}({{\mathbf S}})={{{\mathbf L}}}^F$.
We have ${\widetilde}B=b_{{ {{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}^F}}}({{{\mathbf L}}},\zeta)$ in the notation of [@CabEngAdv 2.6], i.e., ${{{\mathbf L}}}$ is a $d$-split Levi subgroup, $\zeta\in{\mathcal{E}}_{\ell'}({{{\mathbf L}}}^F)$ is $d$-cuspidal and all constituents of ${\operatorname{R}}_{{{{\mathbf L}}}}^{{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}}(\zeta)$ are contained in ${\widetilde}B$.
We observe that by our assumption on $\ell$ the groups ${\widetilde}{{{\mathbf G}}}_{\bf a}$ and ${\widetilde}{{{\mathbf G}}}_{\bf b}$ defined in the paragraph after Proposition 3.3 of [@CabEngAdv] satisfy ${\widetilde}{{{\mathbf G}}}_{\bf a}={\operatorname{Z}}({\widetilde}{{{\mathbf G}}})$ and ${\widetilde}{{{\mathbf G}}}_{\bf b} ={{{\mathbf G}}}\cong {\operatorname{SL}}_n(\overline{{\mathbb{F}}}_q)$. Further note that ${{{\mathbf L}}}$ coincides with the Levi subgroup ${{{\mathbf K}}}$ defined in [@CabEngAdv 3.2 and 3.4].
Let ${{{\mathbf M}}}$ be the group defined in the paragraph before [@CabEngAdv 4.4]. Then ${{\mathbf S}}$ is also the Sylow $\Phi_d$-subtorus of ${\operatorname{Z}}^\circ({{{\mathbf M}}})$ thanks to [@CabEngAdv 4.4.(iii)]. Denote $Z:= {\operatorname{Z}}({{{\mathbf M}}})_\ell^F$. Then ${{{\mathbf M}}}={\operatorname{C}}^\circ_{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}(Z)$ according to [@CabEngAdv Lemma 4.8].
By [@CabEngAdv Lemma 4.16], $Z$ is a characteristic subgroup of a defect group $D$ of ${\widetilde}B$ and hence ${\operatorname{N}}_{{ {{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}^F}}}(D)\subseteq {\operatorname{N}}_{{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}^F}(Z)$. We also have ${\operatorname{N}}_{{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}^F}(Z)={\operatorname{N}}_{{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}^F}({{{\mathbf M}}})={\operatorname{N}}_{{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}^F}({\operatorname{Z}}^\circ({{{\mathbf M}}}))\leq{\operatorname{N}}_{{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}^F}({{\mathbf S}})$. Denote ${{{\mathbf G}}}=[{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}},{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}]$. We must ensure that every $\phi_0\in{\operatorname{Aut}}({ {{{{\mathbf G}}}^F}})_{{\widetilde}B,D}$ stabilizes ${\operatorname{N}}_{{{{\mathbf G}}}^F}({{{\mathbf L}}})$. Such $\phi_0$ is induced by a bijective endomorphism $\phi$ of ${\widetilde}{{{\mathbf G}}}$ commuting with $F$. The equality ${{{\mathbf M}}}={\operatorname{C}}^\circ_{{\widetilde}{{{\mathbf G}}}}(Z)$ implies $\phi({{{\mathbf M}}})={{{\mathbf M}}}$. Similarly $\phi$ stabilizes ${{{\mathbf L}}}$ since ${{{\mathbf L}}}\cap {{{\mathbf G}}}_b$ is the smallest $d$-split Levi subgroup containing ${{{\mathbf M}}}$, see [@CabEngAdv proof of Lemma 4.4].
Since the centralizer of any semi-simple element is connected in ${{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}$, ${\operatorname{C}}_{{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}}(Z)$ is connected and we may write ${\operatorname{C}}_{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}(D)^F\leq {\operatorname{C}}_{{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}}(Z)^F ={\operatorname{C}}_{{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}}^\circ(Z)^F ={{{\mathbf M}}}^F\leq {{{\mathbf L}}}^F= {\operatorname{C}}_{{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}}({{\mathbf S}})^F$ by the definition of ${{\mathbf S}}$.
To construct the bijection required by Theorem \[NewIndAmCond\] the following description of height $0$ characters of unipotent blocks is needed. The general proof below was communicated to us by Marc Cabanes. The particular case of type A could be treated with a simpler proof.
\[Conjunip\] Let $({{{\mathbf G}}}, F)$ be a reductive group defined over a field of cardinality $q$, $\ell$ an odd prime good for ${{{\mathbf G}}}$, not dividing $q$, and $\not= 3$ if ${{{\mathbf G}}}^F$ is of type $^3D_4$, $d$ the multiplicative order of $q$ mod $\ell$. Let $B$ be a unipotent $\ell$-block of ${{{\mathbf G}}}^F$ defined by a $d$-cuspidal pair $({{{\mathbf K}}}, \zeta)$ as in [@CaEn94 4.4]. Then $${\operatorname{Irr}}_0(B)\subseteq \cup_{t}\ {\mathcal{E}}({{{\mathbf G}}}^F ,t)$$ where $t$ ranges over $ {\operatorname{Z}}({{{\mathbf K}}}^*)^F_\ell$. Each such $t\in {\operatorname{Z}}({{{\mathbf K}}}^*)^F_\ell$ satisfies $\ell\nmid |{\operatorname{N}}_{{{{\mathbf G}}}}({{{\mathbf K}}})^F: {\operatorname{N}}_{{{{\mathbf G}}}(t)}({{{\mathbf K}}})^F|$, where ${{{\mathbf G}}}(t)$ denotes a Levi subgroup of ${{{\mathbf G}}}$ dual to ${\operatorname{C}}_{{{{{\mathbf G}}}}^*}(t)$ with ${{{\mathbf K}}}\leq{{{\mathbf G}}}(t)$.
A character in ${\operatorname{Irr}}_0(B)$ is of the form $\chi:=\pm {\operatorname{R}}^{{{\mathbf G}}}_{{{{\mathbf G}}}(t)}(\hat{t}\mu_t)$ where $t\in{{{\mathbf G}}}^*{}^F_\ell$, ${{{\mathbf G}}}(t)$ is an $F$-stable Levi subgroup of ${{{\mathbf G}}}$ in duality with the $F$-stable Levi subgroup ${\operatorname{C}}_{{{{\mathbf G}}}^*}^\circ (t)$, $\hat{t}$ is a linear character of ${{{\mathbf G}}}(t)^F$ defined by duality and $\mu_t\in{\mathcal{E}}({{{\mathbf G}}}(t)^F,1)$ is a component of R$^{{{{\mathbf G}}}(t)}_{{{{\mathbf K}}}_t}\zeta_t$ where $({{{{\mathbf K}}}_t},\zeta_t)$ is a unipotent $d$-cuspidal pair in ${{{\mathbf G}}}(t)$ (see [@CaEn94 4.4(iii)]) and $[{{{\mathbf K}}},{{{\mathbf K}}}]=[{{{\mathbf K}}}_t ,{{{\mathbf K}}}_t]$. By [@CaEn94 4.4(ii)] any Sylow $\ell$-subgroup of ${\operatorname{C}}_{{{\mathbf G}}}^\circ([{{{\mathbf K}}},{{{\mathbf K}}}])^F$ is a defect group of $B$. Similarly $\mu_t$ belongs to an $\ell$-block of ${{{\mathbf G}}}(t)^F$ such that any Sylow $\ell$-subgroup of ${\operatorname{C}}_{{{{\mathbf G}}}(t)}^\circ([{{{\mathbf K}}},{{{\mathbf K}}}])^F$ is a defect group of this block.
If $\chi$ has height zero, then $\chi(1)_\ell =|{{{\mathbf G}}}^F:{{{\mathbf G}}}(t)^F|_\ell \cdot \mu_t(1)_\ell=|{{{\mathbf G}}}^F:{\operatorname{C}}_{{{\mathbf G}}}^\circ([{{{\mathbf K}}},{{{\mathbf K}}}])^F|_\ell$. On the other hand $\mu_t(1)_\ell =\ell^{h(\mu_t)} \, |{{{\mathbf G}}}(t)^F:{\operatorname{C}}_{{{{\mathbf G}}}(t)}^\circ([{{{\mathbf K}}},{{{\mathbf K}}}])^F|_\ell$, where $0\leq h(\mu_t)$ denotes the height of $\mu_t$, by what has been said about ${\operatorname{bl}}(\mu_t)\in{\operatorname{Bl}}({{{\mathbf G}}}(t)^F)$. Thus $\ell^{h(\mu_t)}|{{{\mathbf G}}}^F:{\operatorname{C}}_{{{{\mathbf G}}}(t)}^\circ([{{{\mathbf K}}},{{{\mathbf K}}}])^F|_\ell =|{{{\mathbf G}}}^F:{\operatorname{C}}_{{{{\mathbf G}}}}^\circ([{{{\mathbf K}}},{{{\mathbf K}}}])^F|_\ell$ and therefore $$h(\mu_t)=0 \text{ and } |{\operatorname{C}}_{{{{\mathbf G}}}}^\circ([{{{\mathbf K}}},{{{\mathbf K}}}])^F:{\operatorname{C}}_{{{{\mathbf G}}}(t)}^\circ([{{{\mathbf K}}},{{{\mathbf K}}}])^F|_\ell =1.$$
We use the second equality. As duality preserves the order of groups of rational points, one has $$|{\operatorname{C}}_{{{{\mathbf G}}}^*}^\circ([{{{\mathbf K}}}^*,{{{\mathbf K}}}^*])^F: {\operatorname{C}}_{{{{\mathbf G}}}^*}^\circ([{{{\mathbf K}}}^* ,{{{\mathbf K}}}^*],t)^F|_\ell =1$$ with ${{{\mathbf K}}}^*$ in duality with ${{{\mathbf K}}}$ and $t\in {\operatorname{C}}_{{{{\mathbf G}}}^*}([{{{\mathbf K}}}^* ,{{{\mathbf K}}}^*])^F_\ell$. This means that $t$ centralizes a Sylow $\ell$-subgroup of $C:={\operatorname{C}}_{{{{\mathbf G}}}^*}^\circ([{{{\mathbf K}}}^* ,{{{\mathbf K}}}^*])^F$. So it has a $C$-conjugate that centralizes ${\operatorname{Z}}^\circ({{{\mathbf K}}}^*)^F_\ell$. But ${\operatorname{C}}_{{{{\mathbf G}}}^*{}^F}({\operatorname{Z}}^\circ({{{\mathbf K}}}^*)^F_\ell)= {{{\mathbf K}}}^*{}^F$ by [@CaEn94 3.3(ii)] and therefore ${\operatorname{C}}_C({\operatorname{Z}}^\circ({{{\mathbf K}}}^*)^F_\ell)\leq {\operatorname{C}}_{{{{\mathbf K}}}^*}([{{{\mathbf K}}}^*,{{{\mathbf K}}}^*])^F={\operatorname{Z}}({{{\mathbf K}}}^*)^F$. This gives that $t$ is actually conjugate to an element of ${\operatorname{Z}}({{{\mathbf K}}}^*)^F_\ell$ in ${{{\mathbf G}}}^*{}^F$.
We have to show now that $ |{\operatorname{N}}_{{{{\mathbf G}}}}({{{\mathbf K}}})^F: {\operatorname{N}}_{{{{\mathbf G}}}(t)}({{{\mathbf K}}})^F|_\ell =1$. Letting $g\in {\operatorname{N}}_{{{{\mathbf G}}}}({{{\mathbf K}}})^F_\ell$ we must show that $g\in {{{\mathbf G}}}(t)$. By [@CabEnFus 6], we have $g\in ({{{\mathbf K}}}{\operatorname{C}}_{{{{\mathbf G}}}}^\circ([{{{\mathbf K}}},{{{\mathbf K}}}]))^F_\ell$. Thanks to [@CaEn94 3.3(ii)] telling us that ${\operatorname{Z}}({{{\mathbf K}}})^F_\ell ={\operatorname{Z}}^\circ({{{\mathbf K}}})^F_\ell $ and Lang-Steinberg’s theorem, we have $({{{\mathbf K}}}{\operatorname{C}}_{{{{\mathbf G}}}}^\circ([{{{\mathbf K}}},{{{\mathbf K}}}]))^F_\ell ={{{\mathbf K}}}^F_\ell {\operatorname{C}}_{{{{\mathbf G}}}}^\circ([{{{\mathbf K}}},{{{\mathbf K}}}])^F_\ell$. But we have seen before that ${\operatorname{C}}_{{{{\mathbf G}}}}^\circ([{{{\mathbf K}}},{{{\mathbf K}}}])^F_\ell\leq {{{\mathbf G}}}(t)$, so indeed $g\in {{{\mathbf K}}}{{{\mathbf G}}}(t)={{{\mathbf G}}}(t)$.
Note that the above proof simplifies when ${{{\mathbf G}}}$ is a general linear group, as in that case ${{{\mathbf G}}}={{{\mathbf G}}}^*$ and all centralizers are connected.
Bijections between certain characters of ${ {{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}^F}}$ and ${\operatorname{N}}_{ {{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}^F}}({{\mathbf S}})$
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recall that for a given character $\chi$ we use ${\operatorname{bl}}(\chi)$ to denote the $\ell$-block $\chi$ belongs to.
In the next step we show that a bijection as required in \[thm24ii\] exists for a block ${\widetilde}B\in {\operatorname{Bl}}({\operatorname{GL}}_n(\epsilon q))$. Note that although Broué’s conjecture is known for blocks with abelian defect of ${\operatorname{GL}}_n(q)$, the Alperin-McKay conjecture hasn’t been proven for ${\operatorname{SL}}_n(q)$.
Let ${{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}$, $F:{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}\to {{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}$ such that ${ {{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}^F}}\cong{\operatorname{GL}}_n(\epsilon q)$. Note that ${\operatorname{Irr}}({ {{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}^F}}/[{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}},{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}]^F)$ acts on ${\operatorname{Irr}}({ {{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}^F}})$ by multiplication and thereby induces an action on ${\operatorname{Bl}}({ {{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}^F}})$. Note that any ${\operatorname{Irr}}({ {{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}^F}}/[{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}},{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}]^F)$-orbit coincides with ${\operatorname{Bl}}({ {{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}^F}}\mid B)$, the set of blocks of ${ {{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}^F}}$ covering $B$ for some $B\in{\operatorname{Bl}}([{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}},{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}]^F)$.
### A parameter set and two character sets associated to a $\Phi_d$-torus
Let $d\geq 1$ and ${{\mathbf S}}$ a $\Phi_d$-torus of $({{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}},F)$. Denote ${{{\mathbf L}}}:={\operatorname{C}}_{{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}}({{\mathbf S}})$. For any $F$-stable torus ${{\mathbf T}}$ of ${{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}$ we denote by ${{\mathbf T}}_{\Phi_d}$ the Sylow $\Phi_d$-torus of $({{\mathbf T}}, F)$.
For $s\in ({{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}^*)^F$ semi-simple, let ${{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}(s)$ be an $F$-stable Levi subgroup of ${{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}$ dual to ${\operatorname{C}}_{{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}^*}(s)$ and ${\widehat}s$ the linear character of ${{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}(s)^F$ associated to $s$ by duality. If ${{{\mathbf L}}}'$ is an $F$-stable Levi subgroup of ${{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}$, ${{{\mathbf K}}}$ an $F$-stable Levi subgroup of ${{{\mathbf L}}}'$ and $\kappa\in{\operatorname{Irr}}({{{\mathbf K}}}^F)$, then $W_{{{{\mathbf L}}}'}({{{\mathbf K}}},\kappa)^F$ is defined as ${\operatorname{N}}_{{{{\mathbf L}}}'^F}({{{\mathbf K}}})_\kappa/{{{\mathbf K}}}^F$. If additionally $({{{\mathbf K}}},\kappa)$ is a unipotent $d$-cuspidal pair of $({{{\mathbf L}}}',F)$ we denote by ${\mathcal{E}}({{{\mathbf L}}}'{}^F,({{{\mathbf K}}},\kappa))$ the set of constituents of ${\operatorname{R}}_{{{{\mathbf K}}}}^{{{{\mathbf L}}}'}(\kappa)$ and there is a bijection $${\operatorname{Irr}}(W_{{{{\mathbf L}}}'}({{{\mathbf K}}},\kappa)^F)\to{\mathcal{E}}({{{\mathbf L}}}'{}^F,({{{\mathbf K}}},\kappa))$$ according to [@BMM 3.2(2)] which we denote by $$\eta\mapsto{\operatorname{R}}_{{{{\mathbf K}}}}^{{{{\mathbf L}}}'}(\kappa)_\eta .$$
For any element $x$ of a finite group we denote by $x_{\ell'}$ an element of $\langle x \rangle $ whose order is not divisible by $\ell$ and for which $xx_{\ell'}^{-1}$ is an $\ell$-element. We define ${{\mathcal P}}_{{\mathbf S}}$ as the set of triples $ (s,\kappa, \eta)$ where
- $s\in {\widetilde}{{{\mathbf G}}}^*$ is a semi-simple element with ${{\mathbf S}}\leq {{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}(s)$ and ${\operatorname{C}}_{{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}(s_{\ell'})}({{\mathbf S}})\leq {{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}(s)$,
- $\kappa$ is a unipotent $d$-cuspidal character of ${{{\mathbf K}}}^F$, where ${{{\mathbf K}}}:={\operatorname{C}}_{{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}(s_{\ell'})}({{\mathbf S}})$ with ${{\mathbf S}}={\operatorname Z}({{{\mathbf K}}})_{\Phi_d}$, and
- $\eta\in{\operatorname{Irr}}(W_{{\widetilde}{{{\mathbf G}}}(s)}({{{\mathbf K}}},\kappa)^F)$.
The group ${\widetilde}N:={\operatorname{N}}_{ {{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}^F}}({{\mathbf S}})$ acts via conjugation on ${{\mathcal P}}_{{\mathbf S}}$ and we write $\overline {{\mathcal P}}_{{\mathbf S}}$ for the set of ${\widetilde}N$-orbits in ${{\mathcal P}}_{{{\mathbf S}}}$.
Let $\Upsilon^\circ: {{\mathcal P}}_{{\mathbf S}}\rightarrow {\operatorname{Irr}}({ {{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}^F}})$ be given by $(s,\kappa, \eta)\mapsto \epsilon_{{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}}\epsilon_{{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}(s)}{\operatorname{R}}_{{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}(s)}^{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}( \widehat s{\operatorname{R}}_{{{{\mathbf K}}}}^{{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}(s)}(\kappa)_{\eta})$, where $\epsilon_{{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}}$, $\epsilon_{{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}(s)}$ are signs (see [@CabEnRedGp 8.27]). Denote $${\mathcal G}_{{\mathbf S}}:=\Upsilon^\circ({{\mathcal P}}_{{\mathbf S}}).$$
\[lem\_deg\] Let $(s,\kappa,\eta)\in {{\mathcal P}}_{{{\mathbf S}}}$. Then $\Upsilon^\circ(s,\kappa,\eta)(1)_\ell=|{ {{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}^F}}:{\operatorname{N}}_{{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}(s)^F}({{{\mathbf K}}})| _\ell \,\eta(1)_\ell \, \kappa(1)_\ell$.
In this case Jordan decomposition coincides with Deligne-Lusztig induction and ${\operatorname{R}}_{{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}(s)}^{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}( \widehat s{\operatorname{R}}_{{{{\mathbf K}}}}^{{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}(s)}(\kappa)_{\eta})(1)=\epsilon_{{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}}\epsilon_{{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}(s)}
|{ {{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}^F}}:{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}(s)^F|_{p'} {\operatorname{R}}_{{{{\mathbf K}}}}^{{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}(s)}(\kappa)_{\eta}(1)$. The degree of ${\operatorname{R}}_{{{{\mathbf K}}}}^{{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}(s)}(\kappa)_{\eta}$ is given in Theorem 4.2 of [@MalleHeight0]. Let $D_\eta\in{\mathbb{Q}}(X)$ be as in [@MalleHeight0 4.2] a rational function with zeros and poles only at roots of unity and $0$ such that $D_\eta(\zeta_d)=\eta(1)/|W_{{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}(s)^F}({{{\mathbf K}}})|$ for a certain primitive $d$th root $\zeta_d$ of unity and $${\operatorname{R}}_{{{{\mathbf K}}}}^{{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}(s)}(\kappa)_{\eta}(1)
=|{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}(s)^F:{{{{\mathbf K}}}}^F|_{p'}
\kappa(1)D_\eta(q) .$$
Assume that the defect group of the block is abelian and hence contained in ${{{\mathbf K}}}^F$. In that case we see that the $\ell$-evaluation of $D_\eta(q)$ defined as in §6 of [@MalleHeight0] is $0$. Recall $D_\eta\in {\mathbb{Q}}(X)$ is a ratio of products of cyclotomic polynomials and possibly powers of $X$. Since $D_\eta$ only depends on $d$, the order of $\ell$ mod $q$, and in all those cases the above equality holds. This implies that when we can write $D_\eta$ as quotient of two polynomials that are not divisible by $\Phi_d$. Accordingly for the computation of the $\ell$-valuation of $D_\eta(q)$ we can apply Corollary 6.3 of [@MalleHeight0]. This gives that the $\ell$-evaluation of $D_\eta(q)$ and $D_\eta(\zeta_d)$ coincide. Recall $D_\eta(\zeta_d)=\frac{\eta(1)}{|W_{{\widetilde}{{{\mathbf G}}}(s)^F}({{{\mathbf K}}},\kappa)|}$. Hence $${\operatorname{R}}_{{{{\mathbf K}}}}^{{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}(s)}(\kappa)_{\eta}(1)_\ell
=|{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}(s)^F: {\operatorname{N}}_{{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}(s)^F} ({{{\mathbf K}}})|_{\ell} \, \kappa (1)_\ell \,\eta(1)_\ell .$$ This implies the stated formula in the general case.
Let ${\widetilde}L:={\operatorname{C}}_{ {{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}^F}}({{\mathbf S}})$ and ${\widetilde}\Lambda$ be the ${\widetilde}N$-equivariant extension map for ${\widetilde}L\lhd {\widetilde}N$ from Proposition \[extmapwt\]. Let $\Upsilon'^\circ: {{\mathcal P}}_{{\mathbf S}}\rightarrow {\operatorname{Irr}}({\widetilde}N)$ be given by $(s,\kappa, \eta)\mapsto
{\operatorname{Ind}}^{{{\widetilde}N}}_{{{{\widetilde}N}}_{\rho}}({\widetilde}\Lambda(\rho)\eta)
$ for $\rho :=\epsilon_{{{{\mathbf L}}},{{{\mathbf K}}}}{\operatorname{R}}_{{{\mathbf K}}}^{{{{\mathbf L}}}}(\widehat s \kappa)$. Denote $${{\mathcal N}}_{{\mathbf S}}:=\Upsilon'^\circ({{\mathcal P}}_{{\mathbf S}}).$$ This uses that ${\widetilde}N_\rho/{\widetilde}L$ and $W_{{\widetilde{{{\mathbf L}}}}{{{\mathbf G}}}(s)}({{{\mathbf K}}},\kappa)^F$ are canonical isomorphic by [@CabSpMZ 3.3].
\[lem\_deg\_loc\] Let $(s,\kappa,\eta)\in {{\mathcal P}}_{{{\mathbf S}}}$. Then $\Upsilon'^\circ(s,\kappa,\eta)(1)_\ell=\frac{|{\widetilde}N:{{{\mathbf K}}}^F|_\ell}{|W_{{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}(s)^F}({{{\mathbf K}}},\kappa)|_\ell}\, \kappa(1)_\ell \,\eta(1)_\ell$.
We see from the definition $\Upsilon'^\circ(s,\kappa,\eta)(1)_\ell=|{\widetilde}N:{\widetilde}N_{\rho}| _\ell\, \,\eta(1)_\ell\, |{{{\mathbf L}}}^F:{{{\mathbf K}}}^F|_\ell \, \kappa(1)_\ell$. Moreover ${{{\widetilde}N}}_{\rho}/{{{\mathbf L}}}^F$ and $W_{{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}(s)^F}({{{\mathbf K}}},\kappa)$ are isomorphic. This leads to the stated equation.
We abbreviate ${{{\mathbf G}}}:=[{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}},{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}]={\operatorname{SL}}_n(\overline {\ensuremath{\mathbb{F}}}_q)$.
\[prop72neu\] Let $\ell$ be a prime with $\ell\nmid q(q-\epsilon)$ and $d:=d_\ell(q)$. Let ${{\mathbf S}}$ be a $\Phi_d$-torus of $({{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}},F)$, ${\widetilde}N:={\operatorname{N}}_{{ {\widetilde G }}}({{\mathbf S}})$, and ${\mathcal G}_{{\mathbf S}}$ and ${{\mathcal N}}_{{\mathbf S}}$ be character sets associated to ${{\mathbf S}}$ as above.
Then there exists a $({ {{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}^F}}E)_{{{\mathbf S}}}$-equivariant bijection $${\widetilde}\Omega_{{\mathbf S}}: {\mathcal G}_{{\mathbf S}}\longrightarrow {{\mathcal N}}_{{{\mathbf S}}}$$ with
- ${\widetilde}\Omega_{{\mathbf S}}({\mathcal G}_{{\mathbf S}}\cap {\operatorname{Irr}}({\widetilde}G\mid\nu))\subseteq {\operatorname{Irr}}({\widetilde}N\mid \nu)$ for every $\nu\in{\operatorname{Irr}}({\operatorname Z}({ {{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}^F}}))$,
- ${\widetilde}\Omega_{{\mathbf S}}(\chi\mu)= {\widetilde}\Omega_{{\mathbf S}}(\chi) {\operatorname{Res}}^{{ {{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}^F}}}_{{\widetilde}{N}}(\mu)$ for every $ \chi\in{\mathcal G}_{{\mathbf S}}$ and $ \mu\in{\operatorname{Irr}}({ {{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}^F}}/{ {{{{\mathbf G}}}^F}}) $, and
- ${\operatorname{bl}}(\chi)={\operatorname{bl}}({\widetilde}\Omega_{{\mathbf S}}(\chi))^{ {\widetilde G }}$ for every $\chi\in {\mathcal G}_{{\mathbf S}}$, if $\ell\geq 5$.
The statement is proven by first defining an equivalence relation on ${{\mathcal P}}_{{\mathbf S}}$ and proving that the maps $\Upsilon^\circ$ and $\Upsilon'^\circ$ induce well-defined injective maps on the set $\overline{{\mathcal P}}_{{\mathbf S}}$ of equivalence classes in ${{\mathcal P}}_{{{\mathbf S}}}$. In a second step we then see that the bijection obtained has the required properties.
Recall ${\widetilde}N$ acts by conjugation on ${{\mathcal P}}_{{\mathbf S}}$ inducing an equivalence relation. We denote by $\overline {{\mathcal P}}_{{\mathbf S}}$ the set of equivalence classes in ${{\mathcal P}}_{{\mathbf S}}$.
Via $d$-Harish-Chandra theory and Deligne-Lusztig induction, we see that triples lying in the same ${\widetilde}N$-orbit correspond to the same character of ${ {\widetilde G }}$ by the equivariance properties from [@CabSpMZ 3.1 and 3.4]. (Note that Theorem 3.4 of [@CabSpMZ] states the equivariance of the $d$-Harish-Chandra theory only in the case of minimal $d$-split Levi subgroups, but the proof applies also in the general case.) Hence $\Upsilon^\circ$ induces a well-defined map $$\Upsilon: \overline {{\mathcal P}}_{{{\mathbf S}}} \rightarrow {\mathcal G}_{{\mathbf S}}\ .$$ Assume for a given character $\chi\in {\mathcal G}_{{\mathbf S}}$ that $\Upsilon^\circ (s,\kappa,\eta)= \Upsilon^\circ (s',\kappa',\eta')=\chi$. We see that $s$ and $s'$ have to be $({{{\mathbf G}}}^*)^F$-conjugate by the disjointness of Lusztig series. Let $g\in ({\widetilde}{{{\mathbf G}}}^*)^F$ with $s'=s^g$. According to [@BMM 3.2(1)] the characters $\kappa^g\in {\operatorname{Irr}}({\operatorname{C}}_{{\widetilde}{{{\mathbf G}}}(s)^F}({{\mathbf S}})^g)$ and $\kappa'\in {\operatorname{Irr}}({\operatorname{C}}_{{\widetilde}{{{\mathbf G}}}(s')^F}({{\mathbf S}}))$ are ${\widetilde}{{{\mathbf G}}}(s')^F$-conjugate, i.e. $\kappa^{gh}=\kappa'$ for some $h\in{\widetilde}{{{\mathbf G}}}(s')^F$ and $\eta^{gh}=\eta'$. Since ${\operatorname Z}({\operatorname{C}}_{{\widetilde}{{{\mathbf G}}}(s')^F}({{\mathbf S}}))_{\Phi_d}={{\mathbf S}}$, we see $gh \in {\widetilde}N$. Hence $\Upsilon$ is injective and hence bijective.
Recall that ${\widetilde}\Lambda$ is ${\widetilde}N$-equivariant. Therefore $\Upsilon'^ \circ$ induces a bijection $$\Upsilon':\overline {\mathcal P}_{{\mathbf S}}\longrightarrow {{\mathcal N}}_{{\mathbf S}}$$ by Clifford theory and the equivariance of Deligne-Lusztig induction.
We now study the bijection $$\Omega_{{{\mathbf S}}}:{\mathcal G}_{{\mathbf S}}\longrightarrow {{\mathcal N}}_{{{\mathbf S}}}\text{ given by }\Upsilon'\circ \Upsilon^{-1}.$$ The considerations in [@CabSpCharTypeA §6] prove that $\Omega_{{{\mathbf S}}}$ is $({{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}^F E)_{{\mathbf S}}$-equivariant and satisfies
- $\Omega_{{{\mathbf S}}}({\mathcal G}_{{\mathbf S}}\cap {\operatorname{Irr}}({\widetilde}G\mid\nu))\subseteq {\operatorname{Irr}}({\widetilde}N\mid \nu)$ for every $\nu\in{\operatorname{Irr}}({\operatorname Z}({{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}})^F)$
- $\Omega_{{{\mathbf S}}}$ is compatible with the action of ${\operatorname{Irr}}({ {{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}^F}}/{ {{{{\mathbf G}}}^F}})$ by multiplication, i.e. $${\Omega_{{{\mathbf S}}}}(\chi\mu)= \Omega_{{{\mathbf S}}}(\chi) {\operatorname{Res}}^{{ {{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}^F}}}_{{\widetilde}{N}}(\mu)\text{ for every } \chi\in{\mathcal G}_{{\mathbf S}}\text{ and } \mu\in{\operatorname{Irr}}({ {{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}^F}}/{ {{{{\mathbf G}}}^F}}).$$
It remains to prove ${\operatorname{bl}}(\chi)={\operatorname{bl}}(\Omega_{{\mathbf S}}(\chi))^{ {\widetilde G }}$ for every $\chi\in \Upsilon(\overline {{\mathcal P}}_{{\mathbf S}})$. Let $(s,\kappa,\eta)\in{{\mathcal P}}_{{{\mathbf S}}}$ and $\chi=\Upsilon^\circ(s,\kappa,\eta)$. Then we see that $\chi$ is a constituent of ${\operatorname{R}}_{{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}(s)}^{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}(\widehat {s} {\operatorname{R}}_{{{{\mathbf K}}}}^{{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}(s)}(\kappa)) $. The constituents of ${\operatorname{R}}_{{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}(s)}^{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}(\widehat {s} {\operatorname{R}}_{{{{\mathbf K}}}}^{{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}(s)}(\kappa)) $ lie all in the same block and similarly the constituents of ${\operatorname{R}}_{{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}(s_0)}^{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}(\widehat {s_0} {\operatorname{R}}_{{{{\mathbf K}}}}^{{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}(s_0)}(\kappa))= {\operatorname{R}}_{{{{\mathbf K}}}}^{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}(\widehat {s_0} \kappa)$ belong to the same block where $s_0:=s_{\ell'}$. To see that, it suffices to combine [@CabEnRedGp 22.9.(i)] and Bonnafé-Rouquier’s theorem [@CabEnRedGp 10.1].
In order to compute the block ${\operatorname{bl}}(\Upsilon'^\circ(s,\kappa,\eta))^{ {{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}^F}}$ we recall that ${{\mathbf S}}^F_\ell$ is a normal $\ell$-subgroup of ${\widetilde}N$ and hence the defect group of the block ${\operatorname{bl}}(\Upsilon'^\circ(s,\kappa,\eta))$ contains ${{\mathbf S}}^F_\ell$. By Theorem \[71b\], ${{{\mathbf L}}}^F\geq {\operatorname{C}}_{{ {\widetilde G }}^F}({{\mathbf S}}^F_\ell)$. Then $${\operatorname{bl}}({\operatorname{Ind}}_{{\widetilde}N_{{\operatorname{R}}_{{{{\mathbf K}}}}^{{{\mathbf L}}}(\widehat s\kappa)}}^{{\widetilde}N}
(\Lambda({\operatorname{R}}_{{{{\mathbf K}}}}^{{{\mathbf L}}}(\widehat s\kappa)) \eta))={\operatorname{bl}}({\operatorname{R}}_{{{{\mathbf K}}}}^{{{\mathbf L}}}(\widehat s\kappa))^{{\widetilde}N}$$ according to [@NavBl 9.8]. By the definition of $s_0$ we see that ${\operatorname{bl}}({\operatorname{R}}_{{{{\mathbf K}}}}^{{{\mathbf L}}}(\widehat s\kappa))={\operatorname{bl}}({\operatorname{R}}_{{{{\mathbf K}}}}^{{{\mathbf L}}}(\widehat s_0\kappa))$. This altogether implies that $${\operatorname{bl}}(\Upsilon'(s,\kappa,\eta))^{ {\widetilde G }}=
{\operatorname{bl}}({\operatorname{R}}_{{{{\mathbf K}}}}^{{{\mathbf L}}}(\widehat s_0\kappa))^{ {\widetilde G }}.$$ According to [@CabEngAdv 2.5] one knows ${\operatorname{bl}}({\operatorname{R}}_{{{{\mathbf K}}}}^{{{\mathbf L}}}(\widehat s_0\kappa))^{ {\widetilde G }}={\operatorname{bl}}({\operatorname{R}}_{{{{\mathbf K}}}}^{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}(\widehat s_0\kappa))$. This shows ${\operatorname{bl}}(\chi)={\operatorname{bl}}(\Omega_{{\mathbf S}}(\chi))^{ {\widetilde G }}$.
In the next step we obtain a bijection between the height zero characters of Brauer corresponding blocks satisfying the assumption \[thm24ii\].
\[thm72\]\[cor74a\] Assume the situation of . Let ${{{\mathbf L}}}:={\operatorname{C}}_{{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}}({{\mathbf S}})$, $\zeta\in {\mathcal{E}}_{\ell '}({{{\mathbf L}}}^F)$ be $d$-cuspidal, ${\widetilde}B_0=b_{{ {{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}^F}}}({{{\mathbf L}}},\zeta)$ the $\ell$-block containing all components of ${\operatorname{R}}_{{{{\mathbf L}}}}^{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}\zeta$, and ${\widetilde}B$ be the sum of ${\operatorname{Irr}}({ {{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}^F}}/{ {{{{\mathbf G}}}^F}})$-orbit in ${\operatorname{Bl}}({ {{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}^F}})$ containing ${\widetilde}B_0$. Let ${\widetilde}b$ be the sum of $c\in {\operatorname{Bl}}({\widetilde}N)$ with the property that $c^{{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}^F}$ is in ${\widetilde}B_0$.
Then there exists a $({{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}^F E)_{{\widetilde}B,{\widetilde}N}$-equivariant bijection $${\widetilde}\Omega_{{\widetilde}B}: {\operatorname{Irr}}_0({\widetilde}B)\longrightarrow {\operatorname{Irr}}_0({\widetilde}b)$$ with
- ${\widetilde}\Omega_{{\widetilde}B}({\operatorname{Irr}}_0({\widetilde}B)\cap {\operatorname{Irr}}({ {{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}^F}}\mid\nu))\subseteq {\operatorname{Irr}}({\widetilde}N\mid \nu)$ for every $\nu\in{\operatorname{Irr}}({\operatorname Z}({{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}^F))$,
- ${\widetilde}\Omega_{{\widetilde}B}$ is compatible with the action of ${\operatorname{Irr}}({{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}^F/{ {{{{\mathbf G}}}^F}})$ by multiplication, i.e., $${\widetilde}\Omega_{{\widetilde}B}(\chi\mu)= {\widetilde}\Omega_{{\widetilde}B}(\chi) {\operatorname{Res}}^{{ {{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}^F}}}_{{\widetilde}{N}}(\mu)\text{ for every } \mu\in{\operatorname{Irr}}({{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}^F/{ {{{{\mathbf G}}}^F}}) \text{ and } \chi\in{\operatorname{Irr}}({\widetilde}{B}).$$
We have to show ${\operatorname{Irr}}_0({\widetilde}B)\subseteq {\mathcal G}_{{\mathbf S}}$ and ${\widetilde}\Omega_{{\mathbf S}}({\operatorname{Irr}}_0({\widetilde}B))={\operatorname{Irr}}_0({\widetilde}b)$ for the bijection ${\widetilde}\Omega_{{\mathbf S}}$ from Proposition \[prop72neu\].
Let $\chi_0\in{\operatorname{Irr}}({\widetilde}B)\cap {\mathcal{E}}_{\ell'}({ {\widetilde G }})$, where ${\mathcal{E}}_{\ell'}({ {\widetilde G }})$ is the union of Lusztig series of ${\widetilde}{{{\mathbf G}}}^F$ associated to semi-simple $\ell'$-elements, $\chi_0= \Upsilon^\circ(s_0,\kappa,\eta)$ and ${{{\mathbf K}}}$ the Levi subgroup of ${{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}$ such that $\kappa$ is a character of ${{{\mathbf K}}}^F$. For any $\chi\in{\operatorname{Irr}}({\widetilde}B)$ there exists some semi-simple $s\in{\widetilde}{{{\mathbf G}}}^*$ with $s_{\ell'}=s_0$ and $\chi\in{\mathcal{E}}({{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}^F,s)$ ([@CabEnRedGp 9.12.(i)]). Furthermore $^*{\operatorname{R}}_{{\widetilde}{{{\mathbf G}}}(s_0)}^{{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}}(\chi) \widehat s_0^{-1}$ lies in a unipotent block. Thanks to Theorem \[Conjunip\] we can assume that ${{{\mathbf K}}}\leq{{{\mathbf G}}}(s)$. The proof of [@CabEnRedGp 23.4] can be applied and proves that $^*{\operatorname{R}}_{{\widetilde}{{{\mathbf G}}}(s_0)}^{{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}}(\chi) \widehat s_0^{-1}$ lies in the $d$-Harish-Chandra series of $({{{\mathbf K}}},\kappa)$, hence $^*{\operatorname{R}}_{{\widetilde}{{{\mathbf G}}}(s)}^{{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}}(\chi) \widehat s^{-1} \in {\mathcal{E}}({\widetilde}{{{\mathbf G}}}(s)^F, ({{{\mathbf K}}},\kappa))$. This proves ${\operatorname{Irr}}_0({\widetilde}B)\subseteq {\mathcal G}_{{{\mathbf S}}}$.
Let $\overline {{\mathcal P}}_{{\widetilde}B}:=\Upsilon^{-1}({\operatorname{Irr}}_0({\widetilde}B))$. We see that $\Upsilon'(\overline {{\mathcal P}}_{{\widetilde}B})\subseteq {\operatorname{Irr}}({\widetilde}b)$, since ${\operatorname{bl}}(\chi)={\operatorname{bl}}(\Omega^\circ(\chi))^{ {\widetilde G }}$ for every $\chi\in{\mathcal G}_{{\mathbf S}}$ and ${\widetilde}b$ is the sum of all blocks $c$ of ${\widetilde}N$ such that $c^{ {\widetilde G }}$ is in ${\widetilde}B$.
It remains to prove that ${\operatorname{Irr}}({\widetilde}b)\subseteq {{\mathcal N}}_{{\mathbf S}}$. The blocks of ${\widetilde}b$ cover blocks $c$ of ${{{\mathbf L}}}^F$. Hence, via Jordan decomposition, every height zero character of $c$ corresponds to a character in the $d$-Harish-Chandra series of $({{{\mathbf K}}},\kappa)$ with ${{\mathbf S}}={\operatorname{Z}}({{{\mathbf K}}}')_{\Phi_d}$. This implies ${\operatorname{Irr}}_0({\widetilde}b)\subseteq {{\mathcal N}}_{{\mathbf S}}$.
Accordingly the restriction of ${\widetilde}\Omega_{{\mathbf S}}$ to ${\operatorname{Irr}}_0({\widetilde}B)$ yields an injective map $${\widetilde}\Omega_{{\widetilde}B}\colon {\operatorname{Irr}}_0({\widetilde}B)\to{\operatorname{Irr}}({\widetilde}b)$$ with the required equivariance properties.
In order to finish our proof it remains to show that ${\widetilde}\Omega_{{\widetilde}B} ({\operatorname{Irr}}_0({\widetilde}B))={\operatorname{Irr}}_0({\widetilde}b)$. Recall that $\chi_0=\Upsilon^\circ(s_0,\kappa,\eta)\in {\operatorname{Irr}}(B)$. Lemma \[lem\_deg\] shows that the $\ell$-part of the degree of $\Upsilon^\circ(s_0,\kappa,\rm 1_{W_{{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}(s_0)^F}({{{\mathbf K}}},\kappa)})$ is minimal amongst ${\operatorname{Irr}}({\widetilde}B)$. Accordingly this character has height $0$. We see that the block has defect $|{\widetilde}{{{\mathbf G}}}(s)^F:{{{\mathbf K}}}^F| \frac{|{{{\mathbf K}}}^F|}{\kappa(1)_\ell}$. According to the description of the defect group this proves that $|{\widetilde}{{{\mathbf G}}}(s)^F:{{{\mathbf K}}}^F|_\ell=|W_{{\widetilde}{{{\mathbf G}}}(s)^F}({{{\mathbf K}}}_{},\kappa)|_\ell$. This proves that ${\operatorname{Irr}}_0({\widetilde}B)=\Upsilon^{\circ}({\mathcal P}_{{\widetilde}B})$, where ${\mathcal P}_{{\widetilde}B}$ is the set of triples $(s',\kappa ',\eta ')\in {{\mathcal P}}_{{{\mathbf S}}}$ with the following properties:
- $(s')_{{\ell'}}\in {\operatorname{Z}}(({\widetilde}{{{\mathbf G}}}^*)^F)s_0$, $\kappa'=\kappa$, and
- $\eta'\in{\operatorname{Irr}}_{\ell '}(W_{{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}(s')}({{{\mathbf K}}},\kappa)^F)$, and
- $\ell \nmid |W_{{\widetilde}{{{\mathbf G}}}(s_0)}({{{\mathbf K}}},\kappa)^F: W_{{\widetilde}{{{\mathbf G}}}(s')}({{{\mathbf K}}},\kappa)^F|$.
Note that $W_{{\widetilde}{{{\mathbf G}}}(s')}({{{\mathbf K}}},\kappa)^F=W_{{\widetilde}{{{\mathbf G}}}(s')}({{{\mathbf K}}})^F$ by the description of unipotent $d$-cuspidal pairs given in [@CabEnRedGp 21.6] and [@BMM proof of 3.3].
On the other hand considering the description of the defect group from [@CabEngAdv Lemma 4.16] and the degrees given in Lemma \[lem\_deg\_loc\] we see ${\operatorname{Irr}}_0({\widetilde}b)=\Upsilon'^{\circ}({\mathcal P}_{{\widetilde}B})$. This implies that ${\widetilde}\Omega_{{\widetilde}B}$ defines a bijection with the required properties.
For later we point out the following equality.
\[cor74\] \[cor74b\] Let $B\in{\operatorname{Bl}}({\operatorname{SL}}_n(\epsilon q))$ be covered by ${\widetilde}B_0$ in the situation of . Then $|{\operatorname{Irr}}_0(B)|=|{\operatorname{Irr}}_0(b)|$, where $N:={\widetilde}N\cap {\operatorname{SL}}_n(\epsilon q)$ and $b\in{\operatorname{Bl}}(N)$ with $b^{{ {{{{\mathbf G}}}^F}}}=B$.
The map ${\widetilde}\Omega_{{\widetilde}B}$ is ${\operatorname{Irr}}({\widetilde}G/G)$-compatible. Accordingly the number of constituents of ${\operatorname{Res}}^{{ {\widetilde G }}}_G(\chi)$ and ${\operatorname{Res}}^{{{{\widetilde}N}}}_N(\Omega(\chi))$ coincide for all $\chi\in{\operatorname{Irr}}_0({\widetilde}B)$. Also every character of ${\operatorname{Irr}}_0(B)$ and ${\operatorname{Irr}}_0(b)$ is the constituent of the the restriction of some character of ${\operatorname{Irr}}_0({\widetilde}B)$ and ${\operatorname{Irr}}_0({\widetilde}b)$, respectively, since $\ell\nmid |{\widetilde}G:G|$. Furthermore we see that all blocks of $G$ covered by ${\widetilde}B$ have the same number of height zero characters. Accordingly $$\bigcup_{\chi\in{\operatorname{Irr}}_ 0({\widetilde}B)} {\operatorname{Irr}}({\operatorname{Res}}_G^{{\widetilde}G}(\chi))=\bigcup_{B\in{\operatorname{Bl}}(G\mid {\widetilde}B)}{\operatorname{Irr}}_0(B).$$ This implies the stated equality via analogous local considerations.
Proofs of the main Statements
=============================
In this section we combine the results of the previous sections to provide a proof of and . We are first concerned with the consequences towards the Alperin-McKay Conjecture and the inductive AM condition. At the end we turn our focus towards the blockwise Alperin weight conjecture and the blockwise Alperin weight condition.
Let $\ell$ be a prime $\ell\nmid q(q-\epsilon)$, $B_0$ be an $\ell$-block of ${\operatorname{SL}}_n(\epsilon q)$ and $B$ the sum of ${\operatorname{GL}}_n(\epsilon q)$-conjugates of $B_0$. Assume that ${\operatorname{Out}}(G)_B$ is abelian. We prove the inductive AM condition as given in [@AMSp 7.2] for $B$ via an application of Theorem \[IndAMCond\]. While clearly Assumption (i) holds, Assumption (iii) follows from \[StarCondSL\]. The bijection from Corollary \[thm72\] has the properties required in \[thm24ii\]. Assumption 2.4(iv) is known from Theorem \[thm12b\]. Recall that ${\operatorname{Out}}(G)_B$ is assumed to be abelian. This implies that the inductive AM condition from [@AMSp 7.2] holds for $B_0$.
In the above we apply the criterion from Theorem \[NewIndAmCond\] assuming \[NewIndAmCondv\]. Corollary \[cor74\] and Theorem \[thm12b\] allow also an application of [@CabSpAMTypeA Theorem 4.1] towards the verification of the inductive AM condition for more $\ell$-blocks.
\[corindAM\] Let $\ell$ be a prime, $q$ a prime power and $\epsilon\in \{\pm 1\}$ with $\ell\nmid 3q( q-\epsilon)$, let $b$ be an $\ell$-block of $G:={\operatorname{SL}}_n(\epsilon q)$. If for every $J$ with $G\leq J\leq {\operatorname{GL}}_n(\epsilon q)$ every $c\in {\operatorname{Bl}}(J\mid b)$ is ${\operatorname{GL}}(\epsilon q)$-stable then the inductive AM condition from Definition 7.2 of [@AMSp] holds for $b$.
In [@CabSpAMTypeA §5] the condition on $b$ is studied using the $d$-cuspidal pair $({{{\mathbf L}}},\zeta)$ associated with $b$. For every $J$ with $G\leq J\leq {\operatorname{GL}}_n(\epsilon q)$ every $c\in {\operatorname{Bl}}(J\mid b)$ is ${\operatorname{GL}}_n(\epsilon q)$-stable if ${\operatorname{Z}}({{{\mathbf L}}})$ is connected according to the considerations given there.
The criterion [@CabSpAMTypeA Theorem 4.1] can also be applied to a ${\widetilde}G$-orbit of blocks of ${\operatorname{SL}}_n(\epsilon q)$. The assumptions 4.1(i)-(iv) are ensured as in the proof of \[thm11a\]. The remaining condition (v) is satisfied by assumption.
The equality in Corollary \[cor74\] is close to the Alperin-McKay conjecture for those blocks, just the block of the normalizer of the defect group is replaced by the induced block of the normalizer of the Sylow $\Phi_d$-torus. We use the result of \[prop75\] to relate the blocks of those two groups.
Assume $G={\operatorname{SL}}_n(\epsilon q)$ writes as ${{{\mathbf G}}}^F$ as before. Let $B\in {\operatorname{Bl}}({\operatorname{SL}}_n(\epsilon q))$, $N$ and $b\in {\operatorname{Bl}}(N)$ be corresponding to $B$ as in Corollary \[cor74b\]. Then $|{\operatorname{Irr}}_0(B)|=|{\operatorname{Irr}}_0(b)|$ according to Corollary \[cor74b\]. Denote by $({{{\mathbf L}}},\zeta)$ the $d$-cuspidal pair defining $B$ as in [@CabEngAdv 4.1]. Note that $N={\operatorname{N}}_G({{{\mathbf L}}})$.
Some defect group $D$ of $B$ is also a defect group of any covering block of GL$_n(\epsilon q)$ and satisfies ${\operatorname{C}}_G(D)\leq {{{\mathbf L}}}^F$ by Theorem \[71b\] and [@CabEngAdv §5.3]. Note that $D$ is also a defect group of $b$. All characters of $L:={{{\mathbf L}}}^F$ extend to their stabilizers in $N$ by Theorem \[StarConddSpLevi\]. For $\xi\in {\operatorname{Irr}}(L)$ the group $N_\xi/L$ satisfies the McKay Conjecture for $\ell$ by Proposition \[propMcKayrelWeyl\]. Now every block ${\widetilde}b$ of ${\widetilde}L:=({\operatorname{Z}}({\widetilde}{{{\mathbf G}}}){{{\mathbf L}}})^F$ contains at least one character of ${\operatorname{Irr}}({\widetilde}L\mid \zeta)$ and those are $d$-cuspidal according to [@CaEn94 proof of 1.10(i)]. The block ${\widetilde}b$ is splendid Rickard equivalent to a unipotent block via a Jordan decomposition, see [@BonDatRou]. This block has a $d$-cuspidal unipotent character. According to [@CabEnRedGp 22.9] this block has central defect and is hence nilpotent. This implies that ${\widetilde}b$ is nilpotent, since the fusion systems of the blocks are preserved by splendid Rickard equivalence according to [@Puig_book 19.7] and nilpotency of a block can be read off from its fusion system. The $\ell$-group $D$ acts on the set ${\operatorname{Bl}}({\widetilde}L\mid b)$ since $b$ is $D$-stable. Observe that $\ell\nmid |{\operatorname{Bl}}({\widetilde}L\mid b)|$ since multiplication with characters of ${\operatorname{Irr}}({\widetilde}L/L)$ defines an action on ${\operatorname{Bl}}({\widetilde}L\mid b)$.
Accordingly there exists some block ${\widetilde}b\in {\operatorname{Bl}}({\widetilde}L\mid b)$ that is $D$-stable. Since ${\operatorname{Bl}}({\widetilde}L\mid b)$ forms an ${\operatorname{Irr}}({\widetilde}L/L)$-orbit, all blocks in ${\operatorname{Bl}}({\widetilde}L\mid b)$ are $D$-stable. Then the block ${\widetilde}c\in{\operatorname{Bl}}({\widetilde}L D)$ covering ${\widetilde}b$ is nilpotent as well by [@Cab_p_ext_nilp Theorem 2]. Let ${\widetilde}b\in {\operatorname{Bl}}(LD\mid b)$ be covered by $ {\widetilde}c$. This block is inertial by [@Puig_nilpotent_extensions Theorem 3.13]. Hence Theorem \[prop75\] can be applied and proves the statement.
While the above proves that all $\ell$-blocks of ${\operatorname{SL}}_n(\epsilon q)$ satisfy the Alperin-McKay conjecture for primes $\ell$ with $\ell\nmid 3q(q-\epsilon)$, we finally deduce the consequences of our considerations towards the Alperin weight Conjecture.
Let $B_0\in{\operatorname{Irr}}({\operatorname{SL}}_n(\epsilon q))$ with defect group $D$, and $({{{\mathbf L}}},\zeta)$ and $N$ be defined as in Corollary \[cor74\]. Let $c\in
{\operatorname{Bl}}(N)$ be the block with $c^{{\operatorname{SL}}_n(\epsilon q)}$ corresponding to $B_0$ and $c_0={\operatorname{bl}}(\zeta)\in {\operatorname{Bl}}({{{\mathbf L}}}^F)$. By assumption ${\operatorname{C}}_{{{\mathbf G}}}(D)$ is $d$-split and therefore it coincides with ${{{\mathbf L}}}$, since ${{{\mathbf L}}}$ is the minimal $d$-split Levi containing ${\operatorname{C}}^\circ_{{{\mathbf G}}}(D)$ according to [@CabEngAdv 4.4(iii)]. The defect group hence satisfies $D= {\operatorname{Z}}({{{\mathbf L}}})^F_{\ell}$. This implies $N={\operatorname{N}}_{ {{{{\mathbf G}}}^F}}(D)$.
The block $c_0:={\operatorname{bl}}(\zeta)$ contains a character of ${\mathcal{E}}_{\ell' }({{{\mathbf L}}}^F)$ and the characters of ${\mathcal{E}}_{\ell' }({{{\mathbf L}}}^F)$ are trivial on ${\operatorname{Z}}(L)_{\ell}$ according to [@CabEngAdv 1.2(v)]. On the other hand $c_0$ as block with central defect has a unique character that is trivial on $D$ and that corresponds to a defect zero character of $L/D$. For ${{\mathbb B}}'_0:={\operatorname{Irr}}(c_0)\cap {\mathcal{E}}_{{\ell'}}({{{\mathbf L}}}^F)$ this implies ${{\mathbb B}}'_0= {\operatorname{Irr}}(c_0)\cap {\operatorname{Irr}}(L/D)$ and hence ${\operatorname{Irr}}(N\mid {{\mathbb B}}_0')={\operatorname{Irr}}(c)\cap {\operatorname{Irr}}(N/D)$. As $c$ has normal defect, $$|{\operatorname{IBr}}(c)|=|{\operatorname{Irr}}(c)\cap {\operatorname{Irr}}(N/D)|=|{\operatorname{Irr}}(N\mid {{\mathbb B}}'_0)|$$.
Let ${ {{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}^F}}={\operatorname{GL}}_n(\epsilon q)$ be defined as in as in \[71b\], ${\widetilde}L:={\operatorname{C}}_{{ {{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}^F}}}({\operatorname{Z}}({{{\mathbf L}}}))$ and ${\widetilde}N:={\operatorname{N}}_{{ {{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}^F}}}({{{\mathbf L}}})$. We denote by ${\widetilde}B$ the sum of blocks of ${ {{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}^F}}$ covering $B_0$ and by ${\widetilde}b$ the sum of corresponding blocks of ${\widetilde}N$. Denote by ${\widetilde}b_0$ the sum of blocks of ${\widetilde}L$ covered by one of ${\widetilde}b$. The construction of ${\widetilde}\Omega_{{\widetilde}B}:{\operatorname{Irr}}_0({\widetilde}B)\longrightarrow {\operatorname{Irr}}_0({\widetilde}b)$ in \[thm72\] implies $${\widetilde}\Omega_{{\widetilde}B} ({\widetilde}{{{\mathbb B}}})={\operatorname{Irr}}({\widetilde}N\mid {\widetilde}{{\mathbb B}}'),$$ where ${\widetilde}{{{\mathbb B}}}:= {\operatorname{Irr}}_0({\widetilde}B)\cap {\mathcal{E}}_{\ell'} ({ {{{\widetilde {{{\mathbf G}}}}}^F}}) $ and ${\widetilde}{{\mathbb B}}':={\operatorname{Irr}}({\widetilde}b_0) \cap {\mathcal{E}}_{{\ell'}}({\widetilde}L)$.
Let $B$ be the sum of blocks in ${\operatorname{Bl}}({ {{{{\mathbf G}}}^F}})$ covered by a block of ${\widetilde}B$ and $b$ be the sum of blocks in ${\operatorname{Bl}}(N)$ covered by a blocks of ${\widetilde}b$. By the construction in Section \[RefomIndAM\] we obtain a bijection $\Omega_B:{\operatorname{Irr}}_0(B)\longrightarrow {\operatorname{Irr}}_0(b)$. For ${{\mathbb B}}:=\bigcup_{\chi\in {\widetilde}{\mathbb B}} {\operatorname{Irr}}({\operatorname{Res}}^{{ {\widetilde G }}}_{G}(\chi))$ and ${{\mathbb B}}':=\bigcup_{\psi\in {\widetilde}{\mathbb B'}} {\operatorname{Irr}}({\operatorname{Res}}^{{\widetilde}L}_{L}(\psi))$ Corollary \[cor\_AWC\] implies $\Omega_B(\mathbb B)={\operatorname{Irr}}(b)\cap {\operatorname{Irr}}(N/D)$.
Note that $\mathbb B\subseteq {\mathcal{E}}_{\ell'}({ {{{{\mathbf G}}}^F}})$. Since the $\ell$-modular decomposition matrix of $B_0$ is unitriangular with respect to the ${\operatorname{Aut}}({ {{{{\mathbf G}}}^F}})_B$-stable set ${{\mathbb B}}_0$, see [@GeckBS2 Theorem C and Proposition 2.6(iii)], this implies the inductive blockwise Alperin weight condition, see [@KosSpAMBAWCy Theorem 1.2].
We conclude by proving the Alperin weight conjecture for blocks with abelian defect in our situation.
Let $B$ be the sum of a ${ {\widetilde G }}$-orbit in ${\operatorname{Bl}}({\operatorname{SL}}_n(\epsilon q))$. Let ${{{\mathbf G}}}:={\operatorname{SL}}_n(\overline {\ensuremath{\mathbb{F}}}_q)$ and $F:{{{\mathbf G}}}\rightarrow{{{\mathbf G}}}$ be a Frobenius endomorphism such that ${{{\mathbf G}}}^F={\operatorname{SL}}_n(\epsilon q)$. Let $({{{\mathbf L}}},\zeta)$ be the $d$-cuspidal pair of a block $B_0$ from the blocks in $B$, $L:={{{\mathbf L}}}^F$ and $N:={\operatorname{N}}_{{ {{{{\mathbf G}}}^F}}}({{{\mathbf L}}})$. By , it follows that ${\operatorname{N}}_{ {{{{\mathbf G}}}^F}}({{{\mathbf L}}})\geq {\operatorname{N}}_{ {{{{\mathbf G}}}^F}}(D)$ for some defect group $D$ of $B_0$ and hence by Brauer correspondence [@NavBl 4.12] the blocks in $B$ correspond to a ${\widetilde}N$-orbit in ${\operatorname{Bl}}(N)$ of the same length. We denote the sum of those blocks by $b$.
Let $\Omega_B:{\operatorname{Irr}}_0(B)\rightarrow {\operatorname{Irr}}_0(b)$ be a bijection that is derived from the bijection of as in Section 2. The arguments in the proof of Theorem \[thm11b\] imply that $$\Omega_B({\operatorname{Irr}}_0(B)\cap {\mathcal{E}}_{\ell'}({ {{{{\mathbf G}}}^F}}))={\operatorname{Irr}}_0(b)\cap {\operatorname{Irr}}(N\mid {\mathcal{E}}_{{\ell'}}({{{\mathbf L}}}^F)).$$ Let $c_0:={\operatorname{bl}}(\zeta)\in {\operatorname{Bl}}({{{\mathbf L}}}^F)$ and denote by $c$ the block of $N$ covering $c_0$. Let $r$ be the length of the ${ {\widetilde G }}$-orbit of $G$ containing $B_0$. Recall that ${\mathcal{E}}_{{{\ell'}}}({ {{{{\mathbf G}}}^F}})$ is a basic set of ${ {{{{\mathbf G}}}^F}}$ by [@GeckBS2 Theorem C and Proposition 2.6(iii)]. Then $b$ has $r$ summands, one is $c$, and $$|{\operatorname{IBr}}(B_0)|= \frac{|{\operatorname{Irr}}_0(B)\cap {\mathcal{E}}_{\ell'}({ {{{{\mathbf G}}}^F}})|}{r}=
\frac{|{\operatorname{Irr}}_0(b)\cap {\operatorname{Irr}}(N\mid {\mathcal{E}}_{\ell'}({{{\mathbf L}}}^F)|}{r}=
|{\operatorname{Irr}}_0(c)\cap {\operatorname{Irr}}(N\mid {{\mathbb B}}')|,$$ where ${{\mathbb B}}':= {\operatorname{Irr}}(c_0)\cap {\mathcal{E}}_{{\ell'}}({{{\mathbf L}}}^F)$. Then by [@BonDatRou] $c_0$ is basic Morita equivalent to a block $c_0'$ of ${\operatorname{C}}_{{{{\mathbf L}}}^*}(s)^F$ above a unipotent block $c_0''\in{\operatorname{Bl}}({\operatorname{C}}^\circ_{{{{\mathbf L}}}^*}(s)^F)$ with central defect. The unipotent character of $c_0''$ is trivial on the central defect, hence restricts to an irreducible Brauer character and hence forms a basic set. By Clifford theory the unipotent characters of $c_0'$ form a basic set with a diagonal $\ell$-modular decomposition matrix as well, since ${\operatorname{C}}_{{{{\mathbf L}}}^*}(s)^F/{\operatorname{C}}_{{{{\mathbf L}}}^*}^\circ(s)^F$ is an $\ell'$-group. The Morita equivalence from [@BonDatRou] maps the unipotent characters to ${{\mathbb B}}':={\operatorname{Irr}}(c_0)\cap {\mathcal{E}}_{{\ell'}}({{{\mathbf L}}}^F)$ and hence ${\operatorname{Irr}}(c_0)\cap {\mathcal{E}}_{{\ell'}}({{{\mathbf L}}}^F)$ is a $N_{c_0}$-stable basic set with a unitriangular $\ell$-decomposition matrix. Recall that by the proof of Theorem \[thm13a\] the assumptions of Proposition \[prop75\] are satisfied. Then the assumption \[prop29b\] applies and we obtain $|{\operatorname{IBr}}(c)|=|{\operatorname{Irr}}(N\mid {{\mathbb B}}')|$.
Since $c$ satisfies the Alperin weight Conjecture by Proposition \[prop29a\], this implies the Alperin weight conjecture for $B_0$ and all blocks of $B$.
[BMM93]{}
C. Bonnafé, J.-F. Dat, and R. Rouquier. Derived categories and [D]{}eligne-[L]{}usztig varieties [II]{}. , 185(2):609–670, 2017.
M. Broué and G. Malle. Generalized [H]{}arish-[C]{}handra theory. In [*Representations of reductive groups*]{}, volume 16 of [*Publ. Newton Inst.*]{}, pages 85–103. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1998.
M. Broué, G. Malle, and J. Michel. Generic blocks of finite reductive groups. , (212):7–92, 1993.
M. Cabanes. Extensions of [$p$]{}-groups and construction of characters. , 15(6):1297–1311, 1987.
M. Cabanes and M. Enguehard. On unipotent blocks and their ordinary characters. , 117(1):149–164, 1994.
M. Cabanes and M. Enguehard. On blocks of finite reductive groups and twisted induction. , 145(2):189–229, 1999.
M. Cabanes and M. Enguehard. On fusion in unipotent blocks. , 31(2):143–148, 1999.
M. Cabanes and M. Enguehard. , volume 1 of [*New Mathematical Monographs*]{}. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004.
M. Cabanes and B. Späth. Equivariance and extendibility in finite reductive groups with connected center. , 275(3-4):689–713, 2013.
M. Cabanes and B. Sp[ä]{}th. On the inductive [A]{}lperin-[M]{}c[K]{}ay condition for simple groups of type [${A}$]{}. , 442:104–123, 2015.
M. Cabanes and B. Späth. Equivariant character correspondences and inductive [M]{}c[K]{}ay condition for type [$A$]{}. , 728:153–194, 2017.
M. Cabanes and B. Späth. Inductive [M]{}c[K]{}ay condition for finite simple groups of type [$C$]{}. , 21:61–81, 2017.
M. Cabanes and B. Späth. Descent equalities and the inductive [McKay]{} condition for types [B]{} and [E]{}. Submitted, 2018.
M. Cabanes, A. Schaeffer-Fry, and B. Späth. On the inductive [A]{}lperin-[McKay]{} conditions in the maximal split case. , (2019).
E. C. Dade. Block extensions. , 17:198–272, 1973.
Z. Feng. The blocks and weights of finite special linear and unitary groups, 2018. arXiv:1805.06633.
Z. Feng, C. Li, and Z. Li. The inductive blockwise alperin weight condition for [PSL]{}(3, q ). , 24:123–152, 03 2017.
M. Geck. Basic sets of [B]{}rauer characters of finite groups of [L]{}ie type. [II]{}. , 47(2):255–268, 1993.
D. Gorenstein, R. Lyons, and R. Solomon. , volume 40 of [*Mathematical Surveys and Monographs*]{}. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1998.
I. M. Isaacs, G. Malle, and G. Navarro. A reduction theorem for the [M]{}c[K]{}ay conjecture. , 170(1):33–101, 2007.
I. M. Isaacs. . Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1994. Corrected reprint of the 1976 original \[Academic Press, New York\].
S. Koshitani and B. Späth. Clifford theory of characters in induced blocks. , 143(9):3687–3702, 2015.
S. Koshitani and B. Sp[ä]{}th. The inductive [A]{}lperin–[M]{}c[K]{}ay condition for 2-blocks with cyclic defect groups. , 106(2):107–116, 2016.
S. Koshitani and B. Späth. The inductive [A]{}lperin-[M]{}c[K]{}ay and blockwise [A]{}lperin weight conditions for blocks with cyclic defect groups and odd primes. , 19(5):777–813, 2016.
C. Li. An equivariant bijection between irreducible [B]{}rauer characters and weights for $\mathrm {Sp}(2n, q)$, 2018. arXiv:1812.11294.
C. Li and J. Zhang. The inductive blockwise [A]{}lperin weight condition for [PSL]{}$_n(q)$ and [PSU]{}$_n(q)$ with cyclic outer automorphism groups. , 495:130 – 149, 2018.
G. Malle. Height 0 characters of finite groups of [L]{}ie type. , 11:192–220 (electronic), 2007.
G. Malle. On the inductive [A]{}lperin-[M]{}c[K]{}ay and [A]{}lperin weight conjecture for groups with abelian [S]{}ylow subgroups. , 397:190–208, 2014.
G. Malle and B. Späth. Characters of odd degree. , 184(3):869–908, 2016.
M. Murai. On blocks of normal subgroups of finite groups. , 50(4):1007–1020, 2013.
G. Navarro. , volume 250 of [ *London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series*]{}. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998.
G. Navarro. , volume 175 of [*Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics*]{}. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2018.
L. Puig. On [J]{}oanna [S]{}copes’ criterion of equivalence for blocks of symmetric groups. , 1(1):25–55, 1994.
L. Puig. , volume 178 of [*Progress in Mathematics*]{}. Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, 1999.
L. Puig. Nilpotent extensions of blocks. , 269(1-2):115–136, 2011.
E. Schulte. The inductive blockwise [A]{}lperin weight condition for [$G_2(q)$]{} and [$^3D_4(q)$]{}. , 466:314–369, 2016.
A. Schaeffer Fry. is “good” for the [M]{}c[K]{}ay, [A]{}lperin weight, and related local-global conjectures. , 401:13–47, 2014.
B. Sp[ä]{}th. The [M]{}c[K]{}ay conjecture for exceptional groups and odd primes. , 261(3):571–595, 2009.
B. Sp[ä]{}th. Sylow [$d$]{}-tori of classical groups and the [M]{}c[K]{}ay conjecture. [I]{}. , 323(9):2469–2493, 2010.
B. Sp[ä]{}th. Sylow [$d$]{}-tori of classical groups and the [M]{}c[K]{}ay conjecture. [II]{}. , 323(9):2494–2509, 2010.
B. Sp[ä]{}th. Inductive [M]{}c[K]{}ay condition in defining characteristic. , 44(3):426–438, 2012.
B. Sp[ä]{}th. A reduction theorem for the [A]{}lperin-[M]{}c[K]{}ay conjecture. , 680:153–189, 2013.
B. Sp[ä]{}th. A reduction theorem for the blockwise [A]{}lperin weight conjecture. , 16(2):159–220, 2013.
B. Sp[ä]{}th. A strong version of an extension result of [L]{}usztig and [G]{}eck. In Preparation, 2019.
J. Th[é]{}venaz. . Oxford Mathematical Monographs. The Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, New York, 1995.
Y. Zhou. On the [$p'$]{}-extensions of inertial blocks. , 144(1):41–54, 2016.
[^1]: The first author thanks the Humbold Foundation for its support.
[^2]: This material is partially based upon work supported by the NSF Grant No. DMS-1440140 while the second author was in residence at the MSRI in Berkeley, California, during the Spring 2018 semester. Both authors like to thank the research training group *GRK 2240: Algebro-Geometric Methods in Algebra, Arithmetic and Topology*, funded by the DFG
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present measurements of untriggered di-hadron correlations as a function of centrality in Pb-Pb [$\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 2.76$ TeV ]{}collisions, for charged hadrons with $p_{T} > 0.15$ GeV$/c$. These measurements provide a map of the bulk correlation structures in heavy-ion collisions. Contributions to these structures may come from jets, initial density fluctuations, elliptic flow, resonances, and/or momentum conservation. We decompose the measured correlation functions via a multi-parameter fit in order to extract the nearside Gaussian, the longer range $\Delta \eta$ correlation often referred to as the soft ridge. The effect of including higher harmonics ($v_{3}$ and $v_{4}$) in this procedure will be discussed. We investigate how the nearside Gaussian scales with the number of binary collisions. Finally, we show the charge dependence of the nearside Gaussian.'
address: 'Department of Physics, University of Houston, 617 Science and Research, Building 1, Houston, TX 77204, USA'
author:
- 'Anthony R. Timmins for the ALICE collaboration'
title: 'Untriggered di-hadron correlations in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 2.76 TeV from ALICE '
---
Measurements of untriggered di-hadron correlations aim to explore the bulk correlation structures in heavy-ion collisions. All charged hadrons with $p_{T} > 0.15$ GeV/c are used to form a correlation function, which for this analysis is defined as follows [@STAR1]: $$\label{equ:2DCorr}
\frac{\Delta \rho}{\sqrt{ \rho_{ref}}} (\Delta \eta,\Delta \phi) = \frac{\rho_{sib}-\rho_{ref}}{\sqrt{ \rho_{ref}}} = \frac{d^2N_{ch}}{d\eta d\phi}(\frac{\rho_{sib}}{\rho_{ref}}-1)$$ The symbol $\rho_{sib}$ refers to the number of correlated and uncorrelated pairs (or pair density), where the hadrons used to form the pair come from the same event. $\rho_{ref}$ refers to the number of uncorrelated pairs, since the hadrons used to form the pair come from different events. $\Delta \rho $ is therefore the number of correlated pairs. The denominator is the square root of the number of background pairs, so that represents the number of charged hadrons. i.e $d^{2}N_{ch}/d\eta d \phi$. The correlation function therefore measures the *number of correlated pairs per particle*. Figure \[Fig1\] shows the extracted correlation function as a function of centrality. The amplitude of the longer range $\Delta \eta $ correlations grows from peripheral to mid-central collisions, then falls slightly for central collisions. On the nearside, the most prominent structure is a short range nearside spike, which sits on top of a longer range nearside Gaussian. The short range spike was found to be from HBT and $\gamma \rightarrow e^{+}+e^{-}$ conversions. Elliptic flow is also prominent, and is represented by the $\cos(2\Delta \phi)$ structure, which is independent of $\Delta \eta$.
We attempt to characterise the longer range nearside Gaussian via a fit decomposition. This structure is of particular interest, since there are various interpretations with regard to its origin [@sr1; @sr1i; @sr2; @sr3; @sr4], some of which give quantitative predictions at LHC energies. It is sometimes referred to as the “soft ridge”. The fit decomposition is as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{equ:Decomp2}
\frac{\Delta \rho}{\sqrt{ \rho_{ref}}} (\Delta \eta,\Delta \phi) &=& Constant + \textrm{Gauss}(\Delta \phi, \Delta \eta) + A\cos(\Delta \phi)+B\cos(2\Delta \phi) \\ \\
&& + C\cos(3\Delta \phi)+D\cos(4\Delta \phi)\end{aligned}$$ We extract the 2D Gaussian terms ($\textrm{Gauss}(\Delta \phi, \Delta \eta))$ under two scenarios: the first fixes $C=D=0$, the second allows $C$ and $D$ to free parameters, which in turn enables higher order harmonics to be included in the prescription. The $B\cos(2\Delta \phi)$ term originates from elliptic flow, while $A\cos(\Delta \phi)$ term may have a variety of origins e.g. momentum conservation, directed flow, and/or awayside jets. Bins in the region which covers a circle centered at 0,0 with a of radius 0.5 are given zero weight in the fit, to prevent the spike influencing the fit. The $\chi^2/dof$ for both scenarios varies between $1 \rightarrow 1.5$ and no remaining structures were found to exist in the 2D residuals.
Figure \[Fig2\] shows the extracted nearside Gaussian parameters. Previous analyses at RHIC energies negated the higher harmonic terms [@STAR1; @Daugherity], and we find the nearside Gaussian without higher harmonics behaves in a similar way: a substantial growth is seen for both the amplitude and the $\Delta \eta$ width. When higher harmonics are included, the behaviour of the Gaussian is more subdued with relatively modest increases in the amplitude and $\Delta \eta$ width. The reduction in the Gaussian terms is accompanied by increases in $B, C, D$ which are not shown. It is possible to convert the amplitudes $A,B, C, D$ to $v_n$ coefficients [@Kettler], and these were found to be consistent with another analysis at low $p_{T}$ [@Adare], for the case where $C$ and $D$ are free parameters.
Figure \[Fig3\] shows the integral of the nearside Gaussian. The dashed lines assumes the number of correlated pairs in the Gaussian scales with the number of binary collisions from peripheral to more central collisions. It appears that this hypothesis is favoured more by the Gaussian extracted with higher harmonics in the fit. Finally, figure \[Fig4\] shows the charge dependence of the nearside Gaussian.
It is clear that unlike sign pairs contribute more to the near structure within ALICE’s acceptance. Like sign pairs have a broader structure. If the nearside Gaussian were driven only by a flow mechanism which acts on charged hadrons independent of charge sign, one would expect no charge dependence, which is in contrast to our data.
In summary, we have measured untriggered di-hadron correlations in Pb+Pb [$\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 2.76$ TeV ]{}collisions. A pronounced change in the correlation structure from peripheral to central collisions is observed. We have quantified the nearside Gaussian with two methods: including and omitting higher harmonics which has a significant effect on the extracted Gaussian parameters. The extracted Gaussian integral with higher harmonics scales with the number of binary collisions, within the quoted uncertainties. Finally, we observe a charge sign dependence for the nearside Gaussian: unlike sign correlations are narrower and stronger within ALICE’s acceptance.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[10]{} J. Adams et al. (STAR Collaboration) Phys. Rev. C 73 (2006) 064907 S. Gavin, L. McLerran and G. Moschelli, Phys. Rev. C79 (2009) 051902 G. Moschelli, *Quark Matter 2011 poster* K. Werner et al, *arXiv:1104.3269v1* P. Sorensen et al, *arXiv:1101.1925v1* T. Trainor, Phys. Rev. C 80 (2009) 044901 M. Daugherity (STAR Collaboration), J. Phys. G 35 (2008) 104090 D. Kettler (STAR collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 62 (2009)175 A. Adare (ALICE collaboration), *these proceedings*
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Shaobo Lin, Yao Wang , and Lin Xu'
title: 'Re-scale boosting for regression and classification'
---
Introduction
============
Contemporary scientific investigations frequently encounter a common issue of exploring the relationship between a response and a number of covariates. Statistically, this issue can be usually modeled to minimize either an empirical loss function or a penalized empirical loss. Boosting is recognized as a state-of-the-art scheme to attack this issue and has triggered enormous research activities in the past twenty years [@Duffy2002; @Freund1995; @Friendman2001; @Schapire1990].
Boosting is an iterative procedure that combines weak prediction rules to produce a strong composite learner, with the underlying intuition that one can obtain accurate prediction rules by combining “rough” ones. The gradient descent view [@Friendman2001] of boosting shows that it can be regarded as a step-wise fitting scheme of additive models. This statistical viewpoint connects various boosting algorithms to optimization problems with corresponding loss functions. For example, $L_2$ boosting [@Buhlmann2003] can be interpreted as a stepwise learning scheme to the $L_2$ risk minimization problem. Also, AdaBoost [@Freund1996] corresponds to an approximate optimization of the exponential risk.
Although the success of the initial boosting algorithm (Algorithm \[alg1\] below) on many data sets and its “resistance to overfitting” were comprehensively demonstrated [@Buhlmann2003; @Freund1996], the problem is that its numerical convergence rate is usually a bit slow [@Livshits2009]. In fact, Livshits [@Livshits2009] proved that for some sparse target functions, the numerical convergence rate of boosting lies in $(C_0k^{-0.1898},C_0'k^{-0.182})$, which is much slower than the minimax nonlinear approximation rate $\mathcal O(k^{-1/2})$. Here and hereafter, $k$ denotes the number of iterations, and $C_0,C_0'$ are absolute constants. Various modified versions of boosting have been proposed to accelerate its numerical convergence rate and then to improve its generalization capability. Typical examples include the regularized boosting via shrinkage (RSboosting) [@Ehrlinger2012] that multiplies a small regularization factor to the step-size deduced from the linear search, regularized boosting via truncation (RTboosting) [@Zhang2005] which truncates the linear search in a small interval and $\varepsilon$-boosting [@Hastie2007] that specifies the step-size as a fixed small positive number $\varepsilon$ rather than using the linear search.
The purpose of the present paper is to propose a new modification of boosting to accelerate the numerical convergence rate of boosting to the near optimal rate $\mathcal O(k^{-1/2}\log k)$ . The new variant of boosting, called the re-scale boosting (RBoosting), cheers the philosophy behind the faith “no pain, no gain”, that is, to derive the new estimator, we always take a shrinkage operator to re-scale the old one. This idea is similar as the “greedy algorithm with free relaxation ” [@Temlyakov2012] or “sequential greedy algorithm” [@Zhang2003] in sparse approximation and is essentially different from Zhao and Yu’s Blasso [@Zhao2007], since the shrinkage operator is imposed to the composite estimator rather than the new selected weak learner. With the help of the shrinkage operator, we can derive different types of RBoosting such as the re-scale AdaBoost, re-scale Logitboost, and re-scale $L_2$ boosting for regression and classification.
We present both theoretical analysis and experimental verification to classify the performance of RBoosting with convex loss functions. The main contributions can be concluded as four aspects. At first, we deduce the (near) optimal numerical convergence rate of RBoosting. Our result shows that RBoosting can improve the numerical convergence rate of boosting to the (near) optimal rate. Secondly, we derive the generalization error bound of RBoosting. It is shown that the generalization capability of RBoosting is essentially better than that of boosting. Thirdly, we deduce the consistency of RBoosting. The consistency of boosting has already justified in [@Bartlett2007] for AdaBoost. The novelty of our result is that the consistency of RBoosting is built upon relaxing the restrictions to the dictionary and providing more flexible choice of the iteration number. Finally, we experimentally compare RBoosting with boosting, RTboosting, RSboosting and $\varepsilon$-boosting in both regression and classification problems. Simulation results demonstrate that, similar to other modified versions of boosting, RBoosting outperforms boosting in terms of prediction accuracy.
The rest of paper can be organized as follows. In Section 2, we introduce RBoosting and compare it with other related algorithms. In Section 3, we study the theoretical behaviors of RBoosting, where its numerical convergence, consistency and generalization error bound are derived. In Section 4, we employ a series of simulations to verify our assertions. In the last section, we draw a simple conclusion and present some further discussions.
Re-scale boosting
=================
In classification or regression problems with a covariate or predictor variable $X$ on $\mathcal X\subseteq\mathbf R^d$ and a real response variable $Y$, we observe $m$ i.i.d. samples ${\bf
Z}^m=\{(X_1,Y_1),\dots,(X_m,Y_m)\}$ from an unknown distribution $D$. Consider a loss function $\phi(f,y)$ and define $Q(f)$ (true risk) and $ {Q}_m(f)$ (empirical risk) as $$Q(f)=\mathbf E_D\phi(f(X),Y),$$ and $${Q}_m(f)= {\mathbf E}_{\bf Z}\phi(f(X),Y)=\frac1m\sum_{i=1}^m\phi(f(X_i),Y_i),$$ where $\mathbf E_D$ is the expectation over the unknown true joint distribution $D$ of $(X,Y)$ and $ {\mathbf E}_{\bf Z}$ is the empirical expectation based on the sample ${\bf Z}^m$.
Let $
S=\{g_1,\dots,g_n\}
$ be the set of weak learners (classifiers or regressors) and define $$\mbox{Span}(S)=\left\{\sum_{j=1}^na_jg_j:g_j\in S,
a_j\in\mathbf R, n\in\mathbf N\right\}.$$ We assume that $\phi$, therefore $Q_m$, is Fréchet differentiable and denote by $Q'_m(f,h)=(\nabla Q_m(f),h)$ the value of linear functional $\nabla Q_m(f)$ at $h$, where $\nabla
Q_m(f)$ satisfies, for all $f,g\in\mbox{Span}(S)$, $$\lim_{t\rightarrow0}\frac1t(Q_m(f+th)-Q_m(f))=(\nabla
Q_m(f),h).$$
Then the gradient descent view of boosting [@Friendman2001] can be interpreted as the following Algorithm \[alg1\].
.
Although this original boosting algorithm was proved to be consistent [@Bartlett2007] and overfitting resistant [@Friendman2000], a series of studies [@DeVore1996; @Livshits2009; @Temlyakov2008a] showed that its numerical convergence rate is far slower than that of the best nonlinear approximant. The main reason is that the linear search in Algorithm \[alg1\] makes $f_{k}$ be not always the greediest one. In particular, as shown in Fig.1, if $f_{k-1}$ walks along the direction of $g_k$ to $\theta_0 g_k$, then there usually exists a weak learner $g$ such that the angle $\alpha=\beta$. That is, after $\theta_0 g_k$, continuing to walk along $g_k$ is no more the greediest one. However, the linear search makes $f_{k-1}$ go along the direction of $g_k$ to $\theta_1g_k$.
Under this circumstance, an advisable method is to control the step-size in the linear search step of Algorithm 1. Thus, various variants of boosting, comprising the RTboosting, RSboosting and $\varepsilon$-boosting, have been developed based on different strategies to control the step-size. It is obvious that the main difficulty of these schemes roots in how to select an appropriate step-size. If the step size is too large, then these algorithms may face the same problem as that of Algorithm \[alg1\]. On the other hand, if the step size is too small, then the numerical convergence rate is also fairly slow [@Buhlmann2007].
Different from the aforementioned strategies that focus on controlling the step-size of $g_k^*$, we drive a novel direction to improve the numerical convergence rate and consequently, the generalization capability of boosting. The core idea is that if the approximation (or learning) effect of the $k$-th iteration is not good, then we regard $f_k$ to be too aggressive and therefore shrink it within a certain extent. That is, if a new iteration is employed, then we impose a re-scale operator on the estimator $f_k$. This is the reason why we call our new strategy as the re-scale boosting (RBoosting). The following Algorithm 2 depicts the main idea of RBoosting.
.
Compared Algorithm \[alg2\] with Algorithm \[alg1\], the only difference is that we employ a re-scale operator $(1-\alpha_k)f_k$ in the linear search step of RBoosting. Here and hereafter, we call $\alpha_k$ as the shrinkage degree. It can be easily found that RBoosting is similar as the greedy algorithm with free relaxation (GAFR) [@Temlyakov2012] and the $X$-greedy algorithm with relaxation (XGAR)[^1] [@Temlyakov2008; @Zhang2003] in sparse approximation. In fact, RBoosting can be regarded as a marriage of GAFR and XGAR. To be detailed, we adopt the projection of gradient of GAFR and the linear search of XGAR to develop Algorithm \[alg2\].
It should be also pointed out that the present paper is not the first one to apply relaxed greedy-type algorithms in the realm of boosting. In particular, for the $L_2$ loss, XGAR has already been utilized to design a boosting-type algorithm for regression in [@Bagirov2010]. Since in both GAFR and XGAR, one needs to tune two parameters simultaneously in an optimization problem, GAFR and XGAR are time-consuming when faced with a general convex loss function. This problem is successfully avoided in RBoosting.
Theoretical behaviors of RBoosting
==================================
In this section, we study the theoretical behaviors of RBoosting. We hope to address three basic issues regarding RBoosting, including its numerical convergence rate, consistency and generalization error estimate.
To state the main results, some assumptions concerning the loss function $\phi$ and dictionary $S$ should be presented. The first one is a boundedness assumption of $S$.
\[ASSUMPTION 1\] For arbitrary $g\in S$ and $x\in\mathcal X$, there exists a constant $C_1$ such that $$\sum_{i=1}^ng_i^2(x) \leq C_1.$$
Assumption \[ASSUMPTION 1\] is certainly a bit stricter than the assumption $\sup_{g\in S,x\in\mathcal
X}|g_i(x)|\leq 1$ in [@Temlyakov2012; @Zhang2005]. Introducing such a condition is only for the purpose of deriving a fast numerical convergence rate of RBoosting with general convex loss functions. In fact, for a concrete loss function such as the $L_p$ loss with $1\leq p\leq\infty$, Assumption \[ASSUMPTION 1\] can be relaxed to $\sup_{g\in S,x\in\mathcal X}|g_i(x)|\leq 1$ [@Temlyakov2008]. Assumption \[ASSUMPTION 1\] essentially depicts the localization properties of the weak learners. Indeed, it states that, for arbitrary fixed $x\in\mathcal X$, expert for a small number of weak learners, all the $|g_i(x)|'s$ are very small. Thus, it holds for almost all the widely used weak learns such as the trees [@Friendman2001], stumps [@Zhang2005], neural networks [@Bagirov2010] and splines [@Buhlmann2003]. Moreover, for arbitrary dictionary $S'=\{g_1',\dots,g_n'\}$, we can rebuild it as $
S=\{g_1,\dots,g_n\}$ with $g_i=g_i'/(\sqrt{\sum_{i=1}^n(g_i')^2(x)})$. It should be noted that Assumption 1 is the only condition concerning the dictionary throughout the paper, which is different from [@Bartlett2007; @Zhang2005] that additionally imposed either VC-dimension or Rademacher complexity constraints to the weak learner set $S$.
We then give some restrictions to the loss function, which have already adopted in [@Bartlett2007; @Bickel2006; @Zhang2003; @Zhang2005].
\[ASSUMPTION 2\] (i) If $|f(x)|\leq \mathcal R_1$, $|y|\leq \mathcal R_2$, then there exists a continuous function $H_\phi$ such that $$\label{bound for loss}
|\phi(f,y)|\leq H_\phi(\mathcal R_1,\mathcal R_2).$$
\(ii) Let $\mathcal D=\{f:Q_m(f)\leq Q_m(0)\}$ and $f^*=\min_{f\in
\mathcal D}Q_m(f)$. Assume that $\forall c_1,c_2$ satisfying $Q_m(f^*)\leq c_1<c_2\leq Q_m(0)$, there holds $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Assumption to loss1}
&0&
\leq \inf\{Q^{''}_m(f,g):c_1<Q(f)<c_2,g\in
S\}\\
&\leq&
\sup\{Q^{''}_m(f,g):Q_m(f)<c_2, h\in S\}<\infty. \label{Assumption to loss2}\end{aligned}$$
It should be pointed out that (i) concerns the boundedness of $\phi$ and therefore is mild. In fact, if $\mathcal R_1$ and $\mathcal R_2$ are bounded, then (i) implies that $\phi(f,y)$ is also bounded. It is obvious that (i) holds for almost all commonly used loss functions. Once $\phi$ is given, $H_\phi(\mathcal R_1,\mathcal R_2)$ can be determined directly. For example, if $\phi$ is the $L_2$ loss for regression, then $H_\phi(\mathcal R_1,\mathcal R_2)\leq(\mathcal
R_1+\mathcal R_2)^2$; if $\phi$ is the exponential loss for classification, then $\mathcal R_2=1$ and $H_\phi(\mathcal
R_1,\mathcal R_2)\leq \exp\{\mathcal R_1\}$; if $\phi$ is the logistic loss for classification, then $H_\phi(\mathcal R_1,\mathcal
R_2)\leq
\log (1+\exp\{\mathcal R_1\})$.
As $Q_m(f)=\sum_{i=1}^m\phi(f(X_i),Y_i)$, conditions (\[Assumption to loss1\]) and (\[Assumption to loss2\]) actually describe the strict convexity and smoothness of $\phi$ as well as $Q_m$. Condition (\[Assumption to loss1\]) guarantees the strict convexity of $Q_m$ in a certain direction. Under this condition, the maximization (and minimization) in projection of gradient step (and linear search step) of Algorithms \[alg1\] and \[alg2\] are well defined. Condition (\[Assumption to loss2\]) determines the smoothness property of $Q_m(f)$. For arbitrary $f(x)\in[-\lambda,\lambda]$, define the first and second moduli of smoothness of $Q_m(f)$ as $$\rho_1(Q_m,u)=\sup_{f,\|h\|=1}|Q_m(f+uh)-Q_m(f)|,$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\rho _2(Q_m,u)
&=& \sup_{f,\|h\|=1}|Q_m(f+uh)\\
&+&
Q_m(f-uh)-2Q_m(f)|,\end{aligned}$$ where $\|\cdot\|$ denotes the uniform norm. It is easy to deduce that if (\[Assumption to loss2\]) holds, then there exist constants $C_2$ and $C_3$ depending only on $\lambda$ and $c_2$ such that $$\label{Assumption to loss 3}
\rho_1(Q_m,u)\leq C_2\|u\|,\ \mbox{and}\ \rho_2(Q_m,u)\leq C_3\|u\|^2.$$ It is easy to verify that all the widely used loss functions such as the $L_2$ loss, exponential loss and logistic loss satisfy Assumption 2.
By the help of the above stations, we are in a position to present the first theorem, which focuses on the numerical convergence rate of RBoosting.
\[NUMERICAL CONVERGENCE\] Let $f_k$ be the estimator defined by Algorithm \[alg2\]. If Assumptions \[ASSUMPTION 1\] and \[ASSUMPTION 2\] hold and $\alpha_k=\frac3{k+3}$, then for any $h\in\mbox{Span}(S)$, there holds $$\label{numerical convergence}
Q_m(f_k)-Q_m(h)\leq C(\|h\|_1^2+\log k)k^{-1},$$ where $C$ is a constant depending only on $c_1,c_2,C_1$, and $$\|h\|_1=\inf_{(a_j)_{j=1}^n\in\mathbf R^n}\sum_{j=1}^n|a_j|,\ \mbox{for}\
h=\sum_{j=1}^na_jg_j.$$
If $\phi(f,y)=(f(x)-y)^2$ and $S$ is an orthogonal basis, then there exists an $h^*\in\mbox{Span} (S) $ with bounded $\|h^*\|_1$ such that [@DeVore1996] $$|Q_m(f_k)-Q_m(h^*)|\geq C k^{-1},$$ where $C$ is an absolute constant. Therefore, the numerical convergence rate deduced in (\[numerical convergence\]) is almost optimal in the sense that for at least some loss functions (such as the $L_2$ loss) and certain dictionaries (such as the orthogonal basis), up to a logarithmic factor, the deduced rate is optimal. Compared with the relaxed greedy algorithm for convex optimization [@DeVore2014; @Temlyakov2012] that achieves the optimal numerical convergence rate, the rate derived in (\[numerical convergence\]) seems a bit slower. However, in [@DeVore2014; @Temlyakov2012], the set $\mathcal D=\{f:Q_m(f)\leq
Q_m(0)\}$ is assumed to be bounded. This is a quite strict assumption and, to the best of our knowledge, it is difficult to verify whether the widely used $L_2$ loss, exponential loss and logistic loss satisfy this condition. In Theorem \[NUMERICAL CONVERGENCE\], we omit this condition in the cost of adding an additional logarithmic factor to the numerical convergence rate and some other easy-checked assumptions to the loss function and dictionary.
Finally, we give an explanation why we select the shrinkage degree $\alpha_k$ as $\alpha_k=\frac{3}{k+3}$. From the definition of $f_k$, it follows that the numerical convergence rate may depend on the shrinkage degree. In particular, Bagirov et al. [@Bagirov2010], Barron et al. [@Barron2008] and Temlyakov [@Temlyakov2008] used different $\alpha_k$ to derive the optimal numerical convergence rates of relaxed-type greedy algorithms. After checking our proof, we find that our result remains correct for arbitrary $\alpha_k=\frac{C_4}{C_5k+C_6}<1$ with $C_4, C_5,
C_6$ some finite positive integers. The only difference is that the constant $C$ in (\[numerical convergence\]) may be different for different $\alpha_k$. We select $\alpha_k=\frac3{k+3}$ is only for the sake of brevity.
Now we turn to derive both the consistency and learning rate of RBoosting. The consistency of the boosting-type algorithms describes whether the risk of boosting can approximate the Bayes risk within arbitrary accuracy when $m$ is large enough, while the learning rate depicts its convergence rate. Several authors have shown that Algorithm \[alg1\] with some specific loss functions is consistent. Three most important results can be found in [@Bartlett2007; @Bickel2006; @Jiang2004]. Jiang [@Jiang2004] proved a process consistency property for Algorithm \[alg1\], under certain assumptions. Process consistency means that there exists a sequence $\{t_m\}$ such that if boosting with sample size $m$ is stopped after $t_m$ iterations, its risk approaches the Bayes risk. However, Jiang imposed strong conditions on the underlying distribution: the distribution of $X$ has to be absolutely continuous with respect to the Lebesgue measure. Furthermore, the result derived in [@Jiang2004] didn’t give any hint on when the algorithm should be stopped since the proof was not constructive. [@Bartlett2007; @Bickel2006] improved the result of [@Jiang2004] and demonstrated that a simple stopping rule is sufficient for consistency: the number of iterations is a fixed function of $m$. However, it can also be found in [@Bartlett2007; @Bickel2006] that the deduced learning rate was fairly slow. [@Bartlett2007 Th.6] showed that the risk of boosting converges to the Bayes risk within a logarithmic speed.
Without loss of generality, we assume $|Y_i|\leq M$ almost surely with $M> 0$. The following Theorem \[LEARNING RATE BOOSTING\] plays a crucial role in deducing both the consistency and fast learning rate of RBoosting.
\[LEARNING RATE BOOSTING\] Let $f_k$ be the estimator obtained in Algorithm \[alg2\]. If $\alpha_k=\frac3{k+3}$ and Assumptions \[ASSUMPTION 1\] and \[ASSUMPTION 2\] hold, then for arbitrary $h\in\mbox{Span} (S),$ there holds $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf E\{ Q(f_k)-Q(h)\}
\leq
C(\|h\|_1^2+\log k)k^{-1} &&\\
+ C'(H_\phi(\log k,M)+H_\phi(\|h\|_1,M))\frac{k(\log m+\log
k)}{m}, &&\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $C$ and $C'$ are constants depending only on $c_1,c_2$ and $C_1$.
Before giving the consistency of RBoosting, we should give some explanations and remarks to Theorem \[LEARNING RATE BOOSTING\]. Firstly, we present the values of $H_\phi(\log k,M)$ and $H_\phi(\|h\|_1,M)$. Taking $H_\phi(\log k,M)$ for example, if $\phi$ is the $L_2$ loss for regression, then $H_\phi(\log
k,M)=(\log k+M)^2$, if $\phi$ is the logistic loss for classification, then $H_\phi(\log k,M)=\log (k+1)$ and if $\phi$ is the exponential loss for classification, then $H_\phi(\log k,M)=k$. Secondly, we provide a simple method to improve the bound in Theorem \[LEARNING RATE BOOSTING\]. Let $\pi_Mf(x):=\min\{M,|f(x)|\}\mbox{sgn}(f(x))$ be the truncation operator at level $M$. As $Y\in[-M,M]$ almost surely, there holds [@Zhou2006] $$\mathbf E\{ Q(\pi_Mf_k)-Q(h)\}\leq \mathbf E\{
Q(f_k)-Q(h)\}.$$ Noting that there is not any computation to do such a truncation, this truncation technique has been widely used to rebuild the estimator and improve the learning rate of boosting [@Bagirov2010; @Barron2008; @Bartlett2007; @Bickel2006]. However, this approach has a drawback: the usage of the truncation operator entails that the estimator $\pi_Mf_k$ is (in general) not an element of Span$(S)$. That is, one aims to build an estimator in a class and actually obtains an estimator out of it. This is the reason why we do not introduce the truncation operator in Theorem \[LEARNING RATE BOOSTING\]. Indeed, if we use the truncation operator, then the same method as that in the proof of Theorem \[LEARNING RATE BOOSTING\] leads to the following Corollary \[LEARNING RATE BOOSTING of TRUNCATION\].
\[LEARNING RATE BOOSTING of TRUNCATION\] Let $f_k$ be the estimator obtained in Algorithm \[alg2\]. If $\alpha_k=\frac{3}{k+3}$ and Assumptions \[ASSUMPTION 1\] and \[ASSUMPTION 2\] hold, then for arbitrary $h\in\mbox{Span}(S),$ there holds $$\begin{aligned}
&&\mathbf E\{ Q(\pi_Mf_k)-Q(h)\}
\leq
C(\|h\|_1^2+\log k)k^{-1}\nonumber \\
&&+ C'(H_\phi(M,M)+H_\phi(\|h\|_1,M))\frac{k(\log m+\log
k)}{m},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $C$ and $C'$ are constants depending only on $c_1,c_2$ and $C_1$.
By the help of Theorem \[LEARNING RATE BOOSTING\], we can derive the consistency of RBoosting.
\[CONSISTENCY\] Let $f_k$ be the estimator obtained in Algorithm \[alg2\]. If $\alpha_k=\frac3{k+3}$, Assumptions \[ASSUMPTION 1\] and \[ASSUMPTION 2\] hold and $$\label{selection of k}
k\rightarrow\infty, \frac{H_\phi(\log k,M)k\log
m}{m}\rightarrow 0, \mbox{when} \ m\rightarrow\infty,$$ then $$\mathbf E\{ Q(f_k)\}\rightarrow
\inf_{f\in\mbox{Span}(S)}Q(f),\ \mbox{when} \ m\rightarrow\infty.$$
Corollary \[CONSISTENCY\] shows that if the number of iterations satisfies (\[selection of k\]), then RBoosting is consistent. We should point out that if the loss function is specified, then, we can deduce a concrete relation between $k$ and $m$ to yield the consistency. For example, if $\phi$ is the logistic function, then the condition (\[selection of k\]) becomes $
k\sim m^{\gamma}
$ with $0<\gamma<1$. This condition is somewhat looser than the previous studies concerning the consistency of boosting [@Bartlett2007; @Bickel2006; @Jiang2004] or its modified version [@Barron2008; @Zhang2005].
When used to both classification and regression, there usually is an overfitting resistance phenomenon of boosting as well as its modified versions [@Buhlmann2003; @Zhang2005]. Our result shown in Corollary \[CONSISTENCY\] looks to contradict it at the first glance, as $k$ must be smaller than $m$. We illustrate that this is not the case. It can be found in [@Buhlmann2003; @Zhang2005] that expect for Assumption \[ASSUMPTION 1\], there is another condition such as the covering number, VC-dimension, or Rademacher complexity imposed to the dictionary. We highlight that if the dictionary of RBoosting is endowed with a similar assumption, then the condition $k<m$ can be omitted by using the similar methods in [@Bickel2006; @Lin2013; @Zhang2005]. In short, our assertions show that whether RBoosting is overfiiting resistant depends on the dictionary.
At last, we give a learning rate analysis of RBoosting, which is also a consequence of Theorem \[LEARNING RATE BOOSTING\].
\[RATE\] Let $f_k$ be the estimator obtained in Algorithm 2. Suppose that $\alpha_k=\frac3{k+3}$ and Assumptions 1 and 2 hold. For arbitrary $h\in\mbox{Span} (S),$ if $k$ satisfies $$\label{Select of k 22222}
k\sim\sqrt{\frac{m}{H_\phi(\log k,M) +H_\phi(\|h\|_1,M)}},$$ then there holds $$\begin{aligned}
\label{corollary3}
&&\mathbf E\{ Q(f_k)-Q(h)\}\\
&&\leq
C'(\sqrt{H_\phi(\log m,M)+H_\phi(\|h\|_1,M)}\nonumber\\
&&+\|h\|_1^2) m^{-1/2}\log m,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $C$ and $C'$ are constants depending only on $c_1,c_2$ and $C_1$ and $M$.
The learning rate (\[corollary3\]) together with the stopping criteria (\[Select of k 22222\]) depends heavily on $\phi$. If $\phi$ is the logistic loss for classification, then $H_\phi(\log
m,M)= \log( m+1) $ and $H_\phi(\|h\|_1,M)=\log (\|h\|_1+1)$, we thus derive from (\[corollary3\]) that, $$\mathbf E\{ Q(f_k)-Q(h)\}
\leq
C'(\log (m+1)+\|h\|_1^2) m^{-1/2}\log
m.$$ We encourage the readers to compare our result with [@Zhang2005 Th.3.2]. Without the Rademacher assumptions, RBoosting theoretically performs at least the same as that of RTboosting. If $\phi$ is the $L_2$ loss for regression, we can deduce that $$\mathbf E\{ Q(f_k)-Q(h)\}
\leq
C'(\log m+\|h\|_1^2) m^{-1/2}\log
m,$$ which is almost the same as the result in [@Bagirov2010]. If $\phi$ is the exponential loss for classification, by setting $k\sim
m^{1/3}$, we can derive $$\mathbf E\{ Q(f_k)-Q(h)\}
\leq
C'(\log m+e^{\|h\|_1}) m^{-1/3}\log
m,$$ which is much faster than AdaBoost [@Bartlett2007]. It should be noted that if the truncation operator is imposed to the RBoosting estimator, then the learning rate of the re-scale AdaBoost can also be improved to $$\mathbf E\{ Q(\pi_Mf_k)-Q(h)\}
\leq
C'(\log m+e^{\|h\|_1}) m^{-1/2}\log
m.$$
Numerical Results
=================
In this section, we conduct a series of toy simulations and real data experiments to demonstrate the promising outperformance of the proposed RBoosting over the original boosting algorithm. For comparison, three other popular boosting-type algorithms, i.e., $\epsilon$-boosting [@Hastie2007], RSboosting [@Friendman2001] and RTboosting [@Zhang2005], are also considered. In the following experiments, we utilize the $L_2$ loss function for regression (namely, L2Boost) and logistic loss function for classification (namely, LogitBoost). Furthermore, we use the CART [@Breiman1984] (with the number of splits $J=4$) to build up the week learners for regression tasks in the toy simulations and decision stumps (with the number of splits $J=1$) to build up the week learners for regression tasks in real data experiments and all classification tasks.
Toy simulations
---------------
We first consider numerical simulations for regression problems.The data are drawn from the following model: $$Y = m(X)+\sigma\cdot\varepsilon,$$ where $X$ is uniformly distributed on $[-2, 2]^d$ with $d\in\{1,
10\}$, $\varepsilon$, independent of $X$, is the standard gaussian noise and the noise level $\sigma$ varies among in $\{0, 0.3, 0.6,
1\}$. Two typical regression functions [@Bagirov2010] are considered in the simulations. One is a univariate piecewise function defined by $$\label{regression1}
m_1(x)= \left\{ \begin{array}{cc}
10\sqrt { - x} \sin (8\pi x), & \leq x < 0, \\
0, & \mbox{else},
\end{array} \right.$$ and the other is a multivariate continuously differentiable sine function defined as $$\label{regression2}
m_2(x)= \sum\limits_{j = 1}^{10} {{{( - 1)}^{j - 1}}{x_j}\sin ({x_j}^2)}.$$
For these regression functions and all values of $\sigma$, we generate a training set of size 500, and then collect an independent validation data set of size 500 to select the parameters of each boosting algorithms: the number of iterations $k$, the regularization parameter $\nu$ of RSboosting, the truncation value of RTboosting, the shrinkage degree of RBoosting and $\varepsilon$ of $\varepsilon$-boosting. In all the numerical examples, we chose $\nu$ and $\epsilon$ from a 20 points set whose elements are uniformly localized in $[0.01,1]$. We select the truncated value of RTboosting the same as that in [@Zhang2005]. To tune the shrinkage degree, $\alpha_k=2/(k+u),$ we employ 20 values of $u$ which are drawn logarithmic equally spaced between $1$ to $10^6$. To compare the performances of all the mentioned methods, a test set of 1000 noiseless observations is used to evaluate the performance in terms of the root mean squared error (RMSE).
[|c|c|c|c|c|c|]{} $\sigma$& Boosting & RSboosting & RTboosting & RBoosting & $\epsilon$-boosting\
\
0 &0.2698(0.0495) &0.2517(0.0561) &0.3107(0.0905) &[0.2460(0.0605)]{} & [**0.2306**]{}(0.0827)\
0.3 &0.6204(0.0851) &[**0.4635**]{}(0.0728) &0.5131(0.0735) & [0.5112(0.0779)]{} & 0.4844(0.0862)\
0.6 &0.7339(0.0706) &0.7317(0.0392) &0.7475(0.0333) & [[**0.7206**]{}(0.0486)]{} & 0.7403(0.0766)\
1 &1.1823(0.0483) &1.1474(0.0485) &1.1776(0.0604) & [1.1489(0.0485)]{} & [**1.1395**]{}( 0.0590)\
\
0 &2.3393(0.1112) &1.7460(0.0973) &1.8388(0.1102) & [[**1.6166**]{}(0.0955)]{} & 1.7434(0.0804)\
0.3 &2.4051(0.1112) &1.7970(0.0951) &1.8380(0.0830) & [[**1.6732**]{}(0.0928)]{} & 1.7665(0.0718)\
0.6 &2.4350(0.0836) &1.8866(0.0837) &1.9628(0.0853) & [[**1.7730**]{}(0.0832)]{} & 1.8895(0.0880)\
1 &2.6583(0.1103) &2.0671(0.0789) &2.1575(0.0891) & [[**1.9870**]{}(0.1092)]{} & 2.0766(0.0956)\
Table I documents the mean RMSE over 50 independent runs. The standard errors are also reported (numbers in parentheses). Several observations can be easily drawn from Table I. Firstly, concerning the generalization capability, all the variants essentially outperform the original boosting algorithm. This is not a surprising result since all the variants introduce an additional parameter. Secondly, RBoosting performs as the almost optimal variant since its RMSEs are the smallest or almost smallest for all the simulations. This means that, if we only focus on the generalization capability, then RBoosting is a preferable choice.
In the second toy simulation, we consider the “orange data” model which was used in [@Zhu2003] for binary classification. We generate 100 data points for each class to build up the training set. Both classes have two independent standard normal inputs $x_1$, $x_2$, but the inputs for the second class conditioned on $4.5\leq x_1^2+x_2^2\leq 8$. Similarly, to make the classification more difficult, independent feature noise $q$ were added to the inputs. One can find more details about this data set in [@Zhu2003].
$q$ Boosting RSboosting RTboosting RBoosting $\epsilon$-boosting
----- -------------- ---------------------- ------------------- ----------------------- ----------------------
0 11.19(1.32)% 10.36(1.16)% 10.50(1.19)% [[ 10.44]{}(1.12)%]{} [**10.29**]{}(1.17)%
2 11.27(1.29)% [**10.48**]{}(1.24)% 10.71(1.19)% [[10.59]{}(1.25)%]{} 10.60(1.28)%
4 11.79(1.54)% [**10.79**]{}(1.21)% 11.07(1.41)% [[10.90]{}(1.24)%]{} 10.94(1.26)%
6 12.02(1.62)% [ 10.93]{}(1.21)% [ 11.20]{}(1.23)% [**10.91**]{}(1.28)% [11.02]{}(1.32)%
Table II reports the classification accuracy of five boosting-type algorithms over 50 independent runs. Numbers in parentheses are the standard errors. In this simulation, for $q$ varies among $\{0,
2, 4, 6\}$, we generate a validation set of size 200 for tuning the parameters, and then 4000 observations to evaluate the performances in terms of classification error. For this classification task, RBoosting outperforms the original boosting in terms of the generalization error. It can also be found that as far as the classification problem is concerned, RBoosting is at least comparable to other variants. Here we do not compare the performance with the performance of SVMs reported in [@Zhu2003], because the main purpose of our simulation is to highlight the outperformance of the proposed RBoosting over the original boosting.
All the above toy simulations from regression to classification verify the theoretical assertions in the last section and illustrate the merits of RBoosting.
Real Data Examples
------------------
In this subsection, We pursue the performance of RBoosting on eight real data sets (the first five data sets for regression and the others for classification).
The first data set is the Diabetes data set[@Efron2004]. This data set contains 442 diabetes patients that are measured on ten independent variables, i.e., age, sex, body mass index etc. and one response variable, i.e., a measure of disease progression. The second one is the Boston Housing data set created from a housing values survey in suburbs of Boston by Harrison and Rubinfeld [@Harrison1978]. This data set contains 506 instances which include thirteen attributions, i.e., per capita crime rate by town, proportion of non-retail business acres per town, average number of rooms per dwelling etc. and one response variable, i.e., median value of owner-occupied homes. The third one is the Concrete Compressive Strength (CCS) data set created from [@Ye1998]. The data set contains 1030 instances including eight quantitative independent variables, i.e., age and ingredients etc. and one dependent variable, i.e., quantitative concrete compressive strength. The fourth one is the Prostate cancer data set derived from a study of prostate cancer by Blake et al. [@Blake1998]. The data set consists of the medical records of 97 patients who were about to receive a radical prostatectomy. The predictors are eight clinical measures, i.e., cancer volume, prostate weight, age etc. and one response variable, i.e., the logarithm of prostate-specific antigen. The fifth one is the Abalone data set, which comes from an original study in [@Nash1994] for predicting the age of abalone from physical measurements. The data set contains 4177 instances which were measured on eight independent variables, i.e., length, sex, height etc. and one response variable, i.e., the number of rings. For classification task, three benchmark data sets are considered, namely Spam, Ionosphere and WDBC, which can be obtained from UCI Machine Learning Repository. Spam data contains 4601 instances, and 57 attributes. These data are used to measure whether an instance is considered to be spam. WDBC (Wisconsin Diagnostic Breast Cancer) data contains 569 instances, and 30 features. These data are used to identify whether an instance is diagnosed to be malignant or benign. Ionosphere data contains 351 instances, and 34 attributes. These data are used to measure whether an instance was “good" or “bad".
dataset Boosting RSboosting RTboosting RBoosting $\epsilon$-boosting
------------ ----------------- ------------------------- ------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------
Diabetes 59.0371(4.1959) [**55.3109**]{}(3.6591) 56.1343(3.2543) 55.6552(4.5351) 57.7947(3.3970)
Housing 4.4126(0.5311) 4.2742(0.7026) 4.3685(0.3929) 4.1752(0.3406) [**4.1244**]{}(0.3322)
CCS 5.4345(0.5473) [**5.2049**]{}(0.1678) 5.5826(0.1901) 5.3711(0.1807) 5.9621(0.1960)
Prostate 0.3131(0.0598) 0.1544(0.0672) 0.2450(0.0631) [**0.1193**]{}(0.0360) 0.1939(0.0545)
Abalone 2.2180(0.0710) 2.1934(0.0504) 2.3633(0.0762) [**2.1922**]{}(0.0574) 2.2098(0.0474)
Spam 6.06(0.60)% 5.13(0.52)% 5.24(0.48)% 5.06(0.55)% [**5.02**]{}(0.51)%
Ionosphere 8.27(2.88)% 5.80(1.92)% 6.09(2.24)% [**5.23**]{}(2.31)% 5.92(2.64)%
WDBC 5.31(2.11)% 2.45(1.39)% [ 2.69(1.58)]{}% [**2.09**]{}(1.55)% 2.52(1.33)%
For each real data, we randomly (according to the uniform distribution) select $50\%$ data for training, $25\%$ data to build the validation set for tuning the parameters and the remainder $25\%$ data as the test set for evaluating the performances of different boosting-type algorithms. We repeat such randomization 20 times and report the average errors and standard errors (numbers in parentheses) in Table III. The parameter selection strategies of all boosting-type algorithms are the same as those in the toy simulations. It can be easily observed that, all the variants outperform the original boosting algorithm to a large extent. Furthermore, RBoosting at least performs as the second best algorithm among all the variants. Thus, the results of real data coincide with the toy simulations and therefore, experimentally verify our theoretical assertions. That is, all the experimental results show that the new idea “re-scale” of RBoosting is numerically efficient and comparable to the idea “regularization” of other variants of boosting. This paves a new road to improve the performance of boosting.
Proof of Theorem \[NUMERICAL CONVERGENCE\]
==========================================
To prove Theorem \[NUMERICAL CONVERGENCE\], we need the following three lemmas. The first one is a small generalization of [@Temlyakov2008 Lemma 2.3]. For the sake of completeness, we give a simple proof.
\[NUMBER THEORY\] Let $j_0>2$ be a natural number. Suppose that three positive numbers $c_1<c_2\leq j_0$, $\mathcal C_0$ be given. Assume that a sequence $\{a_n\}_{n=1}^\infty$ has the following two properties:
\(i) For all $1\leq n\leq j_0$, $$a_n\leq \mathcal C_0 n^{-c_1},$$ and, for all $n\geq j_0$, $$a_n\leq a_{n-1}+\mathcal C_0(n-1)^{-c_1}.$$
\(ii) If for some $v\geq j_0$ we have $$a_v\geq \mathcal C_0v^{-c_1},$$ then $$a_{v+1}\leq a_v(1-c_2/v).$$
Then, for all $n=1,2,\dots,$ we have $$a_n\leq 2^{1+\frac{c_1^2+c_1}{c_2-c_1}} \mathcal
C_0n^{-c_1}.$$
For $1\leq v\leq j_0$, the inequality $$a_v\geq \mathcal C_0v^{-c_1}$$ implies that the set $$V=\{v:a_v\geq \mathcal C_0v^{-c_1}\}$$ does not contain $v=1,2,\dots,j_0$. We now prove that for any segment $[n,n+k]\subset V$, there holds $$k\leq (2^{\frac{c_1+1}{c_2-c_1}}-1)n.$$ Indeed, let $n\geq j_0+1$ be such that $n-1\notin V$, which means $$a_{n+j}\geq \mathcal C_0(n+j)^{-c_1},\ j=0,1,\dots,k.$$ Then by the conditions (i) and (ii), we get $$\begin{aligned}
a_{n+k}
&\leq&
a_n\Pi_{v=n}^{n+k-1}(1-c_2/v)\\
&\leq&
(a_{n-1}+\mathcal C_0(n-1)^{-c_1})\Pi_{n=n}^{n+k-1}(1-c_2/v).\end{aligned}$$ Thus, we have $$(n+k)^{-c_1}\leq\frac{a_{n+k}}{\mathcal C_0}\leq2(n-1)^{-c_1}\Pi_{v=n}^{n+k-1}(1-c_2/v),$$ where $c_2\leq j_0\leq v$. Taking logarithms and using the inequalities $$\ln (1-t)\leq -t, \ t\in[0,1);$$ $$\sum_{v=n}^{m-1}v^{-1}\geq\int_{n}^m t^{-1}dt=\ln (m/n),$$ we can derive that $$\begin{aligned}
&&-c_1\ln\frac{n+k}{n-1}
\leq
\ln
2+\sum_{v=n}^{n+k-1}\ln(1-c_2/v)\\
&\leq&
\ln2-\sum_{v=n}^{n+k-1}c_2/v\leq \ln2-c_2\ln\frac{n+k}{n}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, $$(c_2-c_1)\ln(n+k)\leq \ln2+(c_2-c_1)\ln
n+c_1\ln\frac{n}{n-1},$$ which implies $$n+k\leq 2^{(c_1+1)/(c_2-c_1)}n$$ and $$k\leq \left(2^{\frac{c_1+1}{c_2-c_1}}-1\right) n.$$ Let us take any $m\in\mathbf N$. If $m\notin V$, we have the desired inequality. Assume $m\in V$ and let $[n,n+k]$ be the maximal segment in $V$ containing $m$, then we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
a_m
&\leq&
a_n
\leq a_{n-1}+\mathcal C_0(n-1)^{-c_1}\leq
2\mathcal C_0(n-1)^{-c_1}\\
&\leq&
2\mathcal C_0m^{-c_1}\left(\frac{n-1}{m}\right)^{-c_1}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $k\leq \left(2^{\frac{c_1+1}{c_2-c_1}}-1\right) n$, we then have $$\frac{m}{n-1}\leq\frac{n+k}{n}\leq 2^\frac{c_1^2+c_1}{c_2-c_1}.$$ This means that $$a_m\leq 2\mathcal C_0m^{-c_1}2^\frac{c_1^2+c_1}{c_2-c_1},$$ which finishes the proof of Lemma \[NUMBER THEORY\].
The convexity of $Q_m$ implies that for any $f,g$, $$Q_m(g)\geq Q_m(f)+ Q_m'(f,g-f),$$ or, in other words, $$Q_m(f)-Q_m(g)\leq Q_m'(f,f-g)=- Q_m'(f,g-f).$$ Based on this, we can obtain the following lemma, which was proved in [@Temlyakov2012 Lemma 1.1].
\[MODULUS OF SMOOTHNESS\] Let $Q_m$ be a Fréchet differential convex function. Then the following inequality holds for $f\in D$ $$0\leq Q_m(f+ug)-Q_m(f)-uQ_m'(f,g)\leq
2\rho(A,u\|g\|).$$
To aid the proof, we also need the following lemma, which can be found in [@Temlyakov2001 Lemma 2.2].
\[EQUALIVALENT MIN\] For any bounded linear $F$ and any dictionary $S$, we have $$\sup_{g\in S}F(g)=\sup_{f\in \mathcal M_1(S)}F(f),$$ where $\mathcal M_1(S)=\{\mbox{span}(S):\|f\|_1\leq 1\}$.
We divide the proof into two steps. The first step is to deduce an upper bound of $f_k$ in the uniform metric. Since $f_{k+1}=(1-\alpha_{k+1})f_k+\beta_{k+1}^*g_{k+1}^*$, we have $$f_k=f_{k+1}+\frac{\alpha_{k+1}f_{k+1}-\beta_{k+1}^*g_{k+1}^*}{1-\alpha_{k+1}}.$$ Noting $Q_m(f)$ is twice differential, if we use the Taylor expansion around $f_{k+1}$, then $$\begin{aligned}
Q_m(f_k)
&=&
Q_m(f_{k+1})\\
&+&
Q'_m\left(f_{k+1},\frac{\alpha_{k+1}f_{k+1}-\beta_{k+1}^*g_{k+1}^*}{1-\alpha_{k+1}}\right)\\
&+&
\frac12Q_m^{''}\left(\hat{f_k},\frac{\alpha_{k+1}f_{k+1}-\beta^*_{k+1}*g_{k+1}^*}{1-\alpha_{k+1}}\right)\\
&=&
Q_m(f_{k+1})+\frac{\alpha_{k+1}}{1-\alpha_{k+1}}Q'_m\left(f_{k+1},f_{k+1}\right)\\
&-&
\frac{\beta^*_{k+1}}{1-\alpha_{k+1}}Q'_m\left(f_{k+1},g^*_{k+1}\right)\\
&+&
\frac{\alpha^2_{k+1}}{2(1-\alpha_{k+1})^2}Q_m^{''}\left(\hat{f_k},f_{k+1}\right)\\
&+&
\frac{(\beta_{k+1}^*)^2}{2(1-\alpha_{k+1})^2}Q_m^{''}\left(\hat{f_k},g_{k+1}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\hat{f}=(1-\theta)\frac{\alpha_{k+1}f_{k+1}-\beta_{k+1}^*g_{k+1}^*}{1-\alpha_{k+1}}+\theta
f_{k+1}$$ for some $\theta\in (0,1)$. For the convexity of $Q_m$, we have $$\frac{\alpha^2_{k+1}}{2(1-\alpha_{k+1})^2}Q_m^{''}\left(\hat{f_k},f_{k+1}\right)\geq
0.$$ Furthermore, if we use the fact that $f_{k+1}$ is the minimum on the path from $(1-\alpha_{k+1}) f_k$ along $g^*_{k+1}$, then it is easy to see that $$Q'_m\left(f_{k+1},g^*_{k+1}\right)=0.$$ According to the convexity of $Q_m$ again, we obtain $$Q_m'(f_{k+1},f_{k+1})\geq Q_m(f_{k+1})-Q_m(0).$$ Noting that $\frac{\alpha_{k+1}}{1-\alpha_{k+1}}=\frac4k$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
Q_m(f_k)
&\geq&
Q_m(f_{k+1})
+
\frac4k(Q_m(f_{k+1})-Q_m(0))\\
&+&
\frac{(\beta_{k+1}^*)^2}{2}Q_m^{''}\left(\hat{f_k},g_{k+1}\right).\end{aligned}$$ If we write $\mathcal B=\inf\{Q_m''(f,g): c_1<Q_m(f)<c_2,g\in S\}$, then we have $$(\beta^*_{j+1})^2\leq\frac2{\mathcal
B}\left(Q_m(f_j)-Q_m(f_{j+1})+\frac4jQ_m(0)\right).$$ Therefore, $$\sum_{j=0}^k(\beta_j^*)^2\leq \frac{2\log k}{\mathcal B}.$$ Then it follows from the definition of $f_k$ that $$\begin{aligned}
f_k
&=&
(1-\alpha_k)(1-\alpha_{k-1})\cdots(1-\alpha_2)\beta_1^*g_1^*\\
&+&
(1-\alpha_k)(1-\alpha_{k-1})\cdots(1-\alpha_3)\beta_2^*g_2^*\\
&+&\dots
+
(1-\alpha_k)\beta^*_{k-1}g^*_{k-1}+\beta^*_kg_k^*.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, it follows from the Assumption \[ASSUMPTION 1\] that $$\label{boundedness of fk}
|f_k(x)|\leq\sqrt{\sum_{j=0}^k(\beta_j^*)^2 \sum_{j=0}^n|g_j^*(x)|^2}
\leq \sqrt{2C_1\log k/\mathcal B}.$$
Now we turn to the second step, which derives the numerical convergence rate of RBoosting. For arbitrary $\beta_k\in\mathbf R$ and $g_k\in S$, it follows form Lemma \[MODULUS OF SMOOTHNESS\] that $$\begin{aligned}
& & Q_m((1-\alpha_{k+1})f_{k}+\beta_{k+1}g_{k+1})\\
&=&
Q_m(f_{k}-\alpha_{k+1}f_{k}+\beta_{k+1}g_{k+1})\\
&\leq&
Q_m(f_{k})-\beta_{k+1}(-Q_m'(f_{k},g_{k+1}))\\
&-&
\alpha_{k+1}Q_m'(f_{k},f_{k})\\
&+&
2\rho(Q_m,\|\beta_{k+1}g_{k+1}-\alpha_{k+1}f_{k}\|).\end{aligned}$$ From Step 2 in Algorithm \[alg2\], $g^*_{k+1}$ satisfies $$-Q_m'(f_{k},g^*_{k+1})=\sup_{g\in S}
-Q_m'(f_{k},g).$$ Set $\beta_k=\|h\|_1\alpha_k$. It follows from Lemma \[EQUALIVALENT MIN\] that $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{g\in S}-Q_m'(f_{k},g)
&=&
\sup_{\phi\in
\mathcal M_1(S)}-Q_m'(f_{k} ,\phi)\\
&\geq&
-\|h\|_1^{-1} Q_m'(f_{k},h).\end{aligned}$$ Under this circumstance, we get $$\begin{aligned}
&&Q_m((1-\alpha_{k+1})f_{k}+\beta_{k+1}g^*_{k+1})\\
&&\leq
Q_m(f_{k})-\alpha_{k+1}
(-Q_m'(f_{k},h-f_{k}))\\
&+&
2\rho(Q_m,\|\beta_{k+1}g^*_{k+1}-\alpha_{k+1}f_{k}\|).\end{aligned}$$ Based on Lemma \[MODULUS OF SMOOTHNESS\], we obtain $$-Q_m'(f_{k} ,h-f_{k})\geq Q_m(f_{k})-Q_m(h).$$ Thus, $$\begin{aligned}
Q_m(f_{k+1})
&=&
Q_m((1-\alpha_{k+1})f_{k}+\beta_{k+1}g^*_{k+1})\\
&\leq&
Q_m(f_{k})-\alpha_k(Q_m(f_{k})-Q-m(h))\\
&+&
2\rho(Q_m,\left\|\|h\|_1\alpha_{k+1}g^*_{k+1}-\alpha_{k+1}f_{k}\right\|).\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, according to (\[boundedness of fk\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&&\left\|\|h\|_1\alpha_{k+1}g^*_{k+1}-\alpha_{k+1}f_{k}\right\|\\
&&\leq
\|h\|_1\alpha_{k+1}+\alpha_{k+1}\|f_{k}\|\\
&&\leq
\|h\|_1\alpha_{k+1}+\alpha_{k+1}\|f_{k}\|_1\\
&&\leq
(\|h\|_1+\sqrt{2C_1\ln k})\alpha_{k+1}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
&&Q_m(f_{k+1})-Q_m(h)
\leq
Q_m(f_{k})-Q_m(h) \nonumber\\
&&-\alpha_{k+1}(Q_m(f_{k})-Q_m(h)) \nonumber \\
&&+
2\rho\left(Q_m,(\|h\|_1+\sqrt{2C_1\log
k}/\mathcal B)\alpha_{k+1}\right). \label{important estimate}\end{aligned}$$ Now, we use the above inequality and Lemma \[NUMBER THEORY\] to prove Theorem \[NUMERICAL CONVERGENCE\]. Let $a_k=Q_m(f_{k+1})-Q_m(h)$. Let $c_3\in (1,2]$ and $\mathcal C_0$ be selected later. We then prove the conditions (i) and (ii) of Lemma \[NUMBER THEORY\] hold for an appropriately selected $\mathcal
C_0$. Set $$\mathcal C_0= 2+\frac{A(0)}2+ \frac{72C_2}{25}\|h\|_1^2
+ \frac{288C_1C_2\log k}{25\mathcal B^2} .$$ Then, it follows from (\[important estimate\]) and $\rho(Q_m,u)\leq C_2 u^2$ that $$a_1\leq \frac{A(0)}4+ \frac{9C_2}{8}\|h\|_1^2\leq
\mathcal C_0,\ a_2\leq \mathcal C_0 2^{-1},$$ and for $v\geq 2$, there holds $$a_v\leq a_{v-1}+\mathcal C_0(v-1)^{-1}.$$ Thus the condition (i) of Lemma \[NUMBER THEORY\] holds with $j_0=2$. and $a_v\geq \mathcal C_0v^{-1}$, then by (\[important estimate\]), we get for $v\geq 6$, $$\begin{aligned}
&&a_{v+1}
\leq
a_v(1-\alpha_{v+1}\\
&&+
2C_2 (\|h\|_1+\sqrt{2C_1\log
k}/\mathcal B)^2\alpha_{v+1}^2/a_v)\\
&&\leq
a_v\left(1-\frac{3}{v+3}+\frac{1}{2v+2}\right)\\
&&\leq
a_v\left(1-\frac3{2v}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Thus the condition (ii) of Lemma \[NUMBER THEORY\] holds with $c_2=\frac32$. Applying Lemma \[NUMBER THEORY\] we obtain $$Q_m(f_k)-Q_m(h)\leq C(\|h\|^2_1+\log k)k^{-1},$$ where $C$ is a constant depending only on $\mathcal B$, $C_1$ and $C_2$. This finishes the proof of Theorem \[NUMERICAL CONVERGENCE\].
Proof of Theorem \[LEARNING RATE BOOSTING\]
===========================================
To aid the proof of Theorem \[LEARNING RATE BOOSTING\], we need the following two technical lemmas, both of them can be found in [@Zhou2006].
Let $R>0$, we denote $ B_R$ as the closed ball of $V_k=$Span$\{g_1^*,\dots,g_k^*\}$ with radius $R$ centered at origin: $$B_R=\{f\in V_k:\|f\|\leq R\}.$$
\[COVERING ESTIMATE\] For $R>0$ and $\eta>0$, we have $$\log\mathcal N( B_R,\eta)\leq
C_3k\log\left(\frac{4R}{\eta}\right),$$ where $\mathcal N( B_R,\eta)$ denotes the covering number of $
B_R$ with radius $\eta$ under the uniform norm.
The following ratio probability inequality is a standard result in learning theory (see [@Zhou2006]).
\[CONCENTRATION INEQUALITY\] Let $\mathcal G$ be a set of functions on $Z$ such that, for some $c\geq 0$, $|g-\mathbf E(g)|\leq B$ almost everywhere and $\mathbf
E(g^2)\leq c\mathbf E(g)$ for each $g\in\mathcal G$. Then, for every $\varepsilon>0$, there holds $$\begin{aligned}
&&
\mathbf P\left\{\sup_{f\in\mathcal G}
\frac{\mathbf E(g)-\frac1m\sum_{i=1}^mg(z_i)}{\sqrt{
\mathbf E(g)+\varepsilon}}\geq\sqrt{\varepsilon}\right\}\\
&&\leq
\mathcal N(\mathcal
G,\varepsilon)\exp\left\{-\frac{m\varepsilon}{2c+\frac{2B}3}\right\}.\end{aligned}$$
At first, we use the concentration inequality in Lemma \[CONCENTRATION INEQUALITY\] to bound $$Q(f_k)-Q(h)
-(Q_m(f_k)-Q_m(h)).$$ We need apply Lemma \[CONCENTRATION INEQUALITY\] to the set of functions $\mathcal F_R$, where $$\mathcal F_{R}:=\left\{\psi(Z)=\phi(f(X),Y)-\phi( h(X),Y):f\in
B_R\right\}.$$ Using the obvious inequalities $\|f\|_\infty \leq R$, $|y|\leq
M$ and $\| h\|_\infty\leq \|h\|_1$, from Assumption \[ASSUMPTION 1\] it follows the inequalities $$|\psi(Z)|\leq H_\phi(R,M)+H_\phi(\|h\|_1,M)$$ and $$\mathbf
E\psi^2
\leq
(H_\phi(R,M)+H_\phi(\|h\|_1,M))\mathbf E\psi.$$ For $\psi_1,\psi_2\in\mathcal F_R$, it follows from Assumption \[ASSUMPTION 2\] that there exists a constant $C_4$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
|\psi_1(Z)-\psi_2(Z)|
&=&
|\phi(f_1,Y)-\phi(f_2,Y)|\\
&\leq&
C_4|f_1(X)-f_2(X)|.\end{aligned}$$ We then get $$\mathcal N(\mathcal
F_R,\varepsilon)
\leq
\mathcal N(
B_R,\varepsilon/C_4).$$ According to Lemma \[COVERING ESTIMATE\], there holds $$\log \mathcal N(\mathcal
F_R,\varepsilon)
\leq
C_3k\log\left(\frac{4C_4R}{\varepsilon}\right).$$ Employing Lemma \[CONCENTRATION INEQUALITY\] with $B=c=H_\phi(R,M)+H_\phi(\|h\|_1,M)$ and $$\mathbf E\psi=Q(f)-Q(h),\
\frac1m\sum_{i=1}^m\psi(Z_i)=Q_m(f)-Q_m(h),$$ we have, for every $\varepsilon>0$, $$\sup_{f\in B_R}
\frac{Q(f)-Q(h)-(Q_m(f)-Q_m(h))}{\sqrt{
Q(f)-Q(h)+\varepsilon}}\leq\sqrt{\varepsilon}$$ with confidence at least $$1-
\exp\left\{C_3k\log\left(\frac{4C_4R}{\varepsilon}\right)\right\}
\exp\left\{-\frac{3m\varepsilon}{8\mathcal
C(h,R,M)}\right\},$$ where $\mathcal C(h,R,M)=(H_\phi(R,M)+H_\phi(\|h\|_1,M))$.
It follows from (\[boundedness of fk\]) that $f_k\in B_R$ with $R=C_5\log k$, then with confidence at least $$1-
\exp\left\{C_3k\log\left(\frac{C_6\log
k}{\varepsilon}\right)\right\}
\exp\left\{-\frac{3m\varepsilon}{8\mathcal
C_1}\right\},$$ there holds $$\begin{aligned}
&&Q(f_k)-Q(h)-(Q_m(f_k)-Q_m(h))\\
&& \leq\sqrt{\varepsilon}(\sqrt{
Q(f_k)-Q(h)+\varepsilon})\\
&&\leq
\frac12(Q(f_k)-Q(h))+\varepsilon,\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal C_1= \mathcal C(h,C_5\log k,M)$. Therefore, with the same confidence, there holds $$Q(f_k)-Q(h)\leq
2(Q_m(f_k)-Q_m(h))+2\varepsilon.$$ Since Assumptions \[ASSUMPTION 1\] and \[ASSUMPTION 2\] hold, it follows from Theorem \[NUMERICAL CONVERGENCE\] that for any function $h\in\mbox{Span}(S)$, there holds $$Q_m(f_k)-Q_m(h)\leq C(\|h\|_1^2+\log k)k^{-1},$$ where $C$ is a constant depending only on $c_1,c_2$ and $C_1$. Combining the last two inequalities yields that $$\mathcal T\leq\varepsilon$$ holds with at least $$\begin{aligned}
&&1-
\exp\left\{C_3k\log\left(\frac{C_6\log
k}{\varepsilon}\right)\right\}\\
&&\times
\exp\left\{-\frac{3m\varepsilon}{8\mathcal
C(h,C_5\log k,M)}\right\},\end{aligned}$$ where $$\mathcal T=\frac{Q(f_k)-Q(h)- C(\|h\|^2_1+\log k)k^{-1}}{2}.$$
For arbitrary $\mu>0$, there holds $$\begin{aligned}
&&E_{\rho^m}(\mathcal T)
=
\int_{0}^\infty\mathbf P\{\mathcal T>\varepsilon\}d\varepsilon\\
&\leq&
\mu+\int_{\mu}^\infty
\exp\left\{C_3k\log\frac{C_6\log k}{\varepsilon}-\frac{3m\varepsilon}{8\mathcal C_1}\right\}d\varepsilon\\
&\leq&
\mu+\exp\left\{-\frac{3m\mu}{8\mathcal C_1}\right\}
\int_\mu^\infty\left(\frac{C_6\log k}{\varepsilon}\right)^{C_3k}d\varepsilon\\
&\leq&
\mu+\exp\left\{-\frac{3m\mu}{8\mathcal C_1}\right\}\left(\frac{C_6\log
k}{\mu}\right)^{C_3k}\mu.\end{aligned}$$ By setting $\mu=\frac{\mathcal C_1C_3k(\log m+\log k)}{3m}$, direct computation yields $$\mathbf E(\mathcal T)\leq \frac{2\mathcal C_1C_3k(\log m+\log
k)}{3m}.$$ That is, $$\begin{aligned}
&&\mathbf E\{ Q(f_k)-Q(h)\}\\
&\leq&
C(\|h\|_1^2+\log k)k^{-1}+ \frac{4\mathcal C_1C_3k(\log m+\log
k)}{3m},\end{aligned}$$ which finishes the proof Theorem \[LEARNING RATE BOOSTING\].
Conclusion and further discussions
==================================
In this paper, we proposed a new idea to conquer the slow numerical convergence rate problem of boosting and then develop a new variant of boosting, named as the re-scale boosting (RBoosting). Different from other variants such as the $\varepsilon$-boosting, RTboosting, RSboosting that control the step-size in the linear search step, RBoosting focuses on alternating the direction of linear search via implementing a re-scale operator on the composite estimator obtained by the previous iteration step. Both theoretical and experimental studies illustrated that RBoosting outperformed the original boosting and performed at least comparable to other variants of boosting. Theoretically, we proved that the numerical convergence rate of RBoosting was almost optimal in the sense that it cannot be essentially improved. Using this property, we then deduced a fairly tight generalization error bound of RBoosting, which was a new “record” for boosting-type algorithms. Experimentally, we showed that for a number of numerical experiments, RBoosting outperformed boosting, and performed at least the second best of all variants of boosting. All these results implied that RBoosting was an reasonable improvement of Boosting and the idea “re-scale” provided a new direction to improve the performance of boosting.
To stimulate more opinions from others on RBoosting, we present the following two remarks at the end of this paper.
Throughout the paper, up to the theoretical optimality, we can not provide any essential advantages of RBoosting in applications, which makes it difficult to persuade the readers to use RBoosting rather than other variants of boosting. We highlight that there may be two merits of RBoosting in applications. The first one is that, due to the good theoretical behavior, if the parameters of RBoosting are appropriately selected, then RBoosting may outperform other variants. This conclusion was partly verified in our experimental studies in the sense that for all the numerical examples, RBoosting performed at least the second best. The other merit is that, compared with other variants, RBoosting cheers a totally different direction to improve the performance of boosting. Therefore, it paves a new way to understand and improve boosting. Furthermore, we guess that if the idea of the “re-scale” in RBoosting and “regularization” in other variants of boosting are synthesized to develop a new boosting-type algorithm, such as the re-scale $\varepsilon$-boosting, re-scale RTboosting, then the performance may be further improved. We will keep working on this issue and report our progress in a future publication.
According to the “no free lunch” philosophy, all the variants improve the learning performance of boosting at the cost of introducing additional parameters, such as the truncated parameter in RTboosting, regularization parameter in RSboosting, $\varepsilon$ in $\varepsilon$-Boosting, and shrinkage degree in RBoosting. To facilitate the use of these variants, one should also present strategies to select such parameters. In particular, Elith et al. [@Elith2008] showed that $ 0.1$ is a feasible choice of $\varepsilon$ in $\varepsilon$-Boosting; Bühlmann and Hothorn [@Buhlmann2007] recommended the selection of $0.1$ for the regularization parameter in RSboosting; Zhang and Yu [@Zhang2005] proved that $\mathcal O(k^{-2/3})$ is a good value of the truncated parameter in RTboosting. One may naturally ask: how to select the shrinkage degree $\alpha_k$ in RBoosting? This is a good question and we find a bit headache to answer it. Admittedly, in this paper, we do not give any essential suggestion to practically attack this question. In fact, $\alpha_k$ plays an important role in RBoosting. If $\alpha_k$ is too small, then RBoosting performs similar as the original boosting, which can be regarded as a special RBoosting with $\alpha_k=0$. If $\alpha_k$ is too large, an extreme case is $\alpha_k$ close to $1$, then the numerical convergence rate of RBoosting is also slow. Although we theoretically present some values of the $\alpha_k$, the best one in applications, we think, should be selected via some model selection strategies. We leave this important issue into a future study [@Xu2015], where the concrete role of the shrinkage degree will be revealed.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
The research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 11401462) and the National 973 Programming (2013CB329404).
[100]{}
A. Bagirov, C. Clausen, and M. Kohler. An $L_2$ boosting algorithm for estimation of a regression function. IEEE. Trans. Inform. Theory, 56: 1417-1429, 2010.
A. Barron, A. Cohen, W. Dahmen, and R. DeVore. Approximation and learning by greedy algorithms. Ann. Statist., 36: 64-94. 2008.
P. Bartlett, and M. Traskin. AdaBoost is consistent. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 8: 2347-2368, 2007.
P. Bickel, Y. Ritov, and A. Zakai. Some theory for generalized boosting algorithms. 7: 705-732, 2006.
C. Blake and C. Merz. {UCI} repository of machine learning databases, 1998.
L. Breiman, J. Friedman, C. Stone, and R. Olshen. Classification and Regression Trees. CRC press, 1984.
P. Buhlmann, and B. Yu. Boosting with the $L_2$ loss: regression and classification. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc., 98: 324-339, 2003.
P. Buhlmann, and T. Hothorn. Boosting algorithms: regularization, prediction and model fitting. Statist. Sci., 22: 477-505, 2007.
R. DeVore, and V. Temlyakov. Some remarks on greedy algorithms. Adv. Comput. Math., 5: 173-187, 1996.
R. DeVore, and V. Temlyakov. Convex optimization on Banach spaces. arxiv:1401.0334v1, 2014.
N. Duffy, and D. Helmbold. Boosting methods for regression. Mach. Learn., 47: 153-200, 2002.
J. Ehrlinger, and H. Ishwaran. Characterizing $L_2$ boosting. Ann. Statist. 40: 1074-1101, 2012.
B. Efron, T. Hastie, I. Johnstone, and R. Tibsirani. Least angle regressionn. Ann. Statist., 32: 407-451, 2004. J. Elith, J. R. Leathwick, and T. Hastie. A working guide to boosted regression trees. Journal of Animal Ecology. 77: 802-813, 2008.
Y. Freund. Boosting a weak learning algorithm by majority. Inform. & Comput., 121: 256-285, 1995.
Y. Freund, and R. Schapire. Experiments with a new boosting algorithm. In Machine Learning: Proc. Thirteenth Intern. Conf., pages 148-156. Morgan Kauffman, 1996.
J. Friedman, T. Hastie, and R. Tibshirani. Additive logistic regression: a statistical view of boosting (With discussion and a rejoinder by the authors). Ann. Statist., 28: 337-407, 2000.
J. Friedman. Greedy function approximation: a gradient boosting machine. Ann. Statist., 29: 1189-1232, 2001.
L. Györfy, M. Kohler, A. Krzyzak and H. Walk. A Distribution-Free Theory of Nonparametric Regression. Springer, Berlin, 2002.
T. Hastie, J. Taylor, R. Tibshirani, and G. Walther. Forward stagewise regression and the monotone lasso. Elec. J. Statist., 1: 1-29, 2007.
D. Harrison and D. L. Rubinfeld. Hedonic prices and the demand for clean air. , 5(1):81–102, 1978.
W. Jiang. Process consistency for adaboost. Ann. Statist., 32: 13-29, 2004.
S. Lin, Y. Rong, X. Sun, and Z. Xu. Learning capability of relaxed greedy algorithms. IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. & Learn. Syst., 24: 1598-1608, 2013.
E. Livshits. Lower bounds for the rate of convergence of greedy algorithms. Izvestiya: Mathematics 73: 1197-1215, 2009.
W. Nash, T. Sellers, S. Talbot, A. Cawthorn, and W. Ford. The population biology of abalone (haliotis species) in tasmania. i. blacklip abalone (h. rubra) from the north coast and islands of bass strait. Sea Fisheries Division, Technical Report, no. 48, 1994.
R. Schapire. The strength of weak learnability. Mach. Learn., 5: 1997-2027, 1990.
V. Temlyakov. Greedy algorithms in Banach spaces. Adv. Comput. Math., 14: 277-292, 2001.
V. Temlyakov. Relaxation in greedy approximation. Constr. Approx., 28: 1-25, 2008.
V. Temlyakov. Greedy approximation. Acta Numer., 17: 235-409, 2008.
V. Temlyakov. Greedy approximation in convex optimization. arXiv: 1206.0392v1, 2012.
L.Xu, S. B. Lin, Y. Wang, and Z. B. Xu. Shrinkage degree in $L_2$-re-scale boosting for regression. Submitted to IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. & Learn. Syst., 2015.
I. C. Ye. Modeling of strength of high performance concrete using artificial neural networks. Cement and Concrete Research, 28(12): 1797-1808, 1998.
T. Zhang. Sequential greedy approximation for certain convex optimization problems. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, 49: 682-691, 2013.
T. Zhang, and B. Yu. Boosting with early stopping: convergence and consistency. Ann. Statis., 33: 1538-1579, 2005.
P. Zhao, and B. Yu. Stagewise lasso. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 8: 2701-2726, 2007.
D. Zhou, and K. Jetter. Approximation with polynomial kernels and SVM classifiers. Adv. Comput. Math., 25: 323-344, 2006.
J. Zhu, S. Rosset, T. Hastie, and R. Tibshirani. 1-norm support vector machines. Neural Information Proceeding Systems 16, 2003.
[^1]: In [@Zhang2003], XGAR was called as the sequential greedy algorithm, while in [@Barron2008], XGAR was named as the relaxed greedy algorithm for brevity.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present a systematic method to introduce free parameters in sets of mutually unbiased bases. In particular, we demonstrate that any set of $m$ real mutually unbiased bases in dimension $N>2$ admits the introduction of $(m-1)N/2$ free parameters which cannot be absorbed by a global unitary operation. As consequence, there are $m=k+1$ mutually unbiased bases in every dimension $N=k^2$ with $k^3/2$ free parameters, where $k$ is even. We construct the maximal set of triplets of mutually unbiased bases for two-qubits systems and triplets, quadruplets and quintuplets of mutually unbiased bases with free parameters for three-qubits systems. Furthermore, we study the richness of the entanglement structure of such bases and we provide the quantum circuits required to implement all these bases with free parameters in the laboratory. Finally, we find the upper bound for the maximal number of real and complex mutually unbiased bases existing in every dimension. This proof is simple, short and it considers basic matrix algebra.'
author:
- Dardo Goyeneche
- Santiago Gomez
title: Mutually unbiased bases with free parameters
---
Keywords: Mutually Unbiased Bases, Quantum Entanglement, Quantum Circuits.
Introduction
============
Mutually unbiased bases (MUB) have an ubiquitous role in quantum mechanics. They are useful to generate quantum key distribution protocols [@Bennett; @Brub; @Cerf], detection of entanglement [@Spengler], quantum random access codes [@CGS08], dense coding, teleportation, entanglement swapping and covariant cloning (see [@Durt] and references therein). Furthermore, a maximal set of MUB allows us to univocally reconstruct quantum states [@I81]. On the other hand, entropic certainty [@S95; @RPZ14] and uncertainty relations [@WW10], have been considered for MUB. Such important applications have motivated an enormous effort to understand the underlying structure behind incomplete [@MBGW14; @G13] and complete [@I81; @WF89] sets of MUB. In particular, incomplete sets of MUB have an important role in Bell inequalities [@BCPSW14], uncertainty relations [@A04] and locking of classical correlations in quantum states [@DHLST04; @BW07; @DG09]. Despite of the important advance done for complete sets of MUB in prime [@I81] and prime power [@WF89] dimensions, incomplete sets of MUB seem to be much more challenging. Indeed, the full classification of all possible sets of MUB for 2-qubit systems has been recently done [@BWB10] and the multipartite case is poorly understood. The lack of a deeper understanding of mutually unbiased bases seems to be the absence of a suitable mathematical tool. Indeed, for three or more qubits systems it is not known the existence of quadruplet of MUB having free parameters and a few triplets were accidentally found [@B94]. In this work, we enlighten this area of research by presenting a systematic method to introduce free parameters in incomplete sets of MUB. As consequence, we demonstrate that any set of $m$ real MUB existing in any dimension $N$ admits the introduction of free parameters with our method. We also show that our construction is not restricted to the consideration of real bases. Indeed, we illustrate our method by explicitly constructing the maximal set of triplets for 2-qubits systems and several triplets, quadruplets and quintuplets of MUB having free parameters for 3-qubits systems. All of these cases involve complex MUB. Furthermore, we analyze the entanglement structure of such sets of MUB and provide the quantum circuit required to implement all these sets in the laboratory.
This work is organized as follows: In Section II we present a short introduction to mutually unbiased bases, the link to complex Hadamard matrices and we resume the state of the art of MUB with free parameters. In Section III we present our method to introduce free parameters in incomplete sets of MUB. In Section IV we prove that any set of real MUB admits the introduction of the maximal number of parameters allowed by our method. In Section V we construct triplets, quadruplets and quintuplets of MUB having free parameters for three qubit systems and study the entanglement structure of each case. In Section VI we resume our main results, conclude and discuss some open questions. Additionally, we illustrate our method by explicitly solving the simplest case of triplets of MUB for 2-qubits systems (see Apendix \[appendix1\]). The explicit construction of a quadruplet and a quintuplet of MUB having free parameters for three qubit systems is provided in Appendix \[appendix2\]. In Appendix \[appendix3\] we derive the quantum circuit required to generate every quadruplet and quintuplet of MUB presented in this work. Finally, in Appendix \[appendix4\] we find a simple and short proof for the upper bound of the maximal number of real and complex MUB in every dimension by considering basic matrix algebra.
Mutually unbiased bases and complex Hadamard matrices
=====================================================
In this section, we present some fundamental properties about *mutually unbiased bases* (MUB) and *complex Hadamard matrices* (CHM) required to understand the rest of the work. For a complete review about MUB and CHM we suggest [@DEBZ10] and [@TZ06], respectively. Two orthonormal bases $\{\phi_j\}_{j=0,\dots,N-1}$ and $\{\psi_k\}_{k=0,\dots,N-1}$ defined in $\mathbb{C}^N$ are *mutually unbiased* if $$\label{MUB}
|\langle\phi_j,\psi_k\rangle|^2=\frac{1}{N},$$ for every $j,k=0,\dots,N-1$. In general, a set of $m>2$ orthonormal bases are MUB if every pair of bases of the set is MUB. A set of $m$ MUB is called *extensible* if there exist an $m+1$th basis which is mutually unbiased with respect to the rest of the bases. It has been shown that $m=N+1$ MUB exist for $N$ prime [@I81] and prime power [@WF89]. Additionally, maximal sets of MUB can be constructed in prime power dimensions by considering gaussian sums and finite fields [@RBKS05; @KRBS09; @KSSL09]. For any other dimension $N=p_1^{r_1}p_2^{r_2}\dots p_k^{r_k}$ ($p_1^{r_1}<p_2^{r_2}<\dots< p_k^{r_k}$) the maximal value for $m$ is not known and the lower bound $m\geq p_1^{r_1}$ is provided by the maximal number of fully separable (i.e., tensor product) MUB [@KR04]. Additionally, in dimensions of the form $N=k^2$ it is possible to find $m=k+1$ real MUB by considering orthogonal Latin squares [@PDB09]. Let us arrange the bases $\{\phi_j\}$ and $\{\psi_k\}$ in columns of unitary matrices $B_1$ and $B_2$, respectively. Thus, if $B_1$ and $B_2$ are MUB we have $$\label{B1B2H}
B_1^{\dag}B_2=H,$$ where $H$ is a CHM. An $N\times N$ matrix $H$ is called a *complex Hadamard matrix* (CHM) if it is unitary and all its complex entries have the same amplitude $1/\sqrt{N}$. For example, the Fourier matrix $(F_N)_{jk}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}e^{2\pi ijk/N}$ is a CHM for every $N$, where $i=\sqrt{-1}$. Two CHM $H_1$ and $H_2$ are equivalent if there exists permutation matrices $P_1,P_2$ and diagonal unitary matrices $D_1,D_2$ such that $H_2=P_1D_1H_1D_2P_2$. Therefore, MUB and CHM are close related: any set of $m$ MUB $\mathcal{S}_1=\{B_1,\dots,B_m\}$ is unitary equivalent to a set $\mathcal{S}_2=\{\mathbb{I},H_1,\dots,H_{m-1}\}$, where $\mathbb{I}$ represents the computational basis and $H_1,\dots,H_{m-1}$ are CHM. Indeed, the unitary transformation that connects $\mathcal{S}_1$ with $\mathcal{S}_2$ is $B_1^{\dag}$. That is, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{MUBCHM}
B_1^{\dag}(\mathcal{S}_1)&=&\{B_1^{\dag}B_1,B_1^{\dag}B_2,\dots,B_1^{\dag}B_m\}\nonumber\\
&=&\{\mathbb{I},H_1,\dots,H_{m-1}\}\nonumber\\
&=&\mathcal{S}_2,\end{aligned}$$ where we used Eq.(\[B1B2H\]). Alternatively, $B_k^{\dag}(\mathcal{S}_1)$ also provides an analogous result for $k=2,\dots,m$. The full classification of CHM and MUB has been solved up to dimension $N=5$ (see [@H96] and [@BWB10], respectively). For $N=6$ both problems remain open despite a considerable effort made during the last 20 years [@Z99; @A05; @JMM10; @G04; @BH07; @BBELTZ07; @BW08; @BW10; @JMMSW09; @G13]. The problems also remain open for any dimension $N>6$. For example, they are open in the prime dimension $N=7$, where a single 1-parametric family of complex Hadamard matrices is known [@P97] and a maximal set of 8 MUB is known [@I81] but incomplete sets of MUB are not yet characterized. Indeed, it is still open the question whether a triplet of MUB having free parameters exist in dimension $N=7$.
Let us summarize the state of the art about sets of MUB having free parameters. First, any set of $m$ MUB in prime dimension $N=p$ of the form $\{\mathbb{I}, F_p, C_1,\dots,C_{m-2}\}$ is *isolated*, where $F_p$ is the Fourier matrix and $\{C_1,\dots,C_{m-2}\}$ are circulant CHM [@H08]. A complex Hadamard matrix is isolated if there is no family of CHM connected with it [@TZ06]. By family we understand a set of inequivalent complex Hadamard matrices depending on some free parameters. We extend the same definition to sets of MUB: a set of $m$ MUB is isolated if there is no family of $m$ MUB connected with it. For example, any set of $m\leq N+1$ MUB in dimension $N=2,3$ and $N=5$ is isolated. In dimension $N=4$ there is a unique 3-parametric triplet of MUB of the form $\{\mathbb{I},F^{(1)}_4(x),H(y,z)\}$ and quadrupets and quintuplets of MUB are isolated [@BWB10]. In dimension $N=6$ a 1-parametric triplet of MUB exists [@Z99]. Moreover, two-parametric triplets of the form $\{\mathbb{I},F^{(2)}_6(x,y),H(x,y)\}$ exist for any $x,y\in[0,2\pi)$ and seem to be unextendible for any pair $x,y$ [@JMM10; @G13]. Also, in dimensions $N=9$ [@Faugere] and $N=4k$ 1-parametric triplets of MUB can be defined by considering cyclic $n$-roots [@B94].
All the above sets of MUB with free parameters were found by taking advantage of special properties holding in specific dimensions. The existence of quadruplets of MUB having free parameters *is still unknown* in every dimension, as far as we know. In the next section we present a systematic method to introduce free parameters in sets of $m$ MUB in dimension $N$.
MUB with free parameters {#SIII}
========================
A set of $r>N$ vectors $\{v_k\}\subset\mathbb{C}^N$ has associated a Gram matrix $G\in\mathbb{C}^{r\times r}$, where $G_{ij}=\langle v_i,v_j\rangle$, $i,j=0,\dots,r-1$ and $\mathrm{Rank(G)}=N$. Reciprocally, from the Gram matrix $G$ of size $r$ and rank $N$ we can always find a set of vectors $\{v^{\prime}_k\}$ such that $G_{ij}=\langle v^{\prime}_i,v^{\prime}_j\rangle$ and $v^{\prime}_k\in\mathbb{C}^N$. The set of vectors $\{v_k\}$ and $\{v^{\prime}_k\}$, associated to the same $G$, are connected by means of a unitary transformation. Thus, they define the same geometrical structure in the complex projective space $\mathbf{CP}^{N-1}$. The vectors $\{v^{\prime}_k\}$ can be found from $G$ by considering the *Cholesky decomposition*, i.e., to find the unique upper triangular matrix $L$ having positive diagonal entries such that $G=L^{\dag}L$. Thus, the $r$ vectors $\{v^{\prime}_k\}$ are given by the $r$ columns of $L$, where we only have to consider entries of the first $N$ rows of $L$ (the rest are null because of the rank restriction). In this work, we are particularly interested to study Gram matrices associated to a set of $m$ MUB $\{\mathbb{I},H_1,H_2,\dots,H_{m-1}\}$ in $\mathbb{C}^N$. That is, $$\label{Gram}
G=\left(
\begin{array}{ccccc}
\mathbb{I} & H_1 & H_2 & \dots& H_{m-1} \\
H_1^{\dag} & \mathbb{I} &H_1^{\dag}H_2 & \dots& H_1^{\dag}H_{m-1} \\
H_2^{\dag} & H_2^{\dag}H_1 & \mathbb{I} & \dots& H_2^{\dag}H_{m-1} \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots &\ddots& \vdots \\
H_{m-1}^{\dag} &H_{m-1}^{\dag}H_1&H_{m-1}^{\dag}H_2&\dots & \mathbb{I} \\
\end{array}
\right).$$ Note that this matrix naturally defines a structure of $m^2$ square blocks of size $N$, each of them defined by a unitary matrix of the form $H^{\dag}_iH_j$, where $i,j=0,\dots,m-1$ and $H_0=\mathbb{I}$. The Cholesky decomposition of this Gram matrix $G$ is given by $$\label{Choleski}
L=\left(
\begin{array}{ccccc}
\mathbb{I} & H_1 & H_2 & \dots& H_{m-1} \\
0_N & 0_N &0_N & \dots& 0_N \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots &\ddots& \vdots \\
0_N &0_N&0_N&\dots & 0_N \\
\end{array}
\right),$$ where $0_N$ are zero matrices of size $N$. So, the set of $m$ MUB is clearly given by $\{\mathbb{I},H_1,H_2,\dots,H_{m-1}\}$ which corresponds to the first block of rows of $G$ (see Eq.(\[Gram\])). This important property *substantially simplifies* our method. In a previous work, we found the most general way to introduce free parameters in pairs of columns (or rows) of any complex Hadamard matrix in every dimension [@G132]. A free parameter can be introduced in two columns $C_1$ and $C_2$ of a CHM if and only if $C_1\circ C_2\in\mathbb{R^N}$, which only holds for $N$ even. Here, the circle denotes the (entrywise) Hadamard product, that is, $(C_1\circ C_2)_j=(C_1)_j(C_2)_j$, $j=0,\dots,N-1$. Pairs of columns (or rows) satisfying this property were called *equivalent to real pairs* (ER pairs). The construction of the CHM having free parameters is very simple:
\[construction\] Given an ER pair of columns $\{C_1,C_2\}$ we introduce a free phase $e^{i\alpha}$ in the $j$th entries $(C_1)_j$ and $(C_2)_j$ if $(C_1^*\circ C_2)_j<0$ for $j=0,\dots,N-1$.
Here, the asterisk denotes complex conjugation. Note that $\sum_{j=0}^{N-1}(C_1^*\circ C_2)_j$ is the inner product between the column vectors $C_1$ and $C_2$, which has to be zero by definition of CHM. Let us exemplify this method by introducing two free parameter in the Fourier matrix $$F_4=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
1&1&1&1\\
1&i&-1&-i\\
1&-1&1&-1\\
1&-i&-1&i
\end{array}
\right).$$ That is, $$\label{FamF4}
F_4(\alpha,\beta)=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
1&1&1&1\\
1e^{i\alpha}&ie^{i\beta}&-1e^{i\alpha}&-ie^{i\beta}\\
1&-1&1&-1\\
1e^{i\alpha}&-ie^{i\beta}&-1e^{i\alpha}&ie^{i\beta}
\end{array}
\right).$$ Here, we considered the ER pairs of columns $\{C_1,C_3\}$ and $\{C_2,C_4\}$ to introduce the paramaters $\alpha$ and $\beta$, respectively. Note that $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are *aligned* in the same rows. A set of $N/2$ ER pairs producing aligned free parameters in matrices of size $N$ are called *aligned ER pairs*. The remarkable property of aligned ER pairs is that one of the parameters is always linearly dependent (if we consider the equivalence of CHM defined above). Thus, the parameter $\beta$ is linearly dependent and the Fourier family has only one relevant parameter [@TZ06].
Let us now extend this method to the construction of MUB with free parameters. Here, the key ingredient is the generalization of the concept of ER pairs: a set of two columns $\{C_1,C_2\}$ of a Gram matrix of $m$ MUB in dimension $N$ is called a *generalized ER* pair (GER) if $C_1\circ C_2\in\mathbb{R}^{mN}$. The following result, natural generalization of Construction \[construction\], is the main result of this work:
\[mainprop\] Let $G$ be the Gram matrix of a set of $m$ MUB in dimension $N$ and suppose that it has $\mathcal{N}$ GER pair of columns, where both vectors of each GER pair belong to the same block of columns. Then, the set of MUB admits the introduction of $\mathcal{N}$ free parameters.
For simplicity let us first consider the case of 3 MUB ($m=3$) in dimension $N$, where the Gram matrix is given by $$\label{Gram2}
G=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\mathbb{I} & \mathbf{H_1} & H_2\\
H_1^{\dag} & \mathbf{I} &H_1^{\dag}H_2\\
H_2^{\dag} & \mathbf{H_2^{\dag}H_1} & \mathbb{I}
\end{array}
\right),$$ and suppose that $G$ has a GER pair of columns $\{C_i,C_j\}$ in the same block of columns (i.e., $\mathrm{Int}[i/N]=\mathrm{Int}[j/N]$, where Int means integer part). Therefore, $N$ of the products $(C_i)_k(C_j)_k$ are zero because of the corresponding identity block $\mathbb{I}$ and only $2N$ values of these products play a role in $C_i\circ C_j$. Thus, a free parameter can be introduced in both columns $C_i$ and $C_j$ by applying Construction \[construction\] to the $2N$ dimensional subvectors of $C_i$ and $C_j$ having $2N$ non-zero entries. Note that after introducing the parameter the hermiticity of $G$ is destroyed. In order to restore it we have to apply the same method to the GER pair of rows $\{R_i,R_j\}$ which always exists because of the hermiticity of $G$. This lead us to a 1-parametric set of matrices satisfying *i)* $G(\alpha)=U(\alpha)GU^{\dag}(\alpha)$ and *ii)* $|G(\alpha)_{ij}|=|G_{ij}|$ for any $\alpha\in[0,2\pi)$. Note that *i)* holds for any $U$ whereas *ii)* is strongly dependent on our construction. Here, $U(\alpha)$ and $U^{\dag}(\alpha)$ represent the introduction of a free parameter in columns two and rows, respectively. Furthermore, $G(\alpha)$ and $G(0)$ have the same eigenvalues for any $\alpha\in[0,2\pi)$ so $G(\alpha)$ is a 1-parametric set of Gram matrices defining a 1-parametric set of $m$ MUB in dimension $N$. If $G$ has $\mathcal{N}$ GER pairs then we can introduce $\mathcal{N}$ free parameters in the same way. The generalization to any $m>3$ is straightforward from the above explanation.
Let us emphasize the importance of considering both vectors of a GER pair in the same block of columns: suppose that we choose a GER pair formed by columns of different blocks (e.g. the 5th and 9th columns of the Gram matrix given in the example Eq.(\[G12\])) and we introduce a free parameter. Despite of this action generates a genuine Gram matrix the set of 3 bases would be *not* composed by MUB with free parameters. This is simple to understand because of the free parameter would appear in a single vector of the second and third basis.
In the particular case of $m=2$ our Proposition \[mainprop\] is reduced to Construction \[construction\], which has been derived in a previous work [@G132]. That is, to introduce free parameters in a pair of MUB is equivalent to introduce free parameters in a CHM, as suggested by Eq.(\[MUBCHM\]). It worths to mention that GER pairs of columns belonging to the first block of $G$ (i.e., $\{C_i,C_j\}$ with $i,j<N$) *always* produce parameters that can be absorbed in global unitary transformations. Roughly speaking, in this case the parameters do not appear in the inner product of vectors of two different bases (see Eq.(\[Gram\])). The explicit construction of the maximal set of triplets of MUB for 2-qubits systems is given in Appendix \[appendix1\]. Also, a triplet, a quadruplet and a quintuplet of MUB having free parameters for 3-qubits systems are given in Appendix \[appendix2\]. We encourage to the reader to have a close look to the examples in order to clearly understand our method.
Families stemming from real MUB
===============================
As we have shown, Proposition \[mainprop\] allows us to introduce free parameters in Gram matrices of MUB having GER pairs. In this section, we demonstrate that every set of $m$ of real MUB in dimension $N>2$ allows the introduction of the maximal number of parameters allowed by GER pairs:
Any set of $m$ real MUB in dimension $N>2$ admit the introduction of $Nm/2$ free parameters. Furthermore, $(m-1)N/2$ of these parameters cannot be absorbed by global unitary transformations and, at most, one of them is linearly dependent.
Every pair of columns belonging to the same block is clearly a GER pair. Therefore, there are $Nm/2$ GER pairs allowing the introduction of $Nm/2$ free parameters. The rest of the proof is straghtforward (already explained in the proof of Prop. \[mainprop\]).
Furthermore, note that there are many different ways to define the GER pairs and so many different families of MUB can be constructed. Precisely, there are $\binom{N}{2}$ different ways to define GER pairs in each of the $m-1$ blocks of columns (the first block only provides unitary equivalent MUB). That is, a total of $(m-1)N(N-1)/2$ different ways. We do not know how many ways are inequivalent for $N>4$. As we mentioned before, in dimensions $N=k^2$ it is possible to construct $m=k+1$ real MUB. By combining this result with the above proposition we have the following result:
In every dimension $N=k^2$ there exists $m=k+1$ MUB admitting $k^3/2$ free parameters.
Here, we consider $k>1$ and thus $kN$ parameters cannot be absorbed by a global unitary transformation. In dimension $N=4$ there exists $m=3$ real MUB and thus we can introduce $k^3/2=4$ free independent parameters, where the GER pairs are aligned and thus one of the four parameters is linearly dependent (see Appendix \[appendix1\]). Here, the 12 possible ways to introduce free parameters produce equivalent sets [@BWB10]. Such triplets are also equivalent to the solution found in Appendix \[appendix1\]. Sets of real MUB are not the only cases where a maximal number of parameters can be introduced with our method. Indeed, in the next section we construct sets of MUB with free parameters in the 3-qubit space by considering complex MUB.
MUB for the 3-qubit space {#MUB3Q}
=========================
In dimension $N=2^3$ there is a maximal number of 9 MUB. Indeed, four maximal sets having a different entanglement structure have been constructed [@RBKS05]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{MUBAndrei}
\mathcal{S}_1&=&(2,3,4)\hspace{0.5cm}\mathcal{S}_2=(1,6,2)\nonumber\\
\mathcal{S}_3&=&(0,9,0)\hspace{0.5cm}\mathcal{S}_4=(3,0,6)\end{aligned}$$ where the first, second and third entries denote the number of fully separable, biseparable and maximally entangled bases, respectively. These sets of MUB are not equivalent under Clifford operations but they are equivalent under general unitary transformations. In this section we focus on the construction of pairs, triplets, quadruplets and quintuplets of MUB having free parameters and stemming from elements of $\mathcal{S}_4$. We have chosen this particular set of MUB because it contains the highest number of maximally entangled bases and, consequently, it has potentially important applications in quantum information theory.
\[Tabla1\]
\#MUB(m) \# Param. Example
---------- ----------- --------------------------------------
2 3 $\{\mathbb{I},H_1\}^*$
2 4 $\{\mathbb{I},H_1\}$
3 7 $\{\mathbb{I},H_1,H_2\}^*$
3 8 $\{\mathbb{I},H_1,H_2\}$
4 4 $\{\mathbb{I},H_1,H_2,H_3\}$
5 0 $\{\mathbb{I},H_1,H_2,H_3,H_4\}$
5 4 $\{\mathbb{I},H_1,H_2,H_3,H_5\}^*$
6-9 0 $\{\mathbb{I},H_i,H_j,H_k,H_l,H_m\}$
: MUB with free parameters in dimension $N=8$. The asterisk means that GER pairs are aligned, which produces one linearly dependent parameter. Note that a set of MUB in general allows many different choices for GER pairs, and some of them produce non-alligned GER pairs. In Appendix \[appendix2\] we detailedly explain all possible sets of $m$ MUB having free parameters.
From considering Prop. \[mainprop\] we find the following results for every subset of $m\leq 9$ MUB of $\mathcal{S}_4$:
- Every pair of MUB $\{\mathbb{I},H_i\}\subset\mathcal{S}_4$ admits the introduction of 4 free parameters, where $i=1,\dots,8$.
- Every triplet of MUB $\{\mathbb{I},H_i,H_j\}\subset\mathcal{S}_4$ admits the introduction of 8 free parameters for every $i\neq j=1,\dots8$.
- Some quadruplets of MUB $\{\mathbb{I},H_j,H_k,H_l\}\subset\mathcal{S}_4$ admit the introduction of 4 free parameters in *only one* of the bases, whereas the rest of the quadruplets do not admit free parameters.
- Every quadruplet admitting 4 free parameters can be extended to a quintuplet of MUB having 4 free parameters. The extension of quadruplets to quintuplets is not unique.
- Every set of $6\leq m\leq9$ MUB do not admit free parameters.
The maximal number of parameters that can be introduced for every $m$ is provided in Table \[Tabla2\] of Appendix \[appendix2\], where we present the proof of the above results.
The free parameters of all quadruplets and quintuplets of MUB described in *(iii)* and *(iv)* can be generated in the laboratory by considering 7 different quantum circuits (56 cases, 8 cases per circuit; see Appendix \[appendix3\]), which involve local and Toffoli gates. The generation of the fixed set of bases, i.e. the set $\mathcal{S}_4$, requires different a circuit [@SSL14] which involves local, non-local controlled-phase and Toffoli gates [@B95]. Therefore, the sets of MUB with free parameters are generated by a composition of two different quantum circuits. The explicit expression of the quantum circuits is provided in Appendix \[appendix3\].
The entanglement structure of the sets of MUB presented in Appendix \[appendix3\] is very interesting. For example, let us consider the quintuplet $\{\mathbb{I},H_1(\alpha),H_2,H_3,H_5\}\subset\mathcal{S}_4$ (explicitly constructed in Appendix \[appendix2\]). For simplicity, let us assume that the 4 parameters $\alpha_1$ to $\alpha_4$ are identical ($\alpha$). Here, $H_1(0)$ is a maximally entangled basis, in the sense that every vector of the basis is equivalent (i.e., up to local unitary operations) to the GHZ state $|GHZ\rangle=(|000\rangle+|111\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$. On the other hand, $H_1(\pi/2)$ is a biseparable basis. Indeed, every vector of the basis is equivalent to $|\phi\rangle=|0\rangle(|00\rangle+|11\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$. That is, Alice is separated and Bob and Charlie share a maximally entangled Bell state. For any $0<\alpha<\pi/2$ we have an intermediate amount of entanglement between Alice and Bob-Charlie whereas Bob and Charlie are as entangled as possible for any $\alpha$. That is, two of the three parties (Bob and Charlie) saturate the maximal amount of entanglement allowed by the monogamy of entanglement of three-partite systems. Indeed, for any value of the parameter $\alpha$ the single qubit reductions $\rho_{B}$ and $\rho_{C}$ are maximally mixed. *It is highly non-trivial the fact that the basis $H_1(0)$ (maximally entangled) and $H_1(\pi/2)$ (fully separable) can be continuosly connected without loosing the unbiasity of the quintuplet of MUB for any value $\alpha\in[0,\pi/2)$*. In Appendix \[appendix3\] we show that, in this case, the parameter $\alpha$ is fully controlled by local unitary operations generated by Bob (see quantum circuit G). This means that Bob has full control on the entanglement existing between Alice and Bob-Charlie when we are restricted to *keep the unbiasity* of the quintuplet. Table \[Tabla3\] in Appendix \[appendix3\] shows all possible entanglement structures that can be find from quadruplets and quintuplets with free parameters arising from $\mathcal{S}_4$. The purity of the reductions $\rho_A$, $\rho_B$ and $\rho_C$ as a function of the free parameter $\alpha$ for the above quintuplet is depicted in Fig.(\[Fig1\]).
Summary, conclusion and discussion
==================================
We have presented a systematic way to introduce free parameters in sets of $m$ mutually unbiased bases in dimension $N$ (see Proposition \[mainprop\]). In particular, for $m=2$ our method is reduced to introduce free parameters in complex Hadamard matrices (see Construction \[construction\] and also our previous work [@G132]). We proved that any set of $m$ real mutually unbiased bases existing in any dimension $N>2$ admit the introduction of free parameters. Furthermore, in every dimension $N=k^2$ there are $k+1$ mutually unbiased with $kN/2$ free parameters, where $k$ is even. We have found the maximal set of triplets of mutually unbiased bases with free parameters for two qubit-systems (see Appendix \[appendix1\]). Also, we constructed pairs, triplets, quadruplets and quintuples of mutually unbiased bases having free parameters for 3-qubit systems (see Appendix \[appendix2\]). Such sets are constructed from subsets of the maximal set of complex MUB $\mathcal{S}_4$ (see Eq.(\[MUBAndrei\])). That is, our construction is not restricted to sets of real MUB. Additionally, we provided the complete set of quantum circuits required to implement all such quadruplets and quintuplets (see Appendix \[appendix3\]). Finally, we presented a new proof for the upper bound of the maximal number of real and complex mutually unbiased bases existing in every dimension. This short and simple proof only involves basic algebra (see Appendix \[appendix4\]).
The analysis provided in Section \[MUB3Q\] for 3-qubits can be easily extended to a higher number of qubits. In order to do this we have to consider the construction of maximal sets of mutually unbiased arising from Galois fields [@RBKS05]. Such construction is a generalization of the set $\mathcal{S}_4$, where every basis is a real Hadamard matrix multiplied by a diagonal unitary matrix containing $4th$ roots of the unity. In such cases we can always define GER pairs (see Prop. \[mainprop\]) and, therefore, introduce free parameters in subsets of $m$ MUB. Finally, let us present some open issues: (*i*) Find the subset of triplets, quadruplets and quintuplets of MUB considered in Appendix \[appendix3\] such that they are extendible to 9 MUB, and (*ii*) Is it possible to construct maximal sets of MUB with free parameters in some dimension? This question seems to have a negative answer for every $N$. However, a formal proof is only known for every $N\leq5$ [@BWB10].
Acknowledgements
================
We thank to Luis Sanchez Soto and Markus Grassl for fruitfull discussions and Joel Tropp for his comments concerning rank inequalities and Hadamard product. We also thank to the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Light, where this work was partially done. DG is also thankful to Pawe[ł]{} Horodecki for the hospitality during his stay in Sopot, where this project was finished. This work was supported by FONDECyT Scholarship Nro 3120066 and PIA-CONICYT PFB0824 (Chile) and the ERC Advanced Grant QOLAPS coordinated by Ryszard Horodecki (Poland).
MUB in dimension four {#appendix1}
=====================
Let us consider the simplest case where our method can be applied. The construction of $m=2$ MUB having free parameters is reduced to find a family of CHM and, thus, here we consider $m=3$. In dimensions $N=2$ and $N=3$ complex Hadamard matrices are isolated and, consequently, any set of MUB in such dimensions is isolated. On the other hand, in dimension 4 there is a family of CHM (see Eq.(\[FamF4\])). So, the first case corresponds to $N=4$. A fixed triplet of MUB for $N=4$ is given by: $$H_1=\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
1&0&0&0\\
0&1&0&0\\
0&0&1&0\\
0&0&0&1
\end{array}
\right),$$ $$H_2=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
1&1&1&1\\
1&1&-1&-1\\
1&-1&i&-i\\
1&-1&-i&i
\end{array}
\right),$$ $$H_3=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
1&1&1&1\\
1&1&-1&-1\\
-1&1&1&-1\\
1&-1&1&-1
\end{array}
\right).$$ The Gram matrix $G$ associated to this set is given by $1/2$ of the following matrix $$\label{G12}
\left(
\begin{array}{cccccccccccc}
2& 0& 0& 0& 1& 1& 1& 1& 1& 1& 1& 1\\
0& 2& 0& 0& 1& 1& -1& -1& 1& 1& -1& -1\\
0& 0& 2& 0& 1& -1& i& -i& -1& 1& 1& -1\\
0& 0& 0& 2& 1&-1& -i& i& 1& -1& 1& -1\\
1& 1& 1& 1& 2& 0& 0& 0& 1& 1& 1& -1\\
1& 1& -1& -1& 0& 2& 0& 0& 1& 1& -1& 1\\
1& -1& -i& i& 0& 0& 2& 0& i& -i& 1& 1\\
1& -1& i& -i& 0& 0& 0& 2& -i& i& 1& 1\\
1& 1& -1& 1& 1& 1& -i& i& 2& 0& 0& 0\\
1& 1& 1& -1& 1& 1& i& -i& 0& 2& 0& 0\\
1& -1& 1& 1& 1& -1& 1& 1& 0& 0& 2& 0\\
1& -1& -1& -1& -1& 1& 1& 1& 0& 0& 0& 2
\end{array}
\right).$$ Here, we have 6 GER pairs of columns and rows given by {1-2;3-4;5-6;7-8;9-10;11-12}. Note that the perfect match between GER pairs of columns and rows is given to the fact that $G$ is hermitian. The introduction of free parameters into the GER pairs of columns $\{C_1,C_2\};\{C_3,C_4\}$ and rows $\{R_1,R_2\};\{R_3,R_4\}$ implies that $H_2^{\dag}H_3$ and $H_3^{\dag}H_2$ do not depend on the parameters (See Eq.(\[Gram2\])). As consequence, these MUB are unitary equivalent for any value of the two parameters. Thereby, they are not interesting for us. In general, we do not introduce free parameters in the first $N$ columns (and rows) of Gram matrices of $m$ MUB in dimension $N$ as we already explained in Section \[SIII\]. From considering the remaining 4 GER pairs above defined we easily generate the following MUB with free parameters: $$\label{H2}
H_2(\alpha,\beta)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
1&1&1&1\\
1&1&-1&-1\\
e^{i\alpha}&-e^{i\alpha}&ie^{i\beta}&-ie^{i\beta}\\
e^{i\alpha}&-e^{i\alpha}&-ie^{i\beta}&ie^{i\beta}
\end{array}
\right)$$ $$\label{H3}
H_3(\gamma,\delta)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
1&1&1&1\\
1&1&-1&-1\\
-e^{i\gamma}&e^{i\gamma}&e^{i\delta}&-e^{i\delta}\\
e^{i\gamma}&-e^{i\gamma}&e^{i\delta}&-e^{i\delta}
\end{array}
\right).$$ Note that our method can be considerably simplified by introducing the free parameters in a reduced region of the Gram matrix (\[G12\]). This is because $G$ contains much more information than the set of 3 MUB (see Eq. \[Choleski\]). Precisely, we can restrict our attention to introduce free parameters in the first 4 rows according to the existing pairs of GER and Proposition \[mainprop\]. The rest of the rows give us the explicit expression of the inner products between the elements of the different bases. In general, we can restrict our attention to introduce parameters in the first $N$ rows of $G$ when we consider $m$ MUB in dimension $N$. Note that this implies to only consider the GER pairs of the last $(m-1)N$ columns (without considering GER pairs of rows).
The four parameters $\alpha,\beta,\gamma,\delta$ appearing in Eq.(\[H2\]) and Eq.(\[H3\]) cannot be absorbed by global unitary operations. However, they are aligned, so one of them can be absorbed in a global phase of a vector of the canonical basis $H_1$. Therefore, we find the following 3-parametric continuos triplet of MUB in dimension $N=4$: $$\{\mathbb{I},H_2(\alpha,0),H_3(\gamma,\delta)\}.$$ This has been reported as the most general triplet of MUB that can be constructed in dimension $N=4$. Quadruplets and quintuplets of MUB do not allow free parameters in dimension 4 and, consequently, they are isolated [@BWB10].
MUB in dimension 8 {#appendix2}
==================
In this appendix we construct the maximal number of triplets, quadruplets and quintuplets of MUB having free parameters from $\mathcal{S}_4$ (see Eq.(\[MUBAndrei\])). The key result is provided in Table \[Tabla2\] where we present the complete set of GER pairs for $\mathcal{S}_4$.
\[Tabla2\]
\[1\]
$H_{1}$ $H_{2}$ $H_{3}$ $H_{4}$ $H_{5}$ $H_{6}$ $H_{7}$ $H_{8}$
------------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
$H_{1}^{\dagger}$ - 1-3-4-8;2-5-6-7 1-4-5-7;2-3-6-8 1-2-4-7;3-5-6-8 1-4-5-6;2-3-7-8 1-6-7-8;2-3-4-5 1-2-3-7;4-5-6-8 1-2-5-8;3-4-6-7
$H_{2}^{\dagger}$ 1-2-5-8;3-4-6-7 - 1-3-4-8;2-5-6-7 1-2-3-6;4-5-7-8 1-2-5-8;3-4-6-7 1-2-5-8;3-4-6-7 1-4-5-7;2-3-6-8 1-2-4-6;3-5-7-8
$H_{3}^{\dagger}$ 1-2-4-7;3-5-6-8 1-6-7-8;2-3-4-5 - 1-4-5-6;2-3-7-8 1-6-7-8;2-3-4-5 1-3-4-8;2-5-6-7 1-2-4-8;3-5-6-7 1-3-4-8;2-5-6-7
$H_{4}^{\dagger}$ 1-3-5-7;2-4-6-8 1-4-5-7;2-3-6-8 1-2-4-6;3-5-7-8 - 1-2-3-6;4-5-7-8 1-4-5-6;2-3-7-8 1-3-5-8;2-4-6-7 1-4-5-7;2-3-6-8
$H_{5}^{\dagger}$ 1-2-3-6;4-5-7-8 1-2-4-6;3-5-7-8 1-2-5-8;3-4-6-7 1-3-5-7;2-4-6-8 - 1-3-5-7;2-4-6-8 1-6-7-8;2-3-4-5 1-6-7-8;2-3-4-5
$H_{6}^{\dagger}$ 1-3-4-8;2-5-6-7 1-2-3-7;4-5-6-8 1-3-5-6;2-4-7-8 1-2-5-8;3-4-6-7 1-3-4-8;2-5-6-7 - 1-2-5-6;3-4-7-8 1-3-5-6;2-4-7-8
$H_{7}^{\dagger}$ 1-6-7-8;2-3-4-5 1-2-5-8;3-4-6-7 1-6-7-8;2-3-4-5 1-6-7-8;2-3-4-5 1-2-4-7;3-5-6-8 1-2-3-6;4-5-7-8 - 1-2-3-7;4-5-6-8
$H_{8}^{\dagger}$ 1-4-5-6;2-3-7-8 1-3-5-6;2-4-7-8 1-2-3-7;4-5-6-8 1-3-4-8;2-5-6-7 1-3-5-7;2-4-6-8 1-2-4-7;3-5-6-8 1-3-4-6;2-5-7-8 -
How to read Table \[Tabla2\]:
- The cell associated to column $H_k$ and row $H_j^{\dag}$ contains all the GER pairs allowed by the triplet $\{\mathbb{I},H_j,H_k\}$.
- The notation $i$-$j$-$k$-$l$ means that every possible combination of 2 non-repeated indices determine a GER pairs; that is, $\{C_i,C_j\}$, $\{C_i,C_k\}$, $\{C_i,C_l\}$, $\{C_j,C_k\}$, $\{C_j,C_l\}$ and $\{C_k,C_l\}$ are GER pairs.
- The semicolon (;) separates complementary sets of GER pairs (i.e., for $\{i$-$j$-$k$-$l$;$\mu$-$\nu$-$\kappa$-$\eta\}$ mixtures of Graco-Latin indices *do not* form GER pairs).
To construct quadruplets or quintuplets of MUB we have to find the intersection of the sets of GER allowed by all the subsets of triplets. If there is no intersection then free parameters cannot be introduced. Let us construct a triplet of MUB:
Suppose we want to introduce free parameters in the triplet $\{H_1,H_2,H_3\}$ (see Eq.(\[Gram2\])). In order to introduce free parameters in $H_1$ we have to find common GER pairs in the cells associated to $H_2^{\dag}H_1$ (i.e., column 2, row 3 of Table \[Tabla2\]: {1-2-5-8;3-4-6-7}) and $H_3^{\dag}H_1$ (i.e., column 2, row 4: {1-2-4-7;3-5-6-8}). This is equivalent to find GER pairs appearing in the Gram matrix of $\{H_1,H_2,H_3\}$. Thus, the unique set of common GER pairs are given by $\{C_1,C_2\}$, $\{C_3,C_6\}$, $\{C_4,C_7\}$ and $\{C_5,C_8\}$. Analogously, we can find the GER pairs for the second and third block of $G$; that is, $\{C_1,C_8\}$, $\{C_2,C_5\}$, $\{C_3,C_4\}$, $\{C_6,C_7\}$ and $\{C_1,C_4\}$, $\{C_2,C_6\}$, $\{C_3,C_8\}$, $\{C_5,C_7\}$, respectively. Thus, we are in conditions to introduce 12 free parameters in the Gram matrix of the fixed set $\{H_1,H_2,H_3\}$. As noted in Appendix \[appendix1\], the Cholesky decomposition allows us to simplify the introduction of free parameters by only considering the first $N$ rows of G. Thus, our 12 parametric set of $m=3$ MUB is given by
$$H_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\alpha_3,\alpha_4)=\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}
-i&-i&i&i&-i&i&i&-i\\
-i&-i&-i&i&i&-i&i&i\\
-ie^{i\alpha_1}&ie^{i\alpha_1}&ie^{i\alpha_2}&-ie^{i\alpha_3}&-ie^{i\alpha_4}&-ie^{i\alpha_2}&ie^{i\alpha_3}&ie^{i\alpha_4}\\
ie^{i\alpha_1}&-ie^{i\alpha_1}&ie^{i\alpha_2}&ie^{i\alpha_3}&-ie^{i\alpha_4}&-ie^{i\alpha_2}&-ie^{i\alpha_3}&ie^{i\alpha_4}\\
e^{i\alpha_1}&-e^{i\alpha_1}&-e^{i\alpha_2}&-e^{i\alpha_3}&-e^{i\alpha_4}&e^{i\alpha_2}&e^{i\alpha_3}&e^{i\alpha_4}\\
e^{i\alpha_1}&-e^{i\alpha_1}&e^{i\alpha_2}&-e^{i\alpha_3}&1&-e^{i\alpha_4}e^{i\alpha_2}&e^{i\alpha_3}&-e^{i\alpha_4}\\
-1&-1&1&-1&1&1&-1&1\\
1&1&1&1&1&1&1&1
\end{array}
\right),$$
$$H_2(\beta_1,\beta_2,\beta_3,\beta_4)=\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}
-1&1&-1&-1&1&1&1&-1\\
-ie^{i\beta_1}&-ie^{i\beta_2}&-ie^{i\beta_3}&ie^{i\beta_3}&ie^{i\beta_2}&ie^{i\beta_4}&-ie^{i\beta_4}&ie^{i\beta_1}\\
-i&i&i&i&i&-i&-i&-i\\
-e^{i\beta_1}&-e^{i\beta_2}&e^{i\beta_3}&-e^{i\beta_3}&e^{i\beta_2}&-e^{i\beta_4}&e^{i\beta_4}&e^{i\beta_1}\\
-e^{i\beta_1}&e^{i\beta_2}&e^{i\beta_3}&-e^{i\beta_3}&-e^{i\beta_2}&e^{i\beta_4}&-e^{i\beta_4}&e^{i\beta_1}\\
-i&-i&i&i&-i&i&i&-i\\
ie^{i\beta_1}&-ie^{i\beta_2}&ie^{i\beta_3}&-ie^{i\beta_3}&ie^{i\beta_2}&ie^{i\beta_4}&-ie^{i\beta_4}&-ie^{i\beta_1}\\
1&1&1&1&1&1&1&1
\end{array}
\right),$$
and $$H_3(\gamma_1,\gamma_2,\gamma_3,\gamma_4)=\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}
ie^{i\gamma_1}&ie^{i\gamma_2}&ie^{i\gamma_3}&-ie^{i\gamma_1}&-ie^{i\gamma_4}&-ie^{i\gamma_2}&ie^{i\gamma_4}&-ie^{i\gamma_3}\\
-e^{i\gamma_1}&e^{i\gamma_2}&e^{i\gamma_3}&e^{i\gamma_1}&e^{i\gamma_4}&-e^{i\gamma_2}&-e^{i\gamma_4}&-e^{i\gamma_3}\\
-1&1&-1&-1&1&1&1&-1\\
-i&-i&i&-i&i&-i&i&i\\
-e^{i\gamma_1}&-e^{i\gamma_2}&e^{i\gamma_3}&e^{i\gamma_1}&-e^{i\gamma_4}&e^{i\gamma_2}&e^{i\gamma_4}&-e^{i\gamma_3}\\
-ie^{i\gamma_1}&ie^{i\gamma_2}&-ie^{i\gamma_3}&ie^{i\gamma_1}&-ie^{i\gamma_4}&-ie^{i\gamma_2}&ie^{i\gamma_4}&ie^{i\gamma_3}\\
-i&i&i&-i&-i&i&-i&i\\
1&1&1&1&1&1&1&1
\end{array}
\right).$$
Here, only 8 parameters are relevant because 4 of them do not appear in the inner products, and thus they can be absorbed by a global rotation (i.e., or $\alpha$’s or $\beta$’s or $\gamma$’s can be considered as zero without loosing of generality). Moreover, given that the parameters are aligned we have 7 independent parameters. This triplet can be straightforwardly extended to a quadruplet of MUB by adding the computational basis $H_9$. In order to construct a quintuplet we have to find a suitable extra basis. One way to do this is by considering $H_5$. For this choice we have a non-empty set of GER and 4 parameters can be introduced in $H_1$ (see Table \[Tabla2\], column starting with $H_1$). The remaining four bases $\mathbb{I},H_2,H_3$ and $H_5$ are fixed, where $H_2=H_2(0,0,0,0)$, $H_3=H_3(0,0,0,0)$ and $H_5$ is given by $$H_5=\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}
1&-1&1&1&-1&-1&-1&1\\
1&-1&-1&1&1&1&-1&-1\\
-i&-i&-i&i&i&-i&i&i\\
-i&-i&i&i&-i&i&i&-i\\
i&-i&-i&-i&-i&i&i&i\\
-i&i&-i&i&-i&i&-i&i\\
-1&-1&1&-1&1&1&-1&1\\
1&1&1&1&1&1&1&1\\\end{array}
\right).$$ We encourage to the reader to verify that there is no intersection between the set o GER pairs for $H_2$, $H_3$ and $H_5$ (see Table \[Tabla2\]) and, consequently, no more free parameters can be introduced. Therefore, the 4 parametric quintuplet is given by $$\{\mathbb{I},H_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\alpha_3,\alpha_4),H_2,H_3,H_5\}.$$
\[1\]
Circ. A Circ. B Circ. C Circ. D Circ. E Circ. F Circ. G
-------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
12[**4**]{}6 12[**3**]{}4 123[**6**]{} 134[**5**]{} 1[**2**]{}45 1[**2**]{}37 [**1**]{}235
125[**7**]{} 127[**8**]{} 12[**5**]{}8 136[**7**]{} [**1**]{}267 [**1**]{}248 1[**2**]{}68
[**1**]{}347 [**1**]{}368 13[**4**]{}8 146[**8**]{} 14[**7**]{}8 135[**8**]{} 1[**3**]{}78
1[**3**]{}56 14[**6**]{}7 [**1**]{}456 [**1**]{}578 15[**6**]{}8 1[**4**]{}57 1[**5**]{}67
[**2**]{}478 [**2**]{}358 23[**7**]{}8 [**2**]{}346 23[**4**]{}7 2[**3**]{}68 234[**8**]{}
256[**8**]{} 24[**5**]{}7 [**2**]{}567 2[**3**]{}57 23[**5**]{}6 246[**7**]{} 245[**6**]{}
34[**6**]{}8 3[**4**]{}56 [**3**]{}467 2[**4**]{}58 [**3**]{}458 35[**6**]{}7 345[**7**]{}
3[**5**]{}78 56[**7**]{}8 457[**8**]{} 2[**6**]{}78 367[**8**]{} 3[**5**]{}68 [**4**]{}678
: Quantum circuit required to construct every quadruplet and quintuplet of MUB steeming from $\mathcal{S}_4$. The 4 numbers $ijkl$ denote the quintuplet $\{\mathbb{I},H_i,H_j,H_k,H_l\}$ whereas the red-bold number (online version) denotes which basis carries the parameters. Quadruplets are constructed by removing any basis from quintuplets.
\[Tabla3\]
Quantum circuits for quadruplets and quintuplets of MUB {#appendix3}
=======================================================
Every quadruplet and quintuplet of MUB with free parameters in dimension 8 shown in this work was generated from considering subsets of $\mathcal{S}_4$ (see Eq.(\[MUBAndrei\])). Such sets can be implemented in the laboratory by considering suitable quantum circuits. First, we have to consider the generation of the fixed bases $\mathcal{S}_4$ and then the introduction of the parameters. Therefore, the full quantum circuit is the composition of two circuits. The generation of the set $\mathcal{S}_4$ is given by the quantum circuit depicted in Figure \[CCLuis\]. This circuit was recently derived [@SSL14]. The free parameters can be introduced by considering 7 quantum circuits (A to G). Table \[Tabla3\] shows the quantum circuit required to generate every quadruplet and quintuplet of MUB. Here, every set of four numbers $ijkl$ denote the 4 CHM $H_i, H_j, H_k$ and $H_l$. The fifth basis is $H_9=\mathbb{I}$ which is implicit in the table. Thus, the quintuplet associated to $ijkl$ is given by $\{\mathbb{I},H_i,H_j,H_k,H_l\}$. From removing any basis we get a quadruplet having free parameters. The 7 quantum circuits are given by
![Quantum circuit required to construct the fixed set of 9 MUB $\mathcal{S}_4$ [@SSL14].[]{data-label="CCLuis"}](CC_Soto.jpg){width="8cm"}
QUANTUM CIRCUIT A:
{width="6cm"}
QUANTUM CIRCUIT B:
{width="6cm"}
QUANTUM CIRCUIT C:
{width="6cm"}
QUANTUM CIRCUIT D:
{width="6cm"}
QUANTUM CIRCUIT E:
{width="6cm"}
QUANTUM CIRCUIT F:
{width="6cm"}
QUANTUM CIRCUIT G:
{width="6cm"}
where $$R(\alpha)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
1&0\\
0&e^{i\alpha}
\end{array}
\right),$$ and $\alpha\in[0,2\pi)$. Every quantum circuit (from A to G) introduces aligned free parameters in one of the basis of every quintuplet. The selection of the quadruplet or quintuplet has to be according Table \[Tabla2\], as we already explained and exemplified in Appendix \[appendix2\]. The aligned free parameters appear according the following table: $$\label{circuitrows}
\begin{tabular}{c|ccccccc}
Circuit&A&B&C&D&E&F&G\\ \hline
Rows&1234&1256&1357&1467&2367&2457&3456
\end{tabular}$$ Here, every set of 4 numbers determine the rows where the free parameters are introduced in the bases. For example, the quintuplet $\{\mathbb{I},H_1,H_2,H_3,H_5\}$ provided in Appendix \[appendix2\] allows the introduction of parameters in $H_1$. The fixed set of 5 bases is generated by the quantum circuit given in Fig.\[CCLuis\]. According Table \[Tabla3\] the free parameters can be introduced in $H_1$ by considering the quantum circuit $G$. The aligned parameters in $H_1$ appear in the rows 3,4,5 and 6 (according Table \[circuitrows\]). We encourage readers to verify these properties from the explicit expressions of the quintuplet $\{\mathbb{I},H_1,H_2,H_3,H_5\}$ provided in Appendix \[appendix2\].
Maximal number of MUB: a simple proof for the upper bound {#appendix4}
=========================================================
Here, we present an independent proof for the upper bound of the maximal number of MUB in real and complex Hilbert spaces.
In dimension $N$ there are $m_R\leq N/2+1$ and $m_C\leq N+1$ MUB for real and complex Hilbert spaces, respectively.
Let $G$ be the Gram matrix of $m$ complex MUB in dimension $N$. Then, $$\label{GG}
G\circ G^{\dag}=\frac{1}{N}\mathbb{J}+\mathbb{I},$$ where the $mN\times mN$ matrix $\mathbb{J}$ has $m$ diagonal blocks of size $N$ consisting by the null matrix and the non-diagonal blocks of size $N$ are equal to the unit matrix $\mathbf{1}$ (i.e., every entry of $\mathbf{1}$ is 1). The matrix $\mathbb{I}$ of Eq.(\[GG\]) is the identity matrix of size $mN$. From matrix theory it is known that given $A,B\geq0$ we have $\mathrm{Rank}(A\circ B)\leq\mathrm{Rank}(A)\mathrm{Rank}(B)$. From considering $A=B^{\dag}=G(n,d)$, the above inequality and Eq.(\[GG\]) we have $mN-(m-1)\leq N^2$ or, equivalently, $m\leq N+1$. For the real case, we have the tighter inequality $\mathrm{Rank}(A\circ A)\leq\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Rank}(A)[\mathrm{Rank}(A)+1]$ [^1]. From combining this inequality with Eq.(\[GG\]) we have $m_R\leq N/2+1$.
This proof was inspired in the derivation of the upper bound of the maximal number of vectors in Equiangular Tight Frames [@STDH07].
[99]{} C.H. Bennett and G. Brassard. *Quantum cryptography: Public key distribution and coin tossing*. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computers, Systems and Signal Processing (1984).
D. Bruß. Optimal eavesdropping in quantum cryptography with six states. PRL, 81:3018-3021 (1998).
N. J. Cerf, M. Bourennane, A. Karlsson, and N. Gisin. Security of quantum key distribution using d-level systems. Phys. Rev. Lett., 88(12):127902 (2002).
C. Spengler et al. Entanglement detection via mutually unbiased bases. Phys. Rev. A 86, 022311 (2012).
A. Casaccino, E. Galvao, S. Severini, Extrema of discrete Wigner functions and applications, Phys. Rev. A [**78**]{}, 022310 (2008).
T. Durt, B. Englert, I. Bengtsson, K. Życzkowski. On Mutually unbiased bases. Int. Jour. of Quant. Inf. **8**, 4, 535-640 (2010).
I. D. Ivanovic, J. Phys. A [**14**]{}, 3241 (1981).
J. Sánchez-Ruiz, Improved bounds in the entropic uncertainty and certainty relations for complementary observables, Phys. Lett. A [**201**]{}, 2-3 (1995).
L. Rudnicki, Z. Puchala, K. Życzkowski, Strong Majorization Entropic Uncertainty Relations, arXiv:1402.0129 (2014).
S. Wehner, A. Winter, Entropic uncertainty relations - A survey, New J. Phys. [**12**]{} 025009 (2010).
P. Mandayam, S. Bandyopadhyay, M. Grassl, W. K. Wootters, Quant. Inf. Comput. [**14**]{} 0823-0844 (2014) .
D. Goyeneche, Mutually unbiased triplets from non-affine families of complex Hadamard matrices in dimension 6, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. [**46**]{}, 105301 (20013).
W. Wootters and B. Fields, Ann. Phys. (New York) [**191**]{}, 363 (1989).
N. Brunner, D. Cavalcanti, S. Pironio, V. Scarani, S. Wehner, Bell nonlocality, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**86**]{}, 419 (2014).
A. Azarchs, Entropic uncertainty relations for incomplete sets of mutually unbiased observables, arXiv:quant-ph/0412083 (2004).
D. DiVincenzo, M. Horodecki, D. Leung, J. Smolin, B. Terhal, Locking Classical Correlations in Quantum States, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**92**]{}, 067902 (2004).
M. Ballester, S. Wehner, Entropic uncertainty relations and locking: Tight bounds for mutually unbiased bases, Phys. Rev. A [**75**]{}, 022319 (2007).
A. Datta and S. Gharibian, Signatures of nonclassicality in mixed-state quantum computation, Phys. Rev. A [**79**]{}, 042325 (2009).
S. Brierley, S. Weigert, I. Bengtsson, All mutually unbiased bases in dimensions two to five, Quantum Info. & Comp. [**10**]{}, 0803 (2010).
G. Björk and R. Froberg, Methods to “divide out" certain solutions from systems of algebraic equations, applied to find all cyclic 8 roots. Analysis, algebra, and computers in mathematical research (Lulea 1992), Lecture Notes in Pure and Appl. Math. 156, pp. 57-70, Dekker, New York (1994).
T. Durt, B. Englert, I. Bengtsson, K. Życzkowski, On mutually unbiased bases, Int. J. of Quant. Inf. [**8**]{}, 4, 353 (2010).
W. Tadej, K. Życzkowski, A concise guide to complex Hadamard matrices, Open Syst. Inf. Dyn. [**13**]{}, 133 (2006).
J. Romero, G. Björk, A. Klimov, L. Sanchez Soto, Structure of the sets of mutually unbiased bases for $N$ qubits, Phys. Rev. A [**72**]{}, 062310 (2005).
A. Klimov, J. Romero, G. Björk, L. Sanchez Soto, Discrete phase-space structure of $n$-qubit mutually unbiased bases, Annals of Phys. [**324**]{}, 1, 53 (2009).
A. Klimov, D. Sych, L. Sanchez Soto, G. Leuchs, Mutually unbiased bases and generalized Bell states, Phys. Rev. A [**79**]{}, 052101 (2009).
A. Klappenecker, M. Roetteler. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Finite Fields (Fq7), Toulouse, France, Springer LNCS, pp. 137-144 (2004) (arXiv:quant-ph/0309120)
T. Paterek, B. Dakic, C. Brukner. Mutually unbiased bases, orthogonal Latin squares, and hidden-variable models. Phys. Rev. A [**79**]{}, 012109 (2009).
U. Haagerup, Ortogonal maximal Abelian \*-subalgebras of $n\times n$ matrices and cyclic $n$-roots, Operator Algebras and Quantum Field Theory (Rome), Cambridge, MA International Press, 296-322 (1996).
G. Zauner. *Quantum designs: Foundations of a non-commutative design theory*. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Wien (1999).
C. Archer. There is no generalization of known formulas for mutually unbiased bases. J. Math. Phys **46**, 022106 (2005).
P. Jaming, M. Matolcsi, P. Móra. The problem of mutually unbiased bases in dimension 6. Cryptography and Communications **2**, 211-220 (2010).
M. Grassl. On SIC-POVMs and MUBs in Dimension 6, in: Proc. ERATO Conference on Quantum Information Science (EQUIS 2004).
P. Butterley, W. Hall. Numerical evidence for the maximum number of mutually unbiased bases in dimension six- Phys. Lett. A **369**, 5-8 (2007).
I. Bengtsson, W. Bruzda, A. Ericsson, J. Larsson, W. Tadej and K. Życzkowski. MUBs and Hadamards of order six. J. Math. Phys. **48**, 052106 (2007).
S. Brierley, S. Weigert. Maximal Sets of Mutually Unbiased Quantum States in Dimension Six. Phys. Rev. A **78**, 042312 (2008).
S. Brierley, S. Weigert. Mutually Unbiased Bases and Semi-definite Programming, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. **254**, 012008 (2010).
P. Jaming, M. Matolcsi, P. Mora, F. Sz'’[o]{}ll'’[o]{}si, M. Weiner, A generalized Pauli problem and an infinite family of MUB-triplets in dimension 6, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. **42**, 245305 (2009).
M. Petrescu, *Existence of continuous families of complex Hadamard matrices of certain prime dimensions*, Ph.D Thesis, UCLA (1997).
U. Haagerup, Cyclic $p$-roots of prime lengths $p$ and related complex Hadamard matrices, arxic:0803.2629\[math.AC\] (2008).
C. Faugere. Finding all the solutions of cyclic 9 using Gröbner basis techniques, Computer Mathematics (Matsuyama, 2001), 1-12, Lecture Notes Ser. Comput. 9, World Sci. Publ. (2001).
D. Goyeneche, A new method to construct families of complex Hadamard matrices in even dimensions, J. Math. Phys. [**54**]{}, 032201 (2013).
U. Seyfarth, L. L. Sanchez-Soto, G. Leuchs, Practical implementation of mutually unbiased bases using quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. A [**91**]{}, 032102 (2015).
A. Barenco *et al.*, Elementary gates for quantum computation, Phys. Rev. A [**52**]{}, 3457 (1995).
M. Sustik, J. Tropp, I. Dhillon, R. Heath, On the existence of equiangular tight frames, Lin. Alg. and its app. [**426**]{}, 619 (2007).
[^1]: J. Tropp, private communication.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We investigate the effects of scale-free model on cosmology, providing, in this way, a statistical background in the framework of general relativity. In order to discuss properties and time evolution of some relevant universe dynamical parameters (cosmographic parameters), such as $H(t)$ (Hubble parameter), $q(t)$ (deceleration parameter), $j(t)$ (jerk parameter) and $s(t)$ (snap parameter), which are well re-defined in the framework of scale-free model, we analyze a comparison between WMAP data. Hence the basic purpose of the work is to consider this statistical interpretation of mass distribution of universe, in order to have a mass density $\rho$ dynamics, not inferred from Friedmann equations, via scale factor $a(t)$. This model, indeed, has been used also to explain a possible origin and a viable explanation of cosmological constant, which assumes a statistical interpretation without the presence of extended theories of gravity; hence the problem of dark energy could be revisited in the context of a classical probability distribution of mass, which is, in particular, for the scale-free model, $P(k)\sim k^{-\gamma}$, with $2<\gamma<3$. The $\Lambda$CDM model becomes, with these considerations, a consequence of the particular statistics together with the use of general relativity.'
address:
- |
Dip. di Fisica, Università di Roma “La Sapienza”, Piazzale Aldo Moro 5, I-00185 Roma, Italy.\
ICRANet and ICRA (International Center of Relativistic Astrophysics Networks), Piazzale della Repubblica 10, I-65122 Pescara, Italy.\
Dip. di Scienze Fisiche, Università di Napoli “Federico II”, Compl. Univ. di Monte S. Angelo, Edificio G, Via Cinthia, I-80126 - Napoli, Italy.
- 'Dip. di Fisica “E. R. Caianiello”, Università di Salerno, I-84081, Baronissi (Salerno), Italy.'
author:
- Orlando Luongo
- Carmine Autieri
title: 'Scale - Free model for governing universe dynamics'
---
Introduction
============
We found, in literature, many evidences of a lot of unsolved problems, which are still open questions in the picture of Einstein field equations. One of the most important issue of general relativity (GR) is a complete comprehension and interpretation of the cosmological constant in accordance with data. In the framework of Friedmann equations we write equations of motion of $\rho$, and of pressure $p$, in terms of scale parameter $a(t)$; on the other hand we do not consider any kind of mass dynamics, induced as an emergent effect of a statical mass distribution too; this could mean that we lose information about matter dynamics and distribution, in sense that we consider it as the static part of a dynamic equation, where the scale factor $a(t)$ is the true dynamical element. In order to consider a more direct matter dynamics we focus on $\rho$ of universe and we supposed the validity of the scale-free model [@grande2] into the framework of GR; i.e. to say that could exist a statistical model which describes the motion of matter and defines implicitly, in this way, the true dynamics of the scale factor. This interpretation will allow us to describe a dynamics of universe, starting only from the basic assumptions that every part of universe (in the framework of homogeneity and of isotropy) is characterized by a distribution of gravitons, induced by the simple presence of mass. Every graviton is linked to each other by a network or by a family of networks and its existence is provided by the implicit presence of nodes, characterized by a space-time vector $x^{\mu}$, in which is possible to have a graviton. This model appears to be useful for matter distribution of universe, making us able, also, to consider the universe like a disordered system.
In particular, it is possible to describe the existence of heterogeneous spectrum of local interaction patterns topologically linked to the presence of nodes. Following the features done by other authors [@grande], we try to investigate the consequences of degree heterogeneity on dynamic properties of networks isolating a region of universe of correlated networks with a completely random organization, defined by the distribution $P(k)\sim k^{-\gamma}$, where $\gamma$ has to be considered as an integer number. This ansatz shows apparently that dynamics would be limited to a particular region but it is generalized, simply, assuming, as in the beginning, a homogeneous and isotropic universe, which allows us to extend a particular result to the whole system (the universe evolution). Moreover the possibility to consider an elevate number of networks, $N$, is the basic idea to consider firstly, because, although $N<\infty$, it is true, at the same time, that $N$ is a very large number.
In order to describe dynamics, we need all the quantities [@ullando] describing it. These are the cosmographic parameters $H(t)$, $q(t)$, $j(t)$ and $s(t)$ [@visser1; @star1; @star2; @peebles; @novex1; @novex2]; respectively the Hubble parameter, the deceleration parameter, the jerk parameter and finally the snap parameter; these are defined in principle for all $t$, or redshifts $z$. Assuming the power law degree distribution of the form $P(k)\sim k^{-\gamma}$, which is the basic idea of the model, and supposing no interactions among networks, that is equivalent to say that the type of interaction described by us, i.e. mean-field type, we are also able to infer how the scale-free model also deals with transitions and, so, it could be also fruitful to explain, for a fixed number of gravitons into account, for what values of the involved quantities the transition era could start, that could be a real topic to test the statistical model proposed [@bip].
It is also possible to characterize the model considering the value of parameter $\gamma$, which is the most influent parameter of the model. For example some evidences describe a probability distribution with $2<\gamma<3$, which for real systems appears to be a correct choice [@grande; @grande2]. Of course, indeed, depending to the value of $\gamma$, we find many different behaviors; in the present paper we do not matter initially about the exact value of $\gamma$ in order to describe a particular behavior[^1].
For our purposes, following the description of [@grande; @grande2], the first quantity introduced to describe the matter distribution is $\rho_{k}(t)$, which represents the average density of particles in nodes of degree $k$ and for all the variables, it holds $$\dot{\rho}_{k}(t) = - \rho_{k} + k \rho z_{1} + \Lambda[\rho_{k}],$$ which is a first example of Langevin equation for our model; it suggests that the first two terms on the right side of equation are due to diffusion in uncorrelated random graphs and the third could be considered as a reaction kernel that depends only on $\rho_k$. From this equation we derive the dynamics of a particular choice of $k$. In order to show the evolution of density $\rho(t)$, the density which is present in Friedmann equations, we must require that $$\rho(t)= \sum_{k} P(k) \rho_{k}(t).$$ In the continous limit, the above sum becomes an integrals over the $k$ space, which has to be troncated by using $k^{*}(t) \sim
z_1/\rho(t)$. Easily, following [@grande; @grande2] $$\label{kappastar}
\int P(k) \rho_{k}^2 dk \propto \left\{ \begin{array}{cc}
\rho^{\gamma-1} + c k_c^{2-\gamma} \rho & \ \text{if} \ \ k_c >
k^*,
\\ k_c^{3-\gamma} \rho^2 & \ \text{if} \ \ k_c < k^*. \end{array}
\right.$$
We consider that near a critical point $\mu_{c}\Longleftrightarrow
k_c$, density is small, thus we expect that the mean-field regime holds when $k^{*}
> k_c$ and $N<\infty$. The corresponding Langevin equation is $$\label{langevin}
\dot{\rho}(t) \simeq a \rho - b \rho^2 + \sqrt{(a \rho + 2 b \rho^2
)/ N}\eta(t)$$ where we considered $a, b, c$ three integration constants and, in particular $$\begin{aligned}
k_c \propto N^{1/\omega}.\end{aligned}$$ If we assume universe as a whole system we must require the possible presence of noise term; we describe an universe without noise if $$\label{iltedellass}
\rho \gg N^{(\gamma-\omega-3)/(2 \omega)},$$ with the $\omega$ parameter which has to be in relation with $\gamma$ because, if eq. ($\ref{iltedellass}$) holds, we must require $$\label{uaiuhakj}
\gamma<3\omega+3,$$ or equivalently at least $\omega>-(1/3)$; because [@grande; @grande2] $\omega$ appears to be the maximum degree of the network size $N$, it must satisfy $\omega>1$ and so our interval is always in agreement with this request. The basic idea becomes, so, to start with the scale-free probability, concerning a discrete interactions among gravitons and so, after defining the density time evolution (eq. ($\ref{langevin}$)), considering the cosmographic evolution of parameters of the universe. All the considerations we will do, have to respect eqs. ($\ref{iltedellass}$) and ($\ref{uaiuhakj}$). It will be possible to link the universe description also to critical parameter, as said before, in order to describe the transition era, and it will be clear in the next sections.
The article is divided as follows: In the next section we describe, briefly, all the results involved by the use of GR in the framework of scale-free model for generic redshift $z$; in particular, we derive the functional form of the dynamical parameter $a(t)$, first, which will be the basis for the construction of the cosmographic parameters, later; their own expressions will be found very easily for generic redshifts without approximation in this section. In the third section we compare the results, obtained in the previous one, in the observable limit $z\ll 1$ with comparison with WMAP data, trying to link also the expressions found with the definition of $\Omega_{\Lambda}$, which represents the density of cosmological constant $\Lambda$, i.e. *dark energy*, and we try to infer the role of $\Lambda$, just in the statistical way considered. The last section is devoted to some qualitative considerations, conclusion and perspectives for future works on this direction.
The Model dynamics
==================
In this section we infer from scale-free model a specific dynamics for universe, without a particular limit on $z$, or of time $t$, of the dynamical quantities involved.
Such a dynamics, defined from the statistical background is easily valuable, thanks to the first Friedmann equation, which is an expression that makes a correspondence between $H(t)$ and $\rho$ as follows $$\label{1}
H^{2}=\alpha\rho+\beta,$$ where we have considered, in principle, to take $k=0$ in the above expression; and using the positions $\alpha=\frac{8\pi G}{3}$ and $\beta=\frac{\Lambda c^{2}}{3}$, we can imagine to evaluate $\rho$ and its derivative $\dot{\rho}$ by putting them into eq. ($\ref{langevin}$), having, so, a differential equation for $H(t)$, in the case $\eta(t)=\delta(t)$, which translates the matter statistical distribution into an astrophysical differential equation for $H(t)$, which reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3}
\dot{H}=-\left(\frac{p\beta}{2}+\frac{b\beta^{2}}{2\alpha}\right)\frac{1}{H}+\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\nonumber\\
+\left(\frac{p}{2}+\frac{q\beta}{\alpha}\right)H-\frac{b}{2\alpha}H^{3}+\sqrt{\frac{f(H)}{N}}\delta(t).\end{aligned}$$ It could give us the correspondent evolution of universe dynamics in terms of $H(t)$ and $a(t)$; in fact, the solution for $H(t)$ is writable, in terms of $a(t)$, because of definition $H(t)=\frac{d}{dt}\log a(t)$. All the discussion is completely global, in sense that, at this stage, we are not considering any kind of approximation on $t$, or on $z$, as already mentioned before; that is the same to say that a complete comprehension of dynamics is, in this paragraph, involved.
For the sake of simplicity we rewrite eq. ($\ref{3}$) at $t\neq 0$, making the following positions $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4}
a\equiv \frac{p\beta}{2}+\frac{b\beta^{2}}{2\alpha}\nonumber,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
b\equiv\frac{p}{2}+\frac{q\beta}{\alpha},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
c\equiv\frac{b}{2\alpha}\nonumber.\end{aligned}$$ and so we get the simple solution for $H(t)$ $$\label{5}
H\left(t-t^{*}\right)=A\sqrt{b+\sqrt{d}\tanh\left\{\sqrt{d}\left(t-t^{*}\right)\right\}},$$ where $A=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2c}}$. In the previous expression we consider the position $d=b^2-4ac$ too and we notice that the integration constant could be considered as an arbitrary time $t^{*}$. Depending from $d$ sign we could have different evolutions of $H(t)$; this sign, indeed, cannot be less than zero: A similar choice, i.e. $d<0$, shows us a definite time interval in which $H(t)$ (and so $a(t)$) loses its meaning. Hence, for describing a variable $a(t)$, for all the time, we must have $d>0$. On the other hand, this is evident, in order to have a solution, which has no periodicity, into account. This could, also, be tested, by considering directly its expression, $d=b^{2}-4ac$ and it gets $$\label{cunzo}
d=\frac{p^{2}}{4}+pq\beta\left(\frac{3}{8\pi G}-2\right),$$ which is always positive for all the possible values assumed by $p$ and $q$, if we require that $pq>0$. Our choice is the simplest one: Because of $p,q$ are ”phenomenological” quantities, defining the type of reaction and process, we could assume, without losing information, $p>0$ and $q>0$. Indeed, it is possible in principle, that $p<0$ and $q<0$, but we will deny this, comparing also with WMAP data. Our efforts, on the other side, describe a model, whose validity is strongly dependent from $p,q$ values, which has to be chosen by data.\
From integrating eq. ($\ref{3}$), it is possible to get, also, a precise value for $H(0)$. The theoretical expression, that we find, is $$\label{6}
{\frac{1}{\alpha ^2}4H^4 N=p\left(\frac{H^2-\beta }{\alpha
}\right)+2q\left(\frac{H^2-\beta }{\alpha }\right)^2},$$ which is the solution of equation $H(0)=\sqrt{\frac{f(H(0))}{N}}$, where $f\left(H\left(t=0^+\right)\right)=f\left(H(0)\right)$, together with $H\left(t=0^{-}\right)=0$ condition, which is obvious, if we consider the positive direction of time. Eq. ($\ref{6}$) gives two positive solutions, i.e. $$\label{unkjkj}
H(0)_{1}= \frac{\sqrt{\frac{p \alpha }{4 N-2 q}-\frac{4 q \beta }{4
N-2 q}-\frac{\sqrt{p^2 \alpha ^2-16 N p \alpha \beta +32 N q \beta
^2}}{4 N-2 q}}}{\sqrt{2}}\,,$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{khjkhkj}
H(0)_{2}=\frac{\sqrt{\frac{p \alpha }{4 N-2 q}-\frac{2 q \beta }{2
N- q}+\frac{\sqrt{p^2 \alpha ^2-16 N p \alpha \beta +32 N q \beta
^2}}{2 (2 N- q)}}}{\sqrt{2}}\,.\,\,\,\,\,\end{aligned}$$ Both solutions are, in the thermodynamic limit, equivalent and they would read $H_{0}=0$; in our case, for $N<\infty$, only eq. ($\ref{khjkhkj}$) is relevant, if happens that $p\alpha>2q\beta$. This condition will represent the correct interval for $p$ and $q$ choice.
Moreover, eq. ($\ref{khjkhkj}$) is also useful because tells us the value of $t^{*}$ in the expression ($\ref{5}$); it reads $$\label{pertstar}
t^{*}=\tanh^{-1}\left(\frac{b-2cH_{0}^{2}}{\sqrt{d}}\right).$$ After evaluating the $H(t)$ dynamics we naturally achieve to find the expression for scale factor $a(t)$. We get $$\label{7bis}
a(t)=a(0)e^{\frac{G\left(t-t^*\right)}{\sqrt{2cd}}},$$ where the function $G\left(t-t^{*}\right)$ is expressed by $$\label{7tris}
G\left(t-t^{*}\right)-\tilde{G}=$$ $$\begin{aligned}
=-\sqrt{b - \sqrt{d}}\tanh^{-1}\left\{\frac{\sqrt{b + \sqrt{d}
\tanh\left\{\sqrt{d} \left(t-t^{*}\right)\right\}}}{\sqrt{b -
\sqrt{d}}}\right\}+\nonumber\\
+\sqrt{b + \sqrt{d}}\tanh^{-1}\left\{\frac{\sqrt{b +
\sqrt{d} \tanh\left\{\sqrt{d} \left(t-t^{*}\right)\right\}}}{\sqrt{b
+ \sqrt{d}}}\right\}\,\,\,\,\,\,\end{aligned}$$ with the integration constant $\tilde{G}$ of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{7quatris}
\tilde{G}=\sqrt{b-\sqrt{d}}\tanh^{-1}\left\{\frac{\sqrt{b}}{\sqrt{b
- \sqrt{d}}}\right\}\nonumber\\
-\sqrt{b + \sqrt{d}} \tanh^{-1}\left\{\frac{\sqrt{b}}{\sqrt{b +
\sqrt{d}}}\right\}.\end{aligned}$$
\
\
\
Following all the prescriptions we wrote, and considering the dynamical scale factor, in order to describe, for all the redshift $z$, the dynamics of universe, immediately, the expression for the deceleration parameter, $q(t)$ could be found; it reads $$\label{acceleration}
q(t)=-1-\frac{\sqrt{c/2} d \sqrt{b+\sqrt{d} \tanh\left[\sqrt{d}
\left(t-t^{*}\right)\right]}}{\left(b \cosh\left[\sqrt{d}
\left(t-t^{*}\right)\right]+\sqrt{d} \sinh\left[\sqrt{d}
\left(t-t^{*}\right)\right]\right)^2}.$$ It appears, of course, negative, which suggests that the model is compatible with accelerating universe model. The other expressions for $j(t)$ and $s(t)$, which discriminates the type of universe dynamics, are described in appendix for their complexity.\
The observable limit
====================
Recently the possibility to get, from data, all the elements for universe dynamics, has been reported by several works (see for example [@visser1; @Visser2; @Visser3; @Visser4; @star1; @star2]). A form of so-called cosmography, which corresponds to the possibility to infer, by some useful parameters, the universe evolution, is involved. We know, in fact, that we are living in the so-called period of *Precision Cosmology*, in which observations are extremely precise and allows us to test better than past, a given evolutionary models. The expressions we need are the so-called deceleration $q(t)$, jerk $j(t)$, snap $s(t)$ [@visser1; @star1; @star2]. The cosmographic parameters are defined by derivatives of the scale factor for our epoch; they, instead of their simplicity, allow to fit the data also in terms of redshift, that is an implicit measure of time. It is remarkable to remember that the model, we are going to consider, here and in the following, is the standard model [@Weinberg; @visser1; @peebles] which is not useful when $z$ is not little, i.e. $z\ll 1$, that is, indeed, the case of validity of the Taylor expansion of scale parameter.\
In fact, for our time, the cosmographic parameters are defined by the expression $$\begin{aligned}
\label{tre60aggiungiamotutto}
\frac{a(t)}{a_{0}}=1+H_{0}(t-t_{0})-\frac{1}{2}q_{0}H_{0}^{2}(t-t_{0})^{2}+\nonumber\\
+\frac{1}{6}j_{0}H_{0}^{3}(t-t_{0})^{3}+\frac{1}{24}s_{0}H_{0}^{4}(t-t_{0})^{4}+\ldots,\end{aligned}$$ and so they reads $$H(t)\, =\, \frac{\dot{a}}{a},$$
$$q(t)=-\frac{\ddot{a}a}{\dot{a}^{2}},$$
$$\label{jerk}
j(t)=\frac{a^{(3)}a^{2}}{\dot{a}^{3}},$$
$$\label{snap}
s(t)=-\frac{a^{(4)}a^{3}}{\dot{a}^{4}}.$$
We denote with a subscript $0$ these parameters, in sense that they are evaluated at $t=t_0$; on the meaning of these parameters see for example [@cosmography]. In this paper we will take into account WMAP observations and so we will assume that the value of the Hubble constant is $H_0 \simeq 70 \pm 2$ km/sec/Mpc at our time $t=t_{{0}}$ [@peebles; @wmap].
Following these advice, it is clear that, the cosmographic parameters may also be tested by WMAP data [@wmap] and, above all, for the observed limit $z\ll 1$. It is also possible to express them, in terms of the dark energy density $\Omega_{\Lambda}$, which could stress also the role of a cosmological constant involved into Einstein field equations, and so, give a description of $\Lambda$CDM model in terms of statistical background.
In order to understand such description, we can follow the prescription of [@DETF]. Hence, we will use the Chevallier-Polarski-Linder (CPL) parameterization for the equation of state setting [@CPL], which reads $w = w_{0} +
w_{a}- \frac{w_a}{1 + z}$, with $a(z)=\frac{a_0}{1+z}$. Easily, noting the correspondence $t\longleftrightarrow z$, i.e. $dt=-\frac{d\log(1+z)}{H(z)}$. Moreover, for the scenario, we are considering, in the $\Lambda$CDM case, i.e. $$\label{scenario}
\Omega_m+\Omega_k+\Omega_\Lambda=1,$$ where $\Omega_m$ is normalized[^2] matter density, $\Omega_k$ spatial curvature density and $\Omega_\Lambda$ cosmological constant density, the list of above parameters has to be set $(w_{0}, w_{a})
= (-1, 0)$, and, then, after some straightforward calculations, it is useful to note $q_0 = \frac{1}{2} -
\frac{3}{2}\Omega_{\Lambda}$, $j_0$ and $s_0 = 1 -
\frac{9}{2}\Omega_m$.
Now we have all the ingredients to understand a complete comparison with scale-free quantities and cosmological parameters. In the next section, so, will be possible to write down an expression for $\Lambda$, by comparing with the above expression for $\Omega_\Lambda$ in terms of $q_0$.
The comparison with WMAP data
-----------------------------
After comparing with the experimental value [@cimmi-b1; @cimmi-b2] defined by $H_{0},q_{0},s_{0},l_0$, in a easy way, we link measurable parameters, in terms of scale-free parameters $$\label{15}
q_{0}=-1-\frac{d}{2bH_{0}},$$ $$\label{16}
j_{0}=1+3\left(\frac{d}{2bH_{0}}\right)-\left(\frac{d}{2bH_{0}}\right)^{2},$$ $$\label{16bisxxx}
s_{0}=1+\left(\frac{d}{2bH_{0}}\right)\left[6-\left(\frac{d}{2bH_{0}}\right)+3\left(\frac{d}{2bH_{0}}\right)^{2}-\frac{4cd}{b}\right],$$ and inverting, we get expression for the scale-free parameters in function of deceleration, jerk and Hubble parameters as follows $$\label{21}
c=\frac{1-s_{0}-(1+q_{0})\left[7+q_{0}+3(1+q_{0})^{2}\right]}{8H_{0}(1+q_{0})^{2}},$$ $$\label{22}
b=H_{0}\frac{1-s_{0}-(1+q_{0})\left[7+q_{0}+3(1+q_{0})^{2}\right]}{4(1+q_{0})^{2}},$$ $$\label{23}
d=-2H_{0}^{2}\frac{1-s_{0}-(1+q_{0})\left[7+q_{0}+3(1+q_{0})^{2}\right]}{4(1+q_{0})}.$$ All the previous results deal with a dynamics, induced by the use of the scale-free model, and treat the link among scale-free parameters and the observed parameters.\
It is necessary to note that all the expressions obtained are in the case $k=0$, which is the observed one [@peebles]. Inducing a curvature term $k\neq 0$ is possible to achieve an expression for $a(t)$, which is not analytically defined. It appears as a strong complication of the model; indeed, it seems so also because observation provide a curvature density $\Omega_k\sim 0$, but we could easily consider a graphic of it, in order to fix ideas.
\
It is important for us to underline that all the graphics are evaluated by a specific choice of parameters $a,b,c$ reported in the graphic labels, not chosen by particular reasons but only for graphic simplicity.
Now we can write down all the parameters in terms of $H_{0}$, as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\label{21}
c\sim 0.35H_{0}^{-1}\,,\nonumber\\
b\sim -2H_{0}\,,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\\
d\sim 2H_{0}^{2}\,.\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and eqs. ($\ref{bleeding}$ and $\ref{21}$) allow us to write down cosmographic parameters in terms of $\Omega_{\Lambda}$ and, in particular, we find the definition of $\Lambda$ in our model as follows $$\label{lambdax}
\Lambda\sim\frac{7\rho_c}{\cosh^2\left(\sqrt{2}H_0 t_0\right)}+1.$$
Remembering the definition of scale-free parameters, postulated at the beginning, in particular of critical transition parameter, we find for it $$\label{pix}
k_c\sim1.429\,H^{3}_0.$$ In other words the effect of a dark energy are modeled by the presence of a cut off $k_{c}$ and for our epoch, in which $k>k_{c}$, all the previous results suggest how to consider the correct meaning of $\Lambda$: It could be considered as an effect of modeling universe with a $P(k)\sim k^{-\gamma}$, or, in other words, as a statistical result.
Conclusion and perspectives
===========================
We investigated in this paper that the scale-free model, achieving a statistical interpretation of the ”background” of space time, by the presence of a large number of gravitons, allowed us, thanks to networks interactions, to define directly $\rho$ dynamics, without using, the scale factor $a(t)$ dynamics, in the picture of mean field approximation.
Moreover we showed, that, if that dynamics is involved into the framework of GR, we are able to define all the cosmographic parameters, in terms of time evolution and, in principle, also of redshift $z$. Best results were $q(t)<0$ which represents the acceleration parameter of universe and tells us the universe expansion and also the cosmological constant $\Lambda$, which became dependent from statistical and cosmological parameters. This could be thought as an explanation of the peculiar reason for what a cosmological constant has to be put into Einstein field equations, in order to respect the correct statistical matter distribution and matter evolution.
We have, also, discussed the possibility to evaluate the parameters of scale-free theory at our epoch in terms of measured cosmographic parameters and vice-versa.
Starting from these results, we can discuss, indeed, also the possibility of defining a dark matter dynamical equations thanks to the expression of density motion, defined in the introduction and, of course, we can also focus a possible reformulation of $\Lambda$ in the framework of a microscopic theory, involved by the scale-free model directly.
The choice of $P(k)\sim k^{-\gamma}$ appears to be comparable with the density of a high-energy astrophysical object and could suggest that scale-free model could be a possible adaptable statistical model for the cases of Fermi processes [@peebles].
The scale-free model appears to be a framework model for gravitation so, in principle, extensions of GR are adaptable with scale-free model.
Moreover, all the previous results, concerning finite networks, could be extended in the case of infinite networks by using diverging cut-off $k_c$. It is possible to show, that depending from $\gamma-1$ and $q$ values, different results are involved, and this will concern to future efforts.
Other fields of future interest are to be found in the possibility to join the statistical behavior, described in this work, not necessary in the case of GR [@my33]. It will be clear in future work, that modifications occur if a different field theory is involved; idea which is possible, because the model appears to be independent from the field background. Concluding, of course, the statistics in this sense is a first kind of example in which the possibility to consider a different approach to the problem of $\Lambda$. This is possible, also passing through a quantum picture as showed, for example, in [@entanglement1]. The deep difference of this kind of work is the classical way in which all the calculations have been evaluated.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The authors warmly thank prof. S. Capozziello, prof. L. Dall’Asta and dr. F. Caccioli for important and deep discussions.
Cosmographic parameters {#sA}
=======================
The jerk parameter $j(t)$ is defined as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\label{jerk}
\frac{j(t)}{f(t)}=\beta_1+\beta_2\cosh4\sqrt{d}t+4\cosh2\sqrt{d}t\left(\beta_3+g_4\right)+\nonumber\\
+\beta_5\sinh(4\sqrt{d}t)+g_6+
2\sqrt{d}\sinh(2\sqrt{d}t)\left(\beta_7+g_8\right),\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $f(t)=\frac{\cosh^{-4}\left(\sqrt{d}t\right)}{8\sqrt{2}}\left[b+\sqrt{d}\tanh\left(\sqrt{d}t\right)\right]^3$, and $g_{n}\equiv \frac{\beta_n H(t)}{A}$. The snap parameter $s(t)$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{snap2}
\frac{s(t)}{h(t)}=g_{11}-g_{12}+g_{13}+g_{14}+
\cosh\left(6\sqrt{d}t\right)(g_{15}+g_{16}+g_{17})+\nonumber\\
\sinh\left(2\sqrt{d}t\right)(\beta_9+g_{18}-g_{19}-g_{20}+g_{21})+\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\nonumber\\
+\sinh\left(4\sqrt{d}t\right)(\beta_{10}+g_{22}-g_{23}-g_{24})+\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\nonumber\\
\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\nonumber\\
+\sinh\left(6\sqrt{d}t\right)(g_{25}+g_{26})+\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\nonumber\\
+2\cosh\left(4\sqrt{d}t\right)(\beta_{27}+g_{28}+g_{29}-g_{30}-g_{31})+\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\nonumber\\
-\cosh\left(2\sqrt{d}t\right)(\beta_{32}-g_{33}+g_{34}+g_{35}+g_{36}).\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The complete list of constants involved into calculations is $$\begin{aligned}
\beta_1=\sqrt{2}(3b^3-3bd+4cd^2),
\beta_2=\sqrt{2}b(b^2+3d),\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\beta_3=\sqrt{2}(b^3-2cd^2), \beta_4=3\sqrt{c}bd,
\beta_5=\sqrt{2d}(3b^2+d),\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\beta_6=12b\sqrt{c}d,\beta_7=-\sqrt{2}(-3b^2+d+4bcd),\beta_8=6\sqrt{c}d,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\beta_9=-8\sqrt{2c}d^{3/2}(-9b^2+3d+10bcd),%\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\beta_{10}=4\sqrt{2c}d^{3/2}(9b^2+3d+8bcd),\beta_{11}=10b^4,\beta_{12}=-12b^2
d,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\beta_{13}=2d^2, \beta_{14}=56bcd^2,\beta_{15}=b^4,\beta_{16}=6b^2
d, \beta_{17}=d^2,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\beta_{18}=20b^3\sqrt{d}, \beta_{19}=-12bd^{3/2}, \beta_{20}=-64b^2
cd^{3/2}, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\beta_{21}=56cd^{5/2}, \beta_{22}=16b^3 \sqrt{d}, \beta_{23}=-32b^2
cd^{3/2},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\beta_{24}=-32cd^{5/2},
\beta_{25}=4b^3\sqrt{d},\beta_{26}=4bd^{3/2},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\beta_{27}=2\sqrt{2c}d(3b^3+b(9+4bc)d+4cd^2),\beta_{28}=3b^4,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\beta_{29}=6b^2 d, \beta_{30}=-d^2, \beta_{31}=-32bcd^2,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\beta_{32}=16\sqrt{2c}d(-3b^3+2b^2cd+3cd^2),
\beta_{33}=-15b^4,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\beta_{34}=6b^2 d, \beta_{35}=d^2, \beta_{36}=8bcd^2\nonumber.\end{aligned}$$
[99]{} Visser, M., [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**78**]{}, 063501 (2008).
Visser, M., Class. Quant. Grav., **21**, 2603, (2004).
Visser, M., $\&$ Catto$\ddot{e}$n, C., Class. Quant. Grav., **24** 5985, (2007a). Visser, M., $\&$ Catto$\ddot{e}$n, C., ArXiv: gr-qc/0703122, (2007b). Luongo, O., submitted, (2009). Caccioli, F., Dall’Asta, L., ArXiv: 0810.5752, (2008). Baronchelli, A., Catanzaro, M., Pastor-Satorras, R., ArXiv: 0802.3347, (2008). Weinberg, S., *Gravitation and Cosmology: Principles and applications of the general theory of relativity*, (Wiley, New York), (1972). Peebles, P.J.E., [*Principles of Physical Cosmology*]{}, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, (1993). Spergel, D.N., et al. ApJ Suppl., 148, 175, (2003). Albrecht, A., et al, ArXiv:astro-ph/0609591, (2006). Caccioli, F., Dell’Asta, F., Arxiv:0810.5752v1, (2008) Capozziello, S., et al, ArXiv: 0802.1583\[astro-ph\], (2008). Chevallier, M., Polarski, D., Int. J. Mod. Phys. D., 10, 213, (2001)., Linder, E. V., Phys. Rev. Lett., **90** 091301, (2003). Luongo, O., in preparation, (2009). Capozziello, S., Izzo, L., Luongo, O., in preparation, (2009). Soares-Santos, M., et al. ArXiv: 0810.3689v1. Dabrowski, M. P., Phys. Lett. B, 625, 184 (2005). van Kampen, N. G. [*Stochastic processes in chemistry and physics*]{} (North Holland, Amsterdam, 1981). Sahni, V., Saini, T. D., Starobinsky, A. A., JETP Lett.**77**: 201-206, (2003)., Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. **77**: 249-253, (2003). Alam, U., Sahni, V., Saini, T. D., Starobinsky, A. A., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. **344**: 1057, (2003). Capozziello, S., Luongo, O., in preparation, (2009). de Bernardis, P., et al., Nature, 404, 955, (2000). Stompor, R., et al., ApJ, 561, L7, (2001).
[^1]: See for details [@grande2; @VK81].
[^2]: Normalized by $\rho_c\equiv\frac{3H_0^2}{8\pi G}$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Multiagent coordination in cooperative multiagent systems (MASs) has been widely studied in both fixed-agent repeated interaction setting and the static social learning framework. However, two aspects of dynamics in real-world multiagent scenarios are currently missing in existing works. First, the network topologies can be dynamic where agents may change their connections through rewiring during the course of interactions. Second, the game matrix between each pair of agents may not be static and usually not known as a prior. Both the network dynamic and game uncertainty increase the coordination difficulty among agents. In this paper, we consider a multiagent dynamic social learning environment in which each agent can choose to rewire potential partners and interact with randomly chosen neighbors in each round. We propose an optimal rewiring strategy for agents to select most beneficial peers to interact with for the purpose of maximizing the accumulated payoff in repeated interactions. We empirically demonstrate the effectiveness and robustness of our approach through comparing with benchmark strategies. The performance of three representative learning strategies under our social learning framework with our optimal rewiring is investigated as well.'
author:
- Hongyao Tang
- Li Wang
- Zan Wang
- Tim Baarslag
- Jianye Hao
bibliography:
- 'aaai18.bib'
title: An Optimal Rewiring Strategy for Reinforcement Social Learning in Cooperative Multiagent Systems
---
Introduction
============
Multiagent coordination in cooperative multiagent systems (MASs) is a significant and widely studied problem in the literature. In cooperative MASs, the agents share common interests defined by the same reward functions [@sen2007emergence]. This requires the agents to have the capability of coordinating with each other effectively towards desirable outcomes.
Until now, a lot of research efforts have been devoted to addressing multiagent coordination problems in cooperative MASs [@claus1998dynamics; @panait2005cooperative; @matignon2012independent; @lauer2000algorithm; @kapetanakis2002reinforcement; @matignon2008study]. One class of research focuses on coordination issues in fixed-agent repeated interaction settings. Claus and Boutilier firstly proposed two representative learning strategies - Independent Learner (IL) and Joint-Action Learner (JAL) to investigate their coordination performance in repeated two-agent cooperative games. Later a number of improved strategies [@lauer2000algorithm; @kapetanakis2002reinforcement; @panait2005cooperative; @matignon2008study] have been proposed to achieve coordination more efficiently and overcome the noise introduced by the high mis-coordination cost and stochasticity of games. Matignon et al. extensively investigate the comparative performance of existing independent strategies in terms of their coordination efficiency in two-agent repeated cooperative games. Their results show that perfect coordination can hardly be achieved for fully stochastic games. However, in practical complex environments, the interactions between agents can be sparse, i.e., it is highly likely that each agent may not have global access and only have the opportunity to interact with local neighbors. Moreover, agent’s interacting partners are not fixed and may change frequently and randomly. For example, in social media [@ellison2007social], it is commonly accepted that the user attention span is limited, hence it is of great importance to identify interactions that have optimal rewards. Thereby, another line of research focuses on investigating the question of how a population of cooperative agents can effectively coordinate among each other under the social learning framework [@sen2007emergence; @villatoro2011social; @yu2013emergence; @hao2013dynamics; @hao2014reinforcement; @hao2017dynamics; @airiau2014emergence; @mihaylov2014decentralized]. For example, Hao and Leung extend IL and JAL into the social learning framework and find that better coordination performance can be achieved by leveraging the observation mechanism.
Most of existing works under the social learning framework assume that agents are located in a static network. During each round of interaction, each agent plays the same cooperative game with a randomly selected partners from its neighborhood. However, two important aspects of dynamics in real-world multiagent scenarios are currently missing. First, the cooperative games might be different for different pairs of agents due to a variety of reasons (e.g., the difference of agents’ capabilities and preferences, and the difference of interaction timing and locations) in practical scenarios. For example, in sensor networks [@zhang2013coordinating], the overlapping scanning areas of each pair of sensors are of various importance and different rewards are obtained when specific scanning areas are coordinated between two senor agents. Another example is that in negotiation domain [@baarslag2015optimal], an agent may have different preferences on each offer provided by different opponents. Therefore, in this paper, we relax this assumption by assuming that the payoff matrix between each pair of agents is different which is generated from certain probability distribution, and the payoff information is unknown before their interaction.
Second, the network topologies can be dynamic. For example in social networks [@ellison2007benefits; @kwak2010twitter], it is common that users follow and unfollow other users on their own initiative due to individual preference and interest. Therefore, in this paper, we consider a dynamic environment where each agent is given the opportunities to change its connections through rewiring to interact with agents which may bring higher payoffs during the course of interactions. The rewiring mechanism has been previously used to explore indirect reciprocity [@peleteiro2014exploring] or cope with cheaters [@griffiths2010changing] to promote cooperations among agents in non-cooperative environments such as $Donation$ games. In contrast, in this paper, we focus on cooperative environments where agents can utilize the rewiring mechanism to increase their benefits in long-run interactions by breaking connections to bad-performance neighbors and replacing them with new connections.
In this work, during each round, each agent goes through two main phases: the rewiring phase and the interaction phase. In the rewiring phase, each agent is likely to be given the opportunity to alter their connections through rewiring for higher payoffs in future interactions. The key problem here is how to compute the optimal rewiring strategy to maximize the long-run interaction payoff against the network dynamics. To make efficient rewiring decisions, each agent has to take two aspects of uncertainties into consideration, i.e., the uncertainties of opponents’ behaviors and the payoff matrix with unknown peers. To this end, we model an agent’s rewiring problem as a sequential decision-making problem and propose an optimal rewiring approach for agents to select most beneficial peers among all reachable agents. In the interaction phase, agents learn their policies from pair-wise interactions through playing certain cooperative game against randomly selected opponent from its neighborhood. Empirical results show that our optimal rewiring strategy outperforms other existing benchmark strategies in terms of agents’ average accumulated payoff and robustness against different environments. Besides, the relative performance of three representative learning strategies (i.e., Fictitious Play, Joint-Action Learner and Joint-Action WoLF-PHC) is analyzed as well.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we give an overview of related works. In Section 3, we give a formal description of our coordination problem in dynamic cooperative MASs. In Section 3, the social learning framework and both rewiring and learning strategies are described. In Section 4, we empirically demonstrate the efficiency of our rewiring approach and analyze the influence of three learning strategies under the social learning framework with rewiring. Lastly conclusion and future work are given in Section 5.
Related Work
============
There has been a large amount of research in the multiagent reinforcement learning literature on solving coordination problem in cooperative MASs One line of research focuses on solving coordination problem in fixed-agent repeated interaction settings [@claus1998dynamics; @lauer2000algorithm; @kapetanakis2002reinforcement; @panait2005cooperative; @matignon2008study; @panait2006lenient; @matignon2012independent]. Claus and Boutilier investigate the coordination performance of the Independent Learner and the Joint-Action learner, in the context of repeated two-agent cooperative games. It shows that both types of learners achieve success in simple cooperative games. Lauer and Riedmiller [@lauer2000algorithm] propose the distributed Q-learning algorithm base on the optimistic assumption. It is proved that optimal joint actions can be guaranteed to achieve if the cooperative game is deterministic. FMQ heuristic [@kapetanakis2002reinforcement] and recursive FMQ [@matignon2008study] are proposed to alter the Q-value estimation function to handle the stochasticity of the games. FMQ obtains success in partially stochastic climbing games but still can not achieve satisfactory performance in fully stochastic cooperative games. Panait et al. [@panait2006lenient] propose the lenient multiagent learning algorithm to overcome the noise introduced by the stochasticity of the games. The results show that coordination on the optimal joint action can be achieved in more than 93.5% of the runs in the fully stochastic climbing game. Matignon et al. review all existing independent multiagent reinforcement learning algorithms and evaluate and discuss their strength and weakness. It shows that all of them fail to achieve perfect coordination for fully stochastic games and only recursive FMQ can achieve coordination for 58% of the runs.
The other line of research considers the multiagent coordination problem under the social learning framework [@sen2007emergence; @villatoro2011social; @yu2013emergence; @hao2013dynamics; @hao2014reinforcement; @hao2017dynamics; @airiau2014emergence; @mihaylov2014decentralized], where agents learn through pair-wise interactions by playing the same game. Sen and Airiau [@sen2007emergence] propose the social learning model and investigate the emergence of consistent coordination policies (norms) in MASs (e.g., conflicting-interest games) under this social learning framework. Hao and Leung investigate the multiagent coordination problems in cooperative environments under the social learning framework. They demonstrate individual action learners (IALs) and joint action learners (JALs) and achieve better coordination performance by leveraging the observation mechanism. Most of previous works assume that agents learn through playing the same cooperative game with randomly selected partners from their neighborhood within a static network. In contrast, in this paper, we consider a dynamic environment in which agents learn through pair-wise interactions through playing uniquely and randomly generated cooperative games.
There are some existing works on using rewiring mechanism to support cooperation in social networks [@peleteiro2014exploring; @griffiths2010changing; @hales2005applying; @dekker2007realistic]. Peleteiro et al. [@peleteiro2014exploring] propose a new mechanism based on three main pillars: indirect reciprocity, coalitions and rewiring, to improve cooperation among self-interested agents placed in a complex network. Rewiring, as a part of the proposed mechanism, alters the worst social links with the best coalition members the neighbors’ reputation coalitions information. They confirm that the use of rewiring indeed improves cooperation when they play the donation game in their social scenario. Griffiths and Luck present and demonstrate a decentralised tag-based mechanism to support cooperation in the presence of cheaters without requiring reciprocity. The simple rewiring enables agents to change their neighbour connections, in particular by removing connections to the worst neighbours and replacing them with connections to neighbours with whom others have had positive experiences. Their results show that cooperation can be improved by enabling agents to change their neighbour connections. In contrast, in this paper, we consider the multiagent coordination problem in cooperative MASs and how rewiring can increase the benefits of individual agents during long-run interactions under the social learning framework.
Problem Description
===================
We consider a population $N$ of agents, each of which has (bidirectional) connections to its neighbors. We use $O_i$ to denote agent $i$’s neighborhood, such that each agent $i$ is only able to interact with its neighbors in $O_i$. We model the strategic interaction among each pair of agents as a cooperative game, where each agent always receives the same payoff under the same outcome. One example of deterministic two-action cooperative games is shown in Fig.1(a), in which there exist two optimal Nash equilibria. In this game, agents are desired to coordinate their actions towards a consistent Nash equilibrium to maximize their benefits.
Previous works [@panait2006lenient; @matignon2012independent; @hao2013dynamics; @hao2014reinforcement; @hao2015multiagent] have investigated the problem of how a population of agents could achieve coordination under the same cooperative environments (games) to maximize the system’s overall benefits. However, in general, the payoff matrix between any pair of agents may be different depending on the agents’ interacting environments. Following the setting in [@damer2008achieving], we assume that each game is drawn independently from certain probability distribution to model agents’ interaction environments in a generalized way. Without loss of generality, a general form of 2-action cooperative game $G_i^j$ between agent $i$ and $j$ is shown in Fig.1(b), where the value of $u_a$ (or $u_b$) is sampled from a stochastic variable $x_a$ (or $x_b$) following certain cumulative probability distribution $F_a(x)$ (or $F_b(x)$), and $\alpha < x_a (x_b)$ represents the payoff under mis-coordination. The payoff matrix of any pair of agents is not known as a prior, which can be learned through repeated interactions. In our settings, we assume that each agent in the environment can observe the actions of its interaction neighbor at the end of each interaction.
Inspired from human society [@ellison2007benefits; @kwak2010twitter], agents should have the freedom of choosing whom they want to interact with. Thus, in this paper, we consider that the underlying interaction topology is dynamic: agents are allowed to break existing connections which they do not benefit from and establish new connections with non-neighbor agents through rewiring. Each rewiring is associate with certain cost and we use $c_i^j$ to denote the rewiring cost of agent $i$ when it establishes new connection with another agent $j$. As in many scenarios, agents usually do not have access to all agents in the environment but only local access due to physical limitations, e.g. the distance of signal reception and delivery, the radius of human relation circle [@crow1997ieee; @kwak2010twitter]. Hence it is not feasible to allow each agent to be able to rewire any other agents in the environments, and here we assume that each agent is only allowed to establish connections with the set of reachable peers, which can be defined as the set of agents within certain distance of agent $i$. We use $\{O_i \cup \bar O_i\}$ to denote agent $i$’s reachable peers, consisting of $O_i$ for agent $i$’s neighborhood and $\bar O_i$ for all non-neighbor agents that agent $i$ can potentially interact with through rewiring.
Moreover, unlimited increase of communication in real-world networks is usually impractical and the number of connections should have a upper bound due to finite connection resources [@zhang2013coordinating]. Each agent should break an old connection each time it decides to establish a new connection through rewiring.[^1] The interest of any rational agent is to maximize its accumulative payoff during the course of interactions. Therefore, a rational agent needs to balance the tradeoff between rewiring to explore more beneficial partners to interact with and exploiting the current connected neighbors to avoid rewiring cost.
Social Learning Framework
=========================
Under the social learning framework, there is a population $N$ of agents and each agent learns its policy through repeated pair-wise interactions with its neighbors. The initial neighborhood of each agent is determined by the underlying topology and three representative topologies are considered here: Regular Network, Small-world Network, Scale-Free Network [@watts1998collective; @albert2002statistical]. The overall interaction flow under the social learning framework is shown in Algorithm 1.
Perform rewiring action. Play game $G_i^j$ with randomly chosen player $j \in O_i$. Obtain payoff and update its policy. Update neighbor $j$’s action model. \[code:Algorithm 1\]
During each round, each agent $i$ first is given the opportunity of rewiring with probability $\varphi$. During the rewiring phase, agent $i$ breaks its connection with a neighbor with poor-performance and establishes a new connection with another agent from its potential partners $\bar O_i$ (Line 2-4). Next, in interaction phase, agent $i$ interacts with a randomly selected neighbor agent $j$ from its neighborhood $O_i$ by playing their corresponding cooperative game $G_i^j$ (Line 5). After the interaction, agent $i$ and $j$ receive the corresponding payoff and update their policies and opponents’ models respectively (Line 6-7). The details of the rewiring and learning strategies will be introduced in following subsection.
An Optimal Rewiring Strategy
----------------------------
The goal of rewiring is to explore the set of unconnected peers (potential partners $\bar O$) in the population and seek more beneficial partners to interact with. Each agent is faced with two aspects of uncertainties: the uncertainty of the behaviors of its neighbors and unknown peers; the uncertainty of the payoff matrix during interaction with unknown peers. To select the optimal agent to rewire, we need to evaluate the potential benefits of interacting with agent $j$ by taking the aforementioned uncertainties into consideration.
Before making a rewiring decision, each agent first needs to evaluate the benefits of interacting with each neighbor. One natural way is to use the optimistic assumption, i.e., computing the expected payoff of selecting different actions based on the estimated policy of a neighbor and picking the action with the highest expected value. In other words, agent $i$ evaluates the expected payoff $v_i^j$ of interacting with agent $j \in O_i$ by using the highest expected payoff that can be received among all possible actions $A_i$. Formally we have: $$v_i^j = \max_{m \in A_j}p_i^j(m)u_m + \left(1 - p_i^j(m)\right)\alpha,$$ where $u_m$ represents the explicit payoff when both players choose action $m$ by sampling $x_m$ from $F_m(x)$ during historic interactions, and $\alpha$ is for the mis-coordination payoff. $p_i^j(m)$ denotes agent $i$’s estimated probability of agent $j$ choosing action $m$. The value of $p_i^j(m)$ can be easily obtained as the empirical frequency distribution of agent $j$’s actions based on historical interactions and other advanced techniques such as weighting more on recent experiences may also be considered. Provided there is no need to rewire, we use agent $i$’s worst-case expected payoff among all the neighbors as its baseline utility. Formally we have: $$v_i^*(O_i) = \min_{j \in O_i}v_i^j.$$
For each unknown potential partner $j \in \bar O_i$ to interact with, agent $i$ is faced with two aspects of uncertainties: agent $j$’s behavior, and the payoff matrix $G_i^j$. For a previously unseen partner $j$’s behavior, it can be estimated using the observed expected behaviors from agent $i$’s existing neighborhood, while the payoff matrix $G_i^j$ has to be learned through repeated interactions after agent $i$ and $j$ are connected through rewiring. Therefore, agent $i$’s estimation of expected benefit $x_i^j$ from interacting with an unknown agent $j$ can be formalized as follows: $$x_i^j = \max_{m \in A_j}\bar p_i^j(m)x_m + \left(1 - \bar p_i^j(m)\right)\alpha,$$ where $x_i^j$ is a stochastic variable and $F_j^i(x)$ denotes the corresponding cumulative distribution function of $x_i^j$, and $\alpha$ is the payoff under mis-coordination. $\bar{p}_i^j(m)$ is agent $i$’s estimated probability of agent $j$ choosing action $m$ within its neighborhood. As no interaction has been made between agent $i$ and the unknown peer $j \in \bar O_i$ before, the distribution over agent $j$’s actions can not be observed a prior but estimated from the neighbors which once interact with agent $j$.
Intuitively, it is reasonable for agent $i$ to establish new connection with any unknown potential partner $j$ if rewiring leads to higher expected payoff. The difference between expected payoff $x_i^j$ and baseline value causes a incoming benefit which is promising to pay back the rewiring cost $c_i^j$ and to generate better payoffs in further interactions. Otherwise, agent $i$ should keep its current neighborhood unchanged. During each rewiring phase, each agent $i$ has to unlink a bad-performance neighbor first before rewiring. Note that there is no need for agent $i$ to consider those agents already disconnected during previous rewiring, since the expected payoff of interacting with discarded agent $j$ is obviously below the current interaction baseline, i.e. $v_i^j < v_i^*(O_i)$. Each agent’s situated environments are continuously changing as it breaks old connections and establishes new ones, which also influences the following interactions and rewiring decisions thereafter. Therefore, each agent is actually faced with a sequential rewiring decision-making problem. Formally, we propose modeling the above sequential rewiring problem for each agent $i$ as an Markov Decision Process (MDP), $M_i=<S_i,A_i,P_i,R_i>$ as follows:
- A finite set of states $S_i$: each state $\epsilon$ of agent $i$ can be represented as a tuple $<\bar O_i, y_i>$, in which $\bar O_i$ describes the set of potential partners of agent $i$ and $y_i = v_i^*(O_i)$ is agent $i$’s current baseline value.
- A finite set of actions $A_i$: agent $i$’s action set under $\epsilon$ is $A_i(\epsilon) = \{\bar O_i, \textbf{Null}\}$ which consists of actions of rewiring with an agent in $\bar O_i$ and the **Null** action for not rewiring.
- A transition function $P_i$: $P_i(\epsilon,a,\epsilon')$ represents the probability of reaching state $\epsilon'$ after taking action $a$ under state $\epsilon$. The transition is probabilistic because the value of baseline $y_i$ may change stochastically. If agent $i$ rewires agent $j \in \bar O_i$, the new baseline $y_i' = v_i^*({O_i}')$ with the updated ${O_i}'$ is determined by new included neighbor $j$ and left neighbors after breaking the worst-performing connection.
- A reward function $R_i$: $R_i(\epsilon,a)$ denotes the reward of executing action $a$ under state $\epsilon$, e.g., $R_i(\epsilon) = -c_i^j$ if agent $i$ chooses to rewire agent $j$ and $R_i(\epsilon) = 0$ if stops rewiring.
Under the above MDP formulation, our goal is to construct a rewiring strategy $\pi_i(\epsilon)$ specifying which new connection to establish, or to not rewire under each state $\epsilon$. We start with a short-sight version where each agent is only interested in maximizing its one-shot payoff after rewiring. The utility $U(\pi_i,\epsilon)$ of a policy $\pi_i$ can be defined recursively as follows,
$$U(\pi_i,\epsilon) =
\left\{
\begin{array}{lr}
\int_{-\infty}^\infty U(\pi_i, \epsilon') \;\text{d}F_{x_{\pi_i(\epsilon)}}^i(x)
& \text{if} \ \pi_i(\epsilon) \in \bar O_i, \\
-c_i^{\pi_i(\epsilon)} \\
y_i & \text{otherwise stop.}
\end{array}
\right.$$
where $\epsilon' = <\bar O_i \backslash \{\pi_i(\epsilon)\},y_i'\}>$ denotes the new rewiring state after agent $\pi_i(\epsilon)$ is rewired, where $y_i'$ is the new expected baseline payoff as the neighborhood $O_i$ is altered.
Our final goal is to find an optimal policy $\pi_i^* = arg\max_{\pi_i} U(\pi_i,\epsilon)$ among all feasible policies, which considers the following: either not rewire and obtain baseline $y_i$, or rewire an unknown partner $j \in \bar O_i$ by sampling $x$ from $x_i^j$ at cost $c_i^j$, while taking the following into account:
- $x \le y_i$: this indicates the expected payoff interacting with agent $j$ is not better than its current baseline and $x$ should be the new baseline value after rewiring. Thus the expected utility under state $<\bar O_i, y_i>$ becomes $-c_i^j + U(\pi_i^*,<\bar O_i \backslash \{j\},x>)$;
- $x >y_i$: the expected payoff interacting with agent $j$ is higher than our baseline value. In this case, the expected utility under state $<\bar O_i, y_i>$ becomes $-c_i^j + U(\pi_i^*,<\bar O_i \backslash \{j\},y_i'>)$, where $y_i^\prime$ is the updated baseline value since agent $i$ breaks the connection with the worst-performance neighbor during rewiring.
The above way of formalizing the dynamics of an optimal strategy only considers the one-shot interaction benefits. However, in our social learning framework, each agent tries to maximize accumulated payoffs during multi-rounds interactions. To this end, we propose a new far-sight way of modeling our rewiring problem such that each agent considers the accumulated expected payoff through multiple interactions with any neighbor after rewiring. Formally, the $K$-step utility function $U_K(\pi_i^*,\epsilon)$ of an optimal strategy $\pi_i^*$ must satisfy the following recursive relation:
$$\begin{aligned}
\ U_K(\pi_i^*,\epsilon) = & \min \{
K y_i, \max_{j \in \bar O_i} \{
-c_i^j + \ U_K(\pi_i^*,<\bar O_i \backslash \{j\},x>) \cdot F_j^i(y_i) \\
& + \ \int_{x=y_i}^\infty U_K(\pi_i^*,<\bar O_i \backslash \{j\},y_i'>) \cdot \;\text{d}F_j^i(x)
\}
\},
\end{aligned}$$
where the rewiring sight value of $K$ models an agent’s far-sight degree by taking the accumulated payoff from $K$ rounds of interactions into account during each rewiring. We can see that Eq.5 is essentially a Bellman equation, which could be solved by backward induction in principle. However, even for a moderate-size MAS, this approach quickly becomes intractable. To this end, we provide a simple but optimal method to compute which agents to rewire or not in $O(n^2)$ time (further explained later), which is inspired from Pandora’s Rule[^2] [@weitzman1979optimal].
Supposing that agent $i$ has current baseline $y_i$ and a potential partner $j$ in $\bar O_i$, to determine whether to rewire partner $j$ through our $K$-sight optimal rewiring approach, we have:
- In the following $K$ rounds, the expected interaction value we could obtain from neighborhood $O_i$ is at least: $$K y_i.$$
- If choose to rewire agent $j$, we could get a net benefit of the following $K$-rounds interactions in the worst cases as follows: $$-c_i^j + K (\int_{-\infty}^{y_i}x \ \;\text{d}F_j^i(x) + {y_i}' \int_{y_i}^{\infty}\;\text{d}F_j^i(x) ).$$ where ${y_i}'$ is the new baseline if $x \ge y_i$ after breaking the connection with old baseline one. We define ${y_i}'$ as ${y_i}' = \min\{x, y_i^{sec}\}$ where $y_i^{sec}$ is the second minimum expected payoff in $O_i$ given that agent $i$ has at least two neighbors before rewiring.[^3] Formally we have: $${y_i}' = \int_{-\infty}^{y_i^{sec}}x \ \;\text{d}F_j^i(x) + y_i^{sec} \int_{y_i^{sec}}^{\infty}\;\text{d}F_j^i(x).$$
- Further, we use $\Lambda$ for the single-round payoff difference between not rewiring (Eq.6) and rewiring agent $j$ (Eq.7) which can be formalized as follows: $$\Lambda = \int_{-\infty}^{y_i}x \ \;\text{d}F_j^i(x) + {y_i}' \int_{y_i}^{\infty}\;\text{d}F_j^i(x) - y_i -c_i^j/K.$$ If $\Lambda = 0$, agent $i$ is just indifferent between rewiring $j$ and not rewiring. Otherwise, the larger $\Lambda$ value indicates that agent $j$ is more beneficial to rewire.
For each unknown partner $j$, the expected payoff satisfies the cumulative distribution function $F_j^i(x)$ and the rewiring cost is $c_i^j$. We can calculate an index $\Lambda_i^j$ through Eq.9, which fully captures the relevant information about agent $j$: it should be rewired when it has the highest positive index and exceeds the interaction baseline of current neighborhood. It is proven in [@weitzman1979optimal] that this strategy is optimal in terms of expected reward Eq.5.
The overall K-sight rewiring strategy is shown in Algorithm 2. At each rewiring phase, each agent $i$ first calculates the baseline interaction value $y_i$ and second minimum expected value $y_i^{sec}$ in $O_i$ (Line 1-6). Second, for each potential partner $w \in \bar O_i$, its corresponding index $\Lambda_i^w$ is computed following Eq.9 (Line 7-9). Finally, agent $i$ makes the rewiring decision accordingly — to rewire target agent $\tau$ with the maximum value of $\Lambda_{max}$ at cost $c_i^{\tau}$ if $\Lambda_{max} \ge 0$ or not to rewire otherwise (Line 10-15). Agent $i$ unlinks the worst-performing neighbor $k$ before rewiring a new partner: $$k = arg \min_{j \in O_i}v_i^j.$$ After certain rounds, each agent stops rewiring and converges to an optimal neighborhood.
$v_i^j = calculateExpectedReward(j)$; $y_i = \min_{j \in O_i} v_i^j$; $k = \arg \min_{j \in O_i} v_i^j$; $y_i^{sec} = \min_{j \in O_i\backslash \{k\}} v_i^j$; $\Lambda_i^w = calculateK\_SightIndex(w,K,y_i,y_i^{sec})$; $\Lambda_{max} = \max_{w \in \bar O_i} \Lambda_i^w$; $\tau = \arg \max_{w \in \bar O_i} \Lambda_i^w$; $UnlinkNeighbour(k)$; $RewiringTarget(\tau)$;
\[code:Algorithm 1\]
Next we analyze the computational complexity of our proposed algorithm. In Algorithm 2, for each rewiring phase, agent $i$ computes the interaction baselines of current neighborhood $O_i$ (Line 1-6) and the $\Lambda$ value (Line 6-9) for each potential peer in $\bar O_i$ to find the optimal action (Line 10-15). This leads to a computational complexity of $O(n)$ and the value of $n$ is for the size of reachable peers $\{O_i \cup \bar O_i\}$. Solving the Bellman equation (Eq.5) is equivalent with calculating the optimal rewiring action for all feasible states which are proportional to the size of potential peers. Thus the total computational complexity of solving our sequential decision-making problem is $O(n^2)$. Note that the computational complexity $O(n^2)$ can be quite low even when the population size $N$ increases significantly since the number of reachable peers for each agent is usually much smaller than the number of agents in whole populations, i.e. $n = |\bar O_i| \ll |N|$.
After rewiring phase, each agent proceeds to interact with an agent randomly selected from its neighborhood. We consider the following three representative learning strategies in the literature as agents’ learning strategies.
- $\emph{Fictitious play(FP)}$. FP is a well-known learning approach in literature. Agent $i$ keeps a frequency count of agent $j$’s decisions from a history of past moves and assumes that the opponent is playing a mixed strategy represented by this frequency distribution. Agent $i$ chooses the best-response action $m$ to that mixed strategy to maximize its expected payoff. Formally we have: $$m = \arg\max_{m \in A_j}p_i^j(m)u_m + \left(1 - p_i^j(m)\right)\alpha,$$ where $p_i^j(m)$ is agent $i$’s estimated distribution over agent $j$’s actions and $u_m$ is the payoff when both agent $i$ and $j$ choose action $m$, exactly the same in Eq.1.
- $\emph{Joint Action Learner (JAL)}$ [@claus1998dynamics]. JAL is a classic Multiagent Reinforcement Learning algorithm under the assumptions that each agent can observe the actions of other agents. A JAL agent learns its Q-values for joint actions. Formally, $Q_i^j(a,b)$ represents agent $i$’s Q-value when agent $i$ and $j$ select action $a$ and $b$ respectively. To determine the relative values of their individual actions, agent $i$ assumes that each other agent $j$ will choose actions in accordance with agent $i$’s empirical distribution over agent $j$’s action. In general, agent $i$ assesses the expected value of each action $a$ as follows: $$EV(a) = \sum_{m \in A_j} Q_i^j(a,m) \ p_i^j(m),$$ where $p_i^j(m)$ is agent $i$’s estimation for the probability of agent $j$ choosing action $m$.
- $\emph{Joint-Action WoLF-PHC (JA-WoLF)}$. WoLF [@bowling2001rational] extends Q-learning and learns mixed strategies with the idea of quickly adapting when losing but being cautious when winning. Specifically we modify WoLF to a Joint-Action version as agents can observe others’ actions in our environments. We replace $Q(s,a)$ with $Q(s,\vec{a})$ and each agent updates its Q-values for each joint-action. In addition, to determine ’win’ or ’lose’, we need to keep the frequency distribution over opponents’ actions., and agent $i$ adjust its learning rate $\delta$ against agent $j$ as follows: $$\delta =
\left\{
\begin{array}{lr}
\delta_w & \text{if} \ \sum_{a \in A_i}\pi_i^j(a) \sum_{m \in A_j}Q_i^j(a,m)p_i^j(m) \\
& \ge \sum_{a \in A_i}\bar \pi_i^j(a) \sum_{m \in A_j}Q_i^j(a,m)p_i^j(m), \\
\delta_l
& \text{otherwise.}
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $\delta_w$ and $\delta_l$ denotes the learning rate when win or lose separately, $\pi_i^j$ is agent $i$’s strategy and $\bar \pi_i^j$ is the average strategy, and $p_i^j(m)$ is the probability agent $i$ maintains for interacting with agent $j$.
Experimental Evaluations
========================
In this section, we evaluate the performance of our optimal rewiring strategy with two benchmark strategies against various interaction environments. Following that, we analyze the performance of different learning strategies under our social learning framework.
Parameter Settings
------------------
We consider a population of hundreds of agents and three representative network topologies: regular network, small-world network and scale-free network. In our experiments, there is no apparent discrimination in results of these three initial topologies,[^4] and we use regular networks as default choice for following illustration. Besides, we consider a wide range of interaction environments $(x,y,z)$ from three major aspects: the number of agents $x$, the size of each agent’s initialized neighborhood $y$ and the size of each agent’s reachable agents $z$. For example, interaction environment $(100,4,12)$ denotes a scenario consisting of 100 agents which each agent has 4 neighbors ($O$) and 12 reachable agents initially($O\cup \bar O$). In following experiments the value of neighborhood $y$ are initialized to be different constances equally for each agent. Note that we put no limitation on the size of neighborhood and it can be constance or other function forms to model the variance of agents’ connection capabilities. The set of reachable agents can also be defined in different ways. For example, in [@peleteiro2014exploring] agents are allowed to do the rewiring through leaving its worst neighbor and joins the one with the highest score in its coalition. In contrast, in [@griffiths2010changing] an agent replaces its bad-performance neighbors and replaces them with specific agents from the neighborhood of its (best) neighbors. We set the value of reachable agents size $z$ to constances for the purpose of generalization.
For each pair of agents $i$ and $j$, the cooperative game $G_i^j$ is uniquely generated. The payoffs $u_a$, $u_b$ on the diagonal of $G_i^j$ are sampled independently from $x_a$, $x_b$ according to probability distribution $F_a(x)$, $F_b(x)$ which are separately set to either a uniform distribution $U(n, m)$ or a beta distribution $Beta(\alpha,\beta)$, with $n \ \textless \ m$ both uniformly sampled from $U(0, 1)$ and $\alpha$, $\beta \in \{1, . . . , 10\}$. The mis-coordination payoff $\alpha$ is set to a constant value randomly sampled from the range of $[-0.2,0]$ for each payoff matrix.
Influence of Rewiring Sight
---------------------------
In our optimal rewiring approach, the value of rewiring sight is the key parameter which may directly influence the performance. We investigate the performance of varying sight values of $K$ with several rewiring costs.[^5] For learning strategy, we use FP for illustration and similar results can be observed for other learning strategies (i.e., JAL or JA-WoLF), which are omitted due to space limitation.
Fig.2(a) shows the average accumulated payoff obtained by each agent with different cost-sight settings. We can see that the average payoffs for different costs increase rapidly with the growth of sight value and reach the peaks when $c/K$ is within the range of $[0.0,0.2]$. Intuitively this indicates that an agent with relatively small sight value is short-sighted and may not be willing to rewire any high-risk agent (high cost) to maximize its long-term benefits. This phenomenon can be explained from Eq.9: the index $\Lambda$ is more likely to be negative with large $c/K$ which means few rewiring decisions can be made with our optimal strategy. After the peaks, it starts to descend with different speed when the value of $K$ further increases. This phenomenon indicates that extremely large sight values make optimal estimations become unreliable. This can also be explained from Eq.9: the small value of $c/K$ leads to the increase of $\Lambda$, and thus increasing the set of candidate agents for rewiring. In other words, large $K$ is deemed to be over-optimistic and aggressive as any connection may be replaced in the future. In the extreme case where $K \rightarrow \infty$, the infinitely long sight makes the rewiring cost meaningless as $c/K \rightarrow 0$.
Based on the above analysis, we can see that given any cost $c$, we should select a reasonable $K$ as the optimal rewiring sight value. In following experiments, we choose a suitable value of $K$ to let the value of $c/K$ be within the optimal range of $[0.0,0.2]$ for different rewiring costs.
Performance Comparison of Rewiring Strategies
---------------------------------------------
To evaluate the performance of our optimal approach, we compare our rewiring strategy with two benchmark strategies as follows:
- $\emph{Random (Ran)}$: Random rewiring is included as the baseline strategy, in which an agent establishes new connection with a potential peer randomly selected each time.
- *K-sight Highest Expect (K-HE)*: K-HE is a rational benchmark strategy that rewires the agent with the highest K-round expected value minus the cost, i.e. $\max_{j \in \bar O} E(x_i^j) - c_i^j/K$.
To the best of our knowledge, there exist works on rewiring in social networks, but they use rewiring as an additional mechanism instead of designing optimal rewiring strategies to facilitate multiagent coordination under the social learning framework. Thus, most of them are are vanilla and cannot be directly applied in our context.
We first evaluate the performance of each rewiring strategy in different interaction environments with varying parameters $(x,y,z)$ of networks. Both K-HE and our optimal strategy use the same value of $K$ ($K = 400$) as the rewiring sight value. We simulate 1000-rounds interactions in pure environments where the population uses the same rewiring strategy. The average accumulated payoffs obtained by agents using different rewiring strategies are shown in Table 1.
**No.** **(x, y, z)** **Rew\_Stg** **Avg.** **Max.** **Min.**
--------- --------------- -------------- ----------- ----------- -----------
$1$ $(100,4,8)$ $Random$ $978.23$ $1900.74$ $355.70$
$2$ $(100,4,8)$ $K-HE$ $1146.60$ $2197.96$ $358.33$
$3$ $(100,4,8)$ $Optimal$ $1342.78$ $2261.85$ $1342.78$
$4$ $(100,4,12)$ $Random$ $763.93$ $1383.97$ $283.87$
$5$ $(100,4,12)$ $K-HE$ $1003.46$ $1979.67$ $306.71$
$6$ $(100,4,12)$ $Optimal$ $1372.66$ $2437.97$ $665.78$
$7$ $(100,4,16)$ $Random$ $702.26$ $1290.33$ $252.51$
$8$ $(100,4,16)$ $K-HE$ $991.24$ $1912.27$ $324.64$
$9$ $(100,4,16)$ $Optimal$ $1377.95$ $2516.00$ $650.10$
$10$ $(500,4,16)$ $Random$ $694.34$ $1434.54$ $169.40$
$11$ $(500,4,16)$ $K-HE$ $993.56$ $2173.42$ $211.77$
$12$ $(500,4,16)$ $Optimal$ $1373.60$ $2735.48$ $484.43$
$13$ $(500,8,16)$ $Random$ $738.88$ $1307.37$ $252.85$
$14$ $(500,8,16)$ $K-HE$ $1016.85$ $1768.48$ $360.16$
$15$ $(500,8,16)$ $Optimal$ $1177.35$ $1789.12$ $593.17$
$16$ $(1000,8,16)$ $Random$ $740.29$ $1375.69$ $217.80$
$17$ $(1000,8,16)$ $K-HE$ $1018.53$ $1801.04$ $314.75$
$18$ $(1000,8,16)$ $Optimal$ $1170.46$ $1810.58$ $567.38$
: The performance of optimal rewiring strategy and benchmarks with different topologies $c = 20.0$ and $\varphi = 0.01$[]{data-label="tab:1"}
First we can observe that our optimal strategy outperforms benchmark strategies in terms of average, best and worst cases across all different parameter settings, especially when the size $y$ of neighborhood is relatively small (each neighbor matters). Second, another observation we can find in No.1 to 9, is that as the size $z$ of reachable agents becomes larger, the performance of the two benchmark strategies decreases, while the optimal strategy still shows good and robust performance (actually a slight ascending trend) against the variation of interaction environments. This is because our optimal strategy is more likely to pick off better peers when our agents have more rewiring alternatives, which ensures robust and even better performance. In contrast, random strategy is more likely to make bad choices. For K-HE strategy, it only focuses on the highest expected interaction payoff of potential peers regardless of the network dynamics caused by rewiring. Hence the loss of optimality becomes even worse when facing more choices.
Another observation is that, comparing the results from No.10 to 15, we can see that the average payoff for our optimal strategy decreases and the performance gap between optimal strategy and others becomes smaller as the size $y$ of neighborhood becomes larger. The is because in our experiments, each agent interacts with a randomly selected neighbor. Thus, even though our approach always makes the optimal rewiring decision, the expected payoff during the course of interaction will approach the expectation value of random interactions with the neighborhood, as the neighborhood size $y$ approaches infinity. This can be analyzed formally as follows. For any agent $i$, let $\tilde{v_i}(O_i)$ denotes the agent $i$’s expected value of random interactions with neighborhood $O_i$ and naturally we have $\tilde{v_i}(O_i) = 1/|O_i| \sum_{j \in O_i} v_i^j$. We can see in Eq.1 $v_i^j = \max_{m \in A_j} u_m$ when $p_i^j = 1$, which means agent $i$ and $j$ coordinate on action $m$. Thus, in the uniform distribution case, where $u_m \sim U(a,b)$ and $a,b \sim U(0,1)$, we easily have $\lim_{|O_i| \to \infty}E(\tilde{v_i}(O_i)) \rightarrow E(U(0,1))$.
Furthermore, we compare the performance of our optimal strategy and existing benchmark strategies in different rewiring cost settings. The value of sight is set to $K = 200$ for both K-HE and the optimal strategy. We vary rewiring cost value of $c$ in the range of $[0.0,200.0]$. Fig.2(b) shows the average accumulated payoffs for each rewiring strategy in a pure environment. We can see that our optimal rewiring strategy outperforms others and acquires higher payoff across almost all $c/K$ value ($[0.0, 0.8]$). Next we evaluate our optimal rewiring strategy in a competitive environment where each agent is randomly assigned a rewiring strategy (from Random, K-HE and optimal strategy) with equal probabilities and the results are shown in Fig.2(c). Fig.2(b) and Fig.2(c) are similar and we can see that our optimal rewiring strategy significantly outperforms existing benchmark strategies for different $c/K$ settings in competitive environments. As expected, the optimal strategy’s payoff starts at the peak when the rewiring cost is zero, and decreases gradually as the cost increases. The obtained payoff slowly declines until $c/K \approx 0.7$, where the rewiring costs are too high and not rewiring is the optimal choice.
The K-HE strategy ranks the second. It starts with average accumulated payoff near $1200$ and drops significantly to the minimum when $c/K \approx 0.25$. The reason why K-HE has a good start is the initial rewiring cost is negligible even though its rewiring decision is sub-optimal. As the rewiring cost increases, the performance gap between K-HE and our optimal strategy becomes even larger. This is because when $c/K$ is small, there are many rewiring alternatives for both K-HE and our optimal strategy. For K-HE, it is more likely to pick the sub-optimal one while our optimal strategy always chooses the optimal one. Further, K-HE’s performance gradually improves when $c/K$ further increases and reach the same level as our optimal strategy when $c/K \ge 0.7$. This is because few alternatives exist for selection as the value of $c/K$ becomes larger and it is more likely for K-HE to also select the optimal rewiring action by chance. Therefore, for K-HE strategy, rewiring with beneficial agents is a safer choice for higher rewiring costs because such agents are sure to give higher payoff; in contrast, rewiring decisions are not reliable when $c/K$ is within the range of $[0.1,0.5]$. Overall, the performance difference between K-HE and our optimal strategy is significant, which stems from the fact that our optimal policy takes future interactions into account when exploring the different potential partners.
The random rewiring method performs the worst since it always rewires a randomly selected peers. It quickly degenerates and moves off the chart for higher costs because of the rapid increase of the total rewiring costs. In addition, we vary the proportions of agents using K-HE strategy from $10\%$ to $90\%$ for more competitive environments consisting of agents using only K-HE or optimal strategies, and the results are shown in Fig.2(d). The random strategy is not considered due to its poor performance. We can see our optimal strategy significantly prevails K-HE over all proportion values against $c/K$ settings, which indicates our optimal strategy is robust and can always achieve higher accumulated payoff.
Performance Analysis of Different Learning Strategies
-----------------------------------------------------
We compare the performance of three representative learning strategies: FP, JAL and JA-WoLF. Fig.3(a) shows the dynamics of the average single-round payoff for different learning strategies. It shows the agents using FP strategy can fast reach a good payoff level within 10000 rounds and then stay at near 1.3 after 100000 rounds. JAL and JA-WoLF start with worse performance but outperform FP from near 200000$th$ round and maintain a 0.1 lead at the value of average per-round reward. For further explanation, Fig.3(b) shows the dynamics of the percentage of agents reaching optimal Nash equilibrium (OptNE) and sub-optimal equilibrium (SubOptNE) for above three strategies. We can find that JA-WoLF is the quickest to reach almost 100% OptNE ($\approx$40000 rounds), followed by JAL ($\approx$60000 rounds). The population of agents using FP shows a quick start but leads to only over 70% of OptNE (the rest of 17% for SubOptNE) which results in its poor behavior during long-run interactions in Fig.3(a). We hypothesize that FP’s bad performance is because its convergence strategy highly depends on the initial strategies of players. For example, if two players are assigned a high probability of choosing the action which coordinates to the sub-optimal NE, each of them are going to choose the sub-optimal action as a best response which will be reinforced gradually and eventually converge to the sub-optimal NE. In contrast, JAL and JA-WoLF can always reach almost perfect coordination on the optimal NE.
Conclusion and Future Work
==========================
In this paper, we deal with multiagent coordination problem in cooperative environments under the social learning framework with limited rewiring chances available. We proposed a new rewiring strategy which is optimal and efficient for the agents to maximize accumulated payoff during long-run interactions. Our empirical results show that our method outperforms other benchmark strategies in both competitive and pure environments. Moreover, our method is robust under a variety of circumstances. Besides, we analyzed the comparative performance of three representative learning strategies (i.e., FP, JAL and JA-WoLF) under our social learning framework with optimal rewiring. The empirical results show that JAL and JA-WoLF outperforms FP on both accumulated payoff and the percentage of times agents reaching the optimal Nash equilibria (NE). In this paper, we only consider the rewiring problem in cooperative MASs. One worthwhile direction is to investigate how this rewiring strategy can be extended and applied in non-cooperative MASs. Another research direction is to explicitly consider how to better utilize the property of the underlying network topology to further facilitate coordination.
[^1]: This can be easily extended to the case of allowing multiple rewiring by ranking the expected payoff of reachable peers in the descending order.
[^2]: Pandora’s Rule [@weitzman1979optimal] is a solution concept for interaction under uncertainty; this framework has a wide range of applications to dynamic alternative selection problems, such as optimal service provider selection in Task-Procurement Problem [@gerding2009mechanism], data management [@baarslag2017permission] and optimal preference elicitation in negotiation [@baarslag2015optimal].
[^3]: If agent $i$ has only one neighbor, the new baseline degenerates to be $y_i' = x$, which is similar and simpler.
[^4]: The network topologies of interaction environments are changed along with the occurrence of dynamic rewirings. Thus, different initial topologies show similar results in long-term interactions.
[^5]: The rewiring costs are usually set to be larger than single-round payoff because changing topologies is a non-trivial task.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We give a systematic construction of epimorphisms between $2$–bridge link groups. Moreover, we show that $2$–bridge links having such an epimorphism between their link groups are related by a map between the ambient spaces which only have a certain specific kind of singularity. We show applications of these epimorphisms to the character varieties for $2$–bridge links and $\pi_1$–dominating maps among $3$–manifolds.'
address:
- |
Research Institute for Mathematical Sciences\
Kyoto University\
Sakyo-ku\
Kyoto\
606-8502\
Japan
- 'Passed away on March 4, 2000'
- |
Department of Mathematics\
Graduate School of Science\
Hiroshima University\
Higashi-Hiroshima\
739-8526\
Japan
author:
- Tomotada Ohtsuki
- Robert Riley
- Makoto Sakuma
bibliography:
- 'link.bib'
title: 'Epimorphisms between $2$–bridge link groups'
---
We give a systematic construction of epimorphisms between 2-bridge link groups. Moreover, we show that 2-bridge links having such an epimorphism between their link groups are related by a map between the ambient spaces which only have a certain specific kind of singularity. We show applications of these epimorphisms to the character varieties for 2-bridge links and pi\_1-dominating maps among 3-manifolds.
We give a systematic construction of epimorphisms between 2–bridge link groups. Moreover, we show that 2–bridge links having such an epimorphism between their link groups are related by a map between the ambient spaces which only have a certain specific kind of singularity. We show applications of these epimorphisms to the character varieties for 2–bridge links and π<sub>1</sub>–dominating maps among 3–manifolds.
Introduction {#Sec:Introduction}
============
For a knot or a link, $K$, in $S^3$, the fundamental group $\pi_1(S^3-K)$ of the complement is called the *knot group* or the *link group* of $K$, and is denoted by $G(K)$. This paper is concerned with the following problem.
[*For a given knot (or link) $K$, characterize which knots (or links) $\tilde{K}$ admit an epimorphism $G(\tilde{K}) \to G(K)$.*]{}
This topic has been studied in various places in the literature, and, in particular, a complete classification has been obtained when $K$ is the $(2,p)$ torus knot and $\tilde{K}$ is a $2$–bridge knot, and when $K$ and $\tilde{K}$ are prime knots with up to 10 crossings; for details, see . A motivation for considering such epimorphisms is that they induce a partial order on the set of prime knots (see ), and we expect that new insights into the theory of knots may be obtained in the future by studying such a structure, in relation with topological properties and algebraic invariants of knots related to knot groups.
In this paper, we give a systematic construction of epimorphisms between$2$–bridge link groups. We briefly review $2$–bridge links; for details see .For $r \in {\hat{\mathbb{Q}}}:={\mathbb{Q}}\cup\{\infty\}$, the $2$–bridge link $K(r)$ is the link obtained by gluing two trivial $2$–component tangles in $B^3$ along $(S^2, \mbox{$4$ points})$ where the loop in $S^2-(\mbox{$4$ points})$ of slope $\infty$ is identified with that of slope $r$, namely the double cover of the gluing map ($\in {\rm Aut}(T^2) = SL(2,{\mathbb{Z}})$) takes $\infty$ to $r$, where $SL(2,{\mathbb{Z}})$ acts on ${\hat{\mathbb{Q}}}$ by the linear fractional transformation. To be more explicit, for a continued fraction expansion
(230,70) (0,48)[$\displaystyle{
r=[a_1,a_2, \cdots,a_{m}] =
\cfrac{1}{a_1+
\cfrac{1}{ \raisebox{-5pt}[0pt][0pt]{$a_2 \, + \, $}
\raisebox{-10pt}[0pt][0pt]{$\, \ddots \ $}
\raisebox{-12pt}[0pt][0pt]{$+ \, \cfrac{1}{a_{m}}$}
}} \ ,}$]{}
a plat presentation of $K(r)$ is given as shown in .
We give a systematic construction of epimorphisms between $2$–bridge link groups in the following theorem, which is proved in .
\[Thm:epimorphism1\] There is an epimorphism from the $2$–bridge link group $G(K(\tilde r))$ to the $2$–bridge link group $G(K(r))$, if $\tilde r$ belongs to the ${\smash{\hat\Gamma_{r}}}$–orbit of $r$ or $\infty$. Moreover the epimorphism sends the upper meridian pair of $K(\tilde r)$ to that of $K(r)$.
Here, we define the $\hgr$–action on ${\hat{\mathbb{Q}}}$ below, and we give the definition of an upper meridian pair in . For some simple values of $r$, the theorem is reduced to Examples \[ex.r=infty\]–\[ex.r=half\_integer\].
The $\hgr$–action on ${\hat{\mathbb{Q}}}$ is defined as follows. Let ${\mathcal{D}}$ be the *modular tessellation*, that is, the tessellation of the upper half space ${\mathbb{H}}^2$ by ideal triangles which are obtained from the ideal triangle with the ideal vertices $0, 1,
\infty \in {\hat{\mathbb{Q}}}$ by repeated reflection in the edges. Then ${\hat{\mathbb{Q}}}$ is identified with the set of the ideal vertices of ${\mathcal{D}}$. For each $r\in {\hat{\mathbb{Q}}}$, let ${\Gamma_{r}}$ be the group of automorphisms of ${\mathcal{D}}$ generated by reflections in the edges of ${\mathcal{D}}$ with an endpoint $r$. It should be noted that ${\Gamma_{r}}$ is isomorphic to the infinite dihedral group and the region bounded by two adjacent edges of ${\mathcal{D}}$ with an endpoint $r$ is a fundamental domain for the action of ${\Gamma_{r}}$ on ${\mathbb{H}}^2$. Let ${\smash{\hat\Gamma_{r}}}$ be the group generated by ${\Gamma_{r}}$ and ${\Gamma_{\infty}}$. When $r\in {\mathbb{Q}}- {\mathbb{Z}}$, ${\smash{\hat\Gamma_{r}}}$ is equal to the free product ${\Gamma_{r}}*{\Gamma_{\infty}}$, having a fundamental domain shown in . When $r \in {\mathbb{Z}}\cup \{ \infty \}$, we concretely describe $\hgr$ in and . By using the fundamental domain of the group ${\smash{\hat\Gamma_{r}}}$, we can give a practical algorithm to determine whether a given rational number $\tilde r$ belongs to the ${\smash{\hat\Gamma_{r}}}$–orbit of $\infty$ or $r$ (see ). In fact, characterizes such a rational number $\tilde r$ in terms of its continued fraction expansion.
(350,165) (0,69) (-8,72)[$\infty$]{} (-2,87)[$1$]{} (3,119)[$1/2$]{} (110,142)[$1/3=[3]$]{} (150,85)[$3/10$]{} (150,71)[$5/17 = [3,2,2] = r$]{} (148,53)[$2/7=[3,2]$]{} (104,1)[$1/4$]{} (4,37)[$0$]{} (190,120) (185,147)[$\infty$]{} (198,149)[$\overbrace{\hspace*{4.5pc}}^{a_1=3 \ }$]{} (250,158)[$[3]$]{} (257,149)[$\overbrace{\hspace*{4.5pc}}^{\ a_3=2}$]{} (318,147)[$[3,2,2]=r$]{} (216,101)[$0$]{} (227,102)[$\underbrace{\hspace*{4.5pc}}_{a_2=2}$]{} (288,101)[$[3,2]$]{} (195,28)[$K(r)=$]{} (224,27) (242,45)[$3$ half-twists]{} (305,45)[$2$ half-twists]{} (265,-7)[$(-2)$ half-twists]{}
Now we study topological characterization of a link $\tilde{K}$ having an epimorphism $G(\tilde{K}) \to G(K)$ for a given link $K$. We call a continuous map $f\co(S^3,\tilde{K}) \to (S^3,K)$ *proper* if $\tilde{K} = f^{-1}(K)$. Since a proper map induces a map between link complements, it further induces a homomorphism $G(\tilde{K})\to G(K)$ preserving peripheral structure. Conversely, any epimorphism $G(\tilde{K})\to G(K)$ for a nonsplit link $K$, preserving peripheral structure, is induced by some proper map $(S^3,\tilde{K}) \to (S^3,K)$, because the complement of a nonsplit link is aspherical. Thus, we can obtain $\tilde{K}$ as $f^{-1}(K)$ for a suitably chosen map $f\co S^3 \to S^3$; in we propose a conjecture to characterize $\tilde{K}$ from $K$ in this direction.
For $2$–bridge links, we have the following theorem which implies that, for each epimorphism $G(K(\tilde r)) \to G(K(r))$ in , we can topologically characterize $K(\tilde{r})$ as the preimage $f^{-1}(K(r))$ for some specific kind of a proper map $f$. For the proof of the theorem, see , and .
\[Thm:epimorphism2\] If $\tilde r$ belongs to the ${\smash{\hat\Gamma_{r}}}$–orbit of $r$ or $\infty$, then there is a proper branched fold map $f\co (S^3,K(\tilde r))\to(S^3,K(r))$ which induces an epimorphism $G(K(\tilde r)) \to G(K(r))$, such that its fold surface is the disjoint union of level $2$–spheres and its branch curve is a link of index 2 disjoint to $K(\tilde{r})$, each of whose components lie in a level $2$–sphere.
Here, we explain the terminology in the theorem. More detailed properties of the map $f$ are given in and .
By a *branched fold map*, we mean a map between $3$–manifolds such that, for each point $p$ in the source manifold, there exist local coordinates around $p$ and $f(p)$ such that $f$ is given by one of the following formulas in the neighborhood of $p$: $$\begin{aligned}
& f(x_1,x_2,x_3) = (x_1,x_2,x_3) \\
& f(x_1,x_2,x_3) = (x_1^2,x_2,x_3) \\
& f(z,x_3) = (z^n,x_3) \qquad ( z = x_1 + x_2 \sqrt{-1} \, )\end{aligned}$$ When $p$ and $f(p)$ have such coordinates around them, we call $p$ a *regular point*, a *fold point* or a *branch point* of *index* $n$, accordingly. The set of fold points forms a surface in the source manifold, which we call the *fold surface* of $f$. The set of branch points forms a link in the source manifold, which we call the *branch curve* of $f$. (If $f$ further allowed “fold branch points” which are defined by $f(x_1,z)=(\smash{x_1^2},z^2)$ for suitable local coordinates where $z = x_2 + x_3 \sqrt{-1}$, and if the index of every branch point is $2$, $f$ is called a “nice” map in Honma [@Homma]. It is shown [@Homma] that any continuous map between $3$–manifolds can be approximated by a “nice” map.)
A *height function* for $K(r)$ is a function $h:S^3\to [-1,1]$ such that $h^{-1}(t)$ is a $2$–sphere intersecting $K(r)$ transversely in four points or a disk intersecting $K(r)$ transversely in two points in its interior according as $t\in (-1,1)$ or $\{\pm 1\}$. We call the $2$–sphere $h^{-1}(t)$ with $t\in (-1,1)$ a *level* $2$–sphere.
and have applications to the character varieties of $2$–bridge links and $\pi_1$–dominating maps among $3$–manifolds. These are given in and .
The paper is organized as follows; see also for a sketch plan to prove and . In , we quickly review known facts concerning epimorphisms between knot groups, in order to explain background and motivation for the study of epimorphisms between knot groups. In , we review basic properties of $2$–bridge links. In , we prove , constructing epimorphisms $G(K(\tilde{r})) \to G(K(r))$. In , we show that if $\tilde{r}$ belongs to the $\hgr$–orbit of $r$ or $\infty$, then $\tilde{r}$ has a continued fraction expansion of a certain specific form in , and equivalently $K(\tilde{r})$ has a plat presentation of a certain specific form in . In , we give an explicit construction of the desired proper map $(S^3,K(\tilde{r})) \to (S^3,K(r))$ under the setting of (see ). This together with gives the proof of . We also describe further properties of the map in . In and , we show applications of and to the character varieties for $2$–bridge links and $\pi_1$–dominating maps among $3$–manifolds. In , we propose some questions related to and .
(320,180) (30,150)[(220,25)[$\tilde{r}$ belongs to the $\hgr$–orbit of $r$ or $\infty$]{}]{} (40,140)[(-1,-4)[27]{}]{} (-25,110) (60,95)[(0,1)[45]{}]{} (60,95)[(3,-2)[95]{}]{} (50,55) (140,140)[(0,-1)[30]{}]{} (145,120) (240,140)[(1,-2)[15]{}]{} (253,120) (120,70)[(90,30)[ ]{}]{} (215,80)[$\Longleftrightarrow$]{} (240,70)[(100,30)[ ]{}]{} (117,67)[(226,36)]{} (237,62)[(-1,-2)[15]{}]{} (237,45) (145,-5)[(160,30)[ ]{}]{} (120,10)[$\Longleftarrow$]{} (-25,-5)[(140,30)[ ]{}]{}
**Personal history**This paper is actually an expanded version of the unfinished joint paper [@Ohtsuki-Riley] by the first and second authors and the announcement [@Sakuma] by the third author. As is explained in the introduction of Riley [@Riley3], the first and second authors proved , motivated by the study of reducibility of the space of irreducible $SL(2,{\mathbb{C}})$ representations of $2$–bridge knot groups, and obtained (a variant) of . On the other hand, the last author discovered while doing joint research [@ASWY2] with HAkiyoshi, MWada and YYamashita on the geometry of $2$–bridge links. This was made when he was visiting GBurde in the summer of 1997, after learning several examples found by Burde and his student, FOpitz, through computer experiments on representation spaces. The first and third authors realized that and are equivalent in the autumn of 1997, and agreed to write a joint paper with the second author. But, very sadly, the second author passed away on March 4, 2000, before the joint paper was completed. May Professor Robert Riley rest in peace.
The first author would like to thank Osamu Saeki for helpful comments. The third author would like to thank Gerhard Burde and Felix Opitz for teaching him of their experimental results on $2$–bridge knot groups. He would also like to thank Michel Boileau, Kazuhiro Ichihara and Alan Reid for useful information. The first and the third authors would like to thank Teruaki Kitano and Masaaki Suzuki for informing the authors of their recent results. They would also like to thank Andrew Kricker, Daniel Moskovich and Kenneth Shackleton for useful information. Finally, they would like to thank the referee for very careful reading and helpful comments.
Epimorphisms between knot groups {#sec.ekg}
================================
In this section, we summarize topics and known results related to epimorphisms between knot groups, in order to give background and motivation to study epimorphisms between knot groups.
We have a partial order on the set of prime knots, by setting $\tilde K\ge K$ if there is an epimorphism $G(\tilde{K}) \to G(K)$. A nontrivial part of the proof is to show that $K_1 \ge K_2$ and $K_1 \le K_2$ imply $K_1 = K_2$, which is shown from the following two facts. The first one is that we have a partial order on the set of knot groups of all knots; its proof is due to the Hopfian property (see, for example, Silver–Whitten [@Silver-Whitten Proposition 3.2]). The second fact is that prime knots are determined by their knot groups (see, for example, Kawauchi [@Kawauchi_book Theorem 6.1.12]).
The existence and nonexistence of epimorphisms between knot groups for some families of knots have been determined. Gonzaléz-Acũna and Ramínez [@Gonzalez-Raminez1] gave a certain topological characterization of those knots whose knot groups have epimorphisms to torus knot groups, in particular, they determined in [@Gonzalez-Raminez2] the $2$–bridge knots whose knot groups have epimorphisms to the $(2,p)$ torus knot group. Kitano–Suzuki–Wada [@Kitano-Suzuki-Wada] gave an effective criterion for the existence of an epimorphism among two given knot groups, in terms of the twisted Alexander polynomials, extending the well-known criterion that the Alexander polynomial of $\tilde{K}$ is divisible by that of $K$ if there is an epimorphism $G(\tilde{K})\to G(K)$. By using the criterion, Kitano–Suzuki [@Kitano-Suzuki] gave a complete list of such pairs $(\tilde{K},K)$ among the prime knots with up to 10 crossings.
The finiteness of $K$ admitting an epimorphism $G(\tilde{K}) \to G(K)$ for a given $\tilde{K}$ was conjectured by Simon [@Kirby Problem 1.12], and it was partially solved by Boileau–Rubinstein–Wang [@Boileau-Rubinstein-Wang], under the assumption that the epimorphisms are induced by nonzero degree proper maps.
A systematic construction of epimorphisms between knot groups is given by Kawauchi’s imitation theory [@Kawauchi]; in fact, his theory constructs an imitation $\tilde{K}$ of $K$ which shares various topological properties with $K$, and, in particular, there is an epimorphism between their knot groups.
From the viewpoint of maps between ambient spaces, any epimorphism $G(\tilde{K})\to G(K)$ for a nonsplit link $K$, preserving peripheral structure, is induced by some proper map $f\co (S^3,\tilde{K}) \to (S^3,K)$, as mentioned in the introduction. The index of the image $f_*(G(\tilde{K}))$ in $G(K)$ is a divisor of the degree of $f$ (see Hempel [@Hemple Lemma 15.2]). In particular, if $f$ is of degree $1$, then $f_*$ induces an epimorphism between the knot groups. Thus the problem of epimorphisms between knot groups is related to the study of proper maps between ambient spaces, more generally, maps between $3$–manifolds. This direction has been extensively studied in various literatures (see Boileau–Wang [@Boileau-Wang], Boileau–Rubinstein–Wang [@Boileau-Rubinstein-Wang], Kawauchi [@Kawauchi], Reid–Wang–Zhou [@Reid-Wang-Zhou], Silver–Whitten [@Silver-Whitten], Soma [@Soma1; @Soma2], Wang [@Wang] and references therein).
Rational tangles and $2$–bridge links {#Sec:tangle}
=====================================
In this section, we recall basic definitions and facts concerning the $2$–bridge knots and links.
Consider the discrete group, $H$, of isometries of the Euclidean plane ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ generated by the $\pi$–rotations around the points in the lattice ${\mathbb{Z}}^2$. Set ${(\boldsymbol{S}^{\!2},\boldsymbol{P})}=({\mathbb{R}}^2,{\mathbb{Z}}^2)/H$ and call it the *Conway sphere*. Then ${\boldsymbol{S}^{\!2}}$ is homeomorphic to the $2$–sphere, and ${\boldsymbol{P}}$ consists of four points in ${\boldsymbol{S}^{\!2}}$. We also call ${\boldsymbol{S}^{\!2}}$ the Conway sphere. Let ${\boldsymbol{S}}:={\boldsymbol{S}^{\!2}}-{\boldsymbol{P}}$ be the complementary $4$–times punctured sphere. For each $r \in {\hat{\mathbb{Q}}}:={\mathbb{Q}}\cup\{\infty\}$, let $\alpha_r$ be the simple loop in ${\boldsymbol{S}}$ obtained as the projection of the line in ${\mathbb{R}}^2-{\mathbb{Z}}^2$ of slope $r$. Then $\alpha_r$ is *essential* in ${\boldsymbol{S}}$, ie, it does not bound a disk in ${\boldsymbol{S}}$ and is not homotopic to a loop around a puncture. Conversely, any essential simple loop in ${\boldsymbol{S}}$ is isotopic to $\alpha_r$ for a unique $r\in{\hat{\mathbb{Q}}}$. Then $r$ is called the *slope* of the simple loop. Similarly, any simple arc $\delta$ in ${\boldsymbol{S}^{\!2}}$ joining two different points in ${\boldsymbol{P}}$ such that $\delta\cap {\boldsymbol{P}}=\partial\delta$ is isotopic to the image of a line in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ of some slope $r\in{\hat{\mathbb{Q}}}$ which intersects ${\mathbb{Z}}^2$. We call $r$ the *slope* of $\delta$.
A *trivial tangle* is a pair $(B^3,t)$, where $B^3$ is a 3-ball and $t$ is a union of two arcs properly embedded in $B^3$ which is parallel to a union of two mutually disjoint arcs in $\partial B^3$. Let $\tau$ be the simple unknotted arc in $B^3$ joining the two components of $t$ as illustrated in . We call it the *core tunnel* of the trivial tangle. Pick a base point $x_0$ in ${\operatorname{int}}\tau$, and let $(\mu_1,\mu_2)$ be the generating pair of the fundamental group $\pi_1(B^3-t,x_0)$ each of which is represented by a based loop consisting of a small peripheral simple loop around a component of $t$ and a subarc of $\tau$ joining the circle to $x$. For any base point $x\in B^3-t$, the generating pair of $\pi_1(B^3-t,x)$ corresponding to the generating pair $(\mu_1,\mu_2)$ of $\pi_1(B^3-t,x_0)$ via a path joining $x$ to $x_0$ is denoted by the same symbol. The pair $(\mu_1,\mu_2)$ is unique up to (i) reversal of the order, (ii) replacement of one of the members with its inverse, and (iii) simultaneous conjugation. We call the equivalence class of $(\mu_1,\mu_2)$ the *meridian pair* of the fundamental group $\pi_1(B^3-t)$.
$${\mbox{$\begin{array}{c}
\includegraphics[scale=0.9]{\figdir/f5}
\end{array}$}}
\begin{picture}(0,0)
\put(-45,9){\small$\tau$}
\end{picture}$$
By a *rational tangle*, we mean a trivial tangle $(B^3,t)$ which is endowed with a homeomorphism from $\partial(B^3,t)$ to ${(\boldsymbol{S}^{\!2},\boldsymbol{P})}$. Through the homeomorphism we identify the boundary of a rational tangle with the Conway sphere. Thus the slope of an essential simple loop in $\partial B^3-t$ is defined. We define the *slope* of a rational tangle to be the slope of an essential loop on $\partial B^3 -t$ which bounds a disk in $B^3$ separating the components of $t$. (Such a loop is unique up to isotopy on $\partial B^3 -t$ and is called a *meridian* of the rational tangle.) We denote a rational tangle of slope $r$ by ${(B^3,t({r}))}$. By van Kampen’s theorem, the fundamental group $\pi_1(B^3-t(r))$ is identified with the quotient $\pi_1({\boldsymbol{S}})/{\langle\langle}\alpha_r {\rangle\rangle}$, where ${\langle\langle}\alpha_r {\rangle\rangle}$ denotes the normal closure.
For each $r\in {\hat{\mathbb{Q}}}$, the *$2$–bridge link $K(r)$ of slope $r$* is defined to be the sum of the rational tangles of slopes $\infty$ and $r$, namely, $(S^3,K(r))$ is obtained from ${(B^3,t({\infty}))}$ and ${(B^3,t({r}))}$ by identifying their boundaries through the identity map on the Conway sphere ${(\boldsymbol{S}^{\!2},\boldsymbol{P})}$. (Recall that the boundaries of rational tangles are identified with the Conway sphere.) $K(r)$ has one or two components according as the denominator of $r$ is odd or even. We call ${(B^3,t({\infty}))}$ and ${(B^3,t({r}))}$, respectively, the *upper tangle* and *lower tangle* of the $2$–bridge link. The image of the core tunnels for ${(B^3,t({\infty}))}$ and ${(B^3,t({r}))}$ are called the *upper tunnels* and *lower tunnel* for the $2$–bridge link.
We describe a plat presentation of $K(r)$, as follows. Choose a continued fraction expansion of $r$, $$r=[a_1,a_2,\cdots,a_m] .$$ When $m$ is odd, we have a presentation, $$r = B \cdot \infty
\quad \mbox{ where }
B =
\mbox{\small $\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ a_1 & 1 \end{pmatrix}$}
\mbox{\small $\begin{pmatrix} 1 & a_2 \\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}$}
\mbox{\small $\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ a_3 & 1 \end{pmatrix}$} \cdots
\mbox{\small $\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ a_m & 1 \end{pmatrix}$} ,$$ and $B$ acts on ${\hat{\mathbb{Q}}}$ by the linear fractional transformation. Then $K(r)$ has the following presentation, where the boxed “$a_i$” implies $a_i$ half-twists. $$\begin{picture}(300,120)
\put(125,102){{\small}monodromy $=B$}
\put(257,113){\vector(-1,0){180}}
\put(56,110){$T^2$}
\put(61,105){\vector(0,-1){35}}
\put(28,85){\shortstack[l]{{\small}double \\ {\small}cover}}
\put(264,110){$T^2$}
\put(267,105){\vector(0,-1){30}}
\put(270,85){\shortstack[l]{{\small}double \\ {\small}cover}}
\put(0,37){$K(r) = $}
\put(40,35){{\mbox{$\begin{array}{c}
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{\figdir/s17}
\end{array}$}}}
\put(84,39){\small $a_1$}
\put(116,30){\small $-a_2$}
\put(158,39){\small $a_3$}
\put(234,39){\small $a_m$}
\put(70,65){$\overbrace{\hspace*{18pc}}^{t(r)}$}
\put(43,17){$\underbrace{\hspace*{1.5pc}}_{\overline{t(\infty)}}$}
\put(270,17){$\underbrace{\hspace*{1.5pc}}_{t(\infty)}$}
\end{picture}$$ Similarly, when $m$ is even: $$r =
\mbox{\small $\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ a_1 & 1 \end{pmatrix}$}
\mbox{\small $\begin{pmatrix} 1 & a_2 \\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}$}
\mbox{\small $\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ a_3 & 1 \end{pmatrix}$} \cdots
\mbox{\small $\begin{pmatrix} 1 & a_m \\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}$}
\cdot 0 ,$$ $$\begin{picture}(300,80)
\put(0,37){$K(r) = $}
\put(40,35){{\mbox{$\begin{array}{c}
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{\figdir/s18}
\end{array}$}}}
\put(84,39){\small $a_1$}
\put(116,30){\small $-a_2$}
\put(158,39){\small $a_3$}
\put(230,30){\small $-a_m$}
\put(70,65){$\overbrace{\hspace*{18pc}}^{t(r)}$}
\put(43,17){$\underbrace{\hspace*{1.5pc}}_{\overline{t(\infty)}}$}
\put(270,17){$\underbrace{\hspace*{1.5pc}}_{t(0)}$}
\end{picture}$$ We recall Schubert’s classification [@Schubert] of the $2$–bridge links (cf [@Burde-Zieschang]).
\[Thm:Schubert\] Two $2$–bridge links $K(q/p)$ and $K(q'/p')$ are equivalent, if and only if the following conditions hold.
1. $p=p'$.
2. Either $q\equiv \pm q'\pmod p$ or $qq'\equiv \pm 1\pmod p$.
Moreover, if the above conditions are satisfied, there is a homeomorphism $$f\co (S^3,K(q/p))\to (S^3,K(q'/p'))$$ which satisfies the following conditions.
1. If $q\equiv q'\pmod p$ or $qq'\equiv 1\pmod p$, then $f$ preserves the orientation of $S^3$. Otherwise, $f$ reverses the orientation of $S^3$.
2. If $q\equiv \pm q'\pmod p$, then $f$ maps the upper tangle of $K(q/p)$ to that of $K(q'/p')$. If $qq'\equiv 1\pmod p$, then $f$ maps the upper tangle of $K(q/p)$ to the lower tangle of $K(q'/p')$.
By van Kampen’s theorem, the link group $G(K(r))=\pi_1(S^3-K(r))$ of $K(r)$ is identified with $\pi_1({\boldsymbol{S}})/
{\langle\langle}\alpha_{\infty},\alpha_r{\rangle\rangle}$. We call the image in the link group of the meridian pair of the fundamental group $\pi_1(B^3-t(\infty))$ (resp. $\pi_1(B^3-t(r))$ the *upper meridian pair* (resp. *lower meridian pair*). The link group is regarded as the quotient of the rank 2 free group, $\pi_1(B^3-t(\infty))\cong\pi_1({\boldsymbol{S}})/
{\langle\langle}\alpha_{\infty}{\rangle\rangle}$, by the normal closure of $\alpha_{r}$. This gives a one-relator presentation of the link group, and is actually equivalent to the upper presentation [@Crowell-Fox]. Similarly, the link group is regarded as the quotient of the rank 2 free group $\pi_1(B^3-t(r))\cong\pi_1({\boldsymbol{S}})/
{\langle\langle}\alpha_{r}{\rangle\rangle}$ by the normal closure of $\alpha_{\infty}$, which in turn gives the lower presentation of the link group. These facts play an important role in the next section.
Constructing an epimorphism $G(K(\tilde{r})) \to G(K(r))$ {#Sec:algebraic proof}
=========================================================
In this section, we prove , which states the existence of an epimorphism $G(K(\tilde{r})) \to
G(K(r))$. Before proving the theorem, we explain special cases of the theorem for some simple values of $r$.
\[ex.r=infty\]If $r=\infty$, then $K(r)$ is a trivial $2$–component link. Further, ${\smash{\hat\Gamma_{r}}}={\Gamma_{r}}={\Gamma_{\infty}}$. Thus the region bounded by the edges $\langle\infty,0\rangle$ and $\langle\infty,1\rangle$ is a fundamental domain for the action of ${\smash{\hat\Gamma_{r}}}$ on ${\mathbb{H}}^2$. Hence, the assumption of is satisfied if and only if $\tilde r=\infty$. This reflects the fact that a link is trivial if and only if its link group is a free group.
\[ex.r=integer\]If $r\in{\mathbb{Z}}$, then $K(r)$ is a trivial knot. Further, ${\smash{\hat\Gamma_{r}}}$ is equal to the group generated by the reflections in the edges of any of ${\mathcal{D}}$. In particular, any ideal triangle of ${\mathcal{D}}$ is a fundamental domain for the action of ${\smash{\hat\Gamma_{r}}}$ on ${\mathbb{H}}^2$. Hence, ${\smash{\hat\Gamma_{r}}}$ acts transitively on ${\hat{\mathbb{Q}}}$ and every $\tilde r\in{\hat{\mathbb{Q}}}$ satisfies the assumption of . This reflects the fact that there is an epimorphism from the link group of an arbitrary link $L$ to ${\mathbb{Z}}$, the knot group of the trivial knot, sending meridians to meridians.
\[ex.r=half\_integer\]If $r\equiv 1/2 \pmod {\mathbb{Z}}$, then $K(r)$ is a Hopf link. Further, $\tilde r=q/p$ satisfies the assumption of if and only if $p$ is even, ie, $K(\tilde r)$ is a $2$–component link. This reflects the fact that the link group of an arbitrary $2$–component link has an epimorphism to the link group, ${\mathbb{Z}}\oplus{\mathbb{Z}}$, of the Hopf link.
The proof of is based on the following simple observation.
\[Lem:Komori-Series\] For each rational tangle ${(B^3,t({r}))}$, the following holds.
1. For each $s\in{\hat{\mathbb{Q}}}$, the simple loop $\alpha_s$ is nullhomotopic in $B^3-t(r)$ if and only if $s=r$.
2. Let $s$ and $s'$ be elements of ${\hat{\mathbb{Q}}}$ which belongs to the same ${\Gamma_{r}}$–orbit. The the simple loops $\alpha_s$ and $\alpha_{s'}$ are homotopic in $B^3-t(r)$.
The linear action of $SL(2,{\mathbb{Z}})$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ descends to an action on ${(\boldsymbol{S}^{\!2},\boldsymbol{P})}$, and the assertions in this lemma are invariant by the action. Thus we may assume $r=\infty$.
(1)Let $\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$ be arcs in $\partial {(B^3,t({r}))}$ of slope $\infty$, namely $(\gamma_1\cup \gamma_2)\cap \partial t(\infty)=\partial t(\infty)$ and $\gamma_1\cup \gamma_2$ is parallel to $t(\infty)$ in $B^3$. Then $\pi_1(B^3-t(\infty))$ is the free group of rank $2$ generated by the meridian pair $\{\mu_1,\mu_2\}$, and the cyclic word in $\{\mu_1,\mu_2\}$ obtained by reading the intersection of the loop $\alpha_s$ with $\gamma_1\cup \gamma_2$ represent the free homotopy class of $\alpha_s$. (After a suitable choice of orientation, a positive intersection with $\gamma_i$ corresponds to $\mu_i$. If $s\ne 0$, then $\alpha_s$ intersects $\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$ alternatively, and hence the corresponding word is a reduce word. Thus $\alpha_s$ is not nullhomotopic in $B^3-t(r)$ if $s\ne \infty$. Since the converse is obvious, we obtain the desired result.
(2)Let $A$ be the reflection of ${\mathcal{D}}$ in the edge $\langle 0,\infty\rangle$, and let $B$ be the parabolic transformation of ${\mathcal{D}}$ around the vertex $\infty$ by $2$ units. Then their actions on ${\hat{\mathbb{Q}}}$ is given by $A(s)=-s$ and $B(s)=s+2$. Since $A$ and $B$ generates the group ${\Gamma_{\infty}}$, we have only to show that the simple loop $\alpha_s$ on $\partial B^3-t(\infty)$ is homotopic to the simple loops of slopes $-s$ and $s+2$ in $B^3-t(\infty)$
We first show that $\alpha_s$ is homotopic to $\alpha_{-s}$ in $B^3-t(\infty)$. Let ${\mbox{$\mathcal{X}$}}$ be the orientation-reversing involution of ${(\boldsymbol{S}^{\!2},\boldsymbol{P})}$ induced by the reflection $(x,y)\mapsto (x,-y+1)$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$. The fixed point set of ${\mbox{$\mathcal{X}$}}$ is the simple loop of slope $0$ which is obtained as the image of the line ${\mathbb{R}}\times\{1/2\}$. The quotient space ${\boldsymbol{S}}/{\mbox{$\mathcal{X}$}}$ is homeomorphic to a twice punctured disk, which we denote by $R$. The projection ${\boldsymbol{S}}\to R$ extends to a continuous map $B^3-t(\infty)\to R$, which is a homotopy equivalence. Then the two loops $\alpha_s$ and $\alpha_{-s}$ project to the same loop in $R$ and hence they must be homotopic in $B^3-t(\infty)$.
Next, we show that show that $\alpha_s$ is homotopic to $\alpha_{s+2}$ in $B^3-t(\infty)$. To this end, consider the Dehn twist of $B^3-t(\infty)$ along the meridian disk”, ie, the disk in $B^3-t(\infty)$ bounded by the simple loop $\alpha_{\infty}$. Then it is homotopic to the identity map, and maps $\alpha_s$ to $\alpha_{s+2}$. Hence $\alpha_s$ is homotopic to $\alpha_{s+2}$ in $B^3-t(\infty)$.
is nothing other than a reformulation of (a part of) Theorem 1.2 of Komori and Series [@Komori-Series], which in turn is a correction of Remark 2.5 of Keen–Series [@Keen-Series]. However, we presented a topological proof, for the sake of completeness. Their theorem actually implies that the converse to the second assertion of the lemma holds. Namely, two simple loops $\alpha_s$ and $\alpha_{s'}$ are homotopic in $B^3-t(r)$ if and only if they belong to the same orbit of ${\Gamma_{r}}$. This is also proved by using the fact that $\pi_1(B^3-t(r))$ is the free group of rank $2$ generated by the meridian pair.
implies the following consequence for $2$–bridge knots.
\[Prop:Knotgroup\] For every $2$–bridge knot $K(r)$, the following holds. If two elements $s$ and $s'$ of ${\hat{\mathbb{Q}}}$ lie in the same ${\smash{\hat\Gamma_{r}}}$–orbit, then $\alpha_s$ and $\alpha_{s'}$ are homotopic in $S^3-K(r)$.
Since ${\smash{\hat\Gamma_{r}}}$ is generated by ${\Gamma_{\infty}}$ and ${\Gamma_{r}}$, we have only to show the assertion when $s'=A(s)$ for some $A$ in ${\Gamma_{\infty}}$ or ${\Gamma_{r}}$. If $A\in {\Gamma_{\infty}}$, then $\alpha_s$ and $\alpha_{s'}$ are homotopic in $B^3-t(\infty)$ by . Since $G(K(r))$ is a quotient of $\pi_1(B^3-t(\infty))$, this implies that $\alpha_s$ and $\alpha_{s'}$ are homotopic in $S^3-K(r)$. Similarly, if $A\in {\Gamma_{r}}$, then $\alpha_s$ and $\alpha_{s'}$ are homotopic in $B^3-t(r)$ by . Since $G(K(r))$ is a quotient of $\pi_1(B^3-t(r))$, this also implies that $\alpha_s$ and $\alpha_{s'}$ are homotopic in $S^3-K(r)$. This completes the proof of the proposition.
\[Cor:nullhomotopic\] If $s$ belongs to the orbit of $\infty$ or $r$ by ${\smash{\hat\Gamma_{r}}}$, then $\alpha_s$ is nullhomotopic in $S^3-K(r)$.
The loops $\alpha_{\infty}$ and $\alpha_r$ are nullhomotopic in $B^3-t(\infty)$ and $B^3-t(r)$, respectively. Hence both of them are nullhomotopic in $S^3-K(r)$. Thus we obtain the corollary by .
We shall discuss more about the corollary in .
\[Proof of \] Suppose $\tilde r$ belongs to the orbit of $r$ or $\infty$ by ${\smash{\hat\Gamma_{r}}}$. Then $\alpha_{\tilde r}$ is nullhomotopic in $G(K(r))=\pi_1({\boldsymbol{S}})/
{\langle\langle}\alpha_{\infty},\alpha_r{\rangle\rangle}$. Thus the normal closure ${\langle\langle}\alpha_{\infty},\alpha_{\tilde r}{\rangle\rangle}$ in $\pi_1({\boldsymbol{S}})$ is contained in ${\langle\langle}\alpha_{\infty},\alpha_r{\rangle\rangle}$. Hence the identity map on $\pi_1({\boldsymbol{S}})$ induces an epimorphism from $G(K(\tilde r))=\pi_1({\boldsymbol{S}})/
{\langle\langle}\alpha_{\infty},\alpha_{\tilde r}{\rangle\rangle}$ to $G(K(r))=\pi_1({\boldsymbol{S}})/
{\langle\langle}\alpha_{\infty},\alpha_r{\rangle\rangle}$. It is obvious that the epimorphism sends the upper meridian pair of $G(K(\tilde r))$ to that of $G(K(r))$. This completes the proof of .
Continued fraction expansion of $\tilde{r}$ in $\hgr$–orbits {#sec.tr_Ktr}
============================================================
In this section, we explain what $\tilde{r}$ and $K(\tilde{r})$ look like when $\tilde{r}$ belongs to the $\hgr$–orbit of $r$ or $\infty$, in and . These propositions are substantially equivalent.
For the continued fraction expansion $r=[a_1,a_2, \cdots,a_{m}]$, let ${\mbox{\boldmath$a$}}$, ${\mbox{\boldmath$a$}}^{-1}$, $\epsilon{\mbox{\boldmath$a$}}$ and $\epsilon{\mbox{\boldmath$a$}}^{-1}$, with $\epsilon\in\{-,+\}$, be the finite sequences defined as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mbox{\boldmath$a$}}&= (a_1, a_2,\cdots, a_m), \quad &
{\mbox{\boldmath$a$}}^{-1} &=(a_m,a_{m-1},\cdots,a_1),\\
\epsilon{\mbox{\boldmath$a$}}&=(\epsilon a_1,\epsilon a_2,\cdots,
\epsilon a_m), \quad &
\epsilon {\mbox{\boldmath$a$}}^{-1} &=(\epsilon a_m,\epsilon
a_{m-1},\cdots,
\epsilon a_1).\end{aligned}$$ Then we have the following proposition, which is proved in .
\[Prop:continued fraction\] Let $r$ be as above. Then a rational number $\tilde r$ belongs to the orbit of $r$ or $\infty$ by ${\smash{\hat\Gamma_{r}}}$ if and only if $\tilde r$ has the following continued fraction expansion: $$\tilde r=
2c+[\epsilon_1{\mbox{\boldmath$a$}},2c_1,\epsilon_2{\mbox{\boldmath$a$}}^{-1},2c_2,\epsilon_3{\mbox{\boldmath$a$}},
\cdots, 2c_{n-1},\epsilon_n {\mbox{\boldmath$a$}}^{(-1)^{n-1}}]$$ for some positive integer $n$, $c\in{\mathbb{Z}}$, $(\epsilon_1,\epsilon_2,\cdots,\epsilon_n)
\in \{-,+\}^n$ and $(c_1,c_2,\cdots,c_{n-1})\in{\mathbb{Z}}^{n-1}$.
The following proposition is a variation of , written in topological words, which is proved in .
\[prop.hGr\_Ktr\] We present the $2$–bridge link $K(r)$ by the plat closure $$\raisebox{12pt}[0pt][0pt]{$K(r) = \, $}
\begin{picture}(100,35)
\put(0,10){{\mbox{$\begin{array}{c}
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{\figdir/s11}
\end{array}$}}}
\put(35,12){\small $b$}
\end{picture}$$ for some $4$–braid $b$. Then $\tilde{r}$ belongs to the $\hgr$–orbit of $\infty$ or $r$ if and only if $K(\tilde{r})$ is presented by $$\raisebox{12pt}[0pt][0pt]{$K(\tilde{r}) = \, $}
\begin{picture}(330,35)
\put(0,10){{\mbox{$\begin{array}{c}
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{\figdir/s10}
\end{array}$}}}
\put(33,13){\small$b_\pm$}
\put(68,13){\small $2c_1$}
\put(103,13){\small$b_\pm^{-1}$}
\put(140,13){\small $2c_2$}
\put(178,13){\small$b_\pm$}
\put(213,13){\small $2c_3$}
\put(292,13){\small$\smash{b_\pm^{\pm1}}$}
\end{picture}$$ for some signs of $b_\pm$ and $\smash{b_\pm^{-1}}$ and for some integers $c_i$, where a boxed “$2c_i$” implies $2c_i$ half-twists, and $\smash{b_\pm^{\pm1}}$ are the braids obtained from $b$ by mirror images as shown in the forthcoming .
Continued fraction expansions of $\tilde{r}$ and $r$ {#Sec:Continued fraction}
----------------------------------------------------
In this section, we prove . The proof is based on the correspondence between the modular tessellation and continued fraction expansions (see Hatcher–Thurston [@Hatcher-Thurston p 229 Remark] for this correspondence).
We first recall the correspondence between continued fraction expansions and edge-paths in the modular diagram ${\mathcal{D}}$. For the continued fraction expansion $r=[a_1,a_2,\cdots,a_m]$, set $r_{-1}=\infty$, $r_0=0$ and $r_j=[a_1,a_2,\cdots, a_j]$ ($1\le j\le m$). Then $(r_{-1},r_0,r_1,\cdots,r_m)$ determines an edge-path in ${\mathcal{D}}$, ie, $\langle r_j, r_{j+1}\rangle$ is an edge of ${\mathcal{D}}$ for each $j$ ($-1\le j\le m-1$). Moreover, each component $a_j$ of the continued fraction is read from the edge-path by the following rule: The vertex $r_{j+1}$ is the image of $r_{j-1}$ by the parabolic transformation of ${\mathcal{D}}$, centered on the vertex $r_j$, by $(-1)^j a_j$ units in the clockwise direction. (Thus the transformation is conjugate to $$\begin{pmatrix} 1&(-1)^{j-1} a_j \\ 0&1 \end{pmatrix}$$ in $PSL(2,{\mathbb{Z}})$.) See .
(270,260) (0,220) (-12,245)[$r_{-1}$]{} (12,255)[$A_2$]{} (0,223)[$A_1$]{} (60,250)[$r_1$]{} (120,250)[$r_{m-1}$]{} (180,230)[${\mbox{\boldmath$a$}}= (3,4,2,3)$]{} (148,220)[$B_1$]{} (32,197)[$r_0$]{} (90,197)[$r_2$]{} (128,195)[$r'$]{} (138,188)[$B_2$]{} (155,197)[$r = r_m$]{} (0,75) (-10,0)[$\infty$]{} (37,153)[$B_1 ( \infty )$]{} (110,170)[$B_1 B_2 ( \infty )$]{} (230,122)[$(B_1 B_2) B_1 ( \infty )$]{} (135,18)
Conversely, any edge-path $(s_{-1},s_0,s_1,\cdots,s_m)$ in ${\mathcal{D}}$ with $s_{-1}=\infty$ and $s_0=0$ gives rise to a continued fraction expansion $[b_1,b_2,\cdots, b_m]$ of the terminal vertex $s_m$, where $b_j$ is determined by the rule explained in the above. If we drop the condition $s_0=0$, then $s_0\in{\mathbb{Z}}$ and the edge-path determines the continued fraction expansion of the terminal vertex $s_m$ of the form $s_0+[b_1,b_2,\cdots, b_{m}]$.
Now recall the fundamental domain for ${\smash{\hat\Gamma_{r}}}$ described in the introduction. It is bounded by the four edges $\langle \infty, 0\rangle$, $\langle \infty, 1\rangle$, $\langle r, r_{m-1}\rangle$ and $\langle r, r'\rangle$, where $$r_{m-1}=[a_1,a_2,\cdots,a_{m-1}]
\quad
\mbox{and}
\quad
r'=[a_1,a_2,\cdots,a_{m-1},a_m-1].$$ Let $A_1$, $A_2$, $B_1$ and $B_2$, respectively, be the reflections in these edges. Then $$\begin{aligned}
{\Gamma_{\infty}}&=
\langle A_1{\,|\,}A_1^2=1\rangle*
\langle A_2{\,|\,}A_2^2=1\rangle,\\
{\Gamma_{r}}&=
\langle B_1{\,|\,}B_1^2=1\rangle*
\langle B_2{\,|\,}B_2^2=1\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ The product $A_1A_2$ is the parabolic transformation of ${\mathcal{D}}$, centered on the vertex $\infty$, by $2$ units in the clockwise direction, and it generates the normal infinite cyclic subgroup of ${\Gamma_{\infty}}$ of index $2$. Similarly, the product $B_1B_2$ is the parabolic transformation of ${\mathcal{D}}$, centered on the vertex $\infty$, by $2$ or $-2$ units in the clockwise direction according as $m$ is even or odd, and it generates the normal infinite cyclic subgroup of ${\Gamma_{r}}$ of index $2$.
Pick a nontrivial element, $W$, of ${\smash{\hat\Gamma_{r}}} ={\Gamma_{\infty}}*{\Gamma_{r}}$. Then it is expressed uniquely as a reduced word $W_1W_2\cdots W_n$ or $W_0W_1\cdots W_n$ where $W_j$ is a nontrivial element of the infinite dihedral group ${\Gamma_{\infty}}$ or ${\Gamma_{r}}$ according as $j$ is even or odd. When $W=W_1W_2\cdots W_n$, we regard $W=W_0W_1\cdots W_n$ with $W_0=1$.
Set $\eta_j=+1$ or $-1$ according as $W_j$ is orientation-preserving or reversing. Then there is a unique integer $c_j$ such that:
1. If $j$ is even, then $W_j=(A_1A_2)^{c_j}$ or $(A_1A_2)^{c_j}A_1$ according as $\eta_j=+1$ or $-1$.
2. If $j$ is odd, then $W_j=(B_1B_2)^{c_j}$ or $(B_1B_2)^{c_j}B_1$ according as $\eta_j=+1$ or $-1$.
Now let $\tilde r$ be the image of $\infty$ or $r$ by $W$. If $n$ is odd, then $W_n\in{\Gamma_{r}}$ and hence $W(r)=W_0W_1\cdots W_{n-1}(r)$. Similarly, if $n$ is even, then $W(\infty)=W_0W_1\cdots W_{n-1}(\infty)$. So, we may assume $\tilde r =W(\infty)$ or $W(r)$ according as $n$ is odd or even.
\[Lemma:continued fraction\] Under the above setting, $\tilde r$ has the following continued fraction expansion. $$\tilde r=
-2c_0+[\epsilon_1{\mbox{\boldmath$a$}},2\epsilon_1c_1,
\epsilon_2{\mbox{\boldmath$a$}}^{-1},2\epsilon_2c_2,
\cdots,
2\epsilon_{n}c_n,
\epsilon_{n+1}{\mbox{\boldmath$a$}}^{(-1)^{n}}],$$ where $\epsilon_j=\eta_0(-\eta_1)\cdots(-\eta_{j-1})$.
First, we treat the case when $W_0=1$. Recall that $r$ is joined to $\infty$ by the edge-path $(r_{-1},r_0,\cdots,r_{m-1},r_m)$. Since $W_1$ fixes the point $r=r_m$, we can join the above edge-path with its image by $W_1$, and obtain the edge path $$(r_{-1},r_0,\cdots,r_{m-1},r_m,
W_1(r_{m-1}),\cdots, W_1(r_0), W_1(r_{-1})).$$ This joins $\infty$ and $W_1(r_{-1})=W_1(\infty)$. By applying the correspondence between the edge-paths and the continued fractions, we see that the rational number $W_1(\infty)$ has the continued fraction expansion $[{\mbox{\boldmath$a$}},2c_1,
-\eta_1{\mbox{\boldmath$a$}}^{-1}]$. This can be confirmed by noticing the following facts (see ).
1. $W_1(r_{m-1})$ is the image of $r_{m-1}$ by the parabolic transformation of ${\mathcal{D}}$, centered on the vertex $r_m=W_1(r_m)$, by $(-1)^m2c_1$ units in the clockwise direction.
2. $W_1(r_{j-1})$ is the image of $W_1(r_{j-1})$ by the parabolic transformation of ${\mathcal{D}}$, centered on the vertex $W_1(r_j)$, by $(-1)^{j-1} a_j$ or $(-1)^{j} a_j$ units in the clockwise direction according as $W_1$ is orientation-preserving or reversing.
By the temporary assumption $W_0=1$, we have $\epsilon_1=\eta_0=+1$ and $\epsilon_2=\eta_0(-\eta_1)=-\eta_1$. This proves the lemma when $n=1$.
Suppose $n\ge 2$. Then, since $W_1W_2(r_{-1})=W_1(r_{-1})$, we can join the image of the original edge-path by $W_1W_2$ to the above edge-path, and obtain an edge-path which joins $\infty$ to $W_1W_2(r)$. More generally, by joining the images of the original edge-path by $1, W_1, W_1W_2,\cdots$, $W_1W_2\cdots W_n$, we obtain an edge-path which joins $\infty$ to $\tilde r$. By using this edge path we obtain the lemma for the case $W_0=1$.
Finally, we treat the case when $W_0\ne 1$. In this case, we consider the edge-path obtained as the image of the above edge-path by $W_0$. Since $W_0(\infty)=\infty$, this path joins $\infty$ to $\tilde r$ and the vertex next to $\infty$ is equal to the integer $-2c_0$. Hence we obtain the full assertion of the lemma.
\[Proof of \] Immediate from .
Presentation of $K(\tilde{r})$ {#sec.present_Ktr}
------------------------------
In this section, we give a proof of . It is a substantially equivalent proof to the proof of in , but written in other words from the viewpoint of the correspondence between $SL(2,{\mathbb{Z}})$ and plat closures of $4$–braids (see Burde–Zieschang [@Burde-Zieschang Section 12.A] for this correspondence).
In the proof of , we use automorphisms of the modular tessellation ${\mathcal{D}}$. Let ${\rm Aut}({\mathcal{D}})$ denote the group of automorphisms of ${\mathcal{D}}$, and let ${\rm Aut}^+({\mathcal{D}})$ denote its subgroup consisting the orientation-preserving automorphisms. Then $$\begin{aligned}
& {\rm Aut}^+({\mathcal{D}}) = PSL(2,{\mathbb{Z}}),
\\
& {\rm Aut}({\mathcal{D}}) =
\Big\{ A \in GL(2,{\mathbb{Z}}) \ \Big| \ {\rm det}(A) = \pm 1 \Big\} \Big/
\Big\{ \pm \mbox{\small $\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}$}
\Big\}.\end{aligned}$$
We give plat presentations of $K(r)$ and $K(\tilde{r})$, and show that they satisfy the proposition.
First, we give a plat presentation of $K(r)$, as follows. By , we may assume that $r = {\rm odd}/{\rm even}$ or ${\rm even}/{\rm odd}$. Then we can choose a continued fraction expansion of $r$ with even entries, ie, of the form $[2a_1,2a_2,\cdots,2a_m]$. Then $m$ is odd if $r = {\rm odd}/{\rm even}$, and $m$ is even if $r={\rm even}/{\rm odd}$. In the latter case, we replace the continued fraction expansion with $[2a_1,\cdots,2a_{m-1}, 2a_m-1,1]$, and set $[a'_1,a'_2,\cdots,a'_n]$ to be this continued fraction. Namely, $[a'_1,a'_2,\cdots,a'_n]$ is $$\begin{cases}
[2a_1,2a_2,\cdots,2a_m]
& \mbox{ if $m$ is odd (ie, if $r={\rm odd}/{\rm even}$),} \\
[2a_1,\cdots,2a_{m-1},2a_m-1,1]
& \mbox{ if $m$ is even (ie, if $r={\rm even}/{\rm odd}$).}
\end{cases}$$ Then we have a presentation $$r = B \cdot \infty ,
\mbox{ where }
B =
\mbox{\small $\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ a'_1 & 1 \end{pmatrix}$}
\mbox{\small $\begin{pmatrix} 1 & a'_2 \\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}$}
\mbox{\small $\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ a'_3 & 1 \end{pmatrix}$} \cdots
\mbox{\small $\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ a'_n & 1 \end{pmatrix}$} ,$$ recalling that $B$ acts on ${\mathbb{Q}}\cup \{ \infty \}$ by the linear fractional transformation. Further, the $2$–bridge link $K(r)$ is given by the plat closure of the braid $b$ corresponding to the matrix $B$, $$\raisebox{12pt}[0pt][0pt]{$K(r) = \, $}
\begin{picture}(80,25)
\put(0,10){{\mbox{$\begin{array}{c}
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{\figdir/s11}
\end{array}$}}}
\put(35,12){\small$b$}
\end{picture}
\qquad
\raisebox{12pt}[0pt][0pt]{$b = \, $}
\begin{picture}(185,35)
\put(0,10){{\mbox{$\begin{array}{c}
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{\figdir/s12a}
\end{array}$}}}
\put(20,6){\small $a'_1$}
\put(48,15){\small $-a'_2$}
\put(85,6){\small $a'_3$}
\put(148,6){\small $a'_n$}
\end{picture}$$ where a boxed “$a'_i$” implies $a'_i$ half-twists.
Next, we give a plat presentation of $K(\tilde{r})$. Since $B \in {\rm Aut}({\mathcal{D}})$, $\Gamma_r$ is presented by $$\Gamma_r = B \, \Gamma_\infty B^{-1},
\ \mbox{ where } \
\Gamma_\infty =
\Big\{
\mbox{\small $\begin{pmatrix} 1 & {\rm even} \\ 0 & \pm1 \end{pmatrix}$}
\Big\}
\ \subset \ {\rm Aut}({\mathcal{D}}) .$$ By definition, $\tilde{r}$ belongs to the orbit of $\infty$ or $r = B \cdot \infty$ by the action of $\hgr$, which is generated by $\Gamma_r$ and $\Gamma_\infty$. Hence, $\tilde{r}$ is equal to the image of $\infty$ by one of the following automorphisms of ${\mathcal{D}}$: $$\begin{aligned}
&B \, \mbox{\small $\begin{pmatrix} 1 & {\rm even} \\ 0 & \pm1
\end{pmatrix}$}
B^{-1} \mbox{\small $\begin{pmatrix} 1 & {\rm even} \\ 0 & \pm1
\end{pmatrix}$}
\cdots
B \, \mbox{\small $\begin{pmatrix} 1 & {\rm even} \\ 0 & \pm1
\end{pmatrix}$}
B^{-1}, \\
&
\mbox{\small $\begin{pmatrix} 1 & {\rm even} \\ 0 & \pm1 \end{pmatrix}$}
B \, \mbox{\small $\begin{pmatrix} 1 & {\rm even} \\ 0 & \pm1
\end{pmatrix}$}
B^{-1} \mbox{\small $\begin{pmatrix} 1 & {\rm even} \\ 0 & \pm1
\end{pmatrix}$}
\cdots
B \, \mbox{\small $\begin{pmatrix} 1 & {\rm even} \\ 0 & \pm1
\end{pmatrix}$}
B^{-1}, \\
&
B \, \mbox{\small $\begin{pmatrix} 1 & {\rm even} \\ 0 & \pm1
\end{pmatrix}$}
B^{-1} \mbox{\small $\begin{pmatrix} 1 & {\rm even} \\ 0 & \pm1
\end{pmatrix}$}
\cdots
B^{-1} \mbox{\small $\begin{pmatrix} 1 & {\rm even} \\ 0 & \pm1
\end{pmatrix}$}
B, \\
&
\mbox{\small $\begin{pmatrix} 1 & {\rm even} \\ 0 & \pm1 \end{pmatrix}$}
B \, \mbox{\small $\begin{pmatrix} 1 & {\rm even} \\ 0 & \pm1
\end{pmatrix}$}
B^{-1} \mbox{\small $\begin{pmatrix} 1 & {\rm even} \\ 0 & \pm1
\end{pmatrix}$}
\cdots
B^{-1} \mbox{\small $\begin{pmatrix} 1 & {\rm even} \\ 0 & \pm1
\end{pmatrix}$}
B.\end{aligned}$$ By using $$\begin{aligned}
B_+ &:= B , \\
B_- &:=
\mbox{\small $\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & -1 \end{pmatrix}$}
B \, \mbox{\small $\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & -1 \end{pmatrix}$}
=
\mbox{\small $\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ -a'_1 & 1 \end{pmatrix}$}
\mbox{\small $\begin{pmatrix} 1 & -a'_2 \\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}$} \cdots
\mbox{\small $\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ -a'_n & 1 \end{pmatrix}$},\end{aligned}$$ the above elements have the following unified expression: $$\mbox{\small $\begin{pmatrix} 1 & {\rm even} \\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}$}
B_\pm
\mbox{\small $\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 2c_1 \\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}$}
B_\pm^{-1}
\mbox{\small $\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 2c_2 \\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}$} B_\pm
\mbox{\small $\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 2c_3 \\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}$} \cdots
B_\pm^{\pm1}.$$ Hence $K(\tilde{r})$ is given by the plat closure of its corresponding braid, $$\raisebox{12pt}[0pt][0pt]{$K(\tilde{r}) = \, $}
\begin{picture}(334,35)
\put(0,10){{\mbox{$\begin{array}{c}
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{\figdir/s10}
\end{array}$}}}
\put(33,13){\small$b_\pm$}
\put(68,13){\small $2c_1$}
\put(103,13){\small$b_\pm^{-1}$}
\put(140,13){\small $2c_2$}
\put(178,13){\small$b_\pm$}
\put(213,13){\small $2c_3$}
\put(292,13){\small$\smash{b_\pm^{\pm1}}$}
\end{picture}$$ where $b_-$ is the braid corresponding to $B_-$: $$\raisebox{12pt}[0pt][0pt]{$b_- = \, $}
\begin{picture}(190,35)
\put(0,8){{\mbox{$\begin{array}{c}
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{\figdir/s12a}
\end{array}$}}}
\put(15,4){\small $-a'_1$}
\put(52,13){\small $a'_2$}
\put(80,4){\small $-a'_3$}
\put(144,4){\small $-a'_n$}
\end{picture}$$ The difference between the presentations of the required $K(\tilde{r})$ of and the above $K(\tilde{r})$ is that $b_-$ of the required $K(\tilde{r})$ is the mirror image of $b$ with respect to (the plane intersecting this paper orthogonally along) the central horizontal line, while $b_-$ of the above $K(\tilde{r})$ is the mirror image of $b$ with respect to this paper. Indeed, they are different as braids, but their plat closures are isotopic, because both of them are isotopic to, say, $$\begin{picture}(320,50)
\put(0,15){{\mbox{$\begin{array}{c}
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{\figdir/s15a}
\end{array}$}}}
\put(31,30){{\small}$-2a_{m-1}$}
\put(92,8){{\small}$2a_{m}$}
\put(155,30){{\small}$2c_1$}
\put(199,8){{\small}$\pm2a_{m}$}
\put(260,30){{\small}$\mp2a_{m-1}$}
\end{picture}$$ and we can move any full-twists to the opposite side of the square pillar by an isotopy of the plat closure. Here we draw only a part of the braid in the above figure. (See, for example, Siebenmann [@Siebenmann], Burde–Zieschang [@Burde-Zieschang Figure 12.9(b)] or Kauffman–Lambropoulou [@Kauffman-Lambropoulou Section 2] for an exposition of this flype move.) Hence, the required $K(\tilde{r})$ is isotopic to the above $K(\tilde{r})$, completing the proof of .
Constructing a continuous map $(S^3,K(\tilde r))\to(S^3,K(r))$ {#sec:construction1}
==============================================================
In this section, we prove below. As mentioned in the introduction, we obtain from and .
\[thm.K\_tildeK\] Let $K$ be a $2$–bridge link presented by the plat closure of a $4$–braid $b$, and let $\tilde{K}$ be a $2$–bridge link of the form $$\begin{aligned}
& \raisebox{12pt}[0pt][0pt]{$K = \, $}
\begin{picture}(100,35)
\put(0,10){{\mbox{$\begin{array}{c}
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{\figdir/s11}
\end{array}$}}}
\put(37,12){\small$b$}
\end{picture}
\\
& \raisebox{12pt}[0pt][0pt]{$\tilde{K} = \, $}
\begin{picture}(330,35)
\put(0,10){{\mbox{$\begin{array}{c}
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{\figdir/s10}
\end{array}$}}}
\put(33,13){\small$b_\pm$}
\put(68,13){\small $2c_1$}
\put(103,13){\small$b_\pm^{-1}$}
\put(140,13){\small $2c_2$}
\put(178,13){\small$b_\pm$}
\put(213,13){\small $2c_3$}
\put(292,13){\small$\smash{b_\pm^{\pm1}}$}
\end{picture}\end{aligned}$$ for some signs of $b_\pm$ and $b_\pm^{-1}$ and for some integers $c_i$, where a boxed “$2c_i$” implies $2c_i$ half-twists, and $\smash{b_\pm^{\pm1}}$ are the braids obtained from $b$ by mirror images in the following fashion. $$\begin{picture}(190,110)
\put(0,63){{\mbox{$\begin{array}{c}
\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{\figdir/s6}
\end{array}$}}}
\put(-50,65){\small$b = b_+ =$}
\put(95,63){{\mbox{$\begin{array}{c}
\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{\figdir/s7}
\end{array}$}}}
\put(175,65){\small$= b_+^{-1}$}
\put(0,43){\line(1,0){190}}
\put(185,43){\vector(0,1){7}}
\put(185,43){\vector(0,-1){7}}
\put(195,41){\small \rm mirror image}
\put(85,0){\line(0,1){95}}
\put(85,90){\vector(1,0){10}}
\put(85,90){\vector(-1,0){10}}
\put(55,100){\small \rm mirror image}
\put(0,13){{\mbox{$\begin{array}{c}
\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{\figdir/s8}
\end{array}$}}}
\put(-30,15){\small$b_- =$}
\put(95,13){{\mbox{$\begin{array}{c}
\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{\figdir/s9}
\end{array}$}}}
\put(175,15){\small$= b_-^{-1}$}
\end{picture}$$ Then there is a proper branched fold map $f\co (S^3,\tilde{K}) \to (S^3,K)$ which respects the bridge structures and induces an epimorphism $G(\tilde{K}) \to G(K)$
To construct the map $f$, we partition $(S^3,K)$ and $(S^3,\tilde{K})$ into $B^3$’s and $(S^2 \times I)$’s as below, where $I$ denotes an interval, and we call a piece of the partition of $(S^3,\tilde{K})$ including $\smash{b_\pm^{\pm1}}$ (resp. $2c_i$ half-twisted strings) a $b$–domain (resp. $c$–domain). $$\begin{aligned}
& \begin{picture}(100,40)
\put(0,10){{\mbox{$\begin{array}{c}
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{\figdir/s11}
\end{array}$}}}
\put(14,6){{\mbox{$\begin{array}{c}
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{\figdir/s14a}
\end{array}$}}}
\put(0,-18){{\small}$B^3$}
\put(37,12){\small$b$}
\put(27,-18){{\small}$S^2 \!\times\! I$}
\put(67,-18){{\small}$B^3$}
\end{picture}
\\
&
\begin{picture}(330,70)
\put(0,20){{\mbox{$\begin{array}{c}
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{\figdir/s10}
\end{array}$}}}
\put(14,16){{\mbox{$\begin{array}{c}
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{\figdir/s13a}
\end{array}$}}}
\put(0,-8){{\small}$B^3$}
\put(35,23){\small$b_\pm$}
\put(27,-8){{\small}$S^2 \!\times\! I$}
\put(70,23){\small $2c_1$}
\put(63,-8){{\small}$S^2 \!\times\! I$}
\put(105,23){\small$b_\pm^{-1}$}
\put(100,-8){{\small}$S^2 \!\times\! I$}
\put(142,23){\small $2c_2$}
\put(136,-8){{\small}$S^2 \!\times\! I$}
\put(180,23){\small$b_\pm$}
\put(173,-8){{\small}$S^2 \!\times\! I$}
\put(215,23){\small $2c_3$}
\put(209,-8){{\small}$S^2 \!\times\! I$}
\put(294,23){\small$\smash{b_\pm^{\pm1}}$}
\put(288,-8){{\small}$S^2 \!\times\! I$}
\put(327,-8){{\small}$B^3$}
\end{picture}\end{aligned}$$
We successively construct the map $f$, first on a $b$–domain, secondly on a $c$–domain, and thirdly on $B^3$’s, so that the required map is obtained by gluing them together.
First, we construct $f$ on each $b$–domain by mapping $(S^2 \!\times\! I,\, \smash{b^{\pm1}_\pm})$ to $(S^2 \!\times\! I,\, b)$ according to the definition of $\smash{b^{\pm1}_\pm}$. To be precise, after the natural identification of the $b$–domain and the middle piece of $(S^3,K)$ with $S^2\times I$, the homeomorphism is given by the following self-homeomorphism on $S^2\times I$.
1. If the associated symbol is $b_+^{+1}$, the homeomorphism is $\id\times
\id$.
2. If the associated symbol is $b_-^{+1}$, the homeomorphism is $R_1\times
\id$, where $R_1$ is the homeomorphism of $S^2$ induced by (the restriction to a level plane of) the reflection of ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ in the vertical plane which intersects this paper orthogonally along the central horizontal line.
3. If the associated symbol is $b_+^{-1}$, the homeomorphism is $\id\times R_2$, where $R_2$ is the homeomorphism of $[-1,1]$ defined by $R_2(x)=-x$.
4. If the associated symbol is $b_-^{-1}$, the homeomorphism is $R_1\times R_2$.
Secondly, we construct the restriction of $f$ to each $c$–domain. To this end, note that the two $b$–domains adjacent to a $c$–domain are related either by a $\pi$–rotation (about the vertical axis in the center of the $c$–domain) or by a mirror reflection (along the central level $2$–sphere in the $c$–domain). This follows from the following facts.
1. The upper suffixes of the symbols associated with the $b$–regions are $+1$ and $-1$ alternatively.
2. $b_{\epsilon}^{+1}$ and $b_{\epsilon}^{-1}$ are related by a mirror reflection for each sign $\epsilon$.
3. $b_{\epsilon}^{+1}$ and $b_{-\epsilon}^{-1}$ are related by a $\pi$–rotation for each sign $\epsilon$.
The restriction of $f$ to a $c$–domain is constructed as follows. If the two relevant $b$–domains are related by a $\pi$–rotation, then $f$ maps the $c$–domain to the left or right domain of $(S^3,K)$ as illustrated in . If the two relevant $b$–domains are related by a mirror reflection, then $f$ maps the $c$–domain to the left or right domain of $(S^3,K)$ as illustrated in . In either case, the map can be made consistent with the maps from the $b$–domains constructed in the first step. Moreover, it is a branched fold map and respects the bridge structures”. In fact, in the first case, it has a single branch line in the central level $2$–sphere, whereas in the latter case, it has two branch lines lying in level $2$–spheres and a single fold surface, which is actually the central level $2$–sphere.
Thirdly, the restriction of $f$ either to the first left or to the first right domains of $(S^3,\tilde{K})$ is defined to be the natural homeomorphism to the left or the right domain of $(S^3,K)$ which extends the map already defined on its boundary.
By gluing the maps defined on the pieces of $(S^3,\tilde{K})$, we obtain the desired branched fold map $f\co (S^3,\tilde{K}) \to (S^3,K)$ which respect the bridge structures. The induced homomorphism $f_\ast : G(\tilde{K}) \to G(K)$ maps the upper meridian pair of $G(\tilde{K})$ to that of $G(K)$ and hence it is surjective.
(220,190) (0,150) (96,134)[(0,-1)[42]{}]{} (43,112) (56,64) (96,48)[(0,-1)[12]{}]{} (100,40)[isotopy]{} (142,114)[$\pi$ rotation]{} (48,85)[(5,2)[120]{}]{} (48,85)[(0,-1)[45]{}]{} (24,134)[(0,-1)[94]{}]{} (0,8)
(300,216) (0,172) (96,160)[(0,-1)[70]{}]{} (43,120) (204,160)[(0,-1)[70]{}]{} (208,104) (56,64) (96,48)[(0,-1)[12]{}]{} (100,40)[isotopy]{} (168,64) (176,48)[(-2,-1)[40]{}]{} (156,32)[mirror image]{} (117,132)[mirror image]{} (48,88)[(3,1)[200]{}]{} (48,88)[(0,-1)[48]{}]{} (24,160)[(0,-1)[120]{}]{} (0,8)
At the end of this section, we present further properties of the map $f$ we have constructed.
\[rem.f1\] The map $f\co (S^3,K(\tilde{r}))\to (S^3,K(r))$ of satisfies the following properties.
1. $f$ sends the upper meridian pair of $K(\tilde r)$ to that of $K(r)$.
2. The degree of $f$ is equal to $d:=\smash{\sum_j} \delta_j\epsilon_j$, where $\epsilon_j$ and $\delta_j$ are the signs such that the $j$–th $b$–domain of $\tilde K$ corresponds to $\smash{b_{\epsilon_j}^{\smash{\delta_j}}}$.
3. The image of the longitude(s) of $K(\tilde r)$ by $f_*\co G(K(\tilde r))\to G(K(r))$ is as follows.
1. If both $K(r)$ and $K(\tilde r)$ are knots, then $f_*(\tilde\lambda)=\lambda^d$.
2. If $K(r)$ is a knot and $K(\tilde r)$ is a $2$–component link $\tilde K_1\cup
\tilde K_2$. Then $f_*(\tilde\lambda_j)=
\lambda^{d/2}\mu^{{\operatorname{lk}}(\tilde K_1,\tilde K_2)}$ for each $j\in\{1,2\}$.
3. If $K(r)$ is a $2$–component link $K_1\cup K_2$, then $K(\tilde r)$ is also a $2$–component link and $f_*(\tilde\lambda_j)=
\lambda_j^{d}$ for $j\in\{1,2\}$.
Here $\lambda$ (resp. $\lambda_j$, $\tilde \lambda$, $\tilde \lambda_j$) denotes the longitude of the knot $K$ (resp. the $j$–th component of the $2$–component link $K$, the knot $\smash{\tilde K}$, the $j$–th component of the $2$–component link $\tilde K_j$). The symbol $\mu$ represents the meridian of $K(r)$.
4. If $\epsilon_j=+$ for every $j$, then $f\co S^3\to S^3$ can be made to be an $n$–fold branched covering branched over a trivial link of $n-1$ components which is disjoint from $K(r)$. If $n=2$, then it is a cyclic covering. If $n\ge 3$, then it is an irregular dihedral covering.
It is obvious that the map $f$ from $(S^3,\tilde K)$ to $(S^3,K)$ constructed in the above satisfies the conditions (1), (2) and (4). (In order for $f$ to satisfy (4), one may need to modify the map $f$ so that the image of the branch lines lie on different level $2$–spheres.) Thus we prove that $f$ satisfies the condition (3).
Suppose both $K$ and $\tilde K$ are knots. Then the degree of the restriction of $f$ to $K(r)$ is equal to the degree $d$ of $f\co S^3\to S^3$, and therefore we see $f_*(\tilde \lambda)=\lambda^d\mu^c$ for some $c\in{\mathbb{Z}}$. However, since $[\tilde\lambda]=0$ in $H_1(S^3-\tilde K)$, we have $f_*([\tilde\lambda])=0$ in $H_1(S^3-K)$, which is the infinite cyclic group generated by $[\mu]$. Hence $c=0$ and therefore $f_*(\tilde \lambda)=\lambda^d$.
Suppose $K$ is a knot and $\tilde K$ is $2$–component link $\tilde K_1\cup\tilde K_2$. Then the degree of the restriction of $f$ to each of the components of $\tilde K$ is equal to $d/2$, and therefore we see $f_*(\tilde \lambda_1)=\lambda^{d/2}\mu^c$ for some $c\in{\mathbb{Z}}$. Then $\smash{[\lambda_1]=0[\mu_1]+{\operatorname{lk}}(\tilde K_1,\tilde
K_2)[\mu_2]}$ in $H_1(S^3-\tilde K)$. Since $f_*[\mu_1]=f_*[\mu_2]=[\mu]$ in $H_1(S^3-K)$, we have $f_*([\tilde \lambda_1])
={\operatorname{lk}}(\tilde K_1,\tilde K_2)[\mu]$. Hence we see $\smash{c={\operatorname{lk}}(\tilde K_1,\tilde K_2)}$ and therefore $$\smash{f_*(\tilde \lambda_1)=\lambda^{d/2}
\mu^{\smash{{\operatorname{lk}}(\tilde K_1,\tilde K_2)}}}.$$ Similarly, $\smash{f_*(\tilde \lambda_2)=\lambda^{d/2}
\mu^{\smash{{\operatorname{lk}}(\tilde K_1,\tilde K_2)}}}$. Finally suppose both $K$ and $\tilde K$ are $2$–component links. Then the degree of the restriction of $f$ to each of the components of $\tilde K$ is equal to $d$, and therefore we see $\smash{f_*(\tilde \lambda_1)=\lambda_1^{d}\mu_1^c}$ for some $c\in{\mathbb{Z}}$. Note that $f$ induces a continuous map $\smash{S^3-\tilde K_1}\to \smash{S^3-K_1}$ and therefore $\smash{[f_*(\tilde \lambda_1)]}=0$ in $H_1(S^3-K_1)$. Thus we have $c=0$ and therefore $\smash{f_*(\tilde \lambda_1)=\lambda_1^{d}}$. Similarly, we have $\smash{f_*(\tilde \lambda_2)=\lambda_2^{d}}$.
\[rem.f2\] (1)Under the notation in , we can see that the degree of $f$ is equal to $\sum_{j=1}^m \epsilon_j$.
(2)Let $q'$ be the integer such that $0<q'<p$ and $qq'\equiv 1 \pmod p$, and set $r'=q'/p \in (0,1)$. Then there is an orientation-preserving self-homeomorphism of $S^3$ which sends $K(r)$ to $K(r')$ and interchanges the upper and lower bridges. Thus is valid even if we replace ${\mbox{\boldmath$a$}}$ with ${\mbox{\boldmath$a$}}^{-1}$. The induced epimorphism $f_*\co G(K(\tilde r))\to G(K(r))$ for this case send the upper meridian pair of $K(\tilde r)$ to a lower meridian pair.
Application to character varieties {#sec.icv}
==================================
In this section, we give applications of to character varieties of some $2$–bridge knots.
Roughly speaking, a character variety is (a component of a closure of) the space of conjugacy classes of irreducible representations of the knot group $G(K)$ to $SL(2,{\mathbb{C}})$. An explicit definition of the character variety is outlined as follows; for details see Culler–Shalen [@Culler-Shalen] and Shalen [@Shalen]. Let $R(K)$ be the space of all representations of $G(K)$ to $SL(2,{\mathbb{C}})$, and let $X(K)$ be the image of the map $R(K) \to {\mathbb{C}}^N$ taking $\rho$ to $\big( \tr(\rho(g_1)),\cdots, \tr(\rho(g_N)) \big)$ for “sufficiently many” $g_1,\cdots,g_N \in G(K)$. Then $X(K)$ is shown to be an algebraic set. We define $X^{\rm irr}(K)$ to be the Zariski closure of the image in $X(K)$ of the space of the irreducible representations of $G(K)$ to $SL(2,{\mathbb{C}})$. By a *character variety* of $K$, we mean an irreducible component of $X^{\rm irr}(K)$. If $X^{\rm irr}(K)$ is irreducible, $X^{\rm irr}(K)$ itself is a variety. In fact this holds for many knots, though in general $X^{\rm irr}(K)$ is an algebraic set consisting of some irreducible components.
The second author [@Riley1; @Riley_nab] concretely identified $X^{\rm irr}(K(r))$ of any $2$–bridge knot $K(r)$ with an algebraic set in ${\mathbb{C}}^2$ determined by a single $2$–variable polynomial, by the map $\rho \mapsto \big( \tr(\rho(\mu_1)), \tr(\rho(\mu_1 \mu_2^{-1})) \big)
\in {\mathbb{C}}^2$ for the (upper or lower) meridian pair $\{ \mu_1,\mu_2 \}$ of the $2$–bridge knot group. Further, the first author [@Ohtsuki_ip] classified the ideal points of $X^{\rm irr}(K(r))$.
If $r=1/p$ for odd $p \ge 3$, the $2$–bridge knot $K(1/p)$ is the $(2,p)$ torus knot, and $X^{\rm irr}(K(1/p))$ consists of $(p-1)/2$ components of affine curves [@Riley1], whose generic representations are faithful (up to the center of the torus knot group). In particular, $X^{\rm irr}(K(1/p))$ is reducible for $p \ge 5$. Otherwise (ie, if $K(r)$ is not a torus knot), $K(r)$ is a hyperbolic knot, and $X^{\rm irr}(K)$ has an irreducible component including the faithful (discrete) representation given by the holonomy of the complete hyperbolic structure of the knot complement.
We have the following application of to the reducibility of $X^{\rm irr}(K)$.
\[Cor:character variety1\] Let $K(r)$ and $K(\tilde{r})$ be distinct nontrivial $2$–bridge knots such that $\tilde r$ belongs to the ${\smash{\hat\Gamma_{r}}}$–orbit of $r$ or $\infty$. Then $X^{\rm irr}(K(\tilde r))$ is reducible.
By , there is an epimorphism $\varphi \co G(K(\tilde r))\to G(K(r))$, and it induces an inclusion $\varphi^\ast \co X^{\rm irr}(K(r))\to X^{\rm irr}(K(\tilde r))$. As mentioned above, any $2$–bridge knot group has faithful representations (modulo the center when it is a torus knot group), and hence, $X^{\rm irr}(K(r))$ is nonempty. Hence the image $\varphi^\ast \big( X^{\rm irr}(K(r)) \big)$ is a nonempty union of the irreducible components of $X^{\rm irr}(K(\tilde{r}))$, consisting of nonfaithful representations $$G(K(\tilde{r})) \xrightarrow{\rm nonfaithful}
G(K(r)) {\longrightarrow}SL(2,{\mathbb{C}}) .$$ On the other hand, $X^{\rm irr}(K(\tilde{r}))$ has an irreducible component including a faithful representation $$G(K(\tilde{r})) \xrightarrow{\rm faithful} SL(2,{\mathbb{C}}) .$$ (modulo the center when it is a torus knot group). This representation is not contained in $\varphi^\ast \big( X^{\rm irr}(K(r))\big)$, even when $K(\tilde{r})$ is a torus knot. Hence, $X^{\rm irr}(K(\tilde{r}))$ is reducible, including at least 2 irreducible components.
For a $2$–component $2$–bridge link $K(r)$, the second author [@Riley_nab] concretely identifies $X^{\rm irr}(K(r))$ with a $2$–dimensional algebraic set in ${\mathbb{C}}^3$ determined by a single $3$–variable polynomial, unless $r \in \frac12 {\mathbb{Z}}\cup \{ \infty \}$ (where $X^{\rm irr}(K(r))$ is empty). Moreover, it can be shown by a similar proof that also holds for every $2$–bridge link, unless $r \in \frac12 {\mathbb{Z}}\cup \{ \infty \}$.
A similar argument as the above proof is used by Soma [@Soma1] to study the epimorphisms among the fundamental groups of hyperbolic manifolds (see ). The proof of following corollary may be regarded as a kind of the inverse to that of his main result in [@Soma1].
\[Cor:character variety2\] For any positive integer $n$, there is a hyperbolic $2$–bridge knot $K(r)$, such that $X^{\rm irr}(K(r))$ has at least $n$ irreducible components.
By , we can construct an infinite tower $$\cdots \to G(K(r_n)) \to G(K(r_{n-1})) \to
\cdots \to G(K(r_2)) \to G(K(r_1))$$ of epimorphisms among $2$–bridge knot groups such that none of the epimorphisms is an isomorphism. Then by the argument in the proof of , $X^{\rm irr}(K(r_n))$ has an irreducible component including a representation $$G(K(r_n)) {\longrightarrow}G(K(r_i)) \xrightarrow{\rm faithful} SL(2,{\mathbb{C}}) ,$$ for each $i = 1,2,\cdots,n$. Since these components are distinct, $X^{\rm irr}(K(r_n))$ has at least $n$ irreducible components.
Application to $\pi_1$–surjective maps between $3$–manifolds {#Sec:pi_1-dominating maps}
============================================================
Let $M$ and $N$ be connected closed orientable $3$–manifolds. Then a continuous map $f\co M\to N$ is said to be *$\pi_1$–surjective* if $f_*\co \pi_1(M)\to\pi_1(N)$ is surjective. If the degree $d$ of $f$ is nonzero, then the index $[\pi_1(N): f_*(\pi_1(M))]$ is a divisor of $d$. In particular, if the degree of $f$ is $1$, then $f$ is $\pi_1$–surjective. Motivated by this fact, Reid–Wang–Zhou [@Reid-Wang-Zhou] proposed various questions, in relation with Simon’s problem [@Kirby Problem 1.12] and Rong’s problem [@Kirby Problem 3.100]. In this section, we study the following questions proposed in [@Reid-Wang-Zhou].
1. (Question 1.5)Let $M$ and $N$ be closed aspherical $3$–manifolds such that the rank of $\pi_1(M)$ equals the rank of $\pi_1(N)$. Assume $\phi\co \pi_1(M)\to\pi_1(N)$ is surjective or its image is a subgroup of finite index. Does $\phi$ determine a map $f\co M\to N$ of nonzero degree?
2. (Question 3.1(D))Are there only finitely many closed orientable $3$–manifolds $M_i$ with the same first Betti number, or the same $\pi_1$–rank, as that of a closed orientable $3$–manifold $M$, for which there is an epimorphism $\pi_1(M)\to \pi_1(M_i)$?
Example 1.4 in [@Reid-Wang-Zhou] presents a closed hyperbolic $3$–manifold $M$ with $\pi_1$–rank $>2$ (and $b_1(M)>2$), for which there are infinitely many mutually nonhomeomorphic hyperbolic $3$–manifolds $M_i$ with $\pi_1$–rank $2$ (and hence $b_1(M)\le 2$), such that there is a $\pi_1$–surjective degree $0$ map $M\to M_i$. This shows that the conditions on the $\pi_1$–ranks (and Betti numbers) in the above questions are indispensable. Moreover, they give the following partial positive answers to the questions for Seifert fibered spaces and non-Haken manifolds.
1. Any $\pi_1$–surjective map between closed orientable Seifert fibered spaces with the same $\pi_1$–rank and with orientable base orbifolds is of nonzero degree [@Reid-Wang-Zhou Theorem 2.1].
2. For any non-Haken closed orientable hyperbolic manifold $M$, there are only finitely many closed orientable hyperbolic $3$–manifolds $M_i$ for which there is an epimorphism $\pi_1(M)\to\pi_1(M_i)$ [@Reid-Wang-Zhou Theorem 3.6].
Gonzaléz-Acũna and Ramínez have constructed a counter example to the questions where the source manifold is hyperbolic and the target manifolds are Seifert fibered spaces [@Gonzalez-Raminez2 Example 26]. They asked if there is a counter example where the source and target manifolds are hyperbolic manifolds. The following corollary to gives such an example.
\[Cor:Dominante infinite mfds\] There is a closed orientable hyperbolic Haken $3$–manifold $M$ and infinitely many mutually nonhomeomorphic, closed, orientable, hyperbolic $3$–manifolds $M_i$ which satisfy the following conditions.
1. There is a $\pi_1$–surjective degree $0$ map $f_i\co M\to M_i$.
2. The ranks of the fundamental groups of $M$ and $M_i$ are all equal to $2$.
Pick a proper map $f\co (S^3,K(\tilde r))\to
(S^3,K(r))$ between $2$–bridge links satisfying the conditions of , such that the degree of $f$ is $0$ and $K(\tilde r)$ is a $2$–component link $\tilde K_1\cup \tilde K_2$ and $K(r)$ is a knot. Set $q={\operatorname{lk}}(\tilde K_1,\tilde K_2)$. Then, by , $f$ maps the essential simple loop $\tilde \lambda_j-q\tilde\mu_j$ on $\partial N(\tilde K_j)$ to a nullhomotopic loop on $\partial N(K)$. Let $M_0$ be the manifold obtained by surgery along the link $\tilde K_1\cup \tilde K_2$, where $2$–handle is attached along the curve $\tilde \lambda_j-q\tilde\mu_j$ on $\partial N(\tilde K_j)$ for each $j=1,2$. Then for every manifold $M(s)$ ($s\in\smash{{\hat{\mathbb{Q}}}}$), obtained by $s$–surgery on $K(r)$, the map $f\co S^3-K(\tilde r)\to S^3-K(r)$ extends to $\pi_1$–surjective map $M_0\to M(s)$ of degree $0$. On the other hand, we may choose $r$ and $\tilde r$ so that $M_0$ is hyperbolic and that $M(s)$ are hyperbolic with finite exceptions. For example, if $r=[2,2]$ and $\tilde r=[2,2,2,-2,-2]$, then $K(r)$ is the (hyperbolic) figure-eight knot and therefore $M(s)$ is hyperbolic with finite exceptions. Moreover we can check by SnapPea [@Weeks] that $M_0$ is hyperbolic. Since $M_0$ and $M(s)$ are closed hyperbolic manifolds whose fundamental groups are generated by two elements, their $\pi_1$–ranks must be equal to $2$. Moreover, $M$ is Haken, because the first Betti number of $M$ is $2$ or $1$ according as ${\operatorname{lk}}(\tilde K_1,\tilde K_2)=0$ or not. This completes the proof of .
In the above corollary, the first Betti number of $M$ is $\ge 1$, whereas the first Betti numbers of $M_i$ are all equal to $0$. This is the same for [@Gonzalez-Raminez2 Example 26]. We do not know if there is a counter example to the second question such that the first Betti numbers of $M$ and $M_i$ are all equal.
does not have a counterpart where the condition that the maps are of degree $0$ are replaced with the condition that the maps are nonzero degree. In fact, Soma [@Soma1] proves that for every closed, connected, orientable $3$–manifold $M$, the number of mutually nonhomeomorphic, orientable, hyperbolic $3$–manifolds dominated by $M$ is finite. (Here a $3$–manifold $N$ is said to be *dominated* by $M$ if there is exists a nonzero degree map $f\co M\to N$.) In Soma’s theorem, the condition that the manifolds are orientable is essential. In fact, as is noted in [@Soma1 Introduction], some arguments in Boileau–Wang [@Boileau-Wang Section 3] implies that there is a nonorientable manifold $M$ which dominates infinitely many mutually nonhomeomorphic $3$–manifolds.
We present yet another application of to $\pi_1$–surjective maps. By studying the character varieties, Soma [@Soma2] observed that there is no infinite descending tower of $\pi_1$–surjective maps between orientable hyperbolic $3$–manifolds, namely, any infinite sequence of $\pi_1$–surjective maps $$M_0\to M_1\to \cdots \to
M_i \to M_{i+1}\to \cdots$$ between orientable hyperbolic $3$–manifolds $M_i$ (possibly of infinite volume) contains an isomorphism. On the other hand, Reid-Wang-Zhou constructed an infinite ascending tower of $\pi_1$–surjective maps of degree $>1$ between closed orientable hyperbolic $3$–manifolds with the same $\pi_1$–rank [@Reid-Wang-Zhou Example 3.2]. The following corollary to refines their example, by constructing such a tower for degree $1$ maps.
\[Thm:infinite tower\] There is an infinite ascending tower of $\pi_1$–surjective maps of degree $1$ $$\cdots \to M_i \to M_{i-1}\to \cdots \to M_1\to
M_0$$ between closed (resp. cusped) orientable hyperbolic $3$–manifolds which satisfies the following conditions.
1. The ranks of $\pi_1(M_i)$ are all equal to $2$.
2. $H_1(M_i)\cong {\mathbb{Z}}$ for every $i$, and each map induces an isomorphism between the homology groups.
By , we can construct an infinite ascending tower $$\cdots \to (S^3,K_i) \to (S^3,K_{i-1}) \to
\cdots \to (S^3, K_1) \to (S^3,K_0)$$ of degree $1$ proper maps among hyperbolic $2$–bridge knots, such that each map induces an epimorphism among the knot groups which is not an isomorphism. By taking the knot complements and induced maps, we obtain a desired tower of cusped hyperbolic manifolds. Now, let $M_i$ be the result of $0$–surgery on $K_i$. Since each map sends the meridian-longitude pair of $K_i$ to that of $K_{i-1}$, the above tower gives rise to a tower of $\pi_1$–surjective maps of degree $1$ $$\cdots \to M_i \to M_{i-1} \to
\cdots \to M_1 \to M_0.$$ By the classification of exceptional surgeries on hyperbolic $2$–bridge knots due to Brittenham–Wu [@Brittenham-Wu] and by the orbifold theorem [@Boileau-Porti; @Cooper-Hodgson-Kerckhoff], we can choose $K_i$ so that every $M_i$ is hyperbolic. Thus the above tower satisfies the conditions on the $\pi_1$–rank and the homology. Thus our remaining task is to show that none of the maps is a homotopy equivalence. To this end, we choose $K_i$ so that the genus of $K_i$ is monotone increasing. This can be achieved by starting from the continued fraction consisting of only nonzero even integers, ie, the components of the sequence ${\mbox{\boldmath$a$}}$ in are all nonzero even integers. (Though it seems that any tower satisfies this condition, it is not totally obvious that this is actually the case.) Then the degree of the Alexander polynomial of $K_i$ is monotone increasing. Since the Alexander polynomial is an invariant of (the homotopy type of) the manifold obtained by $0$–surgery, this implies that $M_i$ are mutually non–homotopy equivalent. This completes the proof of .
We note that if we drop the condition on $\pi_1$–rank, then the existence of such an infinite ascending tower is obvious from Kawauchi’s imitation theory [@Kawauchi].
Some questions {#sec:questions}
==============
In this final section, we discuss two questions related to and .
\[Question:nullhomotopic\] (1)Does the converse to holds? Or more generally, given a $2$–bridge link $K(r)$, which $2$–bridge link group has an epimorphism onto the link group of $K(r)$?
(2)Does the converse to hold? Namely, is it true that $\alpha_s$ is nullhomotopic in $S^3-K(r)$ if and only if $s$ belongs to the ${\smash{\hat\Gamma_{r}}}$–orbit of $\infty$ or $r$?
FGonzaléz-Acũna and ARamínez gave a nice partial answer to the first question. They proved that if $r=1/p$ for some odd integer $p$, namely $K(r)$ is a $2$–bridge torus knot, then the knot group of a $2$–bridge knot $K(\tilde r)$ ($\tilde r=\tilde q/\tilde p$ for some odd integer $\tilde p$) has an epimorphism onto the knot group of the $2$–bridge torus knot $K(1/p)$ if and only if $\tilde r$ has a continued fraction expansion of the form in , namely $\tilde r$ is contained in the ${\smash{\hat\Gamma_{r}}}$–orbit of $r$ or $\infty$. (See Gonz[á]{}lez-Acu[ñ]{}a–Ram[í]{}rez [@Gonzalez-Raminez1 Theorem 1.2] and [@Gonzalez-Raminez2 Theorem 16]). By the proof of , this also implies a partial positive answer to the second question when $r=1/p$ for some odd integer $p$.
In [@Sakuma], the last author studied the second question, in relation with a possible variation of McShane’s identity [@McShane] for $2$–bridge links, by using Markoff maps, or equivalently, trace functions for type-preserving” $SL(2,{\mathbb{C}})$–representations of the fundamental group of the once-punctured torus. See Bowditch [@Bowditch2] for the precise definition and detailed study of Markoff maps, and our joint paper [@ASWY2 Section 5.3] for the relation of Markoff maps and the $2$–bridge links. He announced an affirmative answer to the second question for the $2$–bridge torus link $K(1/p)$ for every integer $p$, the figure-eight knot $K(2/5)$ and the $5_1$–knot $K(3/7)$. In his master thesis [@Eguchi] supervised by the third author, Tomokazu Eguchi obtained, by numerical calculation of Markoff maps, an affirmative answer to the question for the twist knots $K(n/(2n+1))$ for $2\le n\le 10$.
At the beginning of the introduction, we mentioned the problem: for a given knot $K$, characterize a knot $\tilde{K}$ which admits an epimorphism $G(\tilde{K}) \to G(K)$. Motivated by , we consider the following procedure to construct knots $\tilde{K}$ from a given knot $K$.
- Choose a branched fold map $f\co M \to S^3$ for a closed $3$–manifold $M$ such that the image of each component of the fold surface is transverse to $K$ and the image of each component of branch curve is a knot disjoint from $K$. Then we obtain $\tilde{K}$ as the preimage $f^{-1}(K)$.
Such a $\tilde{K}$ often admits an epimorphism $G(\tilde{K}) \to G(K)$. Further, when we have an epimorphism $\phi\co G(\tilde{K}) \to G(K)$, we consider the following procedures to modify $(M,\tilde{K})$.
- Replace $(M,\tilde{K})$ with the pair obtained from $(M,\tilde{K})$ by surgery along a simple closed curve in the kernel of $\phi$.
- Replace $\tilde{K}$ by the following move. $$\begin{picture}(180,50)
\put(0,15){{\mbox{$\begin{array}{c}
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{\figdir/s19}
\end{array}$}}}
\put(4,18){{\small}$g_1$}
\put(47,15){{\small}$g_2$}
\put(70,20){\vector(1,0){80}}
\put(75,5){{\small}if $\phi(g_1)=\phi(g_2)$}
\put(155,15){{\mbox{$\begin{array}{c}
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{\figdir/s20}
\end{array}$}}}
\end{picture}$$
We can construct many examples of $\tilde{K}$ from $K$ by the construction (a), further modifying $\tilde{K}$ by applying (b) and (c) repeatedly. (Even if an intermediate ambient $3$–manifold is not $S^3$, we may obtain a knot in $S^3$ by modifying it into $S^3$ by using (b).) The following question asks whether the constructions (a), (b) and (c) give a topological characterization of a knot $\tilde{K}$ having an epimorphism $G(\tilde{K}) \to G(K)$ for a given knot $K$.
\[q.const\_tK\] If there is an epimorphism $G(\tilde{K}) \to G(K)$ between knot groups preserving the peripheral structure, can we obtain $\tilde{K}$ from $K$ by repeatedly applying the above constructions [(a), (b)]{} and [(c)]{}?
The first author has given a positive answer to this question for all such pairs of prime knots $(\tilde{K},K)$ with up to 10 crossings, by checking the list in Kitano–Suzuki [@Kitano-Suzuki] (see ). The answer to the question is also positive, if either (i) $\tilde{K}$ is a satellite knot with pattern knot $K$ (cf [@Silver-Whitten Proposition 3.4]), or (ii) $\tilde{K}$ is a satellite knot of $K$ of degree $1$ (ie, $\tilde{K}$ is homologous to $K$ in the tubular neighborhood of $K$.) In particular, the answer to is positive, when $\tilde{K}$ is a connected sum of $K$ and some knot. We can also obtain a positive answer for the case when there are a ribbon concordance $C$ from $\tilde{K}$ to $K$ and an epimorphism $G(\tilde{K}) \to G(K)$ which is compatible with $G(\tilde{K}) \to \pi_1(S^3 \!\times\! I - C) \leftarrow G(K)$ (cf [@Gordon Lemma 3.1]). (In general, a ribbon concordance between knots does not necessarily induce an epimorphism between their knot groups; see [@Miyazaki].)
Finally, we note that certain topological interpretations of some of the epimorphisms in the table of [@Kitano-Suzuki] have been obtained by Kitano–Suzuki [@Kitano-Suzuki2], from a different view point.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$8_5 \ \approx \ 3_1 \# 3_1 {\longrightarrow}3_1$
$8_{10} \ \approx \ 3_1 \# {\wwbar}{3_1} {\longrightarrow}3_1$
$8_{15} \ \approx \ 3_1 \# 3_1 {\longrightarrow}3_1$
$8_{18} \ \approx \ 3_1$
$8_{19} \ \approx \ {\wwbar}{3_1} \# {\wwbar}{3_1} {\longrightarrow}{\wwbar}{3_1}$
$8_{20} \ \approx \ 3_1 \# {\wwbar}{3_1} {\longrightarrow}3_1$
$8_{21} \ \approx \ 3_1 \# 3_1 {\longrightarrow}3_1$
$9_1 \, = \, K(\mbox{{\small}$[9]$}) {\longrightarrow}3_1$
$9_6 \, = \, K(\mbox{{\small}$[6,-2,3]$}) {\longrightarrow}3_1$
$9_{16} \ \approx \ {\wwbar}{3_1} \# {\wwbar}{3_1} {\longrightarrow}{\wwbar}{3_1}$
$9_{23} \, = \, K(\mbox{{\small}$[-3,2,-3,2,-3]$}) {\longrightarrow}3_1$
$9_{24} \ \approx \ 3_1 \# {\wwbar}{3_1} {\longrightarrow}3_1$
$9_{28} \ \approx \ 3_1 \# 3_1 {\longrightarrow}3_1$
$9_{40} {\longrightarrow}3_1$
$10_{5} \, = \, K(\mbox{{\small}$[3,-2,6]$}) {\longrightarrow}3_1$
$10_{9} \, = \, K(\mbox{{\small}$[3,2,-6]$}) {\longrightarrow}3_1$
$10_{32} \, = \, K(\mbox{{\small}$[3,-2,3,-2,-3]$}) {\longrightarrow}3_1$
$10_{40} \, = \, K(\mbox{{\small}$[3,-2,-3,2,-3]$}) {\longrightarrow}3_1$
$10_{61} \ \approx\approx \ {\wwbar}{3_1} \# {\wwbar}{3_1} {\longrightarrow}{\wwbar}{3_1}$
$10_{62}\ \approx\approx \ 3_1 \# {\wwbar}{3_1} {\longrightarrow}3_1$
$10_{63} \ \approx\approx \ 3_1 \# 3_1 {\longrightarrow}3_1$
$10_{64} \ \approx\approx \ {\wwbar}{3_1} \# {\wwbar}{3_1} {\longrightarrow}{\wwbar}{3_1}$
$10_{65}\ \approx\approx \ 3_1 \# {\wwbar}{3_1} {\longrightarrow}3_1$
$10_{66} \ \approx\approx \ 3_1 \# 3_1 {\longrightarrow}3_1$
$10_{76} \ \approx \ {\wwbar}{3_1} \# {\wwbar}{3_1} {\longrightarrow}{\wwbar}{3_1}$
$10_{77}\ \approx \ 3_1 \# {\wwbar}{3_1} {\longrightarrow}3_1$
$10_{78} \ \approx \ 3_1 \# 3_1 {\longrightarrow}3_1$
$10_{82}\ \approx \ 3_1 \# {\wwbar}{3_1} {\longrightarrow}3_1$
$10_{84}\ \approx \ 3_1 \# {\wwbar}{3_1} {\longrightarrow}3_1$
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: \[tbl.const\_tK\] Sketch answer to for the pairs of prime knots with up to 10 crossings, listed by Kitano-Suzuki [@Kitano-Suzuki]. Here, we denote the procedures (a), (b), (c) by arrow, “$\approx$”, “$\sim$” respectively, and, say “$\approx \approx$” means to apply (b) twice. The numerical notation for knots and links is the one in Rolfsen [@Rolfsen], and ${\wwbar}{K}$ denotes the mirror image of $K$.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
$10_{85} \ \approx \ 3_1 \# 3_1 {\longrightarrow}3_1$
$10_{87}\ \approx \ 3_1 \# {\wwbar}{3_1} {\longrightarrow}3_1$
$10_{98} \ \approx\approx \ 3_1 \# 3_1 {\longrightarrow}3_1$
$10_{99}\ \approx\approx \ 3_1 \# {\wwbar}{3_1} {\longrightarrow}3_1$
$10_{103}\ \sim\sim \ 3_1$
$10_{106}\ \approx \ {\wwbar}{3_1}$
$10_{112}\ \approx\approx\approx \ {\wwbar}{3_1}$
$10_{114}\ \approx \ {\wwbar}{3_1}$
$10_{139}\ \approx\approx \ {\wwbar}{3_1}$
$10_{140}\ \approx\approx\ 3_1 \# {\wwbar}{3_1} {\longrightarrow}3_1$
$10_{141} \ \approx\approx \ 3_1 \# 3_1 {\longrightarrow}3_1$
$10_{142}\ \approx\approx\ 3_1 \# {\wwbar}{3_1} {\longrightarrow}3_1$
$10_{143}\ \approx\approx\ 3_1 \# {\wwbar}{3_1} {\longrightarrow}3_1$
$10_{144} \ \approx\approx \ 3_1 \# 3_1 {\longrightarrow}3_1$
$10_{159}\ \approx\approx \ 3_1$
$10_{164}\ \approx \ {\wwbar}{3_1}$
$8_{18} {\longrightarrow}4_1$
$9_{37} \ \sim \ 4_1 \# 4_1 \# 4_1 {\longrightarrow}4_1$
$9_{40}\ \approx \ 4_1$
$10_{58} \ \approx \ 4_1 \# 4_1 {\longrightarrow}4_1$
$10_{59} \ \approx \ 4_1 \# 4_1 {\longrightarrow}4_1$
$10_{60} \ \approx \ 4_1 \# 4_1 {\longrightarrow}4_1$
$10_{122} {\longrightarrow}4_1$
$10_{136} \ \sim \ 8_6^2 {\longrightarrow}4_1$
$10_{137} \ \approx \ 4_1 \# 4_1 {\longrightarrow}4_1$
$10_{138} \ \approx \ 4_1 \# 4_1 {\longrightarrow}4_1$
$10_{74} \ \sim\sim \ {\wwbar}{5_2}$
$10_{120} {\longrightarrow}5_2$
$10_{122}\ \approx \ {\wwbar}{5_2}$
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
: \[tbl.const\_tK\] Sketch answer to for the pairs of prime knots with up to 10 crossings, listed by Kitano-Suzuki [@Kitano-Suzuki]. Here, we denote the procedures (a), (b), (c) by arrow, “$\approx$”, “$\sim$” respectively, and, say “$\approx \approx$” means to apply (b) twice. The numerical notation for knots and links is the one in Rolfsen [@Rolfsen], and ${\wwbar}{K}$ denotes the mirror image of $K$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Brane-world models offer the possibility of explaining the late acceleration of the universe via infra-red modifications to General Relativity, rather than a dark energy field. However, one also expects ultra-violet modifications to General Relativity, when high-energy stringy effects in the early universe begin to grow. We generalize the DGP brane-world model via an ultra-violet modification, in the form of a Gauss-Bonnet term in the bulk action. The combination of infra-red and ultra-violet modifications produces an intriguing cosmology. The DGP feature of late-time acceleration without dark energy is preserved, but there is an entirely new feature – there is no infinite-temperature big bang in the early universe. The universe starts with finite density and pressure, from a “sudden" curvature singularity.'
author:
- 'Richard A. Brown$^{1}$, Roy Maartens$^{1}$, Eleftherios Papantonopoulos$^{2}$, Vassilis Zamarias$^{2}$'
title: |
A late-accelerating universe with no dark energy\
– and a finite-temperature big bang
---
Introduction
============
The standard cosmology based on General Relativity and inflation has been remarkably successful. But there remain deep puzzles left for theorists to resolve – what is the cause of the late-time acceleration of the universe (the “dark energy" problem)? how is the classical big bang singularity removed by quantum gravity effects? One approach to start tackling these problems is via the brane-world scenario, which is motivated by string theory. Most brane-world models, including those of Randall-Sundrum type [@rs], produce ultra-violet modifications to General Relativity, with extra-dimensional gravity dominating at high energies. However it is also possible for extra-dimensional gravity to dominate at low energies, leading to infra-red modifications of General Relativity [@Gregory:2000jc; @Dvali:2000hr]. The Dvali-Gabadadze-Porrati (DGP) models [@Dvali:2000hr] (see also [@dgp0]) achieve this via a brane induced gravity effect.
The generalization of the DGP models to cosmology lead to late-accelerating cosmologies, even in the absence of a dark energy field [@Deffayet:2000uy]. This exciting feature of “self-acceleration" may help towards a new resolution to the dark energy problem. But the models suffer from the short-coming that they do not modify 4D gravity at high energies, where we expect stringy corrections to start having an effect. How can we generalize the DGP models so that they also show ultra-violet modifications to General Relativity? One possibility is to introduce into the gravitational action a term that is associated with higher-energy stringy corrections – the Gauss-Bonnet term [@gb]. Indeed, in certain realizations of string theory, the ghost-free GB term in the bulk action may naturally lead to a DGP induced gravity term on the brane boundary [@Mavromatos:2005yh].
We investigate what happens when a Gauss-Bonnet term is introduced in the 5D Minkowski bulk containing a Friedmann brane with DGP induced gravity. As we will show, this combination of infra-red and ultra-violet modifications leads to intriguing cosmological models.
Field equations
===============
The gravitational action contains the Gauss-Bonnet (GB) term in the bulk, as a correction to the Einstein-Hilbert term, and the Induced Gravity (IG) term on the brane, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{AcGBIG}
S_{\rm grav}&=&\frac{1}{2\kappa_5^2}\int d^5 x\sqrt{-
g^{(5)}}\left\{ R^{(5)} \right.\nonumber\\&+&\left.\alpha\left[
R^{(5)2}-4 R^{(5)}_{ab}R^{(5)ab}+
R^{(5)}_{abcd}R^{(5)abcd}\right]\right\}
\nonumber\\&+&\frac{r}{2\kappa^2_5} \int_{\rm brane}d^4x\sqrt{-
g^{(4)}}\,R^{(4)}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha\,(\geq0)$ is the GB coupling constant [@alpha] and $r\, (\geq 0)$ is the IG “cross-over" scale, which marks the transition from 4D to 5D gravity. The DGP models are the special case $\alpha=0$, and in this case the cross-over scale defines an effective 4D gravitational constant via ${\kappa^2_4}={\kappa^2_5}/r\,. $
We assume mirror ($Z_2$) symmetry about the brane. The standard energy conservation equation holds on the brane, $$\label{ec}
\dot \rho+3H(1+w)\rho=0\,,~w=p/\rho\,.$$ The modified Friedmann equation was found in the most general case (where the bulk contains a black hole and a cosmological constant, and the brane has tension) in Ref. [@Kofinas:2003rz]. For a spatially flat brane without tension, in a Minkowski bulk, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{F}
4\left[1+\frac{8}{3}
\alpha\left(H^2+\frac{\Phi}{2}\right)\right]^2 \left(H^2-\Phi \right)
=\left[rH^2 -\frac{\kappa^2_5}{3}\rho \right]^2\!,\end{aligned}$$ where $\Phi$ is determined by $$\label{Phi}
\Phi+2\alpha\Phi^2=0\,.$$ (In the most general case, the right-hand side of this condition is nonzero [@Kofinas:2003rz].) Equation (\[Phi\]) has solutions $\Phi=0, -1/2\alpha$, but here we only consider $\Phi=0$, since the second solution has no IG limit and thus does not include the DGP model [@ads].
![DGP and GB solutions of the Friedmann equation ($H$ vs $\rho$) for a Minkowski bulk. (Arrows indicate the flow of brane proper time $t$, with $t=\infty$ at $\rho=0$.)[]{data-label="GBDGP"}](GBDGP.eps "fig:"){height="3in" width="2.75in"} (-1.2,-0.85)[$\leftarrow$]{} (-1.2,-2.95)[$\leftarrow$]{} (-1.2,-3.8)[$\leftarrow$]{}
The DGP models have $\alpha=\Phi=0$ and the Friedmann equation (\[F\]) reduces to a quadratic in $H^2$, with solutions $$\label{FD}
H^2=\pm {2\over r}H+{\kappa_5^2 \over 3r}\rho\,.$$ There are two branches DGP($\pm$) for the two signs on the right (corresponding to different embeddings of the brane in the Minkowski bulk). Both branches have a 4D limit at high energies, $$\label{bbdgp}
\text{DGP($\pm$):}~~H\gg r^{-1}~\Rightarrow ~ H^2\propto \rho\,,$$ while at low energies, $$\begin{aligned}
\text{DGP(+):} && \rho \to 0 ~\Rightarrow ~ H\to {2 \over r}\,,\\
\text{DGP(--):} && \rho \to 0 ~\Rightarrow ~ H^2\propto \rho^2\,.\end{aligned}$$ DGP(–) has a non-standard (and non-accelerating) late universe. The self-accelerating DGP(+) branch is of most interest for cosmology, and we focus here on this model and its generalization via a GB term.
The pure GB model with a Minkowski bulk has $r=\Phi=0$ and the Friedmann equation (\[F\]) reduces to $$\label{FG}
\left(1+\frac{8}{3} \alpha H^2\right)^2H^2={\kappa_5^4 \over
36}\rho^2\,,$$ which is a cubic in $H^2$. This GB Friedmann equation has no 4D limit: $$\begin{aligned}
\text{GB high energy:} && H\gg \alpha^{-1/2} ~\Rightarrow ~
H^2\propto \rho^{2/3} \,,\label{bbgb}\\
\text{GB low energy:} && H\ll \alpha^{-1/2} ~\Rightarrow ~
H^2\propto \rho^2\,.\end{aligned}$$
The Friedmann equations for pure DGP and pure GB models with a Minkowski bulk are compared in Fig. \[GBDGP\].
DGP brane with GB bulk gravity: combining UV and IR modifications
=================================================================
The DGP(+) models are attractive for cosmology since they accelerate at late times, without the need for dark energy, when gravity begins to leak off the brane, i.e., when the 5D Ricci term in Eq. (\[AcGBIG\]) begins to dominate over the 4D Ricci term. At early times, the 4D term dominates and General Relativity is recovered (in the background – note that the perturbations are not General Relativistic [@dgppert]). The DGP models are in some sense “unbalanced", since they do not include ultra-violet modifications to cosmological dynamics. In order to modify 4D gravity at high energies as well as low energies, we can include a GB term in the action.
The combined Gauss-Bonnet Induced Gravity (GBIG) model has a DGP brane in a Minkowski bulk with Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet gravity. The GBIG Friedmann equation follows from putting $\Phi=0$ in Eq. (\[F\]). Defining dimensionless variables, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{DV}
\gamma&=&\frac{8\alpha}{3r^2}\,,~ h=Hr\,,~ \mu
=\frac{r\kappa^2_5}{3}\rho\,,~\tau={t \over r}\,,\end{aligned}$$ the GBIG Friedmann equation becomes $$\label{DGPF2}
4\left(\gamma h^2+1\right)^2h^2=\left(h^2-\mu\right)^2,$$ while the conservation equation becomes $$\label{ec2}
\mu'+3h(1+w)\mu=0\,,$$ where a dash denotes $d/d\tau$, and $h=a'/a$.
Combining Eqs. (\[DGPF2\]) and (\[ec2\]), we find the modified Raychaudhuri equation, $$\label{Ray}
{h}'=\frac{3\mu(1+w)(h^2-\mu)}{4(\gamma h^2+1)(3\gamma
h^2+1)-2(h^2-\mu)}\,.$$ The acceleration $a''/a=h'+h^2$ is then given by $$\label{acc}
{a'' \over a}={4h^2(\gamma h^2+1)(3\gamma h^2+1)-(h^2-\mu)
[2h^2-3(1+w)\mu] \over 4(\gamma h^2+1)(3\gamma h^2+1)-2(h^2-\mu)}.$$
The GB correction, via a non-zero value of $\gamma$, introduces significant complexity to the Friedmann equation, which becomes cubic in $h^2$, as opposed to the quadratic DGP($\pm$) case, $\gamma= 0$, for which $$\label{dd}
h^2=\mu+2\pm2\sqrt{\mu+1}\,.$$ This additional complexity has a dramatic effect on the dynamics of the DGP(+) model, as shown in Fig. \[GBIGDGP\]. The contribution of GB gravity at early times removes the infinite density big bang, and the universe starts at finite maximum density and finite pressure (but, as we show below, with infinite curvature). Furthermore, there are two such solutions, each with late-time self-acceleration, marked GBIG1 and 2 on the plots. Since GBIG2 is accelerating throughout its evolution (actually super-inflating, $h'>0$), the physically relevant self-accelerating solution is GBIG1.
![Solutions of the Friedmann equation ($h$ vs $\mu$) for the DGP(+) model and its Gauss-Bonnet corrections, GBIG1 and GBIG2. The curves are independent of the equation of state $w$. Arrows indicate the flow of normalized brane proper time $\tau$, with $\tau=\infty$ at $\mu=0$. (Here $\gamma=0.05$.)[]{data-label="GBIGDGP"}](GBIG12.eps "fig:"){height="3in" width="2.75in"} (-4,-1.6)[$\leftarrow$]{} (-4,-4)[$\leftarrow$]{} (-1.2,-4.8)[$\leftarrow$]{}
![The DGP(–) model and its GB correction, GBIG3. []{data-label="GBIGDGP2"}](GBIG3.eps "fig:"){height="3in" width="2.75in"} (-1.2,-0.9)[$\leftarrow$]{} (-1.2,-1.7)[$\leftarrow$]{}
The cubic in $h^2$, Eq. (\[DGPF2\]), has three real roots when $0<\gamma<1/16$ (see below). Two of these roots correspond to GBIG1–2, which are modifications of the DGP(+) model. The third root GBIG3 is a modification of the DGP(–) model, as illustrated in Fig. \[GBIGDGP2\]. Note that the curves in these figures are independent of the equation of state $w$ of the matter content of the universe – $w$ will determine the time evolution of the universe along the curves, via the conservation equation (\[ec2\]).
The plots show that GBIG3 starts with a standard big bang, $\rho=\infty$, in common with the DGP($\pm$) and GB models in Fig. \[GBDGP\]. By contrast, GBIG1–2 have a finite-temperature big bang, since the density is bounded above, $$\mu \leq \mu_{\rm i}\,,$$ where $\mu_{\rm i}$ (which is positive only for $\gamma<1/16$), is found below, in Eq. (\[rhomax\]).
The finite-density beginning was pointed out in Ref. [@Kofinas:2003rz], where the cubic for the general case (i.e., with tension, bulk cosmological constant and bulk black hole) was qualitatively analyzed. Here, we focus on the simplest generalization of the DGP models, and give a detailed quantitative analysis of the cosmological dynamics. In particular, our analysis shows that one solution is not bounded, which was not noticed in Ref. [@Kofinas:2003rz]. The numerical plots of the Friedmann equation in Figs. \[GBIGDGP\] and \[GBIGDGP2\] are crucial to a proper understanding of the algebraic analysis of the cubic roots.
A detailed analysis [@bmp] of the cubic equation (\[DGPF2\]) confirms the numerical results, and shows that (for $\mu>0$): $$\begin{aligned}
0<\gamma<{1\over 16} &:& \mbox{3 real roots, GBIG1--3,}
\label{class}
\\ \gamma\geq {1\over 16} &:& \mbox{1 real root,~ GBIG3.}\end{aligned}$$ The real roots are given as follows:\
$\bullet$ For $0<\gamma<1/16$: the roots GBIG1–2 are $$\label{roots1}
4\gamma^2 h^2= {1-8\gamma \over 3}+ 2\sqrt{-Q} \cos(\theta+{n\pi
\over 3}) ~\mbox{for}~\mu \leq \mu_{\rm i}\,,$$ where $n=4$ for GBIG1, $n=2$ for GBIG2, and the root GBIG3 is $$\label{roots2}
4\gamma^2 h^2= {1-8\gamma \over 3}+\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
2\sqrt{-Q} \cos\theta & \mbox{for}~\mu \leq \mu_{\rm i},
\\ \\ S_++S_- & \mbox{for}~\mu\geq \mu_{\rm i}\,.
\end{array}\right.$$ $\bullet$ For $\gamma\geq 1/16$: the only real root GBIG3 is $$\label{roots3}
4\gamma^2 h^2= {1-8\gamma \over 3}+ S_++S_- \,.$$\
In the above, $S_\pm, Q,R,\theta$ are defined by $$\begin{aligned}
&&S_\pm = \left[R\pm \sqrt{R^2+Q^3}\right]^{1/3},\\
&& Q = {8\gamma^2 \over 3}(\mu+2)-{1\over 9}(1-8\gamma)^2\,,\\
&&R = 8\gamma^4\mu^2- {4\gamma^2 \over 3}(1-8\gamma)(\mu+2)
+{(1-8\gamma)^3\over 27}\!, \label{R} \\ && \cos 3\theta = R/
\sqrt{-Q^{3}}\,. \label{theta}\end{aligned}$$
The explicit form of the solutions can be used to confirm the features in Figs. \[GBIGDGP\] and \[GBIGDGP2\]. Equations (\[roots2\])–(\[R\]) show that GBIG3 starts with a big bang, $h,\mu\to\infty$, with $h^2 \sim \mu^{2/3}$ near the big bang. This is the same as the high-energy behaviour of the pure GB model, Eq. (\[bbgb\]) – the GB effect dominates at high energies in GBIG3. This is not the case for GBIG1–2.
The maximum density feature of GBIG1–2 is more easily confirmed by analysing the turning points of $\mu$ as a function of $h^2$. The Friedmann equation (\[DGPF2\]) gives $$\label{in}
{d\mu \over d(h^2)}={h^2-\mu-2(\gamma h^2+1)(3\gamma h^2+1)\over
h^2-\mu}\,.$$ Substituting $d\mu/d(h^2)=0$ into Eq. (\[DGPF2\]), we find that $$\begin{aligned}
h_{\rm i}&=&\frac{1\pm\sqrt{1-12\gamma}}{6\gamma}\,,
\\
\mu_{\rm i} &=& \pm{1\over 3} h_{\rm
i}^2\left(2\sqrt{1-12\gamma}\mp 1 \right)\,.\end{aligned}$$ The second equation shows that positive maximum density only arises for the upper sign and with $\gamma<1/16$, in agreement with the cubic analysis. Thus the initial Hubble rate and density for GBIG1–2 are $$\begin{aligned}
h_{\rm i}&=&\frac{1+\sqrt{1-12\gamma}}{6\gamma}\,, \label{Hrhomax}
\\
\mu_{\rm i} &=& {1\over 3} h_{\rm i}^2\left(2\sqrt{1-12\gamma}- 1
\right)\,. \label{rhomax}\end{aligned}$$ If $\gamma=0$, then GBIG1–2 reduce to DGP(+), and $h_{\rm
i}=\mu_{\rm i}=\infty$. Note that $$h_{\rm i}>4\,.$$ The case $\gamma=1/16, \mu_{\rm_i}=0$ corresponds to a vacuum brane with de Sitter expansion, and $h=h_{\rm i}=4$, generalizing the DGP(+) vacuum de Sitter solution [@Deffayet:2000uy].
The late-time asymptotic value of the expansion rate, as $\mu\to
0$, is $$\label{GBIGhinfin}
h_\infty={1\over 2\sqrt{2}\,\gamma}\left[1-8\gamma\mp
\sqrt{1-16\gamma}\right]^{1/2},$$ where the minus sign corresponds to GBIG1 and the plus sign to GBIG2. In the limit $\gamma\to 0$, GBIG1 recovers the DGP(+) case, $h_\infty=2$, while for GBIG2, $h_\infty\to\infty$; the parabolic GBIG1–2 curve in Fig. \[GBIGDGP\] “unwraps" and transforms into the DGP(+) curve. Equations (\[class\]) and (\[GBIGhinfin\]) show that $$\label{cross}
2\leq h_\infty <4 ~~\mbox{for GBIG1,}$$ while $4<h_\infty<\infty$ for GBIG2.
The behaviour of the key GBIG1–2 parameters is illustrated in Figs. \[himui2\] and \[hinfin\].
![The dependence in GBIG1–2 of the initial expansion rate and density on $\gamma$. []{data-label="himui2"}](hmu.eps){height="3in" width="2.75in"}
![The GBIG1–2 late-time asymptotic expansion rate as a function of $\gamma$. []{data-label="hinfin"}](hinf.eps "fig:"){height="3in" width="2.75in"} (-7.4,-3.2)[$h_{\infty}$]{}
Cosmological Dynamics
=====================
The GBIG1 model, which is the physically relevant generalization of the DGP(+) model, exists if Eq. (\[class\]) holds. By Eq. (\[DV\]), this means that the GB length scale $L_{\rm
gb}=\sqrt{\alpha}$ must be below a maximum threshold determined by the IG cross-over scale: $$\label{gam2}
\gamma<{1\over 16} \,\Leftrightarrow\, L_{\rm gb}\equiv \sqrt
\alpha < {1\over 8}\sqrt{3 \over 2}\,r\,.$$ If the GB term is taken as the correction term in certain string theories, then $L_{\rm gb}\sim L_{\rm string}$, while $r\sim
H_0^{-1}$, so that this bound is easily satisfied.
When Eq. (\[gam2\]) holds, the universe starts with a maximum density $\rho_{\rm i}$ and maximum Hubble rate $H_{\rm i}$, and evolves to an asymptotic vacuum de Sitter state: $$\begin{aligned}
0<\rho &<& \rho_{\rm i}= {rH_{\rm i}^2 \over
\kappa_5^2}\left(2\sqrt{1-{32\alpha \over r^2}}-1 \right),\\
H_\infty< H &<& H_{\rm i}= {r \over 16\alpha}\left(
\sqrt{1-{32\alpha \over r^2}}+1\right).\end{aligned}$$ At any epoch $\tau_0$, the proper time back to the beginning is $$\tau_0-\tau_{\rm i}=\int_{a_{\rm i}}^{a_0}\,{da \over ah}\,.$$ Since $a$ and $h$ are nonzero on the interval of integration, the time back to the beginning is finite.
The current Hubble rate can be approximated by the final de Sitter Hubble rate, $H_0\sim H_\infty$, so that by Eq. (\[cross\]), the cross-over scale obeys $$\label{hub}
2H_0^{-1} \lesssim r \lesssim 4H_0^{-1}\,.$$ In the DGP(+) limit, $r\sim 2H_0^{-1}$. The effect of GB gravity is to increase $r$ but not beyond $r\sim 4H_0^{-1}$.
However, there is a UV-IR “bootstrap" operating to severely limit the GB effect at late times. The key point is that appreciable late-time GB effects require an increase in $\gamma$, whereas the primordial Hubble rate $H_{\rm i}$ is suppressed by an increase in $\gamma$ – as shown in Figs. \[himui2\] and \[hinfin\]. Equations (\[Hrhomax\]) and (\[GBIGhinfin\]) imply that $$\label{boot}
H_{\rm i}\gg H_0~ \Rightarrow~ \gamma \ll {1\over 16}\,.$$ Thus the GBIG1 model does not alleviate the DGP(+) fine-tuning problem of a very large cross-over scale, $r\sim H_0^{-1} \sim
(10^{-33}\,\mbox{eV})^{-1}$.
The GBIG1 Friedman equation (\[roots1\]) gives $$\begin{aligned}
\!\!&& H^2={1-8\gamma\over 12\gamma^2r^2}\nonumber \\ \!\! &&+
{\sqrt{8\gamma^2(r \kappa_5^2 \rho + 6 ) -(1-8\gamma)^2}
\over 6\gamma^2r^2}\cos\left[\theta(\rho) +{4\pi \over 3} \right]
\label{root}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
&&\cos3 \theta(\rho) = \nonumber \\ && ~~~{216 \gamma^4 \mu^2
-36\gamma^2(1-8\gamma)(\mu+2) +(1-8 \gamma)^3 \over [(1-8\gamma)^2
-24\gamma^2(\mu+2)]^{3/2} }.\end{aligned}$$ A more convenient form of the Friedmann equation follows from solving Eq. (\[DGPF2\]) for $\mu$, $$\label{fnew}
\mu=h^2-2h(\gamma h^2+1)\,,~~ h_\infty \leq h < h_{\rm i}\,.$$ By expanding to first order in $h^2-h_\infty^2$, we find that at late times, $$\label{late}
h^2 = h_\infty^2+2\left({h_\infty \over 4 -h_\infty}\right) \mu
+O(\mu^2)\,.$$ Taking the DGP(+) limit $h_\infty\to 2$, and comparing with Eqs. (\[FD\]) and (\[dd\]), we find that the effective Newton constant in GBIG1 is $$\label{newt}
G=\left({h_\infty \over 4 -h_\infty}\right){G_5 \over r} \,,$$ where $G_5=\kappa_5^2/8\pi$ is the fundamental, 5D gravitational constant. In the DGP(+) case $G=G_5/r$.
Equation (\[newt\]) gives a relation for the fundamental Planck scale $M_5$ $$\label{newt2}
M_5^3\sim \left({rH_0 \over 4 -rH_0}\right){M_{\rm p}^2 \over r}
\,,$$ where $M_{\rm p}$ is the effective 4D Planck scale, and we used $H_\infty \sim H_0$. As $r\to 4H_0^{-1}$ (its upper limit), so $M_5$ increases. This is very different from the DGP(+) case, where $M_5^3= M_{\rm p}^2/r$, so that $M_5$ is constrained to be very low, $M_5 \lesssim 100\,$MeV. In principle, GB gravity allows us to solve the problem of a very low fundamental Planck scale – but in practice the UV-IR bootstrap, Eq. (\[boot\]), means that $\gamma\sim 0$ so that $M_5$ is effectively the same as in the DGP(+) case.
What is the nature of the beginning of the universe in GBIG1? We can use Eq. (\[in\]) in Eq. (\[Ray\]), for matter with $w>-1$, to analyze the initial state, $d\mu/d(h^2)\to 0+$. We find that $h'_{\rm i}=-\infty$, i.e., infinite deceleration, $$a''_{\rm i}=-\infty\,.$$ (For GBIG2, with $d\mu/d(h^2)\to 0-$, we have $h'_{\rm
i}=+\infty$.) The initial state has no infinite-temperature big bang, but it has infinite deceleration, and thus infinite Ricci curvature. The brane universe is born in a “quiescent" singularity. (Although similar singularities may be found in Induced Gravity models [@Shtanov:2002ek], they arise from the special extra effect of a bulk black hole or a negative brane tension.) The key point is that neither the DGP(+) model nor the GB model avoid the standard big bang, as shown in Eqs. (\[bbdgp\]) and (\[bbgb\]). But together, the IG and GB effects combine in a “nonlinear" way to produce entirely new behaviour. If we switch off either of these effects, the infinite-temperature big bang reappears.
This singularity is reminiscent of the “sudden" (future) singularities in General Relativity [@Barrow:2004xh] – but unlike those singularities, the GBIG1–2 singularity has finite pressure. The initial curvature singularity signals a breakdown of the brane spacetime. The (Minkowski) bulk remains regular, but the imbedding of the brane becomes singular. Higher-order quantum-gravity effects will be needed to cure this singularity. The fact that the matter is regular at the singularity indicates that the singularity is weaker than a standard big bang singularity, and may be easier to “cure" with quantum corrections.
By performing an expansion near the initial state, using Eq. (\[fnew\]), we find that the primordial Hubble rate in GBIG1, after the infinite deceleration at the birth of the universe, is given by $$H^2\approx H_{\rm i}^2-\,H_{\rm i} \left[ {2\kappa_5^2\over
3\sqrt{r^2-32\alpha} } \right]^{1/2}(\rho_{\rm i}-\rho)^{1/2}.$$ This is independent of the equation of state $w$. If there is primordial inflation in the GBIG1 universe, then the acceleration $a''$ will become positive. For a realistic model (satisfying nucleosynthesis and other constraints), $a''$ must subsequently become negative again, so that the universe decelerates during radiation- and early matter-domination. Finally, $a''$ will become positive again as the late universe self-accelerates.
![The acceleration $f=a''/a$ vs $x=h^2$, for a GBIG1 cosmology with inflation, followed by radiation domination, followed by late-time self-acceleration. Arrows indicate the flow of brane proper time. Here $\gamma=0.05$, and $n=0.8$ in Eq. (\[eos\]). []{data-label="cos"}](fx.eps "fig:"){height="3in" width="2.75in"} (-3.45,-2.45)[$\leftarrow$]{} (-0.8,-6)[$\leftarrow$]{}
We can simplify the expression (\[acc\]) for the acceleration in GBIG1 via Eq. (\[fnew\]), $$f=\frac{2x(3\gamma x+1-\sqrt{x}) +3(1+w)[x\sqrt{x}-2{x}(\gamma
x+1)]}{2(3\gamma x+1-\sqrt{x})}\!,$$ where $f\equiv a''/a, x\equiv h^2$. For a given $w(x)$, we can plot $f(x)$. We show an example in Fig. \[cos\] of a simple model, with primordial inflation followed by radiation domination, followed by late-time self-acceleration. We have used the effective equation of state $$\label{eos}
w= \left\{ \begin{array}{lll} -0.9 && n(h_{\rm i}^2 -
h_{\infty}^2) + h_{\infty}^2< x<h_{\rm i}^2\,,\\1/3 &&
h_{\infty}^2 < x < n(h_{\rm
i}^2 - h_{\infty}^2) + h_{\infty}^2\,.\\
\end{array} \right.$$ Here $0<n<1$ is a parameter determining the time of reheating (with $n=0$ corresponding to no inflation and $n=1$ to no reheating/ radiation).\
Conclusions
===========
In summary, the GBIG1 model provides an intriguing generalization of the DGP(+) model – the Gauss-Bonnet (ultra-violet) correction to the (infra-red) Induced Gravity preserves the late-time self-acceleration of the universe, but leads to striking new behaviour in the early universe. Although there is still a curvature singularity at the beginning, the density, pressure and temperature are finite. This model deserves further investigation as a viable cosmological model. Future work will impose constraints on the model parameters from nucleosynthesis and Supernova redshifts (compare Ref. [@Cai:2005ie]). We expect that these constraints will not differ appreciably from the DGP(+) case, given the very small value of the GB parameter $\gamma$ that is imposed by the UV-IR bootstrap. However, a nonzero $\gamma$, no matter how small, leads to dramatic and nonperturbative changes at high energies in the primordial universe.
From a theoretical viewpoint, it will also be important to investigate how the GB term affects the issues of strong coupling and ghosts in the DGP(+) cosmological model [@prob]. Can the GB term provide a lowest-order ultra-violet completion of the DGP(+) theory? The analysis of perturbations about a Minkowski brane with GB and IG terms [@Brax:2004np] gives a starting point for tackling the Friedmann brane case.
$$$$[**Acknowledgements:**]{} RB and RM are supported by PPARC, EP and VZ by the NTUA research program Protagoras and by (EPEAEK II)-Pythagoras (co-funded by the European Social Fund and National Resources). We thank Mariam Bouhmadi-Lopez, Georgios Kofinas, Kazuya Koyama and Alexey Toporensky for very helpful discussions.
[99]{}
See, e.g., P. Brax, C. van de Bruck and A. C. Davis, Rept. Prog. Phys. [**67**]{}, 2183 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-th/0404011\]. See, e.g., R. Gregory, V. A. Rubakov and S. M. Sibiryakov, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{}, 5928 (2000) \[arXiv:hep-th/0002072\]; I. I. Kogan, arXiv:astro-ph/0108220; A. Papazoglou, arXiv:hep-ph/0112159; A. Padilla, Class. Quant. Grav. [**22**]{}, 681 (2005) \[arXiv:hep-th/0406157\]; A. Padilla, Class. Quant. Grav. [**22**]{}, 1087 (2005) \[arXiv:hep-th/0410033\]. G. R. Dvali, G. Gabadadze and M. Porrati, Phys. Lett. B [**485**]{}, 208 (2000) \[arXiv:hep-th/0005016\]. H. Collins and B. Holdom, Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{}, 105009 (2000) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0003173\]; Y. V. Shtanov, arXiv:hep-th/0005193. C. Deffayet, Phys. Lett. B [**502**]{}, 199 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-th/0010186\]. See, e.g., C. Charmousis and J. F. Dufaux, Class. Quant. Grav. [**19**]{}, 4671 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-th/0202107\]; S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov and S. Ogushi, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**17**]{}, 4809 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-th/0205187\]; S. C. Davis, Phys. Rev. D [**67**]{}, 024030 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-th/0208205\]; E. Gravanis and S. Willison, Phys. Lett. B [**562**]{}, 118 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-th/0209076\]; J. E. Lidsey and N. J. Nunes, Phys. Rev. D [**67**]{}, 103510 (2003) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0303168\]; K. i. Maeda and T. Torii, Phys. Rev. D [**69**]{}, 024002 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-th/0309152\]; J. F. Dufaux, J. E. Lidsey, R. Maartens and M. Sami, Phys. Rev. D [**70**]{}, 083525 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-th/0404161\]; T. G. Rizzo, JHEP [**0501**]{}, 028 (2005) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0412087\]. N. E. Mavromatos and E. Papantonopoulos, arXiv:hep-th/0503243. The assumption that $\alpha$ is non-negative is motivated by string theory, where typically $\alpha\propto +L_{\rm string}^2$.
G. Kofinas, R. Maartens and E. Papantonopoulos, JHEP [**0310**]{}, 066 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-th/0307138\]. Note that the $\Phi=-1/2\alpha$ branch corresponds to an anti de Sitter bulk, even though there is no cosmological constant.
T. Tanaka, Phys. Rev. D [**69**]{}, 024001 (2004) \[arXiv:gr-qc/0305031\]; C. Deffayet, Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{}, 103501 (2005) \[arXiv:gr-qc/0412114\]; K. Koyama and K. Koyama, Phys. Rev. D [**72**]{} (2005) 043511 \[arXiv:hep-th/0501232\]. M. Bouhmadi-Lopez, unpublished notes.
Y. Shtanov and V. Sahni, Class. Quant. Grav. [**19**]{}, L101 (2002) \[arXiv:gr-qc/0204040\]. J. D. Barrow, Class. Quant. Grav. [**21**]{}, L79 (2004) \[arXiv:gr-qc/0403084\]. R. G. Cai, H. S. Zhang and A. Wang, arXiv:hep-th/0505186. C. Deffayet, G. R. Dvali, G. Gabadadze and A. I. Vainshtein, Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{} (2002) 044026 \[arXiv:hep-th/0106001\]; M. A. Luty, M. Porrati and R. Rattazzi, JHEP [**0309**]{}, 029 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-th/0303116\]; V. A. Rubakov, arXiv:hep-th/0303125; G. Dvali, arXiv:hep-th/0402130; A. Nicolis and R. Rattazzi, JHEP [**0406**]{}, 059 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-th/0404159\]; N. Kaloper, Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{}, 086003 (2005) \[Erratum – ibid. D [**71**]{}, 129905 (2005)\] \[arXiv:hep-th/0502035\]; K. Koyama, arXiv:hep-th/0503191; C. Deffayet and J. W. Rombouts, arXiv:gr-qc/0505134. C. Charmousis and J. F. Dufaux, Phys. Rev. D [**70**]{}, 106002 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-th/0311267\]; P. Brax, N. Chatillon and D. A. Steer, Phys. Lett. B [**608**]{}, 130 (2005) \[arXiv:hep-th/0411058\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
Bryan Cardenas\
Informatics Institute\
University of Amsterdam\
`[email protected]`\
Devanshu Arya\
Informatics Institute\
University of Amsterdam\
`[email protected]`\
Deepak K. Gupta\
Informatics Institute\
University of Amsterdam\
`[email protected]`\
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: 'Generating Annotated High-Fidelity Images containing Multiple Coherent Objects'
---
Introduction
============
Related Work
============
Approach
========
Evaluation and Analysis
=======================
To study the working of MSGNet, we perform here a series of experiments on Multi-MNIST, as used in [@Hinz2019iclr; @multimnist2016hinton], and CLEVR [@johnson2017clevr] datasets. Further, we investigate its applicability as a data augmentation technique for segmentation tasks in medical imaging. Details of the used architecture and the hyperparameters used can found in Appendix \[arch-appendix\].
Generating high-fidelity multi-object images
--------------------------------------------
Learning spatial and semantic coherency
---------------------------------------
Application in Data Augmentation {#dataugment}
--------------------------------
Discussion
----------
Conclusion
==========
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Ultra-deep WFC3/IR observations on the HUDF from the HUDF09 program revealed just one plausible $z\sim10$ candidate UDFj-39546284. UDFj-39546284 had all the properties expected of a galaxy at $z\sim10$ showing (1) no detection in the deep ACS+WFC3 imaging data blueward of the F160W band, exhibiting (2) a blue spectral slope redward of the break, and showing (3) no prominent detection in deep IRAC observations. The new, similarly deep WFC3/IR HUDF12 F160W observations over the HUDF09/XDF allow us to further assess this candidate. These observations show that this candidate, previously only detected at $\sim$5.9$\sigma$ in a single band, clearly corresponds to a real source. It is detected at $\sim$5.3$\sigma$ in the new $H_{160}$-band data and at $\sim$7.8$\sigma$ in the full 85-orbit $H_{160}$-band stack. Interestingly, the non-detection of the source ($<1\sigma$) in the new F140W observations suggests a higher redshift. Formally, the best-fit redshift of the source utilizing all the WFC3+ACS (and IRAC+$K_s$-band) observations is $11.8\pm0.3$. However, we consider the $z\sim12$ interpretation somewhat unlikely, since the source would either need to be $\sim$20$\times$ more luminous than expected or show very high-EW Ly$\alpha$ emission (which seems improbable given the extensive neutral gas prevalent early in the reionization epoch). Lower-redshift solutions fail if only continuum models are allowed. Plausible lower-redshift solutions require that the $H_{160}$-band flux be dominated by line emission such as H$\alpha$ or \[OIII\] with extreme EWs. The tentative detection of line emission at 1.6$\mu$m in UDFj-39546284 in a companion paper suggests that such emission may have already been found.'
author:
- 'R. J. Bouwens, P. A. Oesch, G. D. Illingworth, I. Labb[é]{}, P. G. van Dokkum, G. Brammer, D. Magee, L.R. Spitler, M. Franx, R. Smit, M. Trenti, V. Gonzalez, C. M. Carollo'
title: 'Photometric Constraints on the Redshift of $z\sim10$ candidate UDFj-39546284 from deeper WFC3/IR+ACS+IRAC observations over the HUDF'
---
Introduction
============
As the identification of large numbers of $z\sim8$ galaxies becomes more routine in deep HST observations (e.g., Bouwens et al. 2011b; Oesch et al. 2012b; Bradley et al. 2012; Lorenzoni et al. 2011), the high-redshift frontier has clearly moved to $z\sim9$-10. Only a small number of $z\sim9$-10 candidates are known to date (Bouwens et al. 2011a, 2013; Oesch et al. 2012a; Zheng et al. 2012; Coe et al. 2013; Ellis et al. 2013). The quantitative study of $z\sim9$-10 galaxies provides us with our greatest possible leverage for characterizing the growth rate of galaxies from early times, clarifying the role that galaxies played in reionizing the universe, and assessing possible changes in the stellar populations at very low, even primordial, metallicities.
Of all the $z\sim9$-10 candidates, perhaps the most tantalizing is the $z\gtrsim10$ candidate UDFj-39546284. UDFj-39546284 was initially identified as a promising $z\sim10$ candidate by Bouwens et al. (2011a) making use of the ultra-deep optical and near-IR observations over the HUDF from the full HUDF09 data set (see also Oesch et al. 2012a). More recently, UDFj-39546284 was re-examined using the WFC3/IR observations from the HUDF12 and CANDELS programs by Ellis et al. (2013), and it was found to be undetected in the F140W band, suggesting that its redshift could be as high as $z\sim11.9$.
In this paper, we perform a detailed reassessment of UDFj-39546284 taking advantage of several additional data sets. In addition to utilizing the new ultra-deep WFC3/IR observations from the 128-orbit HUDF12 (Ellis et al. 2013; Koekemoer et al. 2013) and CANDELS (Grogin et al. 2011; Koekemoer et al. 2011) programs and deep IRAC observations already considered, we use a deeper reduction of the optical observations over the HUDF from the XDF dataset (Illingworth et al. 2013) than previously used. Furthermore, we add new constraints from a deep $K_s$-band image, add new measurements of size/structure, and present the source in the context of the expected $UV$ LF at $z>10$ in a quantitative way. Finally, we make use of results from a companion paper (Brammer et al. 2013) on deep WFC3/IR grism spectroscopy of the source to further clarify its nature.
The plan for this paper is as follows. In §2, we provide a brief summary of the observational data. In §3, we present the HST photometry we have for the source and use these observations to reassess its nature. Finally, in §4, we summarize our results. We refer to the HST F435W, F606W, F775W, F814W, F850LP, F105W, F125W, F140W and F160W bands as $B_{435}$, $V_{606}$, $i_{775}$, $I_{814}$, $z_{850}$, $Y_{105}$, $J_{125}$, $JH_{140}$, and $H_{160}$, respectively. Where necessary, we assume $\Omega_0 = 0.3$, $\Omega_{\Lambda} = 0.7$, $H_0 = 70\,\textrm{km/s/Mpc}$. All magnitudes are in the AB system (Oke & Gunn 1983).
Observational Data and Photometry
=================================
Observational Data
------------------
We analyze the full set of HST observations over the HUDF09/XDF, including data from the 192-orbit HUDF09 program (Bouwens et al. 2011b), CANDELS, the 128-orbit HUDF12 program, and several other sizeable programs.
255 orbits of HST WFC3/IR observations are now available over the HUDF09/XDF, including $\sim$100, $\sim$40, 30, and $\sim$85 orbits in the $Y_{105}$, $J_{125}$, $JH_{140}$, and $H_{160}$ bands, respectively. The biggest gains over the HUDF09 program came in the $Y_{105}$ and $JH_{140}$ bands. We reduced these observations in a similar manner as the original WFC3/IR data from the HUDF09 program (Bouwens et al. 2011b). Special care was taken to keep our reductions of the new CANDELS and HUDF12 observations separate from those of the original HUDF09 data, to enable us to evaluate the reality of sources from the original observations.
In addition, we now have new reductions of the optical observations over the HUDF from the XDF project that are $\sim$0.1-0.2 mag deeper than the original Beckwith et al. (2006) HUDF reductions due to our inclusion of all other HST data sets taken over the HUDF for the past 10 years, including the recent optical/ACS $I_{814}$ data.
To obtain photometric constraints on UDFj-39546284 redward of the $H_{160}$-band, we utilize the deep 120-hour Spitzer/IRAC (Fazio et al. 2004) observations in the \[3.6\] and \[4.5\] channels from the original GOODS IRAC program and the 262-hour IRAC Ultradeep Field program (IUDF10: PI: Labb[é]{}). These observations reach to 27.1 mag and 26.8 mag in the 3.6$\mu$m and 4.5$\mu$m bands, respectively (3$\sigma$: Labb[é]{} et al. 2012). We also utilize the very deep $K_s$-band observations over the HUDF (26.5 mag: $5\sigma$), including data from VLT/HAWK-I (program 186.A-0898, PI A. Fontana), VLT/ISAAC (program 73.A-0764 PI I. Labb[é]{} and 168.A-0485 PI C. Cesarsky), and PANIC (PI I. Labb[é]{}). In coadding the $K_{s}$-band observations, individual frames are weighted by the inverse variance expected for a point source (Labb[é]{} et al. 2003). Table 1 provides detailed information on the various $K_s$-band observations used for our deep reduction.
In summary, in addition to the HUDF09/HUDF12 WFC3/IR and the IUDF10 IRAC datasets (also used by Ellis et al. 2013, though Ellis et al. 2013 appear not to have accounted for the modest variations in the effective depth of the IRAC observations due to varying contamination from neighboring foreground sources), we utilize the deeper XDF optical/ACS dataset on the HUDF, deep optical/ACS $I_{814}$ and deep $K_s$-band observations for our detailed study of UDFj-39546284.
Methodology for Doing Photometry
--------------------------------
We obtain flux measurements on the HST observations by running SExtractor (Bertin & Arnouts 1996) in dual-image mode, taking the detection image to be the $H_{160}$-band and using the PSF-matched images for photometry. Colors are measured in small-scalable apertures (Kron \[1980\] factor of 1.2) and corrected to total by comparing the $H_{160}$-band flux in a larger-scalable aperture (Kron factor of 2.5) to that in the smaller-scalable aperture and then applying a correction to account for light on the wings of the PSF based on the tabulated encircled-energy distribution.
The $K_s$-band flux measurement was performed in a $0.65''$-diameter circular aperture and corrected to match our HST photometry by comparing the $H_{160}$-band flux ($0.65''$-diameter aperture, after PSF-correction) to that found in our baseline scalable apertures.
IRAC photometry was performed utilizing software to model the light profiles of neighboring sources so that this light could be subtracted (Labb[é]{} et al. 2006, 2010a, 2010b, 2012). Clean photometry of the source is then performed (1.8$"$-diameter circular apertures). A factor of $\sim$2.2 correction is made to the measured fluxes to account for light on the wings of the IRAC PSF.
Results
=======
Photometric Constraints on UDFj-39546284
----------------------------------------
The photometry we derive for UDFj-39546284 is presented in Table \[tab:photometry\] and Figure \[fig:beta\]. UDFj-39546284 again shows a very significant detection in the $H_{160}$-band and no significant detection in any other band. The fact that the source is detected in the new $H_{160}$-band observations at $5.3\sigma$ (0.5$''$-diameter aperture) and 7.8$\sigma$ (0.5$''$-diameter aperture) in the total $H_{160}$-band stack demonstrates that this is definitely a real galaxy (Figure \[fig:stamp\]).
The present color measurements are consistent with those from Ellis et al. (2013), but our total $H_{160}$-band magnitude is $\sim$0.6 mag brighter than the $0.5''$-diameter aperture-magnitude measurement from Ellis et al. (2013). This is not unsurprising given the significant spatial extension of UDFj-39546284, our use of larger scalable apertures (more appropriate for this source), and our correction to total magnitudes.
The optical and near-IR observations blueward of the $H_{160}$-band are very deep and indicate a sharp fall-off in the spectrum at $<$1.6$\mu$m (Figure \[fig:beta\]). The amplitude of the flux decrement from the $H_{160}$-band flux measurement is a substantial $>$2.8 mag to a coadded $Y_{105}J_{125}JH_{140}$ bandpass, $>$3.3 mag to a coadded $B_{435}V_{606}i_{775}I_{814}z_{850}Y_{105}J_{125}JH_{140}$ bandpass, and $>$2.2 mag to the $JH_{140}$-band. (The flux constraints from multiple bands were combined assuming a flat-spectrum (F$\nu$) source.) Redward of the $H_{160}$-band, the IRAC and $K_s$-band observations are less deep, but place strong constraints on the general shape of the SED.
The existence of a significant $\sim$8$\sigma$ detection of UDFj-39546284 in the $H_{160}$-band, a strong break in the spectrum blueward of the $H_{160}$-band, and no prominent detection of the source redward of the $H_{160}$-band is suggestive of a $z>10$ galaxy. Use of the photometric redshift code ZEBRA (Feldmann et al. 2006) yields a formal redshift estimate of $11.8\pm0.3$ for UDFj-39546284 (Figure \[fig:JdropSED\]). We find a similar result with the EAZY photometric redshift code (Brammer et al. 2008). The present estimates are somewhat lower than the Ellis et al. (2013) $z=11.9$ estimate, likely due to our additional constraint on the luminosity of UDFj-39546284 from the deep $K_s$-band data.
As in Oesch et al. (2012a) and Ellis et al. (2013), attempts to fit the source with a lower-redshift galaxy SED are not particularly successful. The best low-redshift fit, without a substantial emission-line contribution, is an evolved galaxy at $z_{lowz}=2.6$. However, the high measured $\chi^2$ value of this fit ($\chi^2_{lowz}=34.6$) compared to the best-fit solution at $z=11.8$ ($\chi^2=13.3$) makes this conventional low-redshift solution untenable (but see below).
The new photometry also allows us to set useful constraints on the shape of the spectrum redward of the break. We fit the SED with a power law $f_{\lambda}\propto\,f_0\,\lambda^{\beta}$, leaving the redshift, luminosity, and $\beta$ as free parameters. We find $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ upper limits of $-$2.3 and $-$1.5, respectively, for $\beta$. These upper limits correspond to the maximum $\beta$’s where $\Delta\chi^2=\chi^2-\chi_{min}^2=1$ and 4, respectively. This demonstrates quite definitively that UDFj-39546284 is blue redward of the $H_{160}$-band and cannot be well fit by an old or dusty low-redshift SED.
Size and Structural Properties of UDFj-39546284
-----------------------------------------------
UDFj-39546284 consists of a compact core, embedded in a more extended structure. The features to the upper left and lower right of the source (Figure \[fig:stamp\]) appear to extend some $\sim$0.4$''$ in radius from the source (see also Ono et al. 2013). Using SExtractor, we measure a half-light radius of $\sim$0.17$"$ for UDFj-39546284 in the deeper observations. This is larger than the $\sim$0.13$"$-diameter half-light radius for the PSF. Correcting for the PSF, the half-light radius for this candidate is 0.13$''$.
If we interpret this as a $z\sim12$ source, the implied $\sim$0.5 kpc (physical) half-light radius for the source is consistent with expectations what one would applying a $(1+z)^{-1}$ size scaling to the $z\sim7$-8 galaxy samples studied by Oesch et al. (2010) where the mean size for comparable-luminosity sources is 0.8 kpc (physical: see also Ono et al. 2013). A $\sim(1+z)^{-1}$ size scaling has been found to describe the evolution of star-forming galaxies over a wide range in redshift (e.g., Buitrago et al. 2008; Oesch et al. 2010). This source is also potentially consistent with expectations if we interpret this as a $z\sim2$ galaxy. The measured half-light radius translates into a physical size of $\sim$1.1 kpc, at the top end of the range expected for extreme emission-line or star-forming galaxies at $z\sim2$ (van$\,$der$\,$Wel et al. 2012), after correcting for typical $r\propto\,L^{0.3}$ luminosity dependencies (e.g., de$\,$Jong & Lacey 2000).
Difficulty with $z\sim12$ Interpretation: Inferred $UV$ Luminosity Is $\sim$20$\times$ Too Large?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While simply identifying UDFj-39546284 as a $z\sim12$ galaxy would seem appropriate (see also Ellis et al. 2013), it becomes problematic when both the apparent UV luminosity of this source and the total search volume in which the source was found are taken into consideration. If the source is at $z\sim12$, its intrinsic luminosity would be $-$20.3 ($\sim$0.5$\times$ the luminosity of a $z=3$ $L^*$ galaxy: Steidel et al. 1999). This is $\sim$4$\times$ higher than what Bouwens et al. (2011a) and Oesch et al. (2012a) inferred if the source was at $z\sim10.4$ (which seemed plausible before the $JH_{140}$ constraint was available). The much higher luminosity follows from the greater luminosity distance for UDFj-39546284 (factor of $\sim$1.4 change) and the fact that the source is only seen in the reddest one-third of the $H_{160}$-band (factor of 3 change).
To put this unusually high luminosity in context, we calculate the approximate volume in which we could have found the source. Utilizing the same techniques as in Oesch et al. (2013), we estimate a total search volume of $\sim$3$\times$10$^3$$\,$Mpc$^3$ (comoving) for UDFj-39546284 in the combined HUDF09/HUDF12/XDF dataset.
The calculated selection volume and observed $UV$ luminosity allow us to derive an approximate LF for star-forming galaxies at $z=12$, assuming of course that UDFj-39546284 is indeed at $z=12$. The result is shown in Figure \[fig:LFconstraint\] and is unique to this analysis. For context, the LFs inferred for star-forming galaxies at $z\sim4$-10 from Bouwens et al. (2007), Oesch et al. (2012b), and Oesch et al. (2013) are also presented. It is clear that UDFj-39546284 would be $\sim$10$\times$ more luminous than similarly-prevalent galaxies at $z\sim10$ and $\sim$20$\times$ more luminous than similarly-prevalent star-forming galaxies at $z\sim12$, extrapolating lower-redshift LF trends to $z>10$.
The evolution of the $UV$ LF at early times, i.e., from $z\sim10$ to $z\sim4$, is sufficiently uniform that the discovery of a $z\sim12$ galaxy that is $\sim$20$\times$ more luminous than expected over such a small area is implausible and strongly argues for another explanation.[^1]
[cc|cccc]{} RA & 03:32:39.54 & VLT/HAWK-I & 28.4 & 26.1 & 0.36\
DEC & $-$27:46:28.4 & VLT/ISAAC & 24.2 & 25.8 & 0.35\
$B_{435}$ & $-1.0\pm1.7$ & PANIC & 23.6 & 25.5 & 0.33\
$V_{606}$ & $0.2\pm1.1$ & *ALL* & 76.2 & 26.5 & 0.35\
$i_{775}$ & $1.5\pm1.4$\
$I_{814}$ & $-2.9\pm3.3$\
$z_{850}$ & $1.2\pm2.5$\
$Y_{105}$ & $-0.8\pm1.2$\
$J_{125}$ & $-3.9\pm1.7$\
$JH_{140}$ & $-0.5\pm1.6$\
$H_{160}$ & $11.8\pm1.5$\
& (28.7$\pm$0.2 mag)\
$K_s$ & $-16\pm25$\
$3.6\mu$m & $4\pm21$\
$4.5\mu$m & $28\pm25$\
$5.8\mu$m & $-36\pm168$\
$8.0\mu$m & $-136\pm215$
Emission-Line-Dominated Galaxy?
-------------------------------
The properties of UDFj-39546284 are puzzling and difficult to explain as either a low or high-redshift source if the bulk of the $H_{160}$-band flux is from continuum star light.
However, we can avoid this difficulty if the $H_{160}$-band light predominantly arises from line emission (see also Ellis et al. 2013). For example, in the lower-middle panel of Figure \[fig:JdropSED\], we show one possible, though somewhat extreme example, where we allow for arbitrary-EW line emission from an AGN. The dust extinction is high ($E(B-V)=0.9$), and the rest-frame EW of $H_\alpha$ is large ($\sim$5000Å). This fit has a $\chi^2$($=17.1$) more similar to the $z\sim12$ solution, but for a redshift $z\sim1.5$. This is ad-hoc, but demonstrates what is needed.
Support for line emission contributing substantially to the flux in the $H_{160}$-band comes from the recent analysis of the deep WFC3/IR grism observations of UDFj-39546284 in a companion paper by Brammer et al. (2013). They find evidence of an emission-line feature at 1.6$\mu$m that could provide most or all of the observed $H_{160}$-band flux for UDFj-39546284. The existence of such a feature is not unexpected given the difficulty in modelling the source as a pure-continuum galaxy at $z\sim12$ (because of its luminosity) or $z\sim2$-3 ($\chi^2=34.6$: Figure \[fig:JdropSED\]).
Given the plausiblity of line emission playing a role, the question arises as to the nature of the line emission. Brammer et al. (2013) argue that the emission-line contribution would be from an extreme emission-line galaxy (EELG), notably the \[OIII\]$\lambda$4959+5007 doublet at $z\sim2.2$. Such galaxies have been found in wide-area grism and imaging surveys with WFC3/IR (van$\,$der$\,$Wel et al. 2011; Atek et al. 2011; Brammer et al. 2012). Even more extreme examples are needed in the case of UDFj-39546284. Ellis et al. (2013) similarly suggested the source might be an EELG at $z\sim2.4$, but could not explain how such a source could produce the observed spectral break. Brammer et al. (2013) describe the discovery of an EELG at $z\sim1.6$ with an extremely-high \[OIII\] EW and relatively-red UV colors that would come close to satisfying the constraints if that source were at $z\sim2.2$.
Alternatively the emission-line flux could be from Ly$\alpha$. EWs of $\sim$200$\,$Å$~$are seen in star-forming galaxies in the $z\sim4$-6 universe (e.g., Stark et al. 2010) and would cause the source to be brighter by a factor of $\sim$4, resulting in a much more plausible intrinsic luminosity, i.e., $\sim-18.8\,$mag. However, even with this luminosity, the source would still be at least 5$\times$ more luminous than one would expect for a comparably-prevalent $z\sim12$ galaxy (i.e., with the same volume density). Attributing the emission to Ly$\alpha$ also seems implausible given the large amounts of neutral hydrogen expected in the $z>7$ universe that would resonantly scatter Ly$\alpha$ photons. Ly$\alpha$ emission is found to be rare in $z\gtrsim7$-8 galaxies, presumably due to an increasingly neutral IGM (Ono et al. 2012; Schenker et al. 2012; Pentericci et al. 2011; Caruana et al. 2012).
The existence of line emission is a plausible, though not proven, solution to the mystery regarding UDFj-39546284, with the evidence weighted towards a low-redshift solution with an extremely strong \[OIII\] feature.
Summary
=======
We utilize the deeper near-IR observations available over the HUDF09/HUDF12/XDF from the HUDF09, HUDF12 and CANDELS programs to investigate the nature of the $z\sim10$ galaxy candidate UDFj-39546284 (Bouwens et al. 2011a; Oesch et al. 2012a). Using the $H_{160}$-band observations from the combined HUDF12 and CANDELS programs, we find a 5.3$\sigma$ detection at the position of UDFj-39546284, definitively demonstrating that the candidate is real (see also Ellis et al. 2013; Ono et al. 2013). UDFj-39546284 is detected at $\sim$7.8$\sigma$ in the full 85-orbit $H_{160}$-band observations.
Making use of deeper ACS+WFC3/IR XDF observations we demonstrate that UDFj-39546284 exhibits a substantial break in the SED between the $H_{160}$-band and bluer bands: $\gtrsim2.2$ mag to the $JH_{140}$ band and $\gtrsim3.3$ mag to a combined $B_{435}V_{606}i_{775}I_{814}z_{850}Y_{105}J_{125}JH_{140}$ band. Using the deep IRAC and $K_s$-band observations, we find that UDFj-39546284 has $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ upper limits of $-2.3$ and $-1.5$, respectively, for the $UV$ slope $\beta$ showing quite clearly that UDFj-39546284 is not a red $z\sim1$-3 galaxy (Figure \[fig:beta\]).
The sharp break in the SED of UDFj-39546284 and blue spectral slope redward of the break is suggestive of a $z\sim10$-12 galaxy. The best-fit photometric redshift for UDFj-39546284 using all data, including deep IRAC and $K_s$-band constraints, is $z=11.8\pm0.3$.
However, interpreting the source as a $z=11.8\pm0.3$ star-forming galaxy is problematic. The $UV$ luminosity inferred for the source if it were at $z\sim12$ is extremely high, $\sim$20$\times$ brighter than expected for similarly-prevalent sources at $z\sim12$ (extrapolating current LF trends).
In light of the uniform evolution seen in the $UV$ LF at early times, it seems implausible that UDFj-39546284 actually corresponds to a $z\sim12$ galaxy unless its $H_{160}$-band flux is substantially boosted by Ly$\alpha$ emission. However, this possibility is unlikely given the huge amounts of neutral hydrogen almost certainly present in the $z\sim12$ universe.
Given the tentative detection of an emission line in UDFj-39546284 by Brammer et al. (2013), the most probable interpretation for UDFj-39546284 may be that it corresponds to a rare EELG at $z\sim2.2$ with an observed \[OIII\] EW $>$10$^4$Å. An example of such an EELG is presented by Brammer et al. (2013). Such a high-EW source is even more extreme than other recently-identified EELGs (e.g., van$\,$der$\,$Wel et al. 2011).
While UDFj-39546284 is not at $z\sim10$, and probably not at $z\sim12$, the outcome is comparably interesting, and exemplifies the challenges of exploring the limits of the high-redshift universe with current telescopes as we await JWST.
We acknowledge the support of NASA grant NAG5-7697 and NASA grant HST-GO-11563, ERC grant HIGHZ \#227749, and a NWO vrij competitie grant. PO acknowledges support from NASA through a Hubble Fellowship grant \#51278.01 awarded by STScI.
Atek, H., Siana, B., Scarlata, C., et al. 2011, , 743, 121 Beckwith, S. V. W., et al. 2006, , 132, 1729 Bertin, E. and Arnouts, S. 1996, , 117, 39 Bouwens, R. J., Illingworth, G. D., Franx, M., & Ford, H. 2007, , 670, 928 Bouwens, R. J., Illingworth, G. D., Labb[é]{}, I., et al. 2011a, , 469, 504 Bouwens, R. J., Illingworth, G. D., Oesch, P. A., et al. 2011b, , 737, 90 Bouwens, R., Bradley, L., Zitrin, A., et al. 2013, , submitted, arXiv:1211.2230 Bradley, L. D., Trenti, M., Oesch, P. A., et al. 2012, , 760, 108 Brammer, G. B., van Dokkum, P. G., & Coppi, P. 2008, , 686, 1503 Brammer, G. B., S[á]{}nchez-Janssen, R., Labb[é]{}, I., et al. 2012a, , 758, L17 Brammer, G. B., et al. 2013, , in press, arXiv:1301.0317 Buitrago, F., Trujillo, I., Conselice, C. J., et al. 2008, , 687, L61 Caruana, J., Bunker, A. J., Wilkins, S. M., et al. 2012, , 427, 3055 Coe, D., Zitrin, A., Carrasco, M., et al. 2013, , 762, 32 de Jong, R. S., & Lacey, C. 2000, , 545, 781 Ellis, R. S., McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., et al. 2013, , 763, L7 Fazio, G. G., Hora, J. L., Allen, L. E., et al. 2004, , 154, 10 Feldmann, R., Carollo, C. M., Porciani, C., et al. 2006, , 372, 565 Grogin, N. A., Kocevski, D. D., Faber, S. M., et al. 2011, , 197, 35 Illingworth, G.D., et al. 2013, in preparation Koekemoer, A. M., Faber, S. M., Ferguson, H. C., et al. 2011, , 197, 36 Koekemoer, A. M., Ellis, R. S, McLure, R. J., et al. 2013, , submitted, arXiv:1212.1448 Kron, R. G. 1980, , 43, 305 Labb[é]{}, I., Franx, M., Rudnick, G., et al. 2003, , 125, 1107 Labb[é]{}, I., Bouwens, R., Illingworth, G. D., & Franx, M. 2006, , 649, L67 Labb[é]{}, I., et al. 2010a, , 708, L26 Labb[é]{}, I., et al. 2010b, , 716, L103 Labb[é]{}, I., Oesch, P. A., Bouwens, R. J., et al. 2012, , submitted, arXiv:1209.3037 Lorenzoni, S., Bunker, A. J., Wilkins, S. M., et al. 2011, , 414, 1455 Oesch, P.A., et al. 2010, , 709, L21 Oesch, P. A., Bouwens, R. J., Illingworth, G. D., et al. 2012a, , 745, 110 Oesch, P. A., Bouwens, R. J., Illingworth, G. D., et al. 2012b, , 759, 135 Oesch, P. A., Bouwens, R. J., Illingworth, G. D., et al. 2013, , submitted, arXiv:1301.6162 Oke, J. B., & Gunn, J. E. 1983, , 266, 713 Ono, Y., Ouchi, M., Mobasher, B., et al. 2012, , 744, 83 Ono, Y., Ouchi, M., Curtis-Lake, E., et al. 2013, , submitted, arXiv:1212.3869 Pentericci, L., Fontana, A., Vanzella, E., et al. 2011, , 743, 132 Schenker, M. A., Stark, D. P., Ellis, R. S., et al. 2012, , 744, 179 Stark, D. P., Ellis, R. S., Chiu, K., Ouchi, M., & Bunker, A. 2010, , 408, 1628 Steidel, C. C., Adelberger, K. L., Giavalisco, M., Dickinson, M. and Pettini, M. 1999, , 519, 1 van der Wel, A., Straughn, A. N., Rix, H.-W., et al. 2011, , 742, 111 van der Wel, A., Bell, E. F., H[ä]{}ussler, B., et al. 2012, , 203, 24 Zheng, W., Postman, M., Zitrin, A., et al. 2012, , 489, 406
[^1]: We remark that gravitational lensing by a foreground source does not seem like a workable explanation for the high luminosity of UDFj-39546284, given the lack of a plausible foreground lens.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present the results from the first large ($>100$ source) 3.5mm polarimetric survey of radio loud active galactic nuclei (AGN). This wavelength is favorable within the radio–mm range for measuring the intrinsic linearly polarized emission from AGN, since in general it is only marginally affected by Faraday rotation of the electric vector position angle, and depolarization. The $I$, $Q$, $U$, and $V$ Stokes parameter observations were performed with the XPOL polarimeter at the IRAM 30m Telescope on different observing epochs from July 2005 (when most of the measurements were made) to October 2009. Our sample consists of 145 flat-radio-spectrum AGN with declination $>-30^{\circ}$ (J2000.0) and flux density ${\ {\raise-.5ex\hbox{$\buildrel>\over\sim$}}\ }1$Jy at $\sim86$GHz, as measured at the IRAM 30m Telescope from 1978 to 1994. This constraint on the radio spectrum causes our sample to be dominated by blazars, which allows us to conduct new statistical studies on this class of high-luminosity, relativistically-beamed emitters. We detect linear and circular polarization (above minimum $3\sigma$ levels of $\sim$1.5%, and $\sim$0.3%) for 76%, and 6% of the sample, respectively. We find a clear excess in degree of linear polarization detected at 86GHz with regard to that at 15GHz by a factor of $\sim2$. Over our entire source sample, the luminosity of the jets is anti–correlated with the degree of linear polarization. Consistent with previous findings claiming larger Doppler factors for brighter $\gamma$-ray blazars, quasars listed in our sample, and in the *Fermi* Large Area Telescope Bright Source Catalog (LBAS), show larger luminosities than non–LBAS ones, but our data do not allow us to confirm the same for BL Lac objects. We do not find a clear relation between the linear polarization angle and the jet structural position angle for any source class in our sample. We interpret this as the consequence of a markedly non-axisymmetric character of the 3mm emitting region in the jets. We find that intrinsic circular polarization is the most likely mechanism for generation of the circular polarization detected in our observations. Our new data can be used to estimate the 3.5mm AGN contribution to measurements of the linear polarization of the cosmic microwave background, such as those performed by the Planck satellite.'
author:
- 'I. Agudo, C. Thum, H. Wiesemeyer, T. P. Krichbaum'
title: 'A 3.5mm Polarimetric Survey of Radio-loud Active Galactic Nuclei'
---
Introduction {#Intr}
============
Radio loud active galactic nuclei (AGN) are known to produce powerful pairs of highly collimated relativistic jets of magnetized plasma, which are able to extend far beyond the boundaries of the host galaxy. Their relativistic nature, their magnetic fields, and their non-isotropic geometry determine their most relevant observational properties: superluminal motions [e.g., @Gomez:2001p201; @Jorstad:2005p264], Doppler boosted (decreased) emission of the jet pointing at a small (large) angle to the observer [e.g., @Kadler:2004p5629], rapid intrinsic emission variability [e.g., @Agudo:2006p203; @Fuhrmann:2008p267; @2008Natur.452..966M] and changes of the jet structure [e.g., @2007AJ.134.799J; @Agudo:2007p132], and intense polarized synchrotron and inverse-Compton emission along all the electromagnetic spectrum [e.g., @Ostorero:2006p406; @Abdo:2010; @Marscher:2010p11374].
Polarimetric very long baseline interferometry (VLBI) observations at mm wavelengths, combined with single dish radio, mm, and optical linear polarimetric observing campaigns, allow one to (i) connect the location of the emitting regions at different observing bands and (ii) infer properties about the nature of the innermost moving and stationary knots of emission in the jets and the magnetic field in such regions, which usually cannot be resolved by VLBI [e.g., @2007AJ.134.799J; @2008Natur.452..966M; @Marscher:2010p11374].
VLBI polarimetric surveys of radio loud AGN also provide relevant information about their jets; see @2003ApJ...589..733P for a survey on a sample of 177 sources in the Calteck-Jodrell Bank Flat-Spectrum survey observed with the Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA) at 5GHz, and @Lister:2005p261 [@Homan:2006p238] for the first results from the MOJAVE survey on 133 sources observed with the VLBA at 15GHz. @Lister:2005p261 and @2003ApJ...589..733P found the source cores (i.e., the innermost visible jet region at a given observing frequency with an instrument capable of resolving such a jet) to be weakly linearly polarized ([ [-.5ex]{} ]{}5%), but with significantly larger fractional polarization for the jet regions downstream. Indeed, @Lister:2005p261 reported a general increase of linear polarization degree with increasing distance outward from the core in quasars and BL Lacertae (BL Lac) objets, but with BL Lac jets more polarized in general. They also found the cores and jets of radio galaxies to be much weaker or not linearly polarized compared to those in quasars and BL Lac objects. @Homan:2006p238 found “strong” circular polarization ($\ge$0.3%, as defined by them), usually in the cores of the sources (but not always), within $\sim$15% of their sample. They did not find significant correlations between the degree of circular polarization in the core and other relevant source properties.
No polarization survey of a large number of AGN has been performed at mm wavelengths thus far. It is known that AGN jets and their cores are affected by non-negligible Faraday rotation measures (RM) typically ranging from $\sim10^2$radm$^{-2}$ [e.g., @2003ApJ...589..126Z; @Zavala:2004p138; @Gabuzda:2001p378; @2004MNRAS.351L..89G; @2008ApJ...675...79A] to $\sim10^4$radm$^{-2}$ [e.g., @2002ApJ...566L...9Z; @Attridge:2005p220; @Gomez:2008p30]. These large RM values $\sim10^4$radm$^{-2}$ have only been found for a few sources, typically in the jets of radio galaxies [@Zavala:2004p138]. Since the observed electric vector linear polarization angle of a source $\chi_{\rm{obs}}=\chi_{\rm{int}}+\rm{RM}~\lambda^{2}$ (where $\rm{RM}~\lambda^{2}$ is the amount of Faraday rotation and $\chi_{\rm{int}}$ is the intrinsic polarization angle), a $\lambda=$3.5mm (86GHz) survey would be much less affected by Faraday rotation than are cm wavelength observations. At this wavelength, $|\rm{RM}|\approx7000$radm$^{-2}$ would be required to produce Faraday rotation by $\approx5$$^{\circ}$, the median linear polarization angle uncertainty in the measurements presented in this paper. In contrast, such a value of $|\rm{RM}|$ translates into rotations of $\approx160^{\circ}$ and $\approx1400^{\circ}$ at 2cm (15GHz) and 6cm (5GHz), respectively. If AGN jet RM in the radio and mm emitting regions are similar in general – which is still to be confirmed observationally– the reduced effect of Faraday rotation in mm wavelength observations also makes them much less sensitive to Faraday depolarization, hence reflecting the intrinsic linear polarization properties of the sources with better fidelity than radio observations.
The mm wavelength emission of radio loud AGN is typically dominated by compact regions in their jets; either in their innermost cores of emission, or in their pc scale superluminal knots [e.g., @2007AJ.134.799J; @2008Natur.452..966M]. Indeed, the results from the 86GHz VLBI survey of @Lee:2008p301 have shown that, in general, $\sim50$% of the total flux density of their imaged sources is concentrated in regions not further than $\sim1.5$milli-arcseconds from the mm core. In contrast, because of the longer lifetime of synchrotron radiation at cm wavelengths [@Rybicki:1979p6159], such emission is more spread out along the pc scale of the jets up to distances $>5$milli-arcseconds [@2003ApJ...589..733P; @Lister:2005p261]. Moreover, owing to synchrotron opacity, the bright cm wavelength emission from compact cores in AGN lies in regions farther downstream in the jet than at mm wavelengths [e.g., @Lobanov:1998p5354; @Marscher:2006p362; @2007AJ.134.799J].
In the absence of a large mm-VLBI polarimetric survey, the statistical analysis of a single-dish polarization-mm survey can yield relevant insights into the intrinsic polarization properties of the innermost compact regions of relativistic jets in AGN. Here we present the results from the first 3.5mm polarimetric survey over a large ($>100$ source) sample of radio loud AGN.
Our results are also a valuable resource for surveys dedicated to studies of the polarization properties of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), specially that conducted by the ESA’s Planck mission (see the mission *Bluebook*[^1]). For such studies, radio loud AGN are considered the most important CMB-foreground contributors away from the Galactic plane at angular scales ${\ {\raise-.5ex\hbox{$\buildrel<\over\sim$}}\ }0.5^{\circ}$ up to $\sim100$GHz observing frequency [@Tucci:2005p8610]. Hence, *a priori* knowledge of their polarization is important to account for their contribution to the polarization of the CMB data [e.g., @RubinoMartin:2008p8597; @LopezCaniego:2009p8509].
The Sample {#Samp}
==========
In Table \[T1\] we present our sample of 145 observed sources (see also Fig. \[skymap\]). This sample has been built essentially from the 138 radio loud AGN in the IRAM pointing source list. Such list comes from the sample of $\sim300$ radio-to-mm flat-spectrum compact AGN visible from the IRAM 30m Telescope selected by @Steppe:1988p2440 that were contained in the 1Jy catalog [@Kuehr:1981p6040] and/or in the catalog of positions, structures, and polarizations of 404 compact radio sources by @Perley:1982p6054.
From this sample, @Steppe:1992p2441 [@Steppe:1993p2453] and @Reuter:1997p2467 selected the brightest 138 AGN sources measured by the IRAM 30m AGN monitoring program with a typical flux density $S_{90}{\ {\raise-.5ex\hbox{$\buildrel>\over\sim$}}\ }1$Jy at $\sim90$GHz and a minimum at $S_{90}\sim0.5$Jy in the time span from 1978 to 1994. After removing the 4 sources with J2000.0 declination $<-30^{\circ}$ (too low to be observed at the 30m Telescope above $20^{\circ}$ elevation), we complemented our sample with 11 new sources not contained in the IRAM pointing source catalog but strong enough currently to be considered within the selection criteria for such a catalog.
Since the sample by @Steppe:1992p2441 [@Steppe:1993p2453] and @Reuter:1997p2467 was essentially defined to be flux density limited at $S_{90}{\ {\raise-.5ex\hbox{$\buildrel>\over\sim$}}\ }$1Jy from 1978 to 1994, our sample was expected to be complete in that sense. Most likely because of source variability, 54 (19) sources in our sample have measured flux densities $S_{86}<$1Jy ($S_{86}<$0.5Jy), hence not matching, at the observing epoch, the constraints imposed for the 1978 to 1994 time span.
To have a raw estimate of the number of radio loud AGN with $S_{86}{\ {\raise-.5ex\hbox{$\buildrel>\over\sim$}}\ }$1Jy that we may have missed in our sample, we compared it with the 5–Year WMAP Point Source Catalog [WMAP5, @Wright:2009p6229]. From this catalog, we find 28 sources with J2000.0 declination $\ge-30^{\circ}$, and with flux density larger than 1Jy at 90GHz but not contained in our sample. In contrast, our sample contains 20 sources with $S_{86}>$1Jy that are not found in WMAP5. All but one of these are low Galactic latitude sources, which reflects the bias of the WMAP5 catalog that excludes sources near the Galactic plane.
Assuming that a 1Jy flux–limited complete sample of radio loud AGN above $-30^{\circ}$ dec. contains all sources with $S_{86}>$1Jy both in our sample (i.e. 91), and in WMAP5, we only miss 24% of eligible sources. Thus, although this does not allow us to claim completeness of our sample to the 1Jy total flux density limit, the relatively small fraction of missing sources, together with the unprecedented large size of our 86 GHz polarization sample, allows us to rely on the results derived from it as long as subsample selection does not lead to unacceptably small number statistics, which is not the case for any of our subsamples (see below).
In a survey like ours, polarization non-detection is a relevant bias that may be introduced by source variability when the total flux density of a considerable fraction of the sample decreases. However, we have checked that we are not very much affected by such bias. Among our 91 sources with $S_{86}\ge$1Jy, 77% were detected in linear polarization, whereas for the 54 sources with $S_{86}<$1Jy, the fraction of linear polarization detections is similar (74%).
Given the spectral criteria applied to select the sources for the IRAM pointing source list, our sample is dominated by radio-to-mm flat-spectrum compact AGN, i.e., by blazars. To be more specific, it contains 107 quasars, 26 BL Lac objects, and 6 radio galaxies, with 6 unclassified sources, i.e., not contained in the @VeronCetty:2006p4900 catalog. The sample also contains 32 sources in the *Large Area Telescope* [LAT, @Atwood:2009p6950] $\gamma$-ray bright AGN source sample (LBAS). The LBAS list contains sources detected by LAT onboard the *Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope* during its first 3 months of operation [i.e., those in Tables 1 and 2 of @Abdo:2009p7779]. These 32 LBAS sources include 19 quasars, 12 BL Lacs, and, 1 radio galaxy. Note that out of the 117 LBAS sources in @Abdo:2009p7779, only 97 are visible from the 30m Telescope with declination $>-30^{\circ}$. Among these 97, 32 (33%) are in our 3.5mm sample. The source redshift in the sample ranges from $z=0.004$ to $z=3.408$, with mean and median $\bar{z}=0.941$ and $\tilde{z}=0.815$, respectively.
Hence, our sample is adequate for studies of the mm polarimetric properties of quasar and BL Lac blazars, and of their relation with their $\gamma$-ray properties. Both the MOJAVE and our samples were selected primarily based on the flatness of source radio spectra. Hence, both of these are dominated by the same kind of sources, i.e., blazars. Among the 133 sources in the [@Lister:2005p261] MOJAVE sample, 94 (71%) are in our sample as well. Both samples, and the results derived from them, can hence be directly compared, as we do throughout this paper.
Observations and Data Reduction {#Obs}
===============================
The observations were performed with the XPOL polarimeter [@2008PASP..120..777T] on the IRAM 30m Telescope, by making use of the Observatory’s orthogonal linearly polarized A100 and B100 heterodyne receivers tuned at 86GHz (3.5mm). The main observing block was performed on July 2005. To complete the list of observed sources, a small number of measurements had to be performed in a time block in September 2005 or at different epochs between 2006 and 2009 within different observing programs; see Table \[T2\].
All observations were performed under the standard XPOL set-up and calibration scheme discussed in @2008PASP..120..777T.
Every XPOL polarization measurement consisted of a series of wobbler switching on-offs with typical integration times $>4$min., depending on the source’s total flux density. Every polarization integration was preceded by a cross-scan pointing of the telescope and an amplitude, phase, and decorrelation loss polarization-specific calibration measurement [see @2008PASP..120..777T].
To estimate the remaining instrumental polarization to be subtracted from the data (*a posteriori*), we made measurements of strong, compact and unpolarized sources at almost every observing epoch. For 86GHz observations at the 30m Telescope, the HPBW of the beam is $\sim$28“, hence an object with an apparent size of (${\ {\raise-.5ex\hbox{$\buildrel<\over\sim$}}\ }$4”) can be safely considered as compact for our purposes. As a rule, we used Mars, Uranus, and Neptune as instrumental polarization calibrators. When not available, other planets with up to $\sim$12" at the time of the observation (e.g., Venus), the compact HII regions W3OH, K3-50A ,and NGC7538, and the planetary nebula NGC7027, were observed for cross-check.
The output of every polarization observation consists of a wide band (640MHz) spectral measurement from both the A100 and B100 receivers, together with the real and imaginary part of their cross-correlation. These four observables are needed to recover the 4 Stokes parameters for each measurement as described in @2008PASP..120..777T. After the observations, the polarization calibration measurements were used to calibrate the amplitudes of the A100 and B100 measurements, their relative phase, and the decorrelation losses. Such calibrations were applied within the MIRA and CLASS software packages inside GILDAS. The instrumental polarization for every observing epoch ($|Q_{\rm{i}}|{\ {\raise-.5ex\hbox{$\buildrel<\over\sim$}}\ }$2%, $|U_{\rm{i}}|{\ {\raise-.5ex\hbox{$\buildrel<\over\sim$}}\ }$0.5%, and $|V_{\rm{i}}|{\ {\raise-.5ex\hbox{$\buildrel<\over\sim$}}\ }$0.5%) was then estimated and removed from the data. The $C_{\rm{Jy/K}}=6.4$Jy/K calibration factor for 86GHz observations at the 30m Telescope [e.g., @Agudo:2006p203] was also applied to the total flux density measurements ($S_{86}$). At this stage, the uncertainties in every specific measurement only account for statistical uncertainties on the average of data along the spectral bandwidth. The final errors in the total flux density measurements were computed by adding quadratically a 5% systematic factor coming from the uncertainties in $C_{\rm{Jy/K}}$ [@Agudo:2006p203]. In this stage, the remaining polarimetric non-systematic errors, which determine our polarimetric precision, were estimated from the dispersion in the $Q$, $U$, and $V$ Stokes parameters from our main unpolarized calibrators, i.e. Mars and Uranus. These dispersion estimates ($\Delta Q_{\rm{i}}=$0.5%, $\Delta U_{\rm{i}}=$0.3%, and $\Delta V_{\rm{i}}=$0.1%) were also added in quadrature to provide the final uncertainty for every polarization measurement. The latter translate into final polarization-uncertainty medians of $\Delta \tilde{m}_{\rm{L}}\approx$0.53%, $\Delta \tilde{\chi}\approx$5$^{\circ}$, and $\Delta \tilde{m}_{\rm{C}}\approx$0.2% for the linear polarization degree ($m_{\rm{L}}$), the linear polarization electric vector position angle ($\chi$), and the circular polarization degree ($m_{\rm{C}}$), respectively. The uncertainties of our best measurements are dominated by $\Delta Q_{\rm{i}}$, $\Delta U_{\rm{i}}$, and $\Delta V_{\rm{i}}$, and hence their final uncertainties are $\Delta{{m}_{\rm{L}}}\approx$0.5%, $\Delta{\chi}\approx$1.5$^{\circ}$, and $\Delta{m}_{\rm{C}}\approx$0.1%.
Results and Discussion {#Res}
======================
In Table \[T2\] we present the observing epoch and integration time for every source in our sample, as well as the observational results, expressed in terms of $S_{86}$, $m_{\rm{L}}$, $\chi$, and $m_{\rm{C}}$. A $3\sigma$ upper limit in both $m_{\rm{L}}$ and $m_{\rm{C}}$ is given whenever the measurement did not exceed such $3\sigma$ value. Note that whereas linear polarization was detected from most sources in our sample (76%), circular polarization could be detected only for a small fraction of them (6%).
Statistical analysis and discussion of the relevant aspects regarding these data are presented in the following sub-sections.
Total Flux Density
------------------
### Total Luminosity {#Lum}
Fig. \[L\_z\_QBG\] shows the 86GHz luminosity ($L=4 \pi d_{L}^{2} S_{86}(1+z)^{-1}$, where $d_{L}$ is the luminosity distance for a $H_o=71$kms$^{-1}$Mpc$^{-1}$, $\Omega_{m}=0.27$ and $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.73$ cosmology, used hereafter) as a function of redshift for our sample, with most — all but 19 sources — above the $S_{86}=0.5$Jy threshold in the observer’s frame. Only 6 sources in our sample displayed $S_{86}>5$Jy. As expected by the dependence of $L$ on cosmological distance, quasars, the most distant AGN class, show the largest luminosities (with median $\tilde{L}_{Q}=3.1\times10^{27}$W/Hz), followed by BL Lac objects ($\tilde{L}_{B}=2.7\times10^{26}$W/Hz), and radio galaxies ($\tilde{L}_{G}=3.8\times10^{24}$W/Hz), the closest AGN (see also Fig. \[LQBG\]).
The LBAS sources in our sample show an $L$ distribution which is apparently different from that of non-LBAS sources (Fig. \[LQBG\]). The median and peak luminosities of LBAS sources ($\tilde{L}_{LBAS}=2.4\times10^{27}$W/Hz, ${L}_{LBAS}^{peak}$ within $[3,10]\times10^{27}$W/Hz) are larger than those for non-LBAS ones ($\tilde{L}_{non-LBAS}=1.9\times10^{27}$W/Hz, ${L}_{non-LBAS}^{peak}$ within $[1,3]\times10^{27}$W/Hz). However, the Kolmogorov–Smirnov (K-S) test does not give a sufficiently high confidence level (i.e., 70.7%) to conclude that both distributions are selected from different parent distributions[^2].
Comparison of the luminosity of $\gamma$-ray classes of quasars and BL Lacs separately (Fig. \[LQBLN\]) shows that LBAS quasars in our sample are apparently more luminous ($\tilde{L}_{LBAS quasars}=7.0\times10^{27}$W/Hz, ${L}_{LBAS quasars}^{peak}$ within $[3,10]\times10^{27}$W/Hz) than non-LBAS quasars ($\tilde{L}_{non-LBAS quasars}=2.7\times10^{27}$W/Hz, ${L}_{non-LBAS quasars}^{peak}$ within $[1,3]\times10^{27}$W/Hz), whereas BL Lacs show similar median luminosities and luminosity distributions independently of their $\gamma$-ray properties. Indeed, the K-S test shows that the distributions of LBAS and non-LBAS quasars are significantly different (within a 99.0% confidence level of both being drawn from different parent distributions), whereas LBAS and non-LBAS BL Lacs are not (confidence level only 13.8%).
Note that, for the computation of the confidence level of rejection of the null hypothesis in the K-S test, the effective number of data points ($N_{e}$)[^3], must be $\ge4$ to rely on the K-S test [@Press:1992]. All K-S tests presented in this paper, including the one for LBAS and non-LBAS BL Lacs mentioned above (with $N_{e}=5.7$), fulfill this requirement.
@Lister:2009p6166 found that among the 26 MOJAVE AGN contained in the LBAS sample, quasars have, on average, faster superluminal features than non-LBAS quasars. They also report evidence of faster superluminal proper motions in $\gamma$-ray variable LBAS AGN with regard to non variable ones. @Kovalev:2009p6218 report a correlation of the $\gamma$-ray photon flux of 77 LBAS sources with contemporaneous VLBA or single dish flux density at 15GHz. They also show that LBAS sources observed in their 15GHz VLBA sample display, in general, larger compact radio flux densities, larger brightness temperatures of their parsec-scale cores, and more active radio states than non-LBAS sources. These results are in good agreement with previous findings based on EGRET data suggesting that $\gamma$-ray bright blazars posses larger Doppler factors than weak ones [@2001ApJ...556..738J; @Jorstad:2001p5655; @Lahteenmaki:2003p5657; @Kellermann:2004p3406]. However, @Lister:2009p6166 also suggest that the relativistic Doppler factor is not the sole parameter controlling the $\gamma$-ray properties of blazars.
Our results are consistent with previous claims suggesting that $\gamma$-ray bright blazars have larger Doppler factors than weak $\gamma$-ray blazars, but we can only confirm the larger luminosity of $\gamma$-ray bright quasars against $\gamma$-weak quasars, and no significant difference for BL Lacs.
We note, though, that our 86GHz observations were not performed contemporaneously with the [*F*ermi]{}-LAT $\gamma$-ray observations by @Abdo:2009p7779, and the luminosity distributions of LBAS and non–LBAS sources presented here (specially for BL Lacs) may appear broader by 3mm source variability, thus hiding actual trends (see § \[Var\]).
### 15GHz to 86GHz Spectral Index {#alpha}
The spectral index between two observing frequencies ($\alpha_{\nu_{1}{\rm,}\nu_{2}}=log(S_{\nu_{1}}/S_{\nu_{2}})/log({\nu_{1}}/{\nu_{2}})$) in the radio–mm spectral range provides information about the synchrotron opacity between such observing frequencies (${\nu_{1}{\rm,}\nu_{2}}$) affecting the radiation from an emitting jet region. For the 15GHz and 86GHz emission in radio loud AGN, the emitting regions are not co-spatial in general (see Section \[Intr\]). Hence, for most sources, the $\alpha_{15{\rm,}86}$ determination is biased towards larger (more optically thick) spectral indices. This is because the innermost 86GHz jet emitting regions are usually opaque to 15GHz radiation.
With this in mind, we performed an $\alpha_{15{\rm,}86}$ study of our main subsamples *only* to study the relative differences among them. For this, we used only those sources in our sample with available 15GHz total flux densities from integrated intensities of MOJAVE VLBA images[^4]. To try to avoid biasing the computation of $\alpha_{15{\rm,}86}$ owing to source variability, we selected, for each source, the MOJAVE observation closest in time to our 86GHz measurement.
The $\alpha_{15{\rm,}86}$ distributions for each one of the source samples considered in this paper are shown in Fig. \[SPIND\]. Even when affected by the above mentioned bias, the spectral indices for the whole source sample are distributed towards flat and optically thin spectral indices (with $\alpha_{15{\rm,}86}$ median $\tilde\alpha_{15{\rm,}86}=-0.23$, as expected from the definition of the sample and the high observing frequency), with a small fraction of sources (18%) showing flat to optically thick spectral index. Quasars and non-LBAS sources posses $\alpha_{15{\rm,}86}$ distributions similar to those of the entire source sample ($\tilde\alpha_{15{\rm,}86}^{\rm{quasar}}=-0.27$, $\tilde\alpha_{15{\rm,}86}^{\rm{non-LBAS}}=-0.26$). However, both BL Lacs and LBAS sources clearly distribute spectral indices more uniformly over an almost symmetric range of $\alpha_{15{\rm,}86}$ in $[-0.7,0.6]$. This points out that BL Lac and LBAS sources tend to show considerably flatter mm spectra (partially optically thick) than quasars and non-LBAS sources, respectively. The significance of this result is guaranteed by the K-S test, which points out that the $\alpha_{15{\rm,}86}$ distributions for quasars and BL Lacs in Fig. \[SPIND\] are different (at 99.4% confidence level), as well as those for LBAS and non-LBAS subsamples (within a 96.9% confidence level). We note that quasars in the LBAS subsample are dominated by sources with spectral indices above $\tilde\alpha_{15{\rm,}86}^{\rm{quasar}}$, whereas LBAS BL Lacs have a more spread $\alpha_{15{\rm,}86}$ distribution along the ranges of the entire BL Lac subsample.
In principle, the spectral differences shown by radio loud quasars and BL Lacs in our analysis would be expected if jets in BL Lacs would be preferentially oriented towards smaller viewing angles (with regard to the line of sight). In this case, the integrated radiation coming from different spectral components is expected to flatten the spectrum [e.g., @1980ApJ...238L.123C]. However, recent work [@Hovatta:2009p3860; @Pushkarev:2009p9412] has concluded that flat spectrum radio quasars have significantly smaller viewing angles than BL Lac objects, which is expected to produce the reverse spectral behavior from that observed by us. In this case, we can attribute more confidently the average spectral differences shown by quasars and BL Lacs in Fig. \[SPIND\] to the larger cosmological redshifts of quasars (see Fig. \[LQBG\]), which shift their spectra to lower frequencies in the observer’s frame. This preferentially reveals the optically thin part of the synchrotron spectrum of quasars with regard to BL Lacs. Also, we cannot rule out differences in the intrinsic spectral properties of the emitting particle populations between these two source classes.
The means of the viewing angles of LBAS and non-LBAS sources contained in Table 1 of @Pushkarev:2009p9412 are not statistically significant according to their Student’s T-test. This does not allow us to attribute the spectral differences between these two subsamples to preferential alignment of $\gamma$-ray bright blazar jets with the line of sight, although this possibility cannot be ruled out based on only this information. Intrinsic differences in the properties of the synchrotron-emitting particle populations of these two subsamples, as well as source redshifts, can, in principle, be relevant as well.
Linear Polarization
-------------------
Fractional linear polarization at 86GHz ($m_{\rm{L}}$) was detected for 110 sources, 76% of our sample. When comparing the median values of $m_{\rm{L}}$ ($\tilde{m}_{\rm{L}}$) for the major optical classes, we find that BL Lac objects, with $\tilde{m}_{\rm{L}}=4.4$%, are more strongly polarized than quasars, with $\tilde{m}_{\rm{L}}=3.1$%. To avoid biassing the $\tilde{m}_{\rm{L}}$ values, $3\sigma_{m_{\rm{L}}}$ upper limits were considered for the cases when $m_{\rm{L}}$ could not be detected. Otherwise, if the non-detections are not accounted for when calculating the medians, $\tilde{m}_{\rm{L}}$ would be overestimated by $\sim1$–$1.5$%[^5]. The difference between the quasar and the BL Lac $m_{\rm{L}}$ distributions is confirmed by the Gehan’s generalized Wilcoxon (GGW) test at a 95.2% confidence level. To perform this test, which takes into account both detections and upper limits, we used the ASURV 1.2 survival analysis package [see @Lavalley:1992 and references therein].
This result (i.e., quasars less polarized at 86GHz, in general, than BL Lacs) does not seem consistent with quasars having a significantly thinner synchrotron spectrum than BL Lacs between 15 and 86GHz. This is expected to reduce $m_{\rm{L}}$ for BL Lacs with regard to quasars owing to stronger synchrotron self-absorption in BL Lacs. Hence, the radio-to-mm spectral properties of quasars and BL Lacs cannot explain their overall linear polarization properties. In contrast, an explanation comes from recent evidence that the viewing angle of jets in quasars is smaller than that in BL Lacs [@Hovatta:2009p3860; @Pushkarev:2009p9412]. If either the magnetic field is not homogeneously distributed along the jet or the jet has prominent non-axysimmetry, lower polarization degree is expected from sources better oriented to the line of sight (i.e., quasars) owing to cancellation of orthogonal polarization components.
Interestingly, the $m_{\rm{L}}$ distribution of the entire source sample is double peaked (Fig. \[mALL\]), with the first peak at $m_{\rm{L}}\approx2.5$%, and the second one at $m_{\rm{L}}\approx4$%. At lower polarization degrees, a similar bimodal distribution was previously observed by [@Lister:2005p261] for the cores of quasars and the integrated polarization degree of EGRET-detected blazars. Fig. \[mALL\] shows that this double peak in our data might come from the quasar subsample, which dominates the overall sample.
To test whether this dichotomy is produced by the presence of radio loud quasars with high optical polarization (HPQ, $\ge3$%) and radio quasars with low optical polarization (LPQ, $<3$%) in our sample, we have also analyzed these two subsamples separately (see Fig. \[mALL\]). We considered HPQ as those sources in the @VeronCetty:2006p4900 catalog with such a label, and LPQ as the remainder of sources in that catalog. Simple inspection of Fig. \[mALL\] apparently shows that if there is a physical meaning on the two–peaked quasar distribution, it cannot be because of HPQ producing the higher $m_{\rm{L}}$ peak and the LPQ the one at lower $m_{\rm{L}}$. Indeed, there is no statistically significant difference between the HPQ and LPQ $m_{\rm{L}}$ distributions that could confirm such a hypothesis (the GGW test gives only a 21.4% confidence).
A similar double peak is seen in the $m_{\rm{L}}$ distribution for the LBAS source sample (Fig. \[mALL\]), whereas the second peak is not so evident in the non-LBAS source $m_{\rm{L}}$ distribution. This might be interpreted as suggesting that this bimodal distribution comes from $\gamma$-ray bright quasars. However, according to our GGW test, there is no significant difference between the $m_{\rm{L}}$ distributions of LBAS and non-LBAS sources (36.9% confidence only).
Thus our analysis remains inconclusive about the origin of the apparent polarization degree dichotomy.
### 86GHz to 15GHz Fractional Linear Polarization Ratio
The fraction of linear polarization detections in our sample is $\sim76$%. Considering that we adopted a $3\sigma$ criterion for detection (with median $3\tilde{\sigma}_{m_{\rm{L}}}\sim1.6$% over the whole sample), this means that, on average, $\sim$76% of our sources display $m_{\rm{L}}{\ {\raise-.5ex\hbox{$\buildrel>\over\sim$}}\ }1.6$% at 86GHz. However, only 60% of sources both in the MOJAVE and in our sample show 15GHz fractional linear polarization ${\ {\raise-.5ex\hbox{$\buildrel>\over\sim$}}\ }1.6$%. This points to a general trend of blazars to increase their linear polarization degree with frequency, as previously suggested by [@Agudo:2006p203] and [@2007AJ.134.799J]. Indeed, those sources for which linear polarization was detected both in our survey and in the integrated emission of the MOJAVE images [@Lister:2005p261] follow a clear general trend to show significantly larger fractional linear polarization at 86GHz than at 15GHz by a median factor $\approx2$ (Fig. \[ml\_ml15\_AQBLN\]). The same factor $\approx2$ is obtained if our $m_{\rm{L}}$ data is compared with the linear polarization degree of the core at 15GHz ($m^{\rm{core}}_{\rm{L,15}}$) as measured by @Lister:2005p261 (Fig. \[ml\_ml15cor\_AQBLN\]).
Note also that there is a prominent 22% (24%) fraction of the entire source sample with larger $m_{\rm{L}}/m_{\rm{L,15}}$ ($m_{\rm{L}}/m^{\rm{core}}_{\rm{L,15}}$) ratio than $4$. This tail of large 86GHz linear polarization excess seems to be present in all subsamples of optical and $\gamma$-ray classes, although BL Lacs do not show it clearly, perhaps because of the lower number of sources in that subsample.
This result may be explained by a combination of two phenomena, that the 86GHz emission in blazars comes from a region with greater degree of order of the magnetic field than the one at 15GHz, and that the 15GHz emission from blazars is affected by considerably greater Faraday depolarization relative to the 86GHz emission.
If the former hypothesis is true, it would imply that the magnetic field order in the inner regions of the relativistic jets is larger than in outer regions. For this statement, we assume that the bulk of the 86GHz emission comes on average from inner jet regions where 15GHz emission is strongly affected by synchrotron opacity, hence locating the 15GHz core farther downstream [e.g., @2007AJ.134.799J].
Despite the apparent differences between the source subsamples presented in each of Fig. \[ml\_ml15\_AQBLN\] and \[ml\_ml15cor\_AQBLN\] (see also above), our K-S test does not allow us to claim any significant differences between the $m_{\rm{L}}/m_{\rm{L,15}}$ or $m_{\rm{L}}/m^{\rm{core}}_{\rm{L,15}}$ distributions either for quasars versus BL Lacs (confidence level only 84.5%, and 53.9%, respectively), or for LBAS against non-LBAS sources (confidence level only 85.1%, and 59.5%, respectively).
### Total Luminosity vs. Linear Polarization
Fig. \[L\_ml\_AQBLN\] shows the 86GHz luminosity [*v*s.]{} 86GHz fractional linear polarization for sources with known redshift in the entire source sample and in the four major optical and $\gamma$–ray classes considered here. Our correlation analysis for data containing upper limits — performed with the ASURV 1.2 package by @Lavalley:1992 — shows significant correlation between $L$ and $m_{{\rm{L}}}$ for the whole source sample. This is supported by the results of the Cox, Kendall’s $\tau$, and Spearman’s $\rho$ tests. These indicate that $L$ and $m_{{\rm{L}}}$ are correlated at 98.8%, 99.2%, and 98.7% confidence level, respectively. Significant correlation is also found for the case of the non-LBAS subsample — at 98.4%, 97.0%, and 96.7% confidence levels, respectively.
However, for the quasar subsample — with confidence levels of 87.7%, 93.3%, and 91.1% for the Cox, the Kendall’s $\tau$, and the Spearman’s $\rho$ tests, respectively —, no formally significant correlation is found. Perhaps because of their decreased sizes, the correlation tests over the BL Lac and the LBAS yield confidence levels of correlation of these subsamples that are even much lower.
Under the standard assumption that, in the absence of strong Faraday depolarization (which we assume to be the case for our 3.5mm observations, see Section \[Intr\]), higher degree of linear polarization reflects greater magnetic field order, we have found that the magnetic field order —in our entire source sample— increases with decreasing mm luminosity.
A reasonable hypothesis to explain this phenomenon would simply involve orientation and relativistic effects. In principle, those sources whose jets are better oriented to the line of sight are expected to display larger luminosities (because of their larger Doppler factors) and also lower linear polarization degrees (because of cancellation of orthogonal polarization components along the line of sight). To test this hypothesis, we used the “variability Doppler factors” given by [@Hovatta:2009p3860] to compute the beaming corrected luminosities of the 70 sources in their and our sample. The correlation analysis of all source types in Fig. \[L\_ml\_AQBLN\] points out that, although the reduced number of sources in every subsample tends to reduce the correlation between $L_{\rm{unbeamed}}$ and $m_{{\rm{L}}}$, the decreasing trend of $L_{\rm{unbeamed}}$ with increasing $m_{{\rm{L}}}$ still seems to be present. Despite the reduction of data points, such anti–correlation is now statistically significant for the LBAS subsample (with 99.1%, 99.5%, and 98.4% confidence level, from the Cox, Kendall’s $\tau$, and Spearman’s $\rho$ test, respectively), which do not allow us to support the beaming scenario as a reliable explanation for the $L$ and $m_{{\rm{L}}}$ anti–correlation.
This may have a plausible alternative interpretation that, although still qualitative and speculative, may be a valid proposal to investigate further. The AGN jet regions responsible for the 3mm emission are thought to be dominated by plasma dynamics, in contrast to the innermost Poynting flux-dominated jet region, where the collimation and acceleration is assumed to take place [e.g., @2007AJ.134.799J; @2008Natur.452..966M; @Marscher:2010p11374]. It is known that increasing jet kinetic energies with regard to their surrounding low speed wind favor the generation of fluid instabilities, leading to turbulence, in the region separating the inner-fast jet and the outer-slow wind [e.g., @Mizuno:2007p242; @Meliani:2009p8926 for different numerical setups for this scenario]. This picture fits into our observing results. A faster jet would be more luminous, but would also produce more turbulence in the shear layer where the external wind penetrates the jet, hence reducing the magnetic field order and the linear polarization degree.
### Linear Polarization Angle versus Jet Position Angle {#Misal}
In Fig. \[misal\] we show the distribution of misalignment of linear-polarization electric-vector position-angle ($\chi$, given in Table \[T2\]) with the jet structural position angle ($\phi_{\rm{jet}}$, given in Table \[T1\]), i.e., $|\chi-\phi_{\rm{jet}}|$, for the entire source sample, and the subsamples of quasars, BL Lacs, LBAS, and non-LBAS sources.
Different angular resolutions achieved at different VLBI observing frequencies probe different jet regions that may show, in some particular cases, large $\phi_{\rm{jet}}$ differences [see e.g., @Agudo:2007p132 for the case of [NRAO 150]{} with $\Delta\phi_{\rm{jet}}\approx100^{\circ}$]. Opacity effects of the inner jet regions at low frequencies can also impede a reliable determination of $|\chi-\phi_{\rm{jet}}|$ if $\phi_{\rm{jet}}$ is measured at $\nu<<86$GHz. To try to avoid these biases as much as possible, we first searched for $\phi_{\rm{jet}}$ values in the 86GHz VLBI Survey by @Lee:2008p301. When 86GHz VLBI images were not available, the 15GHz data from either the MOJAVE survey [@Lister:2005p261 preferentially] or those from the 2cm VLBA Survey [@Kellermann:2004p3406] were used. Otherwise, a deeper search was done for every source from references 1 to 10 on Table \[T1\]. The higher frequency result thus found was then adopted.
Fig. \[misal\] shows a weak trend in the entire source sample of alignment of $\chi$ close to $0^{\circ}$–$30^{\circ}$ to $\phi_{\rm{jet}}$, such that $\chi$ lies almost parallel to the jet axis. A similar pattern is found in the quasar and non-LBAS subsamples. In contrast, the values of $|\chi-\phi_{\rm{jet}}|$ in the BL Lac and LBAS subsamples tend to lie within the ranges $10^{\circ}$–$30^{\circ}$ or $70^{\circ}$–$80^{\circ}$. However, our K-S tests indicate that there is no significant difference between the quasar and the BL Lac distributions (only 18.7% confidence to come from the same parent distribution), and between the LBAS and non-LBAS distributions (only 63.9% confidence).
We therefore find no clear trend in any of the source samples considered in this work for $\chi$ to be aligned either parallel or perpendicular to $\phi_{\rm{jet}}$. Actually, even for the entire source sample, which shows an apparent preference of aligned $\chi$ parallel to $\phi_{\rm{jet}}$, there is only a small excess of sources ($\sim$25%) distributed at $|\chi-\phi_{\rm{jet}}|<30^{\circ}$. Similar results are obtained from the quasar and LBAS distributions. Even this $\sim25$% excess must be interpreted with care. When only highly polarized source states ($m_{\rm{L}}>3$%) are considered – which seems to reveal more clearly the $\chi$ to $\phi_{\rm{jet}}$ relation in the case of the quasar 3C 454.3 [@Jorstad:subm] –, such excess is decreased to $\sim18$%. Moreover, Fig. \[misal-1.5Jy\] shows that, if the $|\chi-\phi_{\rm{jet}}|$ distributions are generated from a smaller number of sources (only those brighter than 1.5Jy at 86GHz), such an excess disappears completely. All this shows that if there is a preference to align $\chi$ parallel to the jets of the sources shown in Fig. \[misal\], such a preference is intrinsically weak at 86GHz and it is also partially hidden by random changes in the $|\chi-\phi_{\rm{jet}}|$ distributions.
Theoretically, the electric vector position angle ($\chi$) of the linearly polarized emission from relativistic axisymmetric jets should be observed either parallel or perpendicular to the jet axis [e.g, @Lyutikov:2005p321; @Cawthorne:2006p409]. However, the results from several observational attempts to confirm this bi-modality do not show a robust agreement among each other. @2000MNRAS.319.1109G, through 5GHz VLBI observations, reported a tendency of the core and jets in a set of 25 BL Lac objects to show $\chi$ either parallel (preferentially) or perpendicular to the jet direction. However, on the one hand, @2003ApJ...589..733P found a strong tendency for the cores of their observed quasars to possess values of $\chi$ that are perpendicular to the jet axis, whereas no correlation was found for the jets in quasars, nor for the jets or cores in BL Lac objects. On the other hand, @Lister:2005p261 found the cores of sources in the MOJAVE sample to show $\chi$ values aligned preferentially parallel to the jet axis, which was found to be a particularly strong tendency for the case of BL Lac objects. Such a preference was not found in the jets of their sample, although BL Lacs did show a better tendency to have $\chi$ aligned with the jets. The apparent lack of consensus from these studies might be the result of the well known frequency dependent Faraday rotation of $\chi$ [e.g., @Zavala:2004p138].
Our 86GHz polarimetric observations show that there is not a clear trend in our data for $|\chi-\phi_{\rm{jet}}|$ to be distributed either near $\sim0^{\circ}$ or near $\sim90^{\circ}$. This difference between our results and those by @Lister:2005p261 cannot be attributed to the use of $\phi_{\rm{jet}}$ measured at 86GHz in our analysis. Indeed, for the 40 sources in our sample having measurements of both $\phi_{\rm{jet,}>{\rm{43\,GHz}}}$ and $\phi_{\rm{jet,15\,GHz}}$, both magnitudes are in general good agreement (with Spearman’s correlation rank $\rho=0.91$ at 99.9% confidence, and mean of $\phi_{\rm{jet,}>{\rm{43\,GHz}}} - \phi_{\rm{jet,15\,GHz}}\approx9^{\circ}$). Also, when $\phi_{\rm{jet,15\,GHz}}$ is used instead of $\phi_{\rm{jet,}>{\rm{43\,GHz}}}$ for these 40 sources, the distribution in Fig. \[misal\] does not show noticeable changes.
The median (maximum) uncertainty in the determination of $\chi$ for those sources in our sample detected in linear polarization is $\bar{\delta\chi}\approx4^{\circ}$ ($\delta\chi^{\rm{max}}\approx9^{\circ}$). Thus, these uncertainties cannot explain the lack of a strong trend in our $|\chi-\phi_{\rm{jet}}|$ distributions for $\chi$ to be aligned either parallel or perpendicular to $\phi_{\rm{jet}}$.
The large amplitude and rapid linear polarization variability at mm [e.g., @2007AJ.134.799J] and radio wavelengths [e.g., @2003ApJ...586...33A and references therein], for which blazars are well known, is certainly an unavoidable effect both in our $|\chi-\phi_{\rm{jet}}|$ study and in those by previous authors (see § \[Var\]). However, we do not find strong arguments supporting a scenario that hides a clear $|\chi-\phi_{\rm{jet}}|$ trend in our data when allowing for it in previous radio surveys. Considerably larger $\chi$ variability amplitude, or a larger probability to find sources in high variability states at mm wavelengths could certainly explain this scenario, but there is still no strong observational support for it, as far as the authors know.
There is though a likely explanation for the differences between our results and those by @Lister:2005p261 and @2003ApJ...589..733P. Our data, which are essentially free of Faraday rotation (see Section \[Intr\]), suffer from prominent synchrotron opacity well upstream the 15GHz and 5GHz cores, hence reflecting the properties of inner jet regions than the sections of the jet that radiate predominantly at radio frequencies. Apart from other biases, differences on the $|\chi-\phi_{\rm{jet}}|$ distributions a mm and radio wavelengths could be reflecting the properties of the regions from where most of the emission at such wavelengths comes from.
There is an increasing number of AGN jets where large mm-$\chi$ rotations ($>>90^{\circ}$) with typical time scales of days to months are detected either in the cores or in bright moving features [e.g., @2007ApJ...659L.107D; @Larionov:2008p338; @Jorstad:subm]. Successful explanation of these phenomena requires non-axisimmetric jet dynamics such as emitting features that propagate down the jet along helical paths [@2008Natur.452..966M; @Marscher:2010p11374]. Gradients of axisymmetric Faraday rotation screens along the path of moving jet features may also produce large $\chi$ rotations at 7mm [e.g., @2000Sci...289.2317G; @Gomez:2001p201], but much larger than typical RM values ($>>10^4$radm$^{-2}$) are required to produce rotations at 3mm to explain Figs. \[misal\] and \[misal-1.5Jy\].
### AGN as Source of Contamination of the 86GHz Linear Polarization CMB {#CMB}
Fig. \[mALL\] show that linear polarization of flat spectrum radio loud AGN is larger than previously expected from centimeter wavelength surveys [e.g., @2003ApJ...589..733P; @Ricci:2004p161; @Lister:2005p261]. This is clearly indicated by the excess by a factor of $\sim2$ of 86GHz linear polarization relative to 15 GHz linear polarization (Fig. \[ml\_ml15\_AQBLN\]), which points out that simple extrapolation from measurements at cm wavelengths systematically underestimates the CMB-foreground polarization contribution of AGN at 3mm wavelength. The median fractional linear polarization of detected sources is $\sim4$% with a considerable population ($27$%) showing linear polarization $>5$% (Fig. \[mALL\]). Fig. \[QU\_ALL\] shows that, at 3mm wavelengths, linear polarization in radio loud AGN may reach significant values relative to the CMB contribution for high sensitivity measurements. Indeed, 62% (20%) of our linear polarization detected sources show $|Q|$ or $|U|>50$mJy ($>100$mJy).
Hence, our observing results in Table \[T2\] are relevant, and can be used, to estimate the 3mm AGN contribution to linear polarization CMB measurements, such as those performed by the Planck satellite[^6]. A new epoch of observations, over an improved flux density limited, complete sample, is already planned for mid 2010. This will provide contemporaneous measurements with those of Planck, as well as the possibility to study the effects of linear polarization variability on the CMB radio loud AGN foregrounds.
Circular Polarization {#mC}
---------------------
The distribution of $|m_{\rm{C}}|$ for all major samples considered in this paper is presented in Fig. \[mcALL\]. For comparison, we show separately the distributions of $|m_{\rm{C}}|$ detections ($\ge3\sigma$), $|m_{\rm{C}}|$ results $\ge2\sigma$, and all $|m_{\rm{C}}|$ measurements (independently of their significance).
The most evident result with regard to circular polarization is the low level of detection in our observations ($\sim6$%, 8 sources out of 145), which prevents us from conducting a statistical study of circular polarization. This low detection rate is not surprising given the known low degree of circular polarization of blazars at radio wavelengths [typically ${\ {\raise-.5ex\hbox{$\buildrel<\over\sim$}}\ }0.5$% at 2cm as observed with VLBI, @Homan:2006p238] and the minimum $m_{\rm{C}}$ detection level in our observations ($3\sigma_{m_{\rm{C}}}{\ {\raise-.5ex\hbox{$\buildrel>\over\sim$}}\ }0.3$%).
Our circular polarization detection rate is lower than half of that of @Homan:2006p238 ($\sim15$%), which may be explained by the difference in angular resolution between their 15GHz VLBA observations and ours. @Homan:2006p238 showed that most circular polarization is confined to the core of the sources. If this also applies to the 86GHz emitting regions, our single dish observations (to which all such emitting regions contribute) must reflect lower $m_{\rm{C}}$ and a lower detection rate for our similar sensitivity to circular polarization ($\sigma_{m_{\rm{C}}}{\ {\raise-.5ex\hbox{$\buildrel>\over\sim$}}\ }0.1$%).
Among our 8 sources with detected circular polarization, only 3C 84 (0316+413) and 3C 454.3 (2251+158) were also detected at ${\ {\raise-.5ex\hbox{$\buildrel>\over\sim$}}\ }3\sigma$ by @Homan:2006p238. They found significant circular polarization in the core and in 3 downstream jet emission regions in 3C 84, and in one jet region in 3C 454.3. The amount and sign of $m_{\rm{C}}$ measured in 2003 by @Homan:2006p238 in the core of 3C 84 is not consistent with our single dish measurement in 2005. Note though that the VLBI measurement by @Homan:2006p238, who detected strong circular polarization with opposite sign than in the core within a nearby jet region, may not be comparable with our single dish measurement. In contrast, both $m_{\rm{C}}$ and its sign in the core of 3C 454.3 as measured by Homan & Lister’s, and our measurements are consistent, despite the extreme mm flare displayed by this source during our observations [e.g., @Raiteri:2008p123; @Jorstad:subm]. These discrepancies, as well as the fact that our circular polarization detections do not agree in general with those by @Homan:2006p238, is consistent with the known circular polarization variability in radio loud AGN [e.g., @Aller:2003p4756], which may differ considerably at different observing frequencies [e.g., @Homan:2009p6162].
Circular polarization in AGN jets may be generated either by intrinsically circularly polarized synchrotron radiation, or by Faraday conversion of linear into circular polarization – see @Wardle:2003p8612 and @Homan:2009p6162 for detailed reviews of the different magnetic field configurations and conditions suitable for both mechanisms. Both mechanisms have a dependence with the emitting wavelength ($\lambda$), that conspires to reduce $m_{\rm{C}}$ with decreasing $\lambda$, hence providing an additional explanation for the low level of $m_{\rm{C}}$ detection in our observations. However, whereas for the intrinsic mechanism $m{_{\rm{C}}}{^{\rm{int}}}\propto\lambda^{1/2}$, for Faraday conversion the dependence is much more stronger, $m{_{\rm{C}}}{^{\rm{F}}}\propto\lambda^{5}$ under the assumptions adopted by @Wardle:2003p8612. Hence, whereas $m{_{\rm{C}}}{^{\rm{int}}}$ at 3mm is only $\sim2$ times lower than at $2$cm, $m{_{\rm{C}}}{^{\rm{F}}}$ is reduced by a factor $\sim6,000$. Additionally, some of the Faraday conversion scenarios invoked in the literature involve Faraday rotation (internal to the jet), that has a $\Delta\chi^{\rm{F}}\propto\lambda^{2}$ dependence. All of these considerations render the Faraday conversion mechanism less suitable to explain the circular polarization detected at 3mm. Otherwise it would be difficult to explain that the amount of circular polarization detected in our observations, $0.3{\,\%}{\ {\raise-.5ex\hbox{$\buildrel<\over\sim$}}\ }|m{_{\rm{C}}}|{\ {\raise-.5ex\hbox{$\buildrel<\over\sim$}}\ }0.7{\,\%}$, is similar to that detected in the MOJAVE survey at 2cm [@Homan:2006p238].
Influence of Source Variability {#Var}
-------------------------------
It is well known that radio loud AGN display in the mm range (as in other spectral ranges) abrupt total flux density variability by up to maxima of $\sim1$ order of magnitude and time scales from months [@Jorstad:2005p264; @Terasranta:2005p9128; @Fuhrmann:2008p267] to days [@Agudo:2006p203]. Such variability is usually connected with the ejection of superluminal emission features from the innermost jet regions [e.g., @Jorstad:2005p264; @Kadler:2008p397; @Perucho:2008p298]. The Doppler factor of the source affects its variability time scale in the observer’s frame through a directly proportional relation, whereas the cosmological redshift slows down such time scale by a factor $(1+z)^{-1}$.
@Jorstad:2005p264 made a study of the (7, 3, and 1) millimeter polarization variability of 15 radio loud AGN monitored during $\sim3$yr. They identify different classes of variable sources, with the most variable one displaying excursions of up to $\sim1$ order of magnitude in linear polarization degree, and $>90^{\circ}$ in linear polarization angle in time scales of months or even weeks [see also @Jorstad:subm for a case of mm and optical polarimetric correlation in [3C 454.3]{}]. At 7mm, shorter $m_{\rm{L}}$ and $\chi$ variability time scales of less than a week – but for smaller variability amplitudes – are reported by @2007ApJ...659L.107D [@Darcangelo:2009p6953], for the case of the blazars [PKS 0420$-$014]{}, and [OJ 287]{}.
However, not all radio loud AGN vary as much as in these extreme cases. There seems to be a gradient of variability amplitude and time scales, which is likely related to the intrinsic properties of every source. Anyhow, source variability is an unavoidable effect that influences our results, as well as those from any other survey at which AGN display significant variability. Such influence on the selection of our sample and its completeness was discussed in § \[Intr\].
For the large number of objects in different variability states, our distributions of $S_{86}$, $m_{\rm{L}}$, and $\chi$ are expected to broaden their shapes or to decrease their correlation between them and with other variables, hence conspiring to hidden possible significant results from them. However, for such a large sample like ours, we do not expect that variability can fake the statistical results by shifting the distributions towards a particular trend. From that point of view, we are confident on the results in previous sections, which significance and extension to other subsamples could perhaps have been more ample without the influence of variability. This is extensive to the studies of $\alpha_{\rm{15,86}}$ and $m_{\rm{L}}/m_{\rm{L,15}}$ in § \[alpha\] and \[Misal\], respectively. The extra variability at 15 GHz that we could not account for introduces extra widening of the distributions against significant statistical results. Even in that case, we were able to obtain some significant results.
Conclusions {#Conc}
===========
We have performed the first large 3.5mm polarization survey of radio loud AGN over a sample of 145 bright and flat radio spectrum sources, dominated by blazars, observed with the IRAM 30m Telescope. At such wavelengths, Faraday rotation and depolarization are expected to have a weak effect on the observed linear polarization, which thus reflects the intrinsic linear polarization properties of the sources with high fidelity.
We detect linear and circular polarization above $3\sigma$ levels for 76% and 6% of the sample, respectively. We have shown that the fractional linear polarization at 86GHz clearly exceeds that at 15GHz by a factor of $\sim2$ for all classes of sources considered here. This implies both a larger degree of magnetic field order in the region where the bulk of the 86GHz emission is produced, and considerable Faraday depolarization at 15GHz, although we can not quantify the relative magnitude of these effects with the present data.
Consistent with previous work suggesting that the class of $\gamma$-ray bright blazars possess, in general, larger Doppler factors than weaker $\gamma$-ray bright blazars, we have found that LBAS quasars from our sample are more luminous than non-LBAS quasars. However, our data do not allow us to claim differences in the luminosity distributions of LBAS and non-LBAS BL Lac objects.
Our entire source sample shows a trend of lower total flux luminosity for larger degrees of linear polarization, indicating that the level of magnetic field order in the innermost jet emitting regions is anti-correlated with jet luminosity.
Unlike other authors, who observed at radio frequencies (hence affected by Faraday rotation), we do not find a clear relation between the linear polarization angle and the jet structural position angle of BL Lacs. This is also true for the remainder of the source subsamples considered in this work, despite the tendency of the electric-vector linear polarization angle to align with the jet position angle found at radio frequencies on quasars. This implies that the sources in our sample do not contain the conditions required for their linear polarization angles to lie either parallel or perpendicular to the jet axis (in the observer’s frame), i.e., that they have a markedly non axisymmetric character. Indeed, the 3-dimensional character of a non-negligible population of jets in AGN at different scales is known to be complex [e.g., @Fomalont:2000p4880; @2003ApJ...589..733P; @Jorstad:2005p264; @Lister:2005p261; @Agudo:2006p331; @Agudo:2007p132].
In the case of purely axisymmetric jets, cancellation of linearly polarized emission parallel and perpendicular to the jet axis forces $\chi$ to align only either parallel, or perpendicular to the axis [e.g, @Lyutikov:2005p321; @Cawthorne:2006p409]. Our results contradict this phenomenology, which suggests that the theoretical requirements for relativistic jets to show such behavior are not satisfied when observed at 3mm. This implies that the 3mm emitting region in relativistic jets in blazars is primarily non axially-symmetric at this wavelength. Hence, either the magnetic field or the emitting particle distributions (or both) responsible for the synchrotron radiation at 3mm in a large fraction of blazars must have a markedly 3 dimensional (non-axisimmetric) character in order to account for the $|\chi-\phi_{\rm{jet}}|$ distributions of our observations.
We have shown that the circularly polarized emission detected from our observations is most likely generated by intrinsic synchrotron emission. This has an important consequence. Intrinsic circular polarization cannot be produced in pure pair (electron-positron, $e^{+}e^{-}$) plasma jets. Thus, sources in which such mechanisms govern circular polarization production must be composed, at least in part, by an electron-proton ($p^{+}e^{-}$) plasma. This may be taken as a tool for AGN jet composition diagnostics through future mm wavelength polarimetric surveys. If a large fraction of sources show $m_{\rm{C}}$ with moduli as large as those detected at cm wavelengths, this may imply that their mm jet emitting regions are primarily composed of $p^{+}e^{-}$ plasma.
The authors acknowledge the anonymous referee for his/her constructive revision of this paper, which allowed us to improve it considerably. They also thank A. P. Marscher, J. L. Gómez, S. G. Jorstad, and Y. Mizuno for helpful comments on this work. This paper is based on observations carried out with the IRAM 30 m Telescope. The authors acknowledge the observers and technicians involved in the operation of the telescope during our observations. In particular, we are grateful to M. Ruiz and J. L. Santarén. IRAM is supported by INSU/CNRS (France), MPG (Germany), and IGN (Spain). I. A. acknowledges support by an I3P contract with the Spanish “Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas". He also acknowledges support by the “Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación" of Spain and by the National Science Foundation of the USA through grants AYA2007-67627-C03-03, and AST-0907893, respectively. This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database, the MOJAVE database, the one by Blazar Group at the Boston University, as well as the USNO Radio Reference Frame Image Database.
Abdo, A. A., et al. 2009, ApJ, 700, 597
Abdo, A. A., et al. 2010, Nature, 463, 919
Acosta–Pulido, J. A., et al., A&A, in press (e–print: arXiv:1003.3542)
Agudo, I., et al. 2006a, A&A, 453, 477
Agudo, I., et al. 2006b, A&A, 456, 117
Agudo, I., et al. 2007, A&A, 476, L17
Aller, H. D., Aller, M. F., & Plotkin, R. M. 2003, Ap&SS, 288, 17
Aller, M. F., Aller, H. D., & Hughes, P. A. 2003, ApJ, 586, 33
Asada, K., Inoue, M., Kameno, S., & Nagai, H. 2008, ApJ, 675, 79
Attridge, J. M., Wardle, J. F. C., & Homan, D. C. 2005, ApJ, 633, L85
Atwood, W. B., et al. 2009, ApJ, 697, 1071
Beckert, T., & Falcke, H. 2002, A&A, 388, 1106
Britzen, S., et al. 2008, A&A, 484, 119
Cawthorne, T. V. 2006, MNRAS, 367, 851
Cotton, W. D., et al. 1980, ApJ, 238, L123
D’Arcangelo, F. D., et al. 2007, , 659, L107
D’Arcangelo, F. D., et al. 2009, ApJ, 697, 985
Fomalont, E. B., et al.. 2000, ApJS, 131, 95
Fuhrmann, L., et al. 2008, A&A, 490, 1019
Gabuzda, D. C., Pushkarev, A. B., & Cawthorne, T. V. 2000, MNRAS, 319, 1109
Gabuzda, D. C., G[ó]{}mez, J. L., & Agudo, I. 2001, MNRAS, 328, 719
Gabuzda, D. C., Murray, [É]{}., & Cronin, P. 2004, MNRAS, 351, L89
G[ó]{}mez, J. L., Marscher, A. P., Alberdi, A., Jorstad, S. G., & Garc[í]{}a-Mir[ó]{}, C. 2000, Science, 289, 2317
G[ó]{}mez, J.-L., Marscher, A. P., Alberdi, A., Jorstad, S. G., & Agudo, I. 2001, ApJ, 561, L161
G[ó]{}mez, J. L., Marscher, A. P., Jorstad, S. G., Agudo, I., & Roca-Sogorb, M. 2008, ApJ, 681, L69
Homan, D. C., & Lister, M. L. 2006, ApJ, 131, 1262
Homan, D. C., Lister, M. L., Aller, H. D., Aller, M. F., & Wardle, J. F. C. 2009, APJ, 696, 328
Hovatta, T., Valtaoja, E., Tornikoski, M., & L[ä]{}hteenm[ä]{}ki, A. 2009, A&A, 494, 527
Jorstad, S. G., et al. 2001a, ApJ, 556, 738
Jorstad, S. G., et al. 2001b, ApJS, 134, 181
Jorstad, S. G., et al. 2005, AJ, 130, 1418
Jorstad, S. G., et al. 2007, AJ, 134, 799
Jorstad, S. G., et al. 2010, ApJ, 715, 362
Kadler, M., Ros, E., Lobanov, A. P., Falcke, H., & Zensus, J. A. 2004, A&A, 426, 481
Kadler, M., et al. 2008, ApJ, 680, 867
Kellermann, K. I., et al. 2004, ApJ, 609, 539
Kovalev, Y. Y., et al. 2009, ApJ, 696, L17
Kühr, H., Witzel, A., Pauliny-Toth, I. I. K., & Nauber, U. 1981, A&AS, 45, 367
L[ä]{}hteenm[ä]{}ki, A., & Valtaoja, E. 2003, ApJ, 590, 95
Larionov, V. M., et al. 2008, A&A, 492, 389
Lavalley, M., Isobe, T., & Feigelson, E. 1992, in ASP Conf. Ser. 25, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems I, ed. D. M. Worrall, C. Biemesderfer, & J. Barnes (ASP: San Francisco), 245
Lawrence, C. R., Pearson, T. J., Readhead, A. C. S., & Unwin, S. C. 1986, AJ, 91, 494
Lee, S.-S., et al. 2008, AJ, 136, 159
Lister, M. L. 2001, ApJ, 562, 208
Lister, M. L., & Homan, D. C. 2005, AJ, 130, 1389
Lister, M. L., et al. 2009, AJ, 696, L22
Lobanov, A. P. 1998, A&A, 330, 79
L[ó]{}pez-Caniego, M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 705, 868
Lyutikov, M., Pariev, V. I., & Gabuzda, D. C. 2005, MNRAS, 360, 869
Marscher, A. P. 2006, in: “Relativistic Jets: The Common Physics of AGN, Microquasars, and Gamma-Ray Bursts”. AIP Conf. Proc., 856, 1
Marscher, A. P., et al. 2008, Nature, 452, 966
Marscher, A. P., et al. 2010, ApJ, 710, L126
Meliani, Z., & Keppens, R. 2009, ApJ, 705, 1594
Mizuno, Y., Hardee, P., & Nishikawa, K.-I. 2007, ApJ, 662, 835
Nilsson, K., Pursimo, T., Sillanp[ä]{}[ä]{}, A., Takalo, L. O., & Lindfors, E. 2008, A&A, 487, L29
Ostorero, L., et al. 2006, A&A, 451, 797
Perley, R. A. 1982, AJ, 87, 859
Pollack, L. K., Taylor, G. B., & Zavala, R. T. 2003, ApJ, 589, 733
Press, W. H., Teukolsky, S. A., Vetterling, W. T., & Flannery, B. P. 1992, Numerical Recipes in C: The Art of Scientific Computing (2d ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press)
Perucho, M., et al. 2008, A&A, 489, L29
Pushkarev, A. B., Kovalev, Y. Y., Lister, M. L., & Savolainen, T. 2009, A&A, 507, L33
Raiteri, C. M., et al. 2008, A&A, 491, 755
Reuter, H.-P., et al. 1997, A[&]{}ASS, 122, 271
Ricci, R., Prandoni, I., Gruppioni, C., Sault, R. J., & Zotti, G. D. 2004, A&A, 415, 549
Rubi[ñ]{}o-Mart[í]{}n, J. A., et al. 2010, in Ap&SS Proc. ISBN 978-3-642-11249-2, Highlights of Spanish Astrophysics V, ed. J. M. Diego, L. J. Goicoechea, J. I. González-Serran, J, Gorgas (Berlin & Heidelberg: Springer–Verlag), 127
Ruszkowski, M., & Begelman, M. C. 2002, ApJ, 573, 485
Rybicki, G. B. & Lightman, A. P. 1979, Radiative Processes in Astrophysics. (New York: Wiley Interscience)
Sbarufatti, B., Treves, A., & Falomo, R. 2005, ApJ, 635, 173
Sowards-Emmerd, D., Romani, R. W., Michelson, P. F., Healey, S. E., & Nolan, P. L. 2005, ApJ, 626, 95
Steppe, H., et al. 1988, A&AS, 75, 317
Steppe, H., et al. 1992, A&AS, 96, 441
Steppe, H., et al. 1993, A&AS, 102, 611
Teräsranta, H., Wiren, S., Koivisto, P., Saarinen, V., & Hovatta, T. 2005, A&A, 440, 409
Thum, C., Wiesemeyer, H., Paubert, G., Navarro, S., & Morris, D. 2008, PASP, 120, 777
Tucci, M., Mart[í]{}nez-Gonz[á]{}lez, E., Vielva, P., & Delabrouille, J. 2005, MNRAS, 360, 935
V[é]{}ron-Cetty, M.-P., & V[é]{}ron, P. 2006, A&A, 455, 773
Wardle, J. F. C., & Homan, D. C. 2003, Ap&SS, 288, 143
Wills, D., & Wills, B. J. 1976, ApJS, 31, 143
Wright, E. L, et al. 2009, ApJS, 180, 283
Xu, W., Readhead, A. C. S, Pearson, T. J., Polatidis, A. G., Wilkinson, P. N., ApJS, 99, 297
Zavala, R. T., & Taylor, G. B. 2002, ApJ, 566, L9
Zavala, R. T., & Taylor, G. B. 2003, ApJ, 589, 126
Zavala, R. T., & Taylor, G. B. 2004, ApJ, 612, 749
[ccccccccccc]{} & & 00 05 57.1352 & +38 20 14.869 & 0.229 & G & 19.9 & 106 & 15 & 9 &\
[0048-097]{} & & 00 50 41.3193 & -09 29 05.122 & & B & 17.4 & 7 & 86 & 6 & Y\
[0059+581]{} & & 01 02 45.7623 & +58 24 11.136 & 0.644 & Q & 17.3 & 235 & 15 & 8 &\
[0106+013]{} & [4C 01.02]{} & 01 08 38.7684 & +01 35 00.421 & 2.107 & Q & 18.4 & 235 & 15 & 8 &\
[0112-017]{} & & 01 15 17.0917 & -01 27 04.456 & 1.365 & Q & 17.5 & 118 & 15 & 5 &\
[0113-118]{} & & 01 16 12.5176 & -11 36 15.412 & 0.672 & Q & 19.0 & 338 & 15 & 9 &\
[0119+041]{} & & 01 21 56.8557 & +04 22 24.842 & 0.637 & Q & 19.5 & 124 & 15 & 5 &\
[0133+476]{} & [DA 55]{} & 01 36 58.5910 & +47 51 29.164 & 0.859 & Q & 19.5 & 334 & 86 & 6 & Y\
[0135-247]{} & & 01 37 38.3418 & -24 30 53.698 & 0.835 & Q & 17.3 & 75 & 5 & 3 &\
[0202+149]{} & [4C 15.05]{} & 02 04 50.4141 & +15 14 11.214 & 0.405 & Q & 21.0 & 338 & 15 & 8 &\
[0212+735]{} & & 02 17 30.7735 & +73 49 32.845 & 2.367 & Q & 20.0 & 113 & 86 & 6 &\
[0219+428]{} & [3C 66A]{} & 02 22 39.6114 & +43 02 07.799 & 0.444 & B & 15.2 & 195 & 43 & 4 & Y\
[0221+067]{} & & 02 24 28.4237 & +06 59 23.499 & 0.511 & Q & 20.7 & 300 & 15 & 9 &\
[0224+671]{} & [4C 67.05]{} & 02 28 50.0655 & +67 21 03.123 & 0.523 & Q & 19.5 & 4 & 15 & 8 &\
[0234+285]{} & [4C 28.07]{} & 02 37 52.3845 & +28 48 09.782 & 1.207 & Q & 19.3 & 283 & 15 & 8 & Y\
[0235+164]{} & & 02 38 38.9268 & +16 36 59.287 & 0.940 & B & 18.0 & 270 & 86 & 6 & Y\
[0239+108]{} & [4C +6.11]{} & 02 42 29.1773 & +11 01 00.856 & 2.680 & Q & 20.0 & 121 & 5 & 3 &\
[0300+470]{} & & 03 03 35.2431 & +47 16 16.387 & & B & 16.9 & 126 & 86 & 6 &\
[0316+413]{} & [3C 84]{} & 03 19 48.1540 & +41 30 42.160 & 0.017 & G & 12.5 & 186 & 86 & 6 & Y\
[0333+321]{} & [NRAO 140]{} & 03 36 30.0022 & +32 18 28.762 & 1.259 & Q & 17.5 & 128 & 15 & 8 &\
[0336-019]{} & [CTA 26]{} & 03 39 30.9336 & -01 46 35.755 & 0.852 & Q & 18.4 & 74 & 86 & 6 &\
[0355+508]{} & [NRAO 150]{} & 03 59 29.7464 & +50 57 50.230 & 1.517 & Q & 22.9 & 161 & 43 & 1 &\
[0403-132]{} & & 04 05 33.9795 & -13 08 14.345 & 0.571 & Q & 17.1 & 179 & 15 & 8 &\
[0415+379]{} & [3C 111]{} & 04 18 21.2682 & +38 01 35.574 & 0.049 & G & 18.1 & 68 & 86 & 6 &\
[0420-014]{} & & 04 23 15.7959 & -01 20 33.124 & 0.915 & Q & 17.0 & 192 & 86 & 6 & Y\
[0422+004]{} & & 04 24 46.8226 & +00 36 08.702 & 0.476 & B & 17.0 & 4 & 15 & 8 &\
[0430+052]{} & [3C 120]{} & 04 33 11.0894 & +05 21 15.549 & 0.033 & G & 15.1 & 244 & 86 & 6 &\
[0439+360]{} & & 04 42 53.3565 & +36 06 52.668 & & U & & & & &\
[0454-234]{} & & 04 57 03.1634 & -23 24 52.367 & 1.003 & Q & 18.9 & 205 & 15 & 9 & Y\
[0458-020]{} & [4C -02.19]{} & 05 01 12.8003 & -01 59 13.756 & 2.291 & Q & 18.1 & 312 & 15 & 8 &\
[0514-161]{} & & 05 16 15.9268 & -16 03 07.614 & 1.278 & Q & 17.0 & & & &\
[0528+134]{} & & 05 30 56.4348 & +13 31 55.173 & 2.070 & Q & 20.0 & 75 & 86 & 6 & Y\
[0529+075]{} & & 05 32 38.9895 & +07 32 43.314 & 1.254 & Q & 19.0 & 322 & 15 & 8 &\
[0552+398]{} & [DA 193]{} & 05 55 30.7409 & +39 48 49.125 & 2.363 & Q & 18.3 & 288 & 15 & 8 &\
[0605-085]{} & & 06 07 59.6922 & -08 34 49.988 & 0.872 & Q & 17.6 & 132 & 15 & 8 &\
[0607-157]{} & & 06 09 40.9611 & -15 42 40.476 & 0.324 & Q & 18.0 & 189 & 86 & 6 &\
[0642+449]{} & & 06 46 32.0222 & +44 51 16.585 & 3.408 & Q & 18.5 & 93 & 86 & 6 &\
[0716+714]{} & & 07 21 53.4701 & +71 20 36.392 & 0.310 & B & 15.5 & 35 & 15 & 8 & Y\
[0727-115]{} & & 07 30 19.1082 & -11 41 12.692 & 1.591 & Q & 20.3 & 254 & 15 & 8 &\
[0735+178]{} & & 07 38 07.3910 & +17 42 18.980 & 0.424 & B & 16.2 & 59 & 86 & 6 & Y\
[0736+017]{} & & 07 39 18.0300 & +01 37 04.580 & 0.191 & Q & 16.5 & 275 & 86 & 6 &\
[0745+241]{} & & 07 48 36.1316 & +24 00 23.988 & 0.409 & Q & 19.6 & 296 & 15 & 5 &\
[0754+100]{} & & 07 57 06.6602 & +09 56 34.658 & 0.266 & B & 15.0 & 15 & 15 & 8 &\
[0804+499]{} & & 08 08 39.6704 & +49 50 36.481 & 1.432 & Q & 19.2 & 129 & 15 & 8 &\
[0805-077]{} & & 08 08 15.5274 & -07 51 10.051 & 1.837 & Q & 19.8 & 341 & 15 & 8 &\
[0814+425]{} & [OJ 425]{} & 08 18 16.0034 & +42 22 45.337 & 0.245 & B & 18.2 & 91 & 15 & 8 & Y\
[0820+560]{} & & 08 24 47.2441 & +55 52 42.585 & 1.417 & Q & 18.2 & 58 & 5 & 3 & Y\
[0823+033]{} & & 08 25 50.3546 & +03 09 24.408 & 0.506 & B & 16.8 & 87 & 86 & 6 &\
[0827+243]{} & & 08 30 52.0861 & +24 10 59.821 & 0.939 & Q & 17.3 & 127 & 15 & 8 &\
[0829+046]{} & & 08 31 48.8769 & +04 29 39.086 & 0.180 & B & 16.4 & 67 & 15 & 8 &\
[0834-201]{} & & 08 36 39.2094 & -20 16 59.530 & 2.752 & Q & 18.5 & 233 & 15 & 9 &\
[0836+710]{} & [4C 71.07]{} & 08 41 24.3819 & +70 53 41.760 & 2.218 & Q & 17.3 & 221 & 15 & 8 &\
[0851+202]{} & [OJ 287]{} & 08 54 48.8748 & +20 06 30.572 & 0.306 & B & 15.4 & 241 & 86 & 6 & Y\
[0923+392]{} & [4C +39.25]{} & 09 27 03.0102 & +39 02 20.692 & 0.698 & Q & 17.0 & 88 & 15 & 8 &\
[0945+408]{} & [4C 40.24]{} & 09 48 55.3341 & +40 39 44.446 & 1.252 & Q & 18.1 & 159 & 86 & 6 &\
[0953+254]{} & & 09 56 49.8762 & +25 15 15.901 & 0.712 & Q & 17.2 & 116 & 15 & 5 &\
[0954+658]{} & & 09 58 47.2617 & +65 33 54.666 & 0.367 & B & 16.8 & 289 & 86 & 6 &\
[1012+232]{} & & 10 14 47.0622 & +23 01 16.454 & 0.565 & Q & 17.8 & 109 & 86 & 6 &\
[1034-293]{} & & 10 37 16.0817 & -29 34 02.914 & 0.312 & Q & 16.5 & 34 & 5 & 3 &\
[1039+811]{} & & 10 44 23.1009 & +80 54 39.319 & 1.260 & Q & 17.9 & 300 & 5 & 3 &\
[1044+719]{} & & 10 48 27.6375 & +71 43 35.788 & 1.150 & Q & 19.0 & 178 & 8 & 10 &\
[1045-188]{} & & 10 48 06.6157 & -19 09 35.965 & 0.595 & Q & 18.2 & 150 & 15 & 8 &\
[1055+018]{} & [4C +01.28]{} & 10 58 29.5968 & +01 33 58.860 & 0.888 & Q & 18.3 & 308 & 15 & 8 & Y\
[1116+128]{} & [4C +12.39]{} & 11 18 57.2988 & +12 34 41.549 & 2.118 & Q & 19.2 & 17 & 5 & 3 &\
[1124-186]{} & & 11 27 04.3922 & -18 57 17.712 & 1.048 & Q & 18.6 & 169 & 15 & 8 &\
[1127-145]{} & & 11 30 07.0525 & -14 49 27.387 & 1.187 & Q & 16.9 & 98 & 15 & 8 & Y\
[1144+402]{} & & 11 46 58.2966 & +39 58 34.085 & 1.089 & Q & 18.0 & 5 & 8 & 10 &\
[1156+295]{} & [4C 29.45]{} & 11 59 31.8339 & +29 14 43.608 & 0.729 & Q & 14.4 & 38 & 86 & 6 & Y\
[1213-172]{} & & 12 15 46.6892 & -17 31 45.583 & & U & 21.4 & 104 & 15 & 8 &\
[1226+023]{} & [3C 273]{} & 12 29 06.6971 & +02 03 08.453 & 0.158 & Q & 12.8 & 208 & 15 & 8 & Y\
[1228+126]{} & [M 87]{} & 12 30 49.4233 & +12 23 28.043 & 0.004 & G & 12.9 & 262 & 15 & 8 &\
[1244-255]{} & & 12 46 46.7983 & -25 47 49.292 & 0.638 & Q & 17.4 & 138 & 15 & 9 & Y\
[1253-055]{} & [3C 279]{} & 12 56 11.1688 & -05 47 21.695 & 0.538 & Q & 17.8 & 215 & 15 & 8 & Y\
[1308+326]{} & & 13 10 28.6573 & +32 20 43.621 & 0.997 & Q & 15.2 & 281 & 86 & 6 & Y\
[1328+307]{} & [3C 286]{} & 13 31 08.2880 & +30 30 32.966 & 0.846 & Q & 17.2 & 230 & 15 & 9 &\
[1334-127]{} & & 13 37 39.7841 & -12 57 24.868 & 0.539 & Q & 19.0 & 166 & 15 & 8 &\
[1354+195]{} & [DA 354]{} & 13 57 04.4305 & +19 19 07.251 & 0.719 & Q & 16.0 & 146 & 15 & 9 &\
[1406-076]{} & & 14 08 56.4811 & -07 52 26.665 & 1.493 & Q & 19.6 & 265 & 43 & 2 &\
[1413+135]{} & & 14 15 58.8108 & +13 20 23.601 & 0.247 & B & 20.5 & 247 & 15 & 8 &\
[1418+546]{} & & 14 19 46.5784 & +54 23 14.616 & 0.152 & B & 15.7 & 133 & 15 & 9 &\
[1502+106]{} & & 15 04 24.9752 & +10 29 39.080 & 1.839 & Q & 18.6 & 131 & 86 & 6 & Y\
[1504-166]{} & & 15 07 04.7876 & -16 52 30.238 & 0.876 & Q & 18.5 & 205 & 15 & 8 &\
[1510-089]{} & & 15 12 50.5321 & -09 05 59.845 & 0.360 & Q & 16.5 & 353 & 86 & 6 & Y\
[1514-241]{} & [AP Lib]{} & 15 17 41.8190 & -24 22 19.431 & 0.048 & B & 14.8 & 173 & 15 & 9 & Y\
[1546+027]{} & & 15 49 29.4326 & +02 37 01.069 & 0.412 & Q & 17.4 & 183 & 86 & 6 &\
[1548+056]{} & & 15 50 35.2658 & +05 27 10.400 & 1.422 & Q & 19.5 & 1 & 86 & 6 &\
[1606+106]{} & & 16 08 46.1974 & +10 29 07.666 & 1.226 & Q & 18.7 & 336 & 15 & 8 &\
[1611+343]{} & & 16 13 41.0330 & +34 12 47.707 & 1.401 & Q & 18.1 & 164 & 15 & 8 &\
[1622-297]{} & & 16 26 06.0237 & -29 51 26.770 & 0.815 & Q & 19.5 & 252 & 43 & 2 &\
[1633+382]{} & [4C 38.41]{} & 16 35 15.4848 & +38 08 04.423 & 1.807 & Q & 18.0 & 288 & 15 & 8 & Y\
[1637+574]{} & & 16 38 13.4457 & +57 20 23.874 & 0.751 & Q & 16.9 & 225 & 86 & 6 &\
[1638+398]{} & [NRAO 512]{} & 16 40 29.6235 & +39 46 45.979 & 1.666 & Q & 19.4 & 282 & 15 & 8 &\
[1641+399]{} & [3C 345]{} & 16 42 58.8001 & +39 48 36.958 & 0.594 & Q & 16.6 & 275 & 15 & 8 &\
[1642+690]{} & & 16 42 07.8336 & +68 56 39.698 & 0.751 & Q & 20.5 & 164 & 15 & 5 &\
[1652+398]{} & [Mrk 501]{} & 16 53 52.2167 & +39 45 36.609 & 0.033 & B & 13.8 & 125 & 15 & 5 & Y\
[1655+077]{} & & 16 58 09.0340 & +07 41 26.852 & 0.621 & Q & 20.0 & 333 & 86 & 6 &\
[1657-261]{} & & 17 00 53.1591 & -26 10 51.478 & & U & & & & &\
[1716+686]{} & & 17 16 13.9209 & +68 36 38.684 & 0.777 & Q & 18.5 & 326 & 5 & 11 &\
[1730-130]{} & [NRAO 530]{} & 17 33 02.7019 & -13 04 49.502 & 0.902 & Q & 19.5 & 31 & 15 & 8 &\
[1732+389]{} & & 17 34 20.5664 & +38 57 51.398 & 0.976 & Q & 20.6 & 89 & 5 & 3 &\
[1739+522]{} & & 17 40 36.9634 & +52 11 43.410 & 1.379 & Q & 18.7 & 41 & 86 & 6 &\
[1741-038]{} & & 17 43 58.8510 & -03 50 04.604 & 1.057 & Q & 20.4 & 237 & 86 & 6 &\
[1749+096]{} & [OT 081]{} & 17 51 32.8104 & +09 39 00.700 & 0.320 & B & 16.8 & 6 & 15 & 8 & Y\
[1800+440]{} & & 18 01 32.2950 & +44 04 21.849 & 0.663 & Q & 17.9 & 271 & 86 & 6 &\
[1803+784]{} & & 18 00 45.6222 & +78 28 04.022 & 0.680 & B & 15.9 & 224 & 86 & 6 & Y\
[1807+698]{} & [3C 371]{} & 18 06 50.6518 & +69 49 28.089 & 0.050 & B & 14.2 & 264 & 15 & 5 &\
[1823+568]{} & [4C 56.27]{} & 18 24 07.0480 & +56 51 01.484 & 0.664 & B & 18.4 & 194 & 86 & 6 &\
[1828+487]{} & [3C 380]{} & 18 29 31.8047 & +48 44 46.496 & 0.692 & Q & 16.8 & 316 & 86 & 6 &\
[1830-211]{} & & 18 33 39.9093 & -21 03 40.049 & 2.507 & Q & 18.7 & & & &\
[1842+681]{} & & 18 42 33.7085 & +68 09 25.034 & 0.475 & Q & 18.1 & 117 & 86 & 6 &\
[1908-201]{} & & 19 11 09.6517 & -20 06 54.989 & 1.119 & Q & 18.1 & 4 & 15 & 9 & Y\
[1921-293]{} & & 19 24 51.0545 & -29 14 29.838 & 0.352 & Q & 18.2 & 335 & 86 & 6 &\
[1923+210]{} & & 19 25 59.5932 & +21 06 26.106 & & U & 16.1 & 245 & 86 & 6 &\
[1928+738]{} & & 19 27 48.4595 & +73 58 01.592 & 0.303 & Q & 16.1 & 156 & 15 & 8 &\
[1954+513]{} & & 19 55 42.7230 & +51 31 48.585 & 1.223 & Q & 18.5 & 306 & 43 & 7 &\
[1957+405]{} & [Cyg A]{} & 19 59 28.3546 & +40 44 02.101 & 0.056 & G & 15.1 & 283 & 15 & 8 &\
[1958-179]{} & & 20 00 57.0848 & -17 48 57.547 & 0.652 & Q & 18.6 & 207 & 15 & 8 &\
[2005+403]{} & & 20 07 44.9340 & +40 29 48.622 & 1.736 & Q & 19.0 & 120 & 15 & 8 &\
[2007+777]{} & & 20 05 30.9646 & +77 52 43.294 & 0.342 & B & 16.7 & 282 & 86 & 6 &\
[2013+370]{} & & 20 15 28.7151 & +37 10 59.640 & & B & 21.6 & 176 & 86 & 6 &\
[2021+317]{} & [4C +31.56]{} & 20 23 19.0066 & +31 53 02.395 & & U & 19.0 & 168 & 15 & 8 &\
[2023+336]{} & & 20 25 10.8256 & +33 43 00.265 & 0.219 & B & & 344 & 86 & 6 &\
[2037+511]{} & [3C 418]{} & 20 38 37.0188 & +51 19 12.687 & 1.687 & Q & 21.0 & 226 & 86 & 6 &\
[2059+034]{} & & 21 01 38.8275 & +03 41 31.381 & 1.015 & Q & 17.8 & 30 & 8 & 10 &\
[2113+293]{} & & 21 15 29.3850 & +29 33 38.540 & 1.514 & Q & 20.6 & 177 & 15 & 5 &\
[2121+053]{} & & 21 23 44.4941 & +05 35 22.192 & 1.941 & Q & 20.4 & 276 & 15 & 8 &\
[2128-123]{} & & 21 31 35.2540 & -12 07 04.725 & 0.501 & Q & 16.1 & 216 & 15 & 8 &\
[2131-021]{} & & 21 34 10.3053 & -01 53 17.163 & 1.284 & B & 19.0 & 100 & 15 & 8 &\
[2134+004]{} & [DA 553]{} & 21 36 38.5791 & +00 41 54.319 & 1.932 & Q & 17.1 & 332 & 15 & 8 &\
[2136+141]{} & & 21 39 01.3021 & +14 23 36.108 & 2.427 & Q & 18.9 & 310 & 15 & 8 &\
[2145+067]{} & [4C +06.69]{} & 21 48 05.4509 & +06 57 38.710 & 0.999 & Q & 16.5 & 122 & 15 & 8 &\
[2155-152]{} & & 21 58 06.2819 & -15 01 09.327 & 0.672 & Q & 18.3 & 207 & 15 & 8 &\
[2200+420]{} & [BL Lac]{} & 22 02 43.2793 & +42 16 40.073 & 0.069 & B & 14.7 & 221 & 86 & 6 & Y\
[2201+315]{} & [4C 31.63]{} & 22 03 14.9665 & +31 45 38.359 & 0.298 & Q & 15.6 & 209 & 15 & 8 &\
[2210-257]{} & & 22 13 02.4963 & -25 29 30.054 & 1.831 & Q & 19.0 & 91 & 5 & 3 &\
[2216-038]{} & & 22 18 52.0315 & -03 35 36.837 & 0.901 & Q & 16.4 & 188 & 15 & 8 &\
[2223-052]{} & [3C 446]{} & 22 25 47.2570 & -04 57 01.271 & 1.404 & Q & 18.4 & 128 & 86 & 6 &\
[2230+114]{} & [CTA 102]{} & 22 32 36.4015 & +11 43 50.985 & 1.037 & Q & 17.3 & 126 & 15 & 8 & Y\
[2234+282]{} & & 22 36 22.4627 & +28 28 57.525 & 0.795 & Q & 19.0 & 263 & 15 & 5 &\
[2243-123]{} & & 22 46 18.2309 & -12 06 51.110 & 0.630 & Q & 16.4 & 359 & 15 & 8 &\
[2251+158]{} & [3C 454.3]{} & 22 53 57.7438 & +16 08 53.648 & 0.859 & Q & 16.1 & 255 & 86 & 6 & Y\
[2254+617]{} & & 22 56 17.9320 & +62 01 49.545 & & U & & & & &\
[2255-282]{} & & 22 58 05.9656 & -27 58 21.312 & 0.927 & Q & 16.8 & 224 & 15 & 9 &\
[2318+049]{} & & 23 20 44.8503 & +05 13 50.085 & 0.623 & Q & 19.0 & 322 & 15 & 9 &\
[2345-167]{} & & 23 48 02.6085 & -16 31 12.022 & 0.576 & Q & 18.4 & 121 & 86 & 6 &\
[ccccccc]{} & Jul. 2005 & 4.0 & 1.24$\pm$0.06 & 2.20$\pm$0.54 & 36.8$\pm$ 7.0 & $<$0.67\
[0048-097]{} & Jul. 2005 & 8.0 & 0.62$\pm$0.03 & $<$ 1.72 & & $<$0.89\
[0059+581]{} & Sep. 2007 & 8.0 & 1.10$\pm$0.05 & $<$ 1.58 & & $<$0.73\
[0106+013]{} & Jun. 2009 & 4.0 & 1.71$\pm$0.09 & $<$ 1.58 & & $<$0.63\
[0112-017]{} & Jun. 2009 & 16.0 & 0.15$\pm$0.01 & $<$ 4.29 & & $<$3.79\
[0113-118]{} & Jul. 2005 & 8.0 & 0.96$\pm$0.05 & 4.91$\pm$0.53 & 157.0$\pm$ 3.1 & $<$0.60\
[0119+041]{} & Jul. 2005 & 8.0 & 0.42$\pm$0.02 & $<$ 2.00 & & $<$1.41\
[0133+476]{} & Jul. 2005 & 4.0 & 3.75$\pm$0.19 & 4.11$\pm$0.51 & 41.6$\pm$ 3.6 & $<$0.44\
[0135-247]{} & Jun. 2009 & 12.0 & 1.36$\pm$0.07 & 3.70$\pm$0.55 & 112.1$\pm$ 4.2 & $<$0.68\
[0202+149]{} & Jul. 2005 & 24.0 & 0.42$\pm$0.02 & 5.14$\pm$0.56 & 114.1$\pm$ 3.1 & $<$0.79\
[0212+735]{} & Jul. 2005 & 12.0 & 1.51$\pm$0.08 & 3.94$\pm$0.51 & 144.0$\pm$ 3.7 & $<$0.45\
[0219+428]{} & Nov. 2008 & 16.0 & 0.60$\pm$0.03 & 4.36$\pm$0.54 & 2.6$\pm$ 3.6 & $<$0.73\
[0221+067]{} & Jul. 2005 & 32.0 & 0.54$\pm$0.03 & 6.62$\pm$0.54 & 64.8$\pm$ 2.3 & $<$0.70\
[0224+671]{} & Jul. 2005 & 8.0 & 0.89$\pm$0.04 & 4.29$\pm$0.54 & 22.1$\pm$ 3.6 & $<$0.66\
[0234+285]{} & Jul. 2005 & 16.0 & 3.87$\pm$0.19 & 2.42$\pm$0.50 & 126.7$\pm$ 5.9 & $<$0.32\
[0235+164]{} & Jul. 2005 & 16.0 & 1.96$\pm$0.10 & 4.20$\pm$0.50 & 14.7$\pm$ 3.4 & $<$0.36\
[0239+108]{} & Jul. 2005 & 16.0 & 0.25$\pm$0.01 & 3.78$\pm$0.72 & 27.8$\pm$ 5.4 & $<$1.59\
[0300+470]{} & Jul. 2005 & 8.0 & 0.45$\pm$0.02 & $<$ 1.83 & & $<$1.06\
[0316+413]{} & Jul. 2005 & 4.0 & 5.95$\pm$0.30 & $<$ 1.51 & & 0.46$\pm$0.11\
[0333+321]{} & Sep. 2007 & 8.0 & 0.79$\pm$0.04 & 1.99$\pm$0.57 & 52.5$\pm$ 8.3 & $<$0.79\
[0336-019]{} & Jul. 2005 & 24.0 & 1.14$\pm$0.06 & 4.20$\pm$0.51 & 84.2$\pm$ 3.5 & $<$0.43\
[0355+508]{} & Jul. 2005 & 4.0 & 4.10$\pm$0.21 & 2.05$\pm$0.50 & 29.3$\pm$ 7.0 & $<$0.34\
[0403-132]{} & Jun. 2009 & 16.0 & 0.38$\pm$0.02 & 4.01$\pm$0.63 & 170.4$\pm$ 4.4 & $<$1.25\
[0415+379]{} & Jul. 2005 & 4.0 & 3.90$\pm$0.19 & $<$ 1.52 & & $<$0.37\
[0420-014]{} & Jul. 2005 & 12.0 & 2.62$\pm$0.13 & 2.70$\pm$0.50 & 125.6$\pm$ 5.3 & $<$0.35\
[0422+004]{} & Jul. 2005 & 12.0 & 1.60$\pm$0.08 & 5.52$\pm$0.51 & 150.2$\pm$ 2.7 & $<$0.43\
[0430+052]{} & Jul. 2005 & 20.0 & 2.06$\pm$0.10 & $<$ 1.51 & & $<$0.35\
[0439+360]{} & Jul. 2005 & 4.0 & 1.77$\pm$0.09 & $<$ 1.55 & & $<$0.55\
[0454-234]{} & Jul. 2005 & 8.0 & 1.19$\pm$0.06 & 4.51$\pm$0.54 & 13.2$\pm$ 3.5 & $<$0.71\
[0458-020]{} & Jul. 2005 & 24.0 & 0.42$\pm$0.02 & 2.78$\pm$0.58 & 89.8$\pm$ 5.9 & $<$0.87\
[0514-161]{} & Feb. 2009 & 8.0 & 0.20$\pm$0.01 & $<$ 2.95 & & $<$3.11\
[0528+134]{} & Jul. 2005 & 12.0 & 2.00$\pm$0.10 & 2.63$\pm$0.51 & 91.2$\pm$ 5.5 & $<$0.39\
[0529+075]{} & Jul. 2009 & 8.0 & 0.98$\pm$0.05 & 3.84$\pm$0.55 & 149.2$\pm$ 4.0 & $<$0.66\
[0552+398]{} & May 2006 & 8.0 & 1.35$\pm$0.07 & 4.72$\pm$0.54 & 119.6$\pm$ 3.3 & $<$0.64\
[0605-085]{} & Jul. 2005 & 8.0 & 1.03$\pm$0.05 & 4.50$\pm$0.54 & 1.6$\pm$ 3.4 & $<$0.70\
[0607-157]{} & Jul. 2005 & 8.0 & 1.55$\pm$0.08 & 3.12$\pm$0.52 & 138.8$\pm$ 4.8 & $<$0.53\
[0642+449]{} & May 2006 & 8.0 & 1.27$\pm$0.06 & 2.75$\pm$0.54 & 2.6$\pm$ 5.7 & $<$0.66\
[0716+714]{} & Aug. 2007 & 8.0 & 1.89$\pm$0.09 & 11.44$\pm$0.53 & 143.0$\pm$ 1.3 & $<$0.65\
[0727-115]{} & Jul. 2009 & 8.0 & 3.47$\pm$0.17 & 2.55$\pm$0.50 & 99.2$\pm$ 5.7 & $<$0.35\
[0735+178]{} & Feb. 2008 & 8.0 & 0.56$\pm$0.03 & 2.56$\pm$0.61 & 163.5$\pm$ 6.8 & $<$1.00\
[0736+017]{} & Oct. 2009 & 12.0 & 1.68$\pm$0.08 & $<$ 1.52 & & $<$0.38\
[0745+241]{} & Jul. 2009 & 8.0 & 0.89$\pm$0.04 & 5.72$\pm$0.54 & 99.6$\pm$ 2.7 & $<$0.62\
[0754+100]{} & Jun. 2009 & 16.0 & 1.93$\pm$0.10 & 5.44$\pm$0.51 & 16.6$\pm$ 2.7 & $<$0.64\
[0804+499]{} & Jun. 2009 & 12.0 & 0.44$\pm$0.02 & 2.24$\pm$0.60 & 101.4$\pm$ 7.7 & $<$1.01\
[0805-077]{} & May 2006 & 16.0 & 0.89$\pm$0.04 & 4.71$\pm$0.55 & 175.2$\pm$ 3.4 & $<$0.68\
[0814+425]{} & Jul. 2009 & 16.0 & 1.03$\pm$0.05 & $<$ 4.76 & & $<$2.74\
[0820+560]{} & Feb. 2009 & 8.0 & 0.50$\pm$0.02 & 2.94$\pm$0.63 & 23.4$\pm$ 6.1 & $<$1.09\
[0823+033]{} & May 2006 & 8.0 & 1.92$\pm$0.10 & 3.38$\pm$0.52 & 27.5$\pm$ 4.4 & 0.60$\pm$0.16\
[0827+243]{} & Feb. 2009 & 8.0 & 0.95$\pm$0.05 & $<$ 1.60 & & -0.63$\pm$0.20\
[0829+046]{} & Aug. 2007 & 16.0 & 0.70$\pm$0.04 & 8.20$\pm$0.62 & 45.6$\pm$ 1.9 & $<$1.21\
[0834-201]{} & May 2006 & 16.0 & 1.02$\pm$0.05 & 1.94$\pm$0.55 & 43.8$\pm$ 8.0 & $<$0.79\
[0836+710]{} & May 2006 & 8.0 & 2.53$\pm$0.13 & 5.59$\pm$0.51 & 107.6$\pm$ 2.6 & -0.48$\pm$0.15\
[0851+202]{} & Jul. 2005 & 8.0 & 3.20$\pm$0.16 & 6.77$\pm$0.50 & 152.8$\pm$ 2.1 & $<$0.35\
[0923+392]{} & May 2006 & 8.0 & 4.54$\pm$0.23 & 4.16$\pm$0.50 & 137.2$\pm$ 3.5 & $<$0.34\
[0945+408]{} & May 2006 & 8.0 & 0.60$\pm$0.03 & 2.46$\pm$0.67 & 47.0$\pm$ 7.6 & $<$1.48\
[0953+254]{} & Jul. 2005 & 8.0 & 0.90$\pm$0.05 & 1.86$\pm$0.54 & 41.8$\pm$ 8.3 & $<$0.65\
[0954+658]{} & May 2006 & 4.0 & 2.33$\pm$0.12 & 5.20$\pm$0.52 & 8.1$\pm$ 2.9 & $<$0.82\
[1012+232]{} & Jul. 2005 & 8.0 & 0.49$\pm$0.02 & 3.85$\pm$0.61 & 71.7$\pm$ 4.6 & $<$1.13\
[1034-293]{} & Feb. 2009 & 8.0 & 1.20$\pm$0.06 & 2.15$\pm$0.54 & 138.1$\pm$ 7.3 & $<$0.61\
[1039+811]{} & May 2006 & 8.0 & 0.45$\pm$0.02 & $<$ 2.15 & & $<$1.57\
[1044+719]{} & Jul. 2005 & 8.0 & 1.12$\pm$0.06 & $<$ 1.61 & & $<$0.72\
[1045-188]{} & Jul. 2005 & 8.0 & 1.05$\pm$0.05 & 6.65$\pm$0.58 & 148.1$\pm$ 2.4 & $<$0.86\
[1055+018]{} & Jul. 2005 & 8.0 & 3.01$\pm$0.15 & 4.01$\pm$0.50 & 132.0$\pm$ 3.6 & $<$0.35\
[1116+128]{} & Feb. 2009 & 8.0 & 0.54$\pm$0.03 & 5.02$\pm$0.63 & 10.7$\pm$ 3.7 & $<$1.22\
[1124-186]{} & Jul. 2005 & 8.0 & 1.27$\pm$0.06 & 9.56$\pm$0.53 & 29.5$\pm$ 1.6 & 0.58$\pm$0.19\
[1127-145]{} & Aug. 2007 & 8.0 & 1.31$\pm$0.07 & 2.61$\pm$0.54 & 81.9$\pm$ 6.3 & $<$0.78\
[1144+402]{} & Jul. 2009 & 8.0 & 0.77$\pm$0.04 & 4.87$\pm$0.53 & 117.2$\pm$ 3.1 & $<$0.58\
[1156+295]{} & Aug. 2007 & 8.0 & 0.72$\pm$0.04 & 4.71$\pm$0.58 & 161.4$\pm$ 3.6 & $<$1.14\
[1213-172]{} & Feb. 2009 & 8.0 & 0.93$\pm$0.05 & $<$ 1.61 & & $<$0.67\
[1226+023]{} & Aug. 2007 & 8.0 & 16.01$\pm$0.80 & 4.14$\pm$0.50 & 131.8$\pm$ 3.5 & $<$0.31\
[1228+126]{} & Jul. 2005 & 4.0 & 3.06$\pm$0.15 & 7.82$\pm$0.52 & 51.4$\pm$ 1.9 & $<$0.55\
[1244-255]{} & Jul. 2005 & 8.0 & 1.66$\pm$0.08 & 2.50$\pm$0.52 & 147.2$\pm$ 5.9 & $<$0.52\
[1253-055]{} & Aug. 2007 & 8.0 & 11.46$\pm$0.57 & $<$ 1.50 & & $<$0.31\
[1308+326]{} & Jul. 2005 & 24.0 & 0.84$\pm$0.04 & 6.18$\pm$0.54 & 164.9$\pm$ 2.5 & $<$0.69\
[1328+307]{} & Oct. 2006 & 24.0 & 0.97$\pm$0.05 & 13.40$\pm$0.52 & 39.6$\pm$ 1.1 & $<$0.45\
[1334-127]{} & Jul. 2005 & 4.0 & 4.76$\pm$0.24 & 7.13$\pm$0.50 & 172.1$\pm$ 2.0 & -0.35$\pm$0.11\
[1354+195]{} & Jul. 2005 & 8.0 & 1.54$\pm$0.08 & 2.38$\pm$0.53 & 21.8$\pm$ 6.4 & $<$0.58\
[1406-076]{} & Aug. 2007 & 8.0 & 0.57$\pm$0.03 & $<$ 1.93 & & $<$1.62\
[1413+135]{} & Sep. 2009 & 16.0 & 0.31$\pm$0.02 & $<$ 1.84 & & $<$1.11\
[1418+546]{} & Jul. 2005 & 12.0 & 0.80$\pm$0.04 & 2.80$\pm$0.56 & 107.7$\pm$ 5.7 & $<$0.85\
[1502+106]{} & Jul. 2005 & 8.0 & 1.10$\pm$0.06 & 2.39$\pm$0.60 & 40.1$\pm$ 7.0 & $<$0.97\
[1504-166]{} & Jul. 2005 & 8.0 & 0.71$\pm$0.04 & 2.16$\pm$0.69 & 65.5$\pm$ 9.1 & $<$1.61\
[1510-089]{} & Jul. 2005 & 8.0 & 0.98$\pm$0.05 & 3.93$\pm$0.57 & 5.5$\pm$ 4.2 & $<$0.90\
[1514-241]{} & Jul. 2005 & 8.0 & 1.53$\pm$0.08 & 2.65$\pm$0.52 & 44.7$\pm$ 5.6 & $<$0.50\
[1546+027]{} & Jul. 2005 & 12.0 & 2.48$\pm$0.12 & $<$ 1.52 & & $<$0.37\
[1548+056]{} & Jul. 2005 & 12.0 & 1.45$\pm$0.07 & 6.49$\pm$0.51 & 153.3$\pm$ 2.3 & $<$0.49\
[1606+106]{} & Jul. 2005 & 16.0 & 0.71$\pm$0.04 & $<$ 1.65 & & $<$0.74\
[1611+343]{} & Jul. 2005 & 8.0 & 3.42$\pm$0.17 & 1.97$\pm$0.50 & 171.3$\pm$ 7.3 & $<$0.36\
[1622-297]{} & Jul. 2005 & 12.0 & 2.21$\pm$0.11 & 4.56$\pm$0.52 & 178.8$\pm$ 3.2 & $<$0.48\
[1633+382]{} & Jul. 2005 & 12.0 & 2.15$\pm$0.11 & 3.54$\pm$0.51 & 37.7$\pm$ 4.1 & $<$0.41\
[1637+574]{} & Jul. 2005 & 16.0 & 1.46$\pm$0.07 & $<$ 1.53 & & $<$0.44\
[1638+398]{} & Jul. 2005 & 16.0 & 0.33$\pm$0.02 & $<$ 2.07 & & $<$1.45\
[1641+399]{} & Jul. 2005 & 12.0 & 3.53$\pm$0.18 & 3.07$\pm$0.50 & 95.9$\pm$ 4.7 & $<$0.34\
[1642+690]{} & Jul. 2005 & 12.0 & 2.54$\pm$0.13 & 5.10$\pm$0.50 & 88.0$\pm$ 2.8 & $<$0.36\
[1652+398]{} & Jul. 2007 & 8.0 & 0.65$\pm$0.03 & 4.42$\pm$0.60 & 3.3$\pm$ 3.9 & $<$1.05\
[1655+077]{} & Jul. 2005 & 16.0 & 0.99$\pm$0.05 & 5.69$\pm$0.52 & 130.6$\pm$ 2.6 & $<$0.51\
[1657-261]{} & Sep. 2009 & 16.0 & 0.69$\pm$0.03 & 5.26$\pm$0.57 & 163.4$\pm$ 3.0 & $<$0.88\
[1716+686]{} & Jul. 2005 & 16.0 & 0.48$\pm$0.02 & $<$ 1.76 & & $<$0.96\
[1730-130]{} & Jul. 2005 & 8.0 & 1.96$\pm$0.10 & 3.81$\pm$0.51 & 147.7$\pm$ 3.8 & $<$0.41\
[1732+389]{} & Jul. 2005 & 16.0 & 0.74$\pm$0.04 & 5.93$\pm$0.54 & 114.3$\pm$ 2.6 & $<$0.69\
[1739+522]{} & Jul. 2005 & 16.0 & 0.59$\pm$0.03 & 2.08$\pm$0.56 & 99.3$\pm$ 7.8 & $<$0.84\
[1741-038]{} & Jul. 2005 & 4.0 & 3.61$\pm$0.18 & 3.32$\pm$0.50 & 156.4$\pm$ 4.4 & $<$0.37\
[1749+096]{} & Jul. 2005 & 4.0 & 2.79$\pm$0.14 & $<$ 1.55 & & $<$0.48\
[1800+440]{} & Jul. 2005 & 8.0 & 1.40$\pm$0.07 & 2.51$\pm$0.52 & 81.6$\pm$ 5.9 & $<$0.53\
[1803+784]{} & Jul. 2005 & 16.0 & 1.34$\pm$0.07 & 6.35$\pm$0.51 & 116.9$\pm$ 2.3 & $<$0.45\
[1807+698]{} & Jul. 2005 & 12.0 & 1.12$\pm$0.06 & 2.10$\pm$0.52 & 60.3$\pm$ 7.1 & $<$0.54\
[1823+568]{} & Jul. 2005 & 12.0 & 1.43$\pm$0.07 & 6.95$\pm$0.51 & 16.8$\pm$ 2.1 & $<$0.45\
[1828+487]{} & Jul. 2005 & 12.0 & 2.39$\pm$0.12 & 2.82$\pm$0.50 & 104.5$\pm$ 5.1 & $<$0.36\
[1830-211]{} & Jul. 2005 & 8.0 & 1.76$\pm$0.09 & $<$ 1.56 & & $<$0.52\
[1842+681]{} & Jul. 2005 & 16.0 & 1.04$\pm$0.05 & 3.34$\pm$0.52 & 3.3$\pm$ 4.5 & $<$0.49\
[1908-201]{} & Jul. 2005 & 8.0 & 3.19$\pm$0.16 & 4.17$\pm$0.51 & 158.8$\pm$ 3.5 & $<$0.38\
[1921-293]{} & Jul. 2005 & 8.0 & 7.68$\pm$0.38 & 2.00$\pm$0.50 & 149.3$\pm$ 7.2 & $<$0.32\
[1923+210]{} & Jul. 2005 & 8.0 & 1.27$\pm$0.06 & $<$ 1.57 & & $<$0.57\
[1928+738]{} & Jul. 2005 & 8.0 & 1.90$\pm$0.09 & 2.86$\pm$0.51 & 88.6$\pm$ 5.1 & $<$0.42\
[1954+513]{} & Jul. 2005 & 8.0 & 0.70$\pm$0.04 & 7.93$\pm$0.57 & 128.3$\pm$ 2.0 & $<$0.82\
[1957+405]{} & Jul. 2005 & 16.0 & 1.06$\pm$0.05 & $<$ 1.55 & & $<$0.46\
[1958-179]{} & Jul. 2005 & 8.0 & 1.72$\pm$0.09 & 2.99$\pm$0.52 & 12.0$\pm$ 4.9 & $<$0.52\
[2005+403]{} & Jul. 2005 & 12.0 & 0.90$\pm$0.05 & 2.24$\pm$0.53 & 138.6$\pm$ 6.8 & $<$0.61\
[2007+777]{} & Jul. 2005 & 12.0 & 1.44$\pm$0.07 & 9.20$\pm$0.51 & 90.5$\pm$ 1.6 & $<$0.46\
[2013+370]{} & Jul. 2005 & 8.0 & 1.81$\pm$0.09 & $<$ 1.53 & & $<$0.44\
[2021+317]{} & Jul. 2005 & 4.0 & 0.49$\pm$0.02 & 4.61$\pm$0.73 & 120.5$\pm$ 4.5 & $<$1.72\
[2023+336]{} & Jul. 2005 & 8.0 & 1.33$\pm$0.07 & 4.17$\pm$0.52 & 51.3$\pm$ 3.6 & $<$0.56\
[2037+511]{} & Jul. 2005 & 8.0 & 2.16$\pm$0.11 & 5.04$\pm$0.51 & 112.6$\pm$ 2.9 & $<$0.41\
[2059+034]{} & Jul. 2005 & 8.0 & 1.10$\pm$0.06 & $<$ 1.61 & & $<$0.63\
[2113+293]{} & Feb. 2009 & 8.0 & 0.47$\pm$0.02 & 4.23$\pm$0.72 & 164.3$\pm$ 4.8 & $<$1.51\
[2121+053]{} & Jul. 2005 & 32.0 & 1.04$\pm$0.05 & 9.68$\pm$0.51 & 33.6$\pm$ 1.5 & $<$0.42\
[2128-123]{} & Jul. 2005 & 8.0 & 1.42$\pm$0.07 & 3.65$\pm$0.52 & 131.3$\pm$ 4.1 & $<$0.56\
[2131-021]{} & Jul. 2005 & 20.0 & 1.29$\pm$0.06 & 4.71$\pm$0.51 & 76.4$\pm$ 3.1 & $<$0.40\
[2134+004]{} & Jul. 2005 & 12.0 & 1.43$\pm$0.07 & 1.63$\pm$0.51 & 176.3$\pm$ 9.0 & $<$0.43\
[2136+141]{} & Jul. 2005 & 32.0 & 0.65$\pm$0.03 & 4.70$\pm$0.52 & 163.3$\pm$ 3.2 & $<$0.51\
[2145+067]{} & Jul. 2005 & 24.0 & 4.82$\pm$0.24 & 3.55$\pm$0.50 & 36.5$\pm$ 4.0 & $<$0.31\
[2155-152]{} & Sep. 2007 & 8.0 & 1.21$\pm$0.06 & 11.04$\pm$0.53 & 51.9$\pm$ 1.4 & $<$0.93\
[2200+420]{} & Jul. 2005 & 12.0 & 5.97$\pm$0.30 & 10.15$\pm$0.50 & 174.9$\pm$ 1.4 & -0.44$\pm$0.10\
[2201+315]{} & Sep. 2007 & 8.0 & 1.66$\pm$0.08 & 4.38$\pm$0.51 & 149.4$\pm$ 3.3 & $<$0.63\
[2210-257]{} & Sep. 2009 & 24.0 & 0.43$\pm$0.02 & 2.08$\pm$0.60 & 148.8$\pm$ 8.2 & $<$1.03\
[2216-038]{} & Jul. 2005 & 12.0 & 1.28$\pm$0.06 & 2.90$\pm$0.52 & 24.6$\pm$ 5.1 & $<$0.49\
[2223-052]{} & Jul. 2005 & 8.0 & 4.18$\pm$0.21 & $<$ 1.51 & & $<$0.36\
[2230+114]{} & Jul. 2005 & 12.0 & 3.68$\pm$0.18 & $<$ 1.51 & & $<$0.33\
[2234+282]{} & Jul. 2005 & 12.0 & 0.57$\pm$0.03 & 3.04$\pm$0.58 & 168.6$\pm$ 5.4 & $<$0.95\
[2243-123]{} & Jul. 2005 & 8.0 & 2.42$\pm$0.12 & 3.32$\pm$0.51 & 150.1$\pm$ 4.4 & $<$0.40\
[2251+158]{} & Jul. 2005 & 32.0 & 21.12$\pm$1.06 & 1.85$\pm$0.50 & 48.5$\pm$ 7.8 & 0.36$\pm$0.10\
[2254+617]{} & Jul. 2005 & 8.0 & 0.46$\pm$0.03 & $<$ 1.89 & & $<$1.21\
[2255-282]{} & Jul. 2005 & 4.0 & 1.33$\pm$0.07 & $<$ 1.65 & & $<$0.74\
[2318+049]{} & Jul. 2005 & 16.0 & 0.73$\pm$0.04 & 4.18$\pm$0.54 & 176.3$\pm$ 3.7 & $<$0.63\
[2345-167]{} & Aug. 2007 & 8.0 & 1.40$\pm$0.07 & 3.53$\pm$0.54 & 148.8$\pm$ 4.6 & $<$1.00\
![Sky distribution of the source sample in J2000.0 equatorial coordinates.[]{data-label="skymap"}](3mmAGNPSurv_Eq_skymap_ALL.eps){width="8.5cm"}
![86GHz luminosity as a function of redshift. The dashed line indicates the luminosity for observer’s frame flux density $S_{86}=0.5$Jy, whereas the dotted line is for $S_{86}=5$Jy. Diamonds symbolize quasars, triangles denote BL Lacs, and squares [correspond to]{} radio galaxies.[]{data-label="L_z_QBG"}](3mmAGNPSurv_L_vs_z_ALL.eps){width="8.5cm"}
![Distribution of 86GHz luminosity for all, quasars, BL Lac sources, radio galaxies, LBAS sources (i.e., those sources in our entire sample that were detected by [*F*ermi]{}-LAT during its first 3 months of operation [Tables 1 and 2 of @Abdo:2009p7779]), and non-LBAS sources. [Numbers in parentheses denote sample sizes of sources with known redshift.]{}[]{data-label="LQBG"}](3mmAGNPSurv_L86_hist_ALL.eps){width="8.5cm"}
![Distribution of 86GHz luminosity for LBAS quasars, LBAS BL Lacs, non-LBAS quasars, and non-LBAS BL Lacs in our source sample. [Numbers in parentheses denote sample sizes of sources with known redshift.]{}[]{data-label="LQBLN"}](3mmAGNPSurv_L86_hist_QB_LN.eps){width="8.5cm"}
![Distribution of 15GHz to 86GHz spectral [indices]{} ($\alpha_{15{\rm,}86}$) for all sources in both the MOJAVE and our sample, and their corresponding quasar, BL Lac, LBAS, and non-LBAS sub-samples. The 15GHz total flux density was taken from integrated intensity of MOJAVE images. For each source, the closest 15GHz observation to our 86GHz measurement was selected. [Numbers in parentheses denote sample sizes.]{}[]{data-label="SPIND"}](3mmAGNPSurv_spindx86_15_hist_ALL.eps){width="8.5cm"}
![Distribution of 86GHz fractional linear polarization for: all sources in the entire sample, quasars, high polarization quasars (HPQ), low polarization quasars (LPQ), BL Lac objects, radio galaxies, LBAS, and non-LBAS sources (from top to bottom). N is the number of sources in 1% wide bins. [Unfilled]{} areas correspond to non-detections. Note that since we have chosen to consider $3\sigma$ upper limits with $\sigma_{m_{\rm{L}}}\approx0.5$%, no data with $m_{\rm{L}}{\ {\raise-.5ex\hbox{$\buildrel<\over\sim$}}\ }1.6$% [are]{} available. [Numbers in parentheses denote sizes of detected $m_{\rm{L}}$ samples.]{}[]{data-label="mALL"}](3mmAGNPSurv_m_hist_ALL_HP_LPQ.eps){width="8.5cm"}
![Distribution of 86GHz to 15GHz fractional linear-polarization ratio for sources with detected linear polarization both in our survey and in MOJAVE. Two sources with $m_{\rm{L}}$/$m_{\rm{L,15}}>17$ are not presented. The 15GHz linear polarization fraction was computed from measurements of integrated total flux density and [linearly polarized]{} flux density from 15GHz VLBI images listed in [@Lister:2005p261]. [Numbers in parentheses denote sample sizes.]{}[]{data-label="ml_ml15_AQBLN"}](3mmAGNPSurv_mL_mL15int_hist_ALL.eps){width="8.5cm"}
![[Distribution of 86GHz to 15GHz fractional linear-polarization ratio for sources with detected linear polarization in our survey and those with detected core polarization in MOJAVE (i.e., $m_{\rm{L}}$/$m^{\rm{core}}_{\rm{L,15}}$). Two sources with $m_{\rm{L}}$/$m^{\rm{core}}_{\rm{L,15}}>14$ are not presented. The used $m^{\rm{core}}_{\rm{L,15}}$ measurements are those given by [@Lister:2005p261]. Numbers in parentheses denote sample sizes.]{}[]{data-label="ml_ml15cor_AQBLN"}](3mmAGNPSurv_mL_mL15cor_hist_ALL.eps){width="8.5cm"}
![86GHz fractional linear polarization for sources [with known redshift]{} [for]{} the [entire]{} source sample, the quasar, the BL Lac, LBAS, and [the]{} non-LBAS sub-samples (from top to bottom). [Arrows symbolize $m_{{\rm{L}}}$ upper limits. The continuous line in the upper plot symbolizes the result of a linear regresion. Numbers in parentheses denote sample sizes.]{}[]{data-label="L_ml_AQBLN"}](3mmAGNPSurv_L_vs_pL_ALL.eps){width="8.5cm"}
![Distribution of misalignment between the 86GHz linear-polarization electric-vector position-angle ($\chi$, given in Table \[T2\]) and the jet structural position angle ($\phi_{\rm{jet}}$, given in Table \[T1\]). We present, from top to bottom, the [entire]{} source sample and the subsamples of quasars, BL Lacs, LBAS, and non-LBAS sources.[]{data-label="misal"}](3mmAGNPSurv_misal86_hist_ALL.eps){width="8.5cm"}
![Same as Fig. \[misal\] but for sources with $S_{86}>1.5$GHz only.[]{data-label="misal-1.5Jy"}](3mmAGNPSurv_misal86_hist_ALL_1.5Jy.eps){width="8.5cm"}
![Distribution of $|Q|$ (top) and $|U|$ (bottom) Stokes parameters for [sources with detected]{} linear polarization. Four sources with $|Q|$ and/or $|U|$ in the range $[300,1000]$mJy are not shown.[]{data-label="QU_ALL"}](3mmAGNPSurv_QU_hist_ALL.eps){width="8.5cm"}
![Distribution of the absolute value of circular polarization for all major samples (labeled for each sub-plot) considered in this study. Black areas correspond to $m_{\rm{C}}$ detections at $\ge3\sigma$. Grey shaded areas indicate observing results with $\ge2\sigma$, whereas unshaded areas symbolize all $m_{\rm{C}}$ measurements, independently of their significance.[]{data-label="mcALL"}](3mmAGNPSurv_mC_hist_ALL.eps){width="8.5cm"}
[^1]: www.rssd.esa.int/SA/PLANCK/docs/Bluebook-ESA-SCI(2005)1\_V2.pdf
[^2]: As usual, only confidence levels $\ge95.0$% will be considered sufficiently high to claim that two distributions are significantly different throughout this paper.
[^3]: $N_{e}=N_{1}N_{2}/(N_{1}+N_{2})$, where $N_{i}$ is the number of points on each sample, as defined by @Press:1992
[^4]: http://www.physics.purdue.edu/MOJAVE
[^5]: Note that assigning different values to the non-detected $m_{\rm{L}}$ does not have an effect on the resulting median, provided that all estimates of $m_{\rm{L}}$ are smaller than $\tilde{m}_{\rm{L}}$, as is the case for all considered subsamples.
[^6]: http://www.rssd.esa.int/index.php?project=Planck
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
The Lichnerowicz formula yields an index theoretic obstruction to positive scalar curvature metrics on closed spin manifolds. The most general form of this obstruction is due to Rosenberg and takes values in the $K$-theory of the group $C^*$-algebra of the fundamental group of the underlying manifold.
We give an overview of recent results clarifying the relation of the Rosenberg index to notions from large scale geometry like enlargeability and essentialness. One central topic is the concept of $K$-homology classes of infinite $K$-area. This notion, which in its original form is due to Gromov, is put in a general context and systematically used as a link between geometrically defined large scale properties and index theoretic considerations. In particular, we prove essentialness and the non-vanishing of the Rosenberg index for manifolds of infinite $K$-area.
address: 'Institut für Mathematik, Universität Augsburg, 86135 Augsburg, Germany'
author:
- Bernhard Hanke
title: 'Positive scalar curvature, K-area and essentialness'
---
Introduction and summary
========================
One of the fundamental problems in Riemannian geometry is to investigate the types of Riemannian metrics that exist on a given closed smooth manifold. It turns out that the signs of the associated curvature invariants distinguish classes of Riemannian manifolds with considerably different geometric and topological properties. Usually the class of manifolds admitting metrics with negative curvature is “big” and the one with positive curvature is “small”. The general existence theorems for negative Ricci curvature metrics [@Lohkamp] and negative scalar curvature metrics [@Yamabe], the classical theorem of Bonnet-Myers on the finiteness of the fundamental groups of closed Riemannian manifolds with positive Ricci curvature, Gromov’s Betti number theorem for closed manifolds of non-negative sectional curvature [@Gromov_Curv_Diam_Betti], the recent classification of manifolds with positive curvature operators [@BW] and the proof of the differentiable sphere theorem [@BS(2008); @BS(2009)] are prominent illustrations of this empirical fact.
In this context one may formulate two goals. The first is to develop methods to construct Riemannian metrics with distinguished properties on general classes of smooth manifolds. Important examples are the powerful tools in the theory of geometric partial differential equations, the surgery method due to Gromov-Lawson [@GL(1980)] and Schoen-Yau [@SY(1979)] for the construction of positive scalar curvature metrics, and methods based on geometric flow equations. The second deals with the formulation of (computable) obstructions to the existence of Riemannian metrics with specific properties. Often this happens in connection with topological invariants associated to the given manifold like homology and homotopy groups and related data. These two goals are usually not completely seperate from each other in that they can result in overlapping questions, concepts and methods. For example the Ricci flow is used to produce metrics with special properties, which a posteriori determine the topological type of the underlying manifold.
Here we shall concentrate on the most elementary curvature invariant associated to a Riemannian manifold $(M,g)$, the scalar curvature $\operatorname{scal}_g: M \to {\mathbb{ R}}$. This is usually defined by a twofold contraction of the Riemannian curvature tensor of $(M,g)$, but also has a geometric interpretation in terms of the deviation of the volume growth of geodesic balls in $M$ compared to geodesic balls in Euclidean space: $$\frac{ \operatorname{vol}_{(M^n,g)}(B_p(\epsilon))}{\operatorname{vol}_{({\mathbb{ R}}^n,g_{eucl})}(B_0(\epsilon))} = 1 -
\frac{\operatorname{scal}_g(p)}{6(n+2)}\cdot \epsilon^2 + O(\epsilon^4) \, .$$ Given a closed smooth manifold $M$ we shall study whether $M$ admits a Riemannian metric $g$ of positive scalar curvature, i.e. satisfying $\operatorname{scal}_g(p) > 0$ for all $p \in M$. In view of the preceding description and the previous remarks it is on the one hand plausible that the resulting “inside bending of $M$” at every point might put topological restrictions on $M$. On the other hand the scalar curvature involves an averaging process over sectional curvatures of $M$ so that a certain variability of the precise geometric shape and the topological properties of $M$ can be expected.
In connection with the positive scalar curvature question both aspects, the obstructive and constructive side, play important roles and have led to a complex body of mathematical insight with connections to index theory, geometric analysis, non-commutative geometry, surgery theory, bordism theory and stable homotopy theory. The paper [@Rosenberg(2007)] gives a comprehensive survey of the subject. As such it represents not only an interesting geometric field of its own, but serves as a unifying link between several well established areas in geometry, topology and analysis.
For metrics of positive scalar curvature there are two important obstructions, whose relation to each other is still not completely understood. One is based on the method of minimal hypersurfaces [@SY(1979)] and the other on the analysis of the Dirac operator and index theory [@Lich(1963)].
In some sense the former obstruction is more elementary than the latter as it can be shown by a direct calculation [@SY(1979)] that a nonsingular minimal hypersurface in a positive scalar curvature manifold admits itself a metric of positive scalar curvature. In connection with results from geometric measure theory that provide nonsingular minimal hypersurfaces representing codimension one homology classes in manifolds of dimension at most eight [@Smale(1993)], this can inductively be used to exclude the existence of positive scalar curvature metrics on tori up to dimension eight, for instance. In higher dimensions the discussion of singularities on minimal hypersurfaces representing codimension one homology classes is a subtle topic and the subject of recent work of Lohkamp [@CL(2006); @Lo1; @Lo3]. This theme, which has important connections to the positive mass theorem in general relativity, will not be pursued further in our paper.
The second, index theoretic, obstruction is both more restrictive as it requires a spin structure on the underlying manifold (or at least its universal cover), and less elementary as it is based on the Atiyah-Singer index theorem. In its most basic form it says that closed spin manifolds with non-vanishing $\hat{A}$-genus do not admit metrics of positive scalar curvature, the $\hat{A}$-genus being an integer (in the spin case) which depends on the rational Pontrjagin classes of the underlying manifold and its orientation class and hence only on its oriented homeomorphism type.
This obstruction was refined by Hitchin [@Hitchin(1974)] and Rosenberg [@Rosenberg(1983)] and in its most general form takes values in $KO_*(C^*_{{\mathbb{ R}}, max} \pi_1(M))$, the $K$-theory of the real maximal group $C^*$-algebra of the fundamental group of the underlying manifold. It therefore touches important questions in noncommutative geometry linked to the Baum-Connes and Novikov conjectures. The Gromov-Lawson-Rosenberg conjecture predicts that for closed spin manifolds of dimension at least five the vanishing of this index obstruction is not only necessary, but also sufficient for the existence of a positive scalar curvature metric. Despite the fact that this conjecture is wrong in general [@Schick(1998)], the index obstruction being surpassed by the minimal hypersurface obstruction in some cases, it is remarkable that it holds for simply connected manifolds [@Stolz(1992)] and - in a stable sense - for all spin manifolds for which the assembly map with values in the $K$-theory of the real group $C^*$-algebra of the fundamental group is injective [@Stolz(2001)], see Theorem \[Stolz\] below. It is up to date unknown whether this conjecture in its original, unstable, form is true for spin manifolds with finite fundamental groups, although in this case the injectivity of the assembly map is known. The index theoretic obstruction to positive scalar curvature will be recalled in Section \[index\] of our paper.
Gromov and Lawson used the index of the usual Dirac operator on closed spin manifolds twisted with bundles of small curvature to prove that some manifolds with vanishing $\hat{A}$-genus do still not admit positive scalar curvature metrics. For this aim they introduced several kinds of largeness properties for Riemannian manifolds, the most important ones being the notion of enlargeability [@GL(1980b); @GL(1983)] and infinite $K$-area [@Gromov(1995)]. These properties have an asymptotic character in that they require, for each $\epsilon > 0$, the existence of a certain geometric structure attached to the underlying manifold which is $\epsilon$-small in an appropriate sense. Precise definitions will be given in Section \[index\] below.
In light of the common index theoretic origin of these obstructions it is reasonable to expect that they are related to the Rosenberg index. In the papers [@HKRS(2007); @HS(2006); @HS(2007)] it is proved that the Rosenberg obstruction indeed subsumes the enlargeability obstruction in the sense that the former is non-zero for enlargeable spin manifolds. Moreover, it was shown in the cited papers that enlargeable manifolds are [*essential*]{}, i.e. the classifying maps of their universal covers map the homological fundamental classes to non-zero classes in the homology of the fundamental groups. This notion was introduced by Gromov in [@Gromov(1983)] in connection with the systolic inequality giving an upper bound of the length of the shortest noncontractible loop in a Riemannian manifold $M$ in terms of the volume of $M$. In particular it follows from these results that enlargeable manifolds obey Gromov’s systolic inequality.
The methods introduced in [@HS(2006); @HS(2007)] were applied in [@HS(2008)] to prove some cases of the strong Novikov conjecture. This is implied by the Baum-Connes conjecture and predicts that for discrete groups $G$ the rational assembly map $$K_*(BG) \otimes {\mathbb{ Q}}\to K_*(C^*_{max} G) \otimes {\mathbb{ Q}}$$ is injective. In loc. cit. it is shown that this map is indeed non-zero on all classes in $K_*(BG)\otimes {\mathbb{ Q}}$ which are detected by classes in the subring generated by $H^{\leq 2}(BG; {\mathbb{ Q}})$. As a corollary higher signatures associated to elements in this subring of $H^*(BG; {\mathbb{ Q}})$ are oriented homotopy invariants, a fact which had been proven first by Mathai [@Mathai].
It turns out that the methods of [@HS(2006); @HS(2008)] fit very nicely the concept of $K$-area introduced by Gromov in [@Gromov(1995)]. It is one purpose of the paper at hand to elaborate on this connection. Our main result, Theorem \[Kess\], states that $K$-homology classes of [*infinite $K$-area*]{} in closed manifolds $M$ map nontrivially to $K_*(C^*_{max} \pi_1(M))$ under the assembly map. Generalizing the original concept of Gromov we call a $K$-homology class of [*infinite $K$-area*]{}, if it can be detected by bundles of finitely generated Hilbert $A$-modules equipped with holonomy representations which are arbitrarily close to the identity, where $A$ is some $C^*$-algebra with unit. Precise definitions are given in Section \[Karea\] below, see in particular Definition \[Kflach\].
From Theorem \[Kess\] the main results of the papers [@HKRS(2007); @HS(2006); @HS(2007); @HS(2008)] follow quite directly. Apart from this we will demonstrate that closed spin manifolds whose $K$-theoretic fundamental classes are of infinite $K$-area have non-vanishing Rosenberg index (Corollary \[cor1\]) and oriented manifolds with fundamental classes of infinite $K$-area are essential (Theorem \[thm2\]). The first result solves a problem stated in the introduction of [@Listing(2010)].
In [@BrunnHan] essentialness is discussed from a purely homological point of view. Among other things it is proved that the property of being enlargeable depends only on the image of the homological fundamental class of the underlying manifold in the rational homology of its fundamental group. This flexible formulation allows the construction of manifolds which are essential, but not enlargeable. We will briefly review these results in Section \[large\_homology\]. We do not know whether a proof of Theorem \[thm2\] is feasible which avoids the “infinite product construction” laid out in Section \[Karea\]. Also, we do not know an essential manifold whose fundamental class is not of infinite $K$-area, see Question \[final\_problem\].
This paper is intended on the one hand as a report on recent results pertaining to the positive scalar curvature question in the light of methods from index theory, $K$-theory and asymptotic geometry as obtained by the author and his coauthors. On the other hand it is meant to establish the point of view that the notion of infinite $K$-area may serve as a unifying principle for these results, which sometimes allows short and conceptual proofs.
I am grateful to the DFG Schwerpunkt “Globale Differentialgeometrie” for financial support during the last years. Special thanks go to Thomas Schick for a very fruitful and pleasant collaboration. Most of the material in these notes is based on ideas developped during this collaboration.
Daniel Pape carefully read the first version of this manuscript and helped to improve the presentation with many useful comments.
Index obstruction to positive scalar curvature {#index}
==============================================
The Gauß-Bonnet formula implies that closed surfaces with nonpositive Euler characteristic do not admit positive scalar curvature metrics. These comprise all closed surfaces apart from the two sphere and the real projective plane. The mechanism behind this obstruction is the fact that a topological invariant, the Euler characteristic, may be expressed as an integral over a curvature quantity, the Gauß curvature.
In higher dimensions obstructions to positive scalar curvature metrics can be obtained in a more indirect way by use of the Atiyah-Singer index theorem. Let $M$ be a closed smooth oriented manifold of dimension divisible by four. The $\hat{A}$-genus $\hat{A}(M)\in {\mathbb{ Q}}$ of $M$ is obtained by evaluating the $\hat{A}$-polynomial $$\mathcal{\hat{A}}(M) = 1 - \frac{p_1(M)}{24} + \frac{ - 4 p_2(M) + 7p_1^2(M) }{2^7 \cdot 3^2 \cdot 5}
+ \ldots$$ in the Pontrjagin classes of $M$ on the fundamental class of $M$. This is an invariant of the oriented homeomorphism type of $M$ by the topological invariance of rational Pontrjagin classes. It is an integer, if $M$ is equipped with a spin structure. This is implied by the fact that in this case the Atiyah-Singer index theorem provides an equation $$\hat{A}(M) = \operatorname{ind}(D_g^+) = \dim_{{\mathbb{ C}}} (\ker D_g^+) - \dim_{{\mathbb{ C}}} ( {{\rm coker}\,}D_g^+ )$$ where $$D_g^{\pm} : \Gamma(S^{\pm} ) \to \Gamma(S^{\mp} )$$ is the Dirac operator on the complex spinor bundle $S = S^+ \oplus S^- \to M$ of $(M,g)$. Here $g$ is an arbitrary Riemannian metric on $M$. Due to the appearance of $g$ in the definition of $D_g^+$, the Atiyah-Singer index theorem relates topological to geometric properties of $M$. Detailed information on the definition of $D_g^+$ and spin geometry in general can be found in [@LawsonMichelsohn].
The Bochner-Lichnerowicz-Weitzenböck formula [@Lich(1963)] $$D_g^- \circ D_g^+ = \nabla^* \nabla + \frac{\operatorname{scal}_g}{4}$$ implies that if $\operatorname{scal}_g (M) > 0$, then the Dirac operator $D^+_g$ is invertible and hence $\operatorname{ind}(D_g^+) = 0$. From this we obtain the following fundamental result, see [@Lich(1963) Theorème 2].
Let $M$ be a closed spin manifold with $\hat{A}(M) \neq 0$. Then $M$ does not admit a metric of positive scalar curvature.
However, the vanishing of this obstruction is not sufficient for the existence of positive scalar curvature metrics. For example, the $\hat{A}$-genus of the $4k$-dimensional torus $T^{4k}$ vanishes for all $k > 0$, because these manifolds are parallelizable.
The index theoretic approach explained above can be refined by considering the twisted Dirac operator $$D_{g,E}^+ : \Gamma(S^+ \otimes E) \to \Gamma(S^- \otimes E)$$ where $E \to M$ is some finite dimensional Hermitian vector bundle equipped with a Hermitian connection, cf. [@LawsonMichelsohn Prop. II.5.10]. The Atiyah-Singer index theorem computes the index of this operator as $$\operatorname{ind}(D_{g,E}^+) = \langle \mathcal{\hat{A}}(M) \cup \operatorname{{\rm ch}}(E) , [M] \rangle \in {\mathbb{ Z}}\, .$$ Due to the appearance of the Chern character $\operatorname{{\rm ch}}(E) \in H^{ev}(M;{\mathbb{ Q}})$ this number can be non-zero even though $\hat{A}(M)$ vanishes. Unfortunately, the nonvanishing of $\operatorname{ind}(D_{g,E}^+)$ does not obstruct positive scalar curvature metrics on $M$ as the following example shows.
\[badex\] Let $M^n = S^{4k+2}$. Because the Chern character defines an isomorphism $$\operatorname{{\rm ch}}: K^0(M) \otimes {\mathbb{ Q}}\cong H^{ev}(M;{\mathbb{ Q}}) \, ,$$ there is a finite dimensional Hermitian bundle $E \to M$ with $\operatorname{{\rm ch}}_{2k+1}(E) \neq 0 \in H^n(M;{\mathbb{ Q}})$. Hence, for any connection on $E$ and any choice of Riemannian metric $g$ on $M$, we get $\operatorname{ind}(D_{g,E}^+) \neq 0$ although $M$ admits a metric of positive scalar curvature.
This is due to the fact that now the Bochner-Lichnerowicz-Weitzenböck formula $$D_{g,E}^- \circ D_{g,E}^+ = \nabla^* \nabla + \frac{\operatorname{scal}_g}{4} + R^E$$ contains an additional operator $R^E : \Gamma(S^{\pm} \otimes E) \to \Gamma(S^{\pm} \otimes E)$ of order $0$ which depends on the curvature of the bundle $E$, cf. [@LawsonMichelsohn Theorem 8.17], so that even in the case when $\operatorname{scal}_g > 0$, the operator $D^+_{g,E}$ may not be invertible.
Gromov and Lawson observed in [@GL(1980b)] that this method does still lead to an effective obstruction to positive scalar curvature metrics on $M$ in case that for all $\epsilon$ there is a twisting bundle $E \to M$ which satisfies $\| R^E \| < \epsilon$ and whose Chern character contributes nontrivially to $\operatorname{ind}(D^+_{g,E})$. If in this case $M$ carried a metric $g$ satisfying $\operatorname{scal}_g > 0$ we would find a twisting bundle $E$ with $$\| R^E\| < \frac{\min_{p \in M} | \operatorname{scal}_g(p)|}{4}$$ and the Bochner-Lichnerowicz-Weitzenböck formula would then imply that $\operatorname{ind}D^+_{g,E}=0$, a contradiction.
For example this reasoning can be used to show that the tori $T^n$ do not admit metrics of positive scalar curvature [@GL(1980b)].
A general class of manifolds where twisting bundles with the described property can be found are [*enlargeable*]{} manifolds, which were introduced in loc. cit., and manifolds of infinite $K$-area in the sense of [@Gromov(1995)]. We will discuss these notions and put them in a general context in Section \[Karea\].
The index theoretic point of view was refined by Rosenberg [@Rosenberg(1983); @Rosenberg(1986)]. For any discrete group $G$ the group $C^*$-algebra $C^*G$ is constructed by completing the group algebra ${\mathbb{ C}}[G]$ with respect to some pre-$C^*$-norm coming from unitary representations of $G$ on a Hilbert space and taking the induced embedding of ${\mathbb{ C}}[G]$ into the bounded operators on this Hilbert space. More specifically, if one starts with the regular representation of $G$ on the space of square summable functions $l^2(G)$ this leads to the [*reduced group $C^*$-algebra*]{} $C^*_{red} G$ and taking all unitary representations of $G$ into account one arrives at the [*maximal group $C^*$-algebra*]{} $C^*_{max} G$. For more details we refer to [@Black; @HR; @Wegge-Olsen]. These $C^*$-algebras and their $K$-theories are in general different [@HR Exercise 12.7.7], but the following construction works for both variants, and this is why we drop the subscript from our notation. Note that the left translation action of $G$ on ${\mathbb{ C}}[G]$ induces a left $G$-action on $C^* G$.
Let $M$ be a closed spin manifold of even dimension. The Mishchenko-Fomenko bundle $E \to M$ is defined as $$E = \widetilde{M} \times_{\pi_1(M)} C^* \pi_1(M) \, .$$ It is a locally trivial bundle of free right Hilbert $C^* \pi_1(M)$-modules of rank one in the sense of [@Schick(2005); @Wegge-Olsen]. The fibrewise inner product is induced by the canonical inner product $$\begin{aligned}
C^* \pi_1(M) \times C^* \pi_1(M) & \to & C^* \pi_1(M) \\
(x,y) & \mapsto & x^* \cdot y \, . \end{aligned}$$ By construction the bundle $E \to $M can be equipped with a flat connection. Depending on the choice of a metric $g$ on $M$ we obtain a twisted Dirac operator $$D^+_{g,E} : \Gamma(S^+ \otimes E ) \to \Gamma(S^- \otimes E)$$ with an index $$\alpha(M) := \operatorname{ind}(D^+_{g,E}) = \ker (D^+_{g,E}) - {{\rm coker}\,}(D^+_{g,E}) \in K_0(C^* \pi_1(M)) \, .$$ The group $K_0(C^* \pi_1(M))$ consists of formal differences of finitely generated projective $C^* \pi_1(M)$-modules, cf. [@Black]. For the infinite dimensional twisting bundle $E$ the modules $\ker(D^+_{g,E})$ and ${{\rm coker}\,}(D^+_{g,E})$ are not in this class in general, but this holds after a $C^* \pi_1(M)$-compact perturbation of $D^+_{g,E}$ which makes this operator a $C^* \pi_1(M)$-Fredholm operator. For precise formulations and more details on the involved theory we refer the reader to [@MF(1979)], in particular to Theorem 3.4. in loc. cit.
It follows again from the Bochner-Lichnerowicz-Weitzenböck formula (which does not contain a curvature term $R^E$ as $E$ is flat) that the index $\alpha(M) \in K_0(C^* \pi_1(M)) $ vanishes, if $\operatorname{scal}_g > 0$. Moreover, the Mishchenko-Fomenko index theorem [@MF(1979)] implies that - similar to the invariant $\hat{A}(M)$ - the obstruction $\alpha(M)$ does not depend on the choice of a Riemannian metric on $M$, but only on the oriented homeomorphism type of $M$.
There is an alternative construction of $\alpha(M)$ based on analytic $K$-homology [@Black; @HR]. As before let $M$ be a closed spin manifold. We do no longer assume that $n := \dim M$ is even (this only simplified the above considerations).
In this setting $\alpha(M)$ is defined as the image of the $K$-theoretic fundamental class $[M]_K \in K_n(M)$ which is induced by the given spin structure under the composition $$K_n(M) = K_n^{\pi_1(M)}( \widetilde{M})
\to K_n^{\pi_1(M)}( \underline{E} \pi_1(M)) \stackrel{\mu}{{{\rightarrow}}} K_n(C^* \pi_1(M)) \, .$$ Here the first map is induced by the $\pi_1(M)$-equivariant classifying map $\widetilde{M} \to \underline{E} \pi_1(M)$ from the universal cover of $M$ to the universal contractible $\pi_1(M)$-space with finite isotropy groups and the second map is the Baum-Connes assembly map, cf. [@Black].
There is a real analogue $\alpha_{{\mathbb{ R}}}(M)$ of the index obstruction $\alpha(M)$ which, for simply connected manifolds, was introduced in the paper [@Hitchin(1974)] and is defined as the image of the $KO$-theoretic fundamental class $[M]_{KO} \in KO_n(M)$ under the composition $$KO_n(M) = KO^{\pi_1(M)}_n( \widetilde{M})
\to KO^{\pi_1(M)}_n( \underline{E} \pi_1(M)) \stackrel{\mu}{{{\rightarrow}}} KO_n(C^* \pi_1(M)) \, .$$ The invariant $\alpha_{{\mathbb{ R}}}(M)$ is more sensitive to differential topological properties of $M$ than $\alpha(M)$. For example it is different from zero on some exotic spheres [@Hitchin(1974)]. A refined variant of the Bochner-Lichnerowicz-Weitzenböck argument shows that $\alpha_{{\mathbb{ R}}}(M) = 0$, if $M$ admits a metric of positive scalar curvature.
In case we are dealing with the reduced group $C^*$-algebra $C^*_{red} \pi_1(M)$, the vanishing of the $\alpha$-obstruction is closely linked to properties of the Baum-Connes assembly map $$\mu_{{\mathbb{ R}}} : KO^G_*( \underline{E} G) \to KO_*(C^*_{red} G)$$ and its complex analogue $$\mu_{{\mathbb{ C}}} : K^G_*( \underline{E} G) \to K_*(C^*_{red} G) \, .$$ According to the Baum-Connes conjecture [@Black], a central open problem in noncommutative geometry, these two maps are isomorphisms for all discrete groups $G$.
The following conjecture has played a prominent role in the subject. It expresses the expectation that the Rosenberg obstruction is in some sense optimal.
Let $M$ be a closed spin manifold of dimension at least five and with $\alpha_{{\mathbb{ R}}}(M) = 0$. Then $M$ admits a metric of positive scalar curvature.
This is true, if $M$ is simply connected [@Stolz(1992)], but wrong in general [@Schick(1998)]. In dimensions two and three analogues of the Gromov-Lawson-Rosenberg conjecture are true [@MOP], but in dimension four there are additional obstructions coming from Seiberg-Witten theory. However, the following stable version of the conjecture conditionally holds in the following sense.
\[Stolz\] Assume that the real Baum-Connes assembly map $\mu_{{\mathbb{ R}}}$ is injective for $\pi_1(M)$ and that $\alpha_{{\mathbb{ R}}}(M) = 0$. Then some manifold of the form $M \times B^8 \times \ldots \times B^8$ admits a metric of positive scalar curvature, where $B^8$ is an arbitrary eight dimensional closed spin manifold with $\hat{A}(M) = 1$.
This result is remarkable, because it is not understood how it can happen that a manifold $N$ does not admit a positive scalar curvature metric, but $N \times B^8$ does. Notice that the vanishing or non-vanishing of $\alpha_{{\mathbb{ R}}}(M)$ is not affected, when $M$ is multiplied with copies of $B^8$. In this respect Theorem \[Stolz\] establishes $\alpha_{{\mathbb{ R}}}(M)$ as the universal stable index theoretic obstruction to positive scalar curvature metrics.
If the assembly map for the maximal complex group $C^*$-algebra is injective, then also the rational assembly map $$K^G_*(\underline{E} G ) \otimes {\mathbb{ Q}}= K_*(BG) \otimes {\mathbb{ Q}}\to K_*(C^*_{max} G) \otimes {\mathbb{ Q}}$$ is injective. The strong Novikov conjecture [@Black] states that here injectivity holds for all discrete groups $G$.
Therefore it makes sense to single out those manifolds $M$ whose fundamental classes map nontrivially to $K_*(B \pi_1(M)) \otimes {\mathbb{ Q}}$. This motivates the next definition.
\[Kessential\]ÊA closed spin${}^c$ manifold $M^n$ is called [*(rationally) $K$-theoretic essential*]{}, if the classifying map $\phi : M \to B\pi_1(M)$ for the universal cover of $M$ satisfies $$\phi_*([M]_K) \neq 0 \in K_n(B\pi_1(M) ) \otimes {\mathbb{ Q}}\, ,$$ where $[M]_K \in K_n(M)$ is the $K$-theoretic fundamental class of $M$.
\[conjess\] A $K$-theoretic essential spin manifold does not admit a metric of positive scalar curvature.
It follows from the previous remarks that this conjecture holds, if the rational assembly map for the associated fundamental group is injective. An important consequence of Conjecture \[conjess\] is the following
Let $M$ be a closed aspherical spin manifold. Then $M$ does not admit a metric of positive scalar curvature.
The following is a variation of Definition \[Kessential\] for singular homology.
\[homess\] A closed oriented manifold $M^n$ is called [*(rationally) essential*]{}, if the classifying map $\phi : M \to B \pi_1(M)$ satisfies $$\phi_*([M]_H) \neq 0 \in H_n(B \pi_1(M) ; {\mathbb{ Q}}) \, ,$$ where $[M]_H$ is the fundamental class of $M$ in singular homology.
Recall that the homological Chern character defines an isomorphism $$\operatorname{{\rm ch}}: K_{(*)}(M) \otimes {\mathbb{ Q}}\cong H_{(*)}(M ; {\mathbb{ Q}}) \, ,$$ where the brackets in the subscripts indicate that we regard both theories as ${\mathbb{ Z}}/2$-graded. Keeping in mind that for a closed spin${}^c$ manifold $M^n$ we have $$\operatorname{{\rm ch}}([M]_K) = [M]_H + c$$ where $c \in H_{< n }(M ; {\mathbb{ Q}})$ we see that essential spin${}^c$ manifolds are also $K$-theoretic essential. Hence it makes sense to formulate the following conjecture.
An essential manifold does not admit a metric of positive scalar curvature.
This seems especially intriguing, if the universal cover of this manifold is not spin (so that index theoretic obstructions are not available). Evidence for the conjecture in this case is provided by the fact that sometimes essential manifolds satisfy a weak form of enlargeability [@Dranish1; @Dranish2].
$K$-area for Hilbert module bundles {#Karea}
===================================
All manifolds in this section are closed, smooth and connected. We recall the following definition from [@GL(1983)].
\[enlargeable\]ÊLet $(M^n,g)$ be an orientable Riemannian manifold.
- We call $M$ [*enlargeable*]{}, if for every $\epsilon > 0$ there is a Riemannian cover $(\overline{M}, \overline{g})$ of $(M,g)$ together with an $\epsilon$-Lipschitz map $f_{\epsilon} : \overline{M} \to S^n$ which is constant outside of a compact subset of $\overline M$ and of non-zero degree.
- We call $(M,g)$ [*area-enlargeable*]{}, if for every $\epsilon > 0$ there is a Riemannian cover $(\overline{M}, \overline{g})$ of $(M,g)$ together with a smooth map $f_{\epsilon} : \overline{M} \to S^n$ which is $\epsilon$-contracting on $2$-forms, constant outside of a compact subset of $\overline M$ and of nonzero degree.
Because $M$ is compact, all Riemannian metrics on $M$ are in bi-Lipschitz correspondence and hence both of the above properties are independent of the specific choice of the metric $g$ on $M$. Enlargeability is therefore a purely topological property of $M$. Indeed, whether $M$ is enlargeable depends only on the image of the fundamental class of $M$ in the rational group homology of $\pi_1(M)$ under the classifying map, see [@BrunnHan Corollary 3.5] restated as Theorem \[BrunnH\] below. We do not know whether a similiar result holds for area-enlargeability.
Examples for enlargeable manifolds are manifolds which admit Riemannian metrics of nonpositive sectional curvature. This follows from the Cartan-Hadamard theorem.
Area-enlargeable spin manifolds allow the construction of finite dimensional Hermitian twisting bundles for the Dirac operator as described after Example \[badex\]. We remark that the index theoretic setting explained there needs to be slightly generalized (relative index theory on open manifolds, see [@GL(1983)]), if infinite covers of $M$ are involved (this case is not excluded in Definition \[enlargeable\]). These considerations lead to the following theorem.
\[gromov-lawson\] Let $M$ be an area-enlargeable spin manifold. Then $M$ does not admit a metric of positive scalar curvature.
At this point one might ask whether the enlargeability obstruction is reflected by the Rosenberg obstruction.
The twisting bundles $E \to M$ of arbitrarily small curvature going into the obstruction expressed in Theorem \[gromov-lawson\] motivate the notion of [*$K$-area*]{}, see [@Gromov(1995)].
In this section we will introduce a related property for $K$-homology classes of $M$. Examples of such $K$-homology classes are $K$-theoretic fundamental classes of area-enlargeable spin manifolds, see Proposition \[enlinfinite\]. The main result in this section, Theorem \[Kess\], shows that classes in $K_0(M) \otimes {\mathbb{ Q}}$ of infinite $K$-area are mapped to non-zero classes in $K_0(C^*_{max} \pi_1(M))$ under the assembly map. Together with Proposition \[enlinfinite\] this implies that the Rosenberg obstruction subsumes the enlargeability obstruction of Gromov and Lawson:
Let $M^n$ be an area-enlargeable spin manifold. Then the Rosenberg index $\alpha(M) \in K_n(C^*_{max} \pi_1(M))$ is different from zero.
A convenient setting for our discussion is provided by Kasparov’s ${K\!K}$-theory, cf. [@Black], which associates to any pair of separable $C^*$-algebras $A$ and $B$ an abelian group ${K\!K}(A,B)$. We work over the field of complex numbers and will restrict attention to the special cases $A = C(M)$, $B = {\mathbb{ C}}$ and $A = {\mathbb{ C}}$, $B = C(M) \otimes S$ for a seperable unital $C^*$-algebra $S$. Here we will work only with ungraded ${K\!K}$-groups.
According to the analytic description of $K$-homology [@HR] we have a canonical identification $${K\!K}(C(M), {\mathbb{ C}}) \cong K_0(M)$$ the $0$-th $K$-homology of $M$ which, for example, can be defined homotopy theoretically as the homology theory dual to topological $K$-theory [@Atiyah].
Elements in ${K\!K}(A,B)$ are represented by [*Fredholm triples*]{} $(E, \phi, F)$ where $E$ is a countably generated graded Hilbert $B$-module, $\phi: A \to \mathcal{B}(E)$ is a graded $*$-homomorphism (here $\mathcal{B}(E)$ is the graded $C^*$-algebra of graded adjointable bounded $B$-module homomorphisms $E \to E$) and $F \in \mathcal{B}(E)$ is an operator of degree $1$ such that the commutator $[F, \phi(a)]$ and the operators $(F^2 - {\operatorname{id}}_E)\phi(a)$ and $(F-F^*) \phi(a)$ are $B$-compact for all $a \in A$. In our context we will be dealing with Fredholm triples of very special forms which will be specified in a moment. The reader who is interested in more information on the notion of Hilbert modules and the construction of Kasparov ${K\!K}$-theory can consult the sources [@Black; @Wegge-Olsen].
A typical situation arises when $M$ is a spin manifold of even dimension equipped with a Riemannian metric $g$. The Dirac operator from Section \[index\] $$D_g : \Gamma(S^{\pm}) \to \Gamma(S^{\mp})$$ is a symmetric graded first-order elliptic differential operator. It therefore gives rise to an element $[D_g] \in {K\!K}(C(M), {\mathbb{ C}})$ represented by the Fredholm triple $(L^2(S) , \phi, F)$ where $L^2(S)$ is the space of $L^2$-sections of the bundle $S^+ \oplus S^-$, the map $\phi: C(M) \to \mathcal{B}(L^2(S))$ is the standard representation as multiplication operators and $F \in \mathcal{B}(E)$ is a bounded operator which is obtained from $D_g$ by functional calculus.
The construction works more generally for symmetric graded elliptic differential operators on graded smooth Hermitian vector bundles over $M$, cf. [@HR Theorem 10.6.5]. In this way we may think of elements in ${K\!K}(C(M), {\mathbb{ C}}) = K_0(M)$ as a kind of generalized symmetric elliptic differential operators over $M$. In this picture the index of a graded elliptic differential operator corresponds to the image of the ${K\!K}$-class represented by this operator under the map $$K_0(M) \to K_0(*) = {\mathbb{ Z}}$$ which is induced by the unique map $M \to *$.
If $E \to M$ is a (finite dimensional) Hermitian bundle with a Hermitian connection we obtain the twisted Dirac operator $$D_{g,E} : \Gamma(S^{\pm} \otimes E) \to \Gamma(S^{\mp} \otimes E)$$ which is again a symmetric graded elliptic differential operator and has an index $\operatorname{ind}(D_{g,E}) \in {\mathbb{ Z}}$.
The index of the twisted operator $D_{g,E}$ has the following description in ${K\!K}$-theory, cf. [@Black]. The bundle $E \to M$ represents a class $[E]$ in topological $K$-theory $K^0(M)$, which can be canonically identified with ${K\!K}({\mathbb{ C}}, C(M))$. The element $[E] \in {K\!K}({\mathbb{ C}}, C(M))$ is represented by the Fredholm triple $(\Gamma(E), \phi, 0)$ where $\Gamma(E)$ is the $C(M)$-module of continuous sections $M \to E$ equipped with the $C(M)$-valued inner product given by fibrewise application of the Hermitian inner product on $E$ and $\phi: {\mathbb{ C}}\hookrightarrow \mathcal{B}(\Gamma(E))$ is the standard embedding.
Under the Kasparov product map [@Black] $${K\!K}({\mathbb{ C}}, C(M)) \times {K\!K}(C(M), {\mathbb{ C}}) \to {K\!K}({\mathbb{ C}}, {\mathbb{ C}}) = {\mathbb{ Z}}$$ which in this case corresponds to the usual Kronecker product pairing of $K$-homology and topological $K$-theory (i.e. $K$-cohomology) $$\begin{aligned}
K^0(M) \times K_0(M) & \to & {\mathbb{ Z}}\\
(c,h) & \mapsto & \langle c , h \rangle \end{aligned}$$ the pair $([E], [D_g])$ is sent to $\operatorname{ind}(D_{g,E}) \in {\mathbb{ Z}}$.
This point of view may be generalized by allowing twisting bundles $E \to M$ which are locally trivial bundles of finitely generated right Hilbert $A$-modules where $A$ is a unital $C^*$-algebra.
We recall [@Schick(2005); @Wegge-Olsen] that each finitely generated Hilbert $A$-module bundle $E \to M$ is isomorphic to an orthogonal direct summand of a trivial $A$-module bundle $M \times A^n \to M$ where $A^n$ carries the canonical $A$-valued inner product $$\langle (a_1, \ldots, a_n) , (b_1, \ldots, b_n) \rangle \mapsto a_1^* b_1 + \ldots + a_n^* b_n \, .$$ We can take this description as definition of finitely generated Hilbert $A$-module bundles.
Let $E \to M$ be a finitely generated Hilbert $A$-module bundle. We associate to $E \to M$ a ${K\!K}$-class $[E] \in KK({\mathbb{ C}}, C(M) \otimes A)$ as follows. First note that the space $\Gamma(E)$ of continuous sections in $E$ is a finitely generated Hilbert $(C(M) \otimes A)$-module and the identity $\Gamma(E) \to \Gamma(E)$ is a $(C(M) \otimes A)$-compact (indeed finite rank) operator by a partition of unity argument. Therefore the triple $(\Gamma(E), \phi, 0)$, where $\phi: {\mathbb{ C}}\to \mathcal{B}(\Gamma(E))$ is the standard embedding, defines an element in ${K\!K}({\mathbb{ C}}, C(M) \otimes A)$.
Using the Kasparov product (which we again interprete as a Kronecker product pairing) $$\begin{aligned}
{K\!K}({\mathbb{ C}}, C(M) \otimes A) \times {K\!K}(C(M), {\mathbb{ C}}) & \to & {K\!K}({\mathbb{ C}}, A) = K_0(A) \\
(c,h) & \mapsto & \langle c , h \rangle \end{aligned}$$ we have a pairing of generalized elliptic differential operators on $M$ and finitely generated Hilbert $A$-module bundles.
If $M$ is a Riemannian spin manifold of even dimension, then the element in $\langle [E], [D_g] \rangle \in
K_0(A)$ can be interpreted as the index of the Dirac operator $D_g$ twisted with the bundle $E$, cf. [@Black]. Hence, for the special case when $E \to M$ is the Mishchenko-Fomenko bundle, the class $\langle [E], [D_g] \rangle$ coincides with the Rosenberg index $\alpha(M)$ defined in Section \[index\].
We will now single out those $K$-homology classes $h \in K_0(M)$ which can be detected by finitely generated Hilbert $A$-module bundles of arbitrarily small curvature. In the following let $M$ be a closed smooth Riemannian manifold. In order to avoid the discussion of smooth bundles and curvature notions for infinite dimensional bundles we proceed as follows.
Recall that the [*path groupoid*]{} $\mathcal{P}_1(M)$ of $M$ has as objects the points in $M$ and as morphisms $\mathcal{P}_1(M)(x,y)$ the set of piecewise smooth paths $[0,1] \to M$ connecting $x$ and $y$. This is a topological category, in particular both the sets of objects and morphisms are topological spaces.
Let $A$ be a unital $C^*$-algebra and let $E \to M$ be a finitely generated Hilbert $A$-module bundle. The [*transport category*]{} $\mathcal{T}(E)$ has as objects the points in $M$ and as set of morphisms $$\mathcal{T}(E)(x,y) := {\rm Iso}_A(E_x,E_y) \,.$$ This is again a topological category where the set of morphisms is topologized by choosing local trivializations in order to identify nearby fibres of $E \to M$ and the set of Hilbert $A$-module isomorphisms ${\rm Iso}_A(E_x,E_y)$ is topologized as a subset of the Banach space ${\operatorname{Hom}}_A(E_x,E_y)$.
A [*holonomy representation*]{} on $E \to M$ is a continuous functor $$\mathcal{H}: \mathcal{P}_1(M) \to \mathcal{T}(E) \, .$$ It is called [*$\epsilon$-close to the identity at scale $\ell$*]{}, if for each $x \in M$ and each closed loop $\gamma \in \operatorname{Mor}(\mathcal{P}_1(M))$ based at $x \in M$ and of length $\ell(\gamma) \leq \ell$ we have $$\| \mathcal{H}(\gamma) - {\operatorname{id}}_{E_x} \| < \epsilon \cdot \ell( \gamma) \, .$$ Here we use the operator norm on the left hand side.
The following proposition establishes a link to the notion to parallel transport in differential geometry.
\[altSchick\] Depending on $M^n$ there are a real constants $C, \ell > 0$ so that the following holds. Let $E \to M$ be a finite dimensional smooth Hermitian bundle of rank $d$ equipped with a smooth Hermitian connection $\nabla$ whose curvature $\eta \in \Omega^2(M ; \mathfrak{u}(d))$ is norm bounded by $\epsilon$. Then the parallel transport with respect to $\nabla$ is $(C \cdot \epsilon)$-close to the identity at scale $\ell$.
By a Lebesgue number argument there is a small $\ell > 0$ and a cover of $M^n$ by finitely many closed subsets $D_1, \ldots, D_k \subset M$ so that the following holds: Each $D_i$ is diffeomorphic to the $n$-dimensional unit cube $[0,1]^n \subset {\mathbb{ R}}^n$ and each closed loop in $M$ of length at most $\ell$ is contained in a subset $D_i$. It is hence enough to prove the assertion for a closed loop $\gamma \in \operatorname{Mor}(\mathcal{P}_1(M))$ contained in one of these subsets $D_i \subset M$ and based at a point $x \in D_i$. In the following we write $D$ instead of $D_i$ and identify $D$ and $[0,1]^n$ by a fixed diffeomorphism.
Let $E \to M$ be a Hermitian bundle of rank $d$ as described in the proposition. We construct a trivialization of $E|_D \to M$ by choosing an isomorphism $E|_{(0, \ldots, 0)} \cong {\mathbb{ C}}^d$ and extending the trivialization inductively into each of the $n$ coordinate directions by parallel transport. We denote the induced connection one form with respect to this trivialization by $\omega \in \Omega^1 (D; \mathfrak{u}(d))$.
Now an argument similiar to [@HS(2006) Lemma 2.3], but using the Riemannian metric on $[0,1]^n$ induced by $M$, shows that there is a number $C > 0$, which depends on $D$, but not on the bundle $E \to M$, so that $$\| \omega|_D \| \leq C \cdot \| \eta|_D \| \, ,$$ where we use the operator norm on $\mathfrak{u}(d)$ and the maximum norms on the unit sphere bundles of $T^*D$ and $\Lambda^2 D$.
Let $\phi : [0,1] \to E$ be a parallel vector field along a piecewise smooth (not necessarily closed) path $\zeta : [0,1] \to D \subset M$. By virtue of the given trivialization consider $\phi$ as a smooth map $[0,1] \to {\mathbb{ C}}^d$. As such it satisfies the differential equation $$\phi'(t) + (\omega_{\gamma(t)} (\gamma'(t))) \cdot \phi(t) = 0$$ and it follows that $$\| \phi(1) - \phi(0) \| \leq \exp \big( \ell (\zeta) \cdot \| \omega|_D \| \big) \cdot \| \phi(0) \| \, .$$ Because we started with a Hermitian connection on $E$ we get $\|\phi(1) \| = \|\phi(0)\|$ which implies that we can assume (by subdividing $\zeta$ into small pieces and appealing to the triangle inequality) that $\ell(\zeta)$ is arbitrarily small. Because $\exp : {\mathbb{ C}}^d \to {\mathbb{ C}}^d$ is uniformly Lipschitz continuous on each bounded neighbourhood of $0$ with Lipschitz constant arbitrarily close to $1$ we hence obtain $$\| \phi(1) - \phi(0) \| \leq 1.5 \cdot \ell (\zeta) \cdot \| \omega|_D \| \cdot \| \phi(0) \|$$ from which the claim of the proposition follows.
\[Kflach\]ÊLet $M$ be a closed smooth manifold and let $h \in K_0(M) \otimes {\mathbb{ Q}}$. We say that $h$ has [*infinite $K$-area*]{}, if there is a Riemannian metric on $M$ and a number $\ell > 0$ so that the following holds: For each $\epsilon > 0$ there is a unital $C^*$-algebra $A$ and a finitely generated Hilbert $A$-module bundle $E \to M$ which carries a holonomy representation which is $\epsilon$-close to the identity at scale $\ell$ and satisfies $$\langle [E] , h \rangle \neq 0 \in K_0(A) \otimes {\mathbb{ Q}}$$ where $[E] \in {K\!K}({\mathbb{ C}}, C(M) \otimes A)$ is the element represented by $E \to M$. If $h$ is not of infinite $K$-area, we say that it is [*of finite $K$-area*]{}.
A class $h \in H_{ev}(M;{\mathbb{ Q}})$ is defined to be of infinite $K$-area, if the class $\operatorname{{\rm ch}}^{-1}(h) \in K_0(M) \otimes {\mathbb{ Q}}$ is of infinite $K$-area.
By adapting the involved scale appropriately it is clear that for testing whether $h$ is of infinite $K$-area or not any Riemannian metric on $M$ can be used.
The notion of finitely generated Hilbert $A$-module bundles can be generalized to $C^*$-algebras without unit. However, in the context of Definition \[Kflach\], this does not result in a wider class of $K$-homology classes of infinite $K$-area, since any finitely generated Hilbert $A$-module bundle is in a trivial way also a finitely generated Hilbert $A^+$-module bundle over the unitalization $A^+$ of $A$. This procedure does not change the property of $\langle [E], h \rangle $ being zero or not (in the rationalization of the $K$-homology of $A$ and $A^+$ respectively).
Our Definition \[Kflach\] is inspired by the preprint [@Listing(2010)] where the property of finite $K$-area is investigated from a homological perspective. In contrast to the approach in loc. cit. and in the original source [@Gromov(1995)] we do not further quantify classes of finite $K$-area, since we will be concentrating on the property of infinite $K$-area as one instance of a largeness property besides enlargeability and essentialness. The discussion in [@Listing(2010)] and other previous papers is restricted to finite dimensional smooth Hermitian vector bundles as twisting bundles $E \to M$ occuring in our Definition \[Kflach\]. Our more general setting is needed in connection with enlargeability questions and applications to the strong Novikov conjecture, see Section \[Novikov\].
By a suspension procedure we can also define classes in $h \in K_1(M) \otimes {\mathbb{ Q}}$ of infinite $K$-area by requiring that the class $h \times [S^1]_K \in K_0(M \times S^1) \otimes {\mathbb{ Q}}$ be of infinite $K$-area, with an arbitrary choice of a $K$-theoretic fundamental class $[S^1]_K \in K_1(S^1)$. Note that with this definition the class $[S^1]_K \in K_1(S^1) \otimes {\mathbb{ Q}}$ is of infinite $K$-area. The following discussion can be extended to $K$-homology classes of odd degree, but we restrict our exposition to classes in $K_0(M) \otimes {\mathbb{ Q}}$ for simplicity.
The following two facts are similiar to Propositions 2 and 3 in [@Listing(2010)], cf. also Proposition 3.4. and Theorem 3.6 in [@BrunnHan].
\[subvector\] The elements of finite $K$-area in $K_0(M) \otimes {\mathbb{ Q}}$ form a rational vector subspace.
Obviously $0 \in K_0(M) \otimes {\mathbb{ Q}}$ is of finite $K$-area. If $h \in K_0(M) \otimes {\mathbb{ Q}}$ is of infinite $K$-area, then the same is true for any nonzero rational multiple of $h$. This implies that the set of elements of finite $K$-area is closed under scalar multiplication. Now assume that $h + h'$ is of infinite $K$-area. It follows from Definition \[Kflach\] that either $h$ or $h'$ are of infinite $K$-area (choose $\epsilon := \frac{1}{k}$ with $k = 1,2, \ldots$). This shows that the set of elements of finite $K$-area is closed under addition.
If $f : M \to M'$ is a continuous map, then $f_* : K_0(M) \otimes {\mathbb{ Q}}\to K_0(M') \otimes {\mathbb{ Q}}$ restricts to a map between vector subspaces consisting of elements of finite $K$-area. In particular, the vector subspace of elements of finite $K$-area in $K_0(M) \otimes {\mathbb{ Q}}$ is an invariant of the homotopy type of $M$.
We will return to homological aspects of largeness properties in Section \[large\_homology\]. The notion of infinite $K$-area is illustrated by the following examples.
Assume that $M$ is an oriented manifold of even dimension $2n$ which has infinite $K$-area in the sense of Gromov [@Gromov(1995)]. By definition this means that for each $\epsilon > 0$ there is a finite dimensional smooth Hermitian vector bundle $V \to M$ with a Hermitian connection whose curvature form in $\Omega^2(M; \mathfrak{u}(d))$ (where $d = {\operatorname{rk}}V$) has norm smaller than $\epsilon$ and with at least one nonvanishing Chern number.
Using linear combinations of tensor products and exterior products of $V$ one can show that there is a Hermitian bundle $E \to M$ with Hermitian connection whose curvature has norm smaller than $C \cdot \epsilon$ (where $C$ is a bound which depends only on $\dim M$) and which satisfies $$\langle \operatorname{{\rm ch}}(E) , {\rm PD}(\mathcal{\hat{A}}(M)) \rangle \neq 0 \in H_0(M ;{\mathbb{ Q}}) \, ,$$ where ${\rm PD}(\mathcal{\hat{A}}(M))$ is the Poincaré dual in $H_{ev}(M ; {\mathbb{ Q}})$ of the $\mathcal{\hat{A}}$-polynomial of $M$.
The precise argument is carried out in [@Dav] where the following fact is shown. There is a number $N$ depending only on $\dim M$ with the following property: Assume that $V \to M$ is a complex vector bundle and assume that all bundles $V' \to M$ which may be constructed out of $V$ by at most $N$ operations of the form direct sum, tensor product and exterior product satisfy $$\langle \operatorname{{\rm ch}}(V'), {\rm PD}(\mathcal{\hat{A}}(M)) \rangle = 0 \in H_0(M ;{\mathbb{ Q}}) \, .$$ Then all Chern numbers of $V\to M$ are zero.
Considering Hermitian vector bundles as finitely generated Hilbert ${\mathbb{ C}}$-module bundles this means in the language of Definition \[Kflach\] that the class ${\rm PD}(\mathcal{\hat{A}}(M)) \in H_{ev}(M;{\mathbb{ Q}}) $ has infinite $K$-area (here we use that the Chern character is compatible with the Kronecker pairing). If $M$ is equipped with a spin structure, this element is equal to $\operatorname{{\rm ch}}([M]_K)$, the Chern character applied to the $K$-theoretic fundamental class of $M$, and hence we have shown that under the stated assumptions the class $[M]_K$ has infinite $K$-area in our sense.
By a similar argument one shows that if $M$ has infinite $K$-area in the sense of Gromov, then $$[M]_H \in H_{2n}(M;{\mathbb{ Q}})$$ has infinite $K$-area, where $[M]_H \in H_{2n}(M ; {\mathbb{ Q}})$ is the homological fundamental class of $M$.
As a second example, cf. [@HS(2006) Section 4], assume that $M$ is area-enlargeable and that the covers $\overline{M} \to M$ in Definition \[enlargeable\] can always be assumed to be finite. By pulling back a suitable Hermitian bundle $V \to S^{2n}$ with connection to these covers along the maps $f_{\epsilon} : \overline{M} \to S^{2n}$ and wrapping these bundles up to get finite dimensional Hermitian bundles $E \to M$ with small curvature, one can show that the classes $[M]_H \in H_{2n}(M;{\mathbb{ Q}})$ and $[M]_K\in K_0(M) \otimes {\mathbb{ Q}}$ (if $M$ is spin) have infinite $K$-area.
More generally assume that $M^{2n}$ is area-enlargeable with no restriction on the covers $\overline{M} \to M$. Then [@HS(2007) Proposition 1.5] implies that the classes $[M]_H$ and $[M]_K$, respectively, have infinite $K$-area. In this case we need infinite dimensional bundles $E \to M$ which shows the usefulness of Definition \[Kflach\] in the general context of Hilbert $A$-module bundles where $A$ is a $C^*$-algebra different from ${\mathbb{ C}}$.
For later reference we state the last observation seperately.
\[enlinfinite\]Ê Let $M$ be area-enlargeable and of even dimension. Then the $K$-area of $[M]_H$ is infinite. If $M$ is equipped with a spin structure, then also the $K$-area of $[M]_K$ is infinite.
We denote by $$\alpha : K_0(M) \to K_0(B \pi_1(M)) \stackrel{\mu}{\to} K_0(C^*_{max} \pi_1(M))$$ the composition of the map induced by the classifying map $M \to B \pi_1(M)$ and the assembly map. If $M$ is a spin manifold of even dimension, note the equations $$\alpha(M) = \alpha([M]_K)$$ (the left hand side coincides with the Rosenberg index) and - more generally - $$\alpha(h) = \langle [E] , h \rangle \in K_0(C^*_{max} \pi_1(M)) \otimes {\mathbb{ Q}}$$ for all $h \in K_0(M) \otimes {\mathbb{ Q}}$ where $E \to M$ is the Mishchenko-Fomenko bundle for $C^*_{max} \pi_1(M)$.
The following is the main result of our paper.
\[Kess\] Let $M$ be a closed connected smooth manifold and let $h \in K_0(M)\otimes {\mathbb{ Q}}$ be of infinite $K$-area. Then $$\alpha(h) \neq 0 \in K_0(C^*_{max} \pi_1(X)) \otimes {\mathbb{ Q}}\, .$$
We note the following implication for the Rosenberg index.
\[cor1\]ÊLet $M$ be a closed spin manifold of even dimension whose $K$-theoretic fundamental class has infinite $K$-area. Then $$\alpha(M) \neq 0 \in K_0(C^*_{max} \pi_1(M)) \, .$$ In particular, closed even-dimensional spin manifolds of infinite $K$-area in the sense of Gromov [@Gromov(1995)] have nonvanishing Rosenberg index. (A similar result holds, if $M$ is odd dimensional.)
The proof of Theorem \[Kess\] is based on the construction of “infinite product bundles” from [@HS(2006)]. We shall explain how this construction fits the setting of the paper at hand.
Let $(E_k)_{k \in {\mathbb{ N}}}$ be a sequence of finitely generated Hilbert $A_k$-module bundles over $M$, where $(A_k)$ is a sequence of unital $C^*$-algebras. We assume that the fibre of $E_k$ is isomorphic (as a Hilbert $A_k$-module) to $q_k A_k$ where $q_k \in A_k$ is a (self-adjoint) projection. This assumption is important for our construction. In general the fibre of $E_k$ is of the form $q \cdot (A_k)^n$ for some $n$ with a projection $q \in \operatorname{Mat}(A_k,n)$. In this case we use the same transition functions as for $E_k$ to construct a Hilbert $\operatorname{Mat}(A_k,n)$-module bundle of the required form. By Morita equivalence of $A_k$ and $\operatorname{Mat}(A_k,n)$ this does not affect the $K$-theoretic considerations relevant for our discussion.
We consider the unital $C^*$-algebra $A$ consisting of norm bounded sequences $$(a_k)_{k \in {\mathbb{ N}}} \in \prod_{k=1}^{\infty} A_k$$ and wish to construct a Hilbert $A$-module bundle $E \to M$ with fibre $q A$, where $q = (q_k)$ is the product of the projections $q_k$, by taking the “infinite product” of the bundles $E_k$. However, taking the infinite product of the transition functions for the bundles $E_k$ may not result in continuous transition functions for the infinite product bundle. The following example indeed shows that an infinite product construction of this kind may be obstructed by topological properties of the bundles $E_k$.
Let $E_k \to S^2$ be the complex line bundle with Chern number $k$. Assume we have a Hilbert $A$-module bundle $E \to S^2$ over the $C^*$-algebra $A = \prod_k {\mathbb{ C}}$ (which is equal to the standard seperable Hilbert space) with typical fibre $V = \prod_k {\mathbb{ C}}$ and Lipschitz continous transition functions in diagonal form so that the $k$th component of this bundle is isomorphic to $E_k$ as a complex line bundle.
Restricting the transition functions of $E$ to the single factors leads to trivializations for the bundles $E_k \to S^2$ whose transition functions have uniformly (in $k)$ bounded Lipschitz constants. This implies that the Euler numbers of the bundles $E_k$ are bounded, contrary to our assumption.
This example indicates that we need to choose Lipschitz trivializations of the bundles $E_k$ so that the resulting transition functions have uniformly bounded Lipschitz constants. This can be achieved as follows.
\[prod\] Assume that each bundle $E_k\to M$ is equipped with a holonomy representation $\mathcal{H}_k$ so that $\mathcal{H}_k$ is $\epsilon$-close to the identity at scale $\ell$ where the constants $\epsilon$ and $\ell$ are independent of $k$, and $M$ is equipped with a fixed Riemannian metric. Then there is a finitely generated Hilbert $A$-module bundle $V \to M$ with transition functions in diagonal form and so that the $k$th component of this bundle is isomorphic to $E_k$ as an $A_k$-Hilbert module bundle.
We start with a cover of $M^n$ by finitely many closed subsets $(D_i)_{i \in I}$ each of which is diffeomorphic to the $n$-dimensional unit cube $[0,1]^n \subset {\mathbb{ R}}^n$ and so that the interiors of these subsets still cover $M$. The size of each $D_i$ can be assumed to be small compared to $\ell$.
For each $k$, using the holonomy representation $\mathcal{H}_k$, we trivialize the bundle $E_k$ over each subset $D_i$ inductively into each of the $n$ coordinate directions (compare the proof of Proposition \[altSchick\]).
This leads to local trivializations of $E_k|_{D_i}$ whose transition maps (for fixed $k$, but varying $i$) have uniformly bounded (in $i$ and $k$) Lipschitz constants. Hence the product of these transition maps can be used to define the Hilbert $A$-module bundle $V \to M$ as required.
We remark that the product bundle $V \to M$ is a bundle of finitely generated Hilbert $A$-modules isomorphic to $qA$ by our assumption that $E_k$ has typical fibre $q_k A_k$.
For the proof of Theorem \[Kess\] we assume that $h \in K_0(M) \otimes {\mathbb{ Q}}$ and that $(E_k)$ is a sequence of Hilbert $A_k$-module bundles with fibres $q_k A_k$ so that $\langle [E_k] , h \rangle \neq 0 \in K_0(A_k) \otimes {\mathbb{ Q}}$ for all $k$. Furthermore, we assume that $E_k$ is equipped with a holonomy representation $\mathcal{H}_k$ which is $1/k$-close to the identity at some scale $\ell$ which is independent of $k$.
We consider the Hilbert $A$-module bundle $V \to M$ constructed in Proposition \[prod\].
Starting from $V$ we can construct various other Hilbert module bundles over $M$ as follows. Let $$\psi_k : A \to A_k$$ denote the projection onto the $k$th component. Moreover, we denote by $$A' := \bigoplus_{k=1}^{\infty} A_k \subset A$$ the closed two sided ideal consisting of sequences in $A$ tending to zero and by $$Q := A / A'$$ the quotient $C^*$-algebra. Finally, let $$\psi : A \to Q$$ be the quotient map.
We obtain Hilbert $A_k$-bundle isomorphisms $$E_k \cong V \otimes A_k$$ and a Hilbert $Q$-module bundle $$W := V \otimes Q$$ with typical fibre $q Q$, where we identify $q \in A$ and its image in $Q$.
The following fact is crucial
The bundle $W$ has local trivializations with locally constant transition maps. More precisely, it can be written as an associated bundle $$W = \widetilde{M} \times_{\pi_1(M)} qQ$$ for some unitary representation $\pi_1(M) \to {\operatorname{Hom}}_Q(qQ, qQ)$.
The family of holonomy representations $(\mathcal{H}_k)$ induces a holonomy representation on $W$ which is equal to the identity on each closed loop of length at most $\ell$ in $M$ (and hence on contractible loops of arbitrary length), because the holonomy representation $\mathcal{H}_k$ is $1/k$-close to the identity at scale $\ell$. Using this holonomy representation on $W$ we construct the desired local trivializations of $W$.
These facts in combination with naturality properties of Kasparov ${K\!K}$-theory allow us to show that $\alpha(h) \neq 0 \in K_0(C^*_{max} \pi_1(M)) \otimes {\mathbb{ Q}}$. The holonomy representation for the bundle $W$ induces an involutive map $$\pi_1(M) \to {\operatorname{Hom}}_Q(qQ, qQ) = q Q q$$ with values in the unitaries of the $C^*$-algebra $q Q q$. Hence, by the universal property of $C^*_{max} \pi_1(M)$ we get an induced map of $C^*$-algebras $$\phi : C^*_{max} \pi_1(M) \to q Q q \hookrightarrow Q \, .$$ Note that this step is not possible in general, if we use the reduced $C^*$-algebra $C^*_{red} \pi_1(M)$ instead. Let $E = \widetilde{M} \times_{\pi_1(M)} C^{*}_{max} \pi_1(M) \to M$ be the Mishchenko-Fomenko bundle.
We study the commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{
K_0(M) \ar[d]^{=} \ar[r]^-{\langle [E], - \rangle} & K_0(C^*_{max} \pi_1(M) ) \ar[r]^-{\phi_*} & K_0(Q) \ar[d]^{=} \\
K_0(M) \ar[r]^{\langle [V], - \rangle } & K_0(A) \ar[r]^{\psi_*} & K_0(Q ) \\
}$$ The composition $$K_0(M) \stackrel{\langle [V] , - \rangle }{\longrightarrow} K_0(A) \stackrel{(\psi_k)_*}{\longrightarrow} K_0(A_k)$$ sends the element $h$ to $\langle [E_k], h \rangle \in K_0(A_k)$ which is different from zero by assumption. This implies that under the map $$\begin{aligned}
\chi : K_0(A) & \to & \prod_k K_0(A_k ) \\
z & \mapsto & ( (\psi_k)_*(z))_{k = 1,2, \ldots} \end{aligned}$$ the element $z : = \langle [V], h \rangle$ is sent to a sequence all of whose components are different from zero. We will conclude from this that also $\psi_*(z) \neq 0$ finishing the proof of Theorem \[Kess\].
Consider the long exact sequence in $K$-theory induced by the short exact sequence $$0 \to A' \to A \to Q \to 0 \, .$$ Using the fact that $K$-theory commutes with direct limits we have a canonical isomorphism $$K_0(A') \cong \bigoplus_k K_0(A_k) \, .$$ Assume that $\psi_*(z) = 0$. This implies that $\chi$ maps $z$ to a sequence $(z_k) \in \prod_k K_0(A_k)$ with only finitely many nonzero entries. But this contradicts the calculation that we carried out before. Hence $\psi_*(z) \neq 0$.
The strong Novikov conjecture {#Novikov}
=============================
The method presented in the previous paragraph can be used to prove a special case of the strong Novikov conjecture. Let $G$ be a discrete group and let $\Lambda^*(G) \subset H^*(BG; {\mathbb{ Q}})$ be the subring generated by $H^{\leq 2}(BG; {\mathbb{ Q}})$
\[strnovikov\]ÊLet $h \in K_0(BG)\otimes {\mathbb{ Q}}$ be a $K$-homology class with the following property: There is a class $c \in \Lambda^*(G)$ so that $\langle c , \operatorname{{\rm ch}}(h) \rangle \neq 0 \in H_0(BG;{\mathbb{ Q}}) = {\mathbb{ Q}}$. Then under the assembly map $$K_0(BG) \otimes {\mathbb{ Q}}\to K_0(C^*_{max} G) \otimes {\mathbb{ Q}}$$ the element $h$ is sent to a a non-zero class.
As a corollary one obtains the following special case of the classical Novikov conjecture.
Let $M$ be a connected closed oriented manifold, let $G$ be a discrete group and let $f: M \to BG$ be a continuous map. Then for all $c \in \Lambda^*(G)$ the higher signature $\langle \mathcal{L}(M) \cup f^*(c) , [M] \rangle$ is an oriented homotopy invariant, where $\mathcal{L}(M)$ denotes the Hirzebruch $L$-polynomial.
We will establish Theorem \[strnovikov\] as a fairly straightforward consequence of Theorem \[Kess\]. It illustrates again the flexibility of the notion of infinite $K$-area in Definition \[Kflach\] based on Hilbert module bundles. For simplicity we restrict to the case when there is a class $c \in H^2(BG; {\mathbb{ Q}})$ with $\langle c, \operatorname{{\rm ch}}(h) \rangle \neq 0$. Furthermore, without loss of generality, we can assume that $G$ is finitely presented. The general case follows by applying a direct limit argument.
Using the description of $K$-homology due to Baum and Douglas [@BD] there is a closed connected spin manifold $M$ of even dimension (which can be chosen arbitrarily large) together with a finite dimensional complex vector bundle $V \to M$ and a continuous map $f : M \to BG$ so that $$f_* ( [V] \cap [M]_K) = h \, .$$ Here we regard again $V \to M$ as an element in $K^0(M)$ and use the cap product pairing $$\cap : K^0(M) \times K_0(M) \to K_0(M) \, .$$ As $G$ is finitely presented we can assume that $f$ induces an isomorphism of fundamental groups. In view of Theorem \[Kess\] we need to show that the class $[V] \cap [M]_K \in K_0(M)$ is of infinite $K$-area.
Let $L \to M$ be the complex line bundle classified by $f^*(c)$. We pick a Hermitian connection on $L$ and denote by $\eta \in \Omega^2(M; i{\mathbb{ R}})$ the associated curvature form. Because the universal cover of $BG$ is contractible, the pull back $\pi^*(L) \to \widetilde M$ of $L$ to the universal cover $\pi : \widetilde M \to M$ is trivial. We fix a trivialization and denote the $1$-form associated to the pull back connection by $\omega \in \Omega^1( \widetilde M ; i {\mathbb{ R}})$. The curvature form $\pi^*(\eta)$ is equal to $ d\omega$, since $\operatorname{U}(1)$ is abelian. However, the connection $1$-form $\omega$ is in general not invariant under the action of the deck transformation group on $\widetilde M$, because in this case the curvature form $\eta$ would be exact and hence $L \to M$ would be the trivial line bundle.
We will now “flatten” the bundle $L \to M$ by scaling its curvature by a constant $0 < t < 1$. Unfortunately, this cannot be done directly, because the first Chern class of $L$ would no longer be integral.
The following construction originating from [@HS(2008)] gives a solution to this problem by considering infinite dimensional bundles. At first we consider the Hilbert space bundle $$E = \widetilde M \times_{G} l^2(G) \to M$$ where $l^2(G)$ is the set of square summable complex valued functions on $G$ and $G$ acts on the left of $l^2(G)$ by the formula $$( \gamma \psi ) (x) = \psi ( x \gamma )$$ and on the right of $\widetilde M$ by $(x,g) \mapsto g^{-1} x$. Let $0 < t < 1$. We consider the $G$-invariant connection $1$-form on $\widetilde M \times l^2(G)$ which on the subbundle $$\widetilde M \times {\mathbb{ C}}\cdot 1_g \subset \widetilde M \times l^2(G)$$ concides with $(g^{-1})^*(t\omega)$. Here $1_g \in l^2(G)$ is the characteristic function of $g \in G$. Because this one form is $G$-invariant, we obtain an induced connection $\nabla^t$ on the Hilbert space bundle $E$ whose curvature form is norm bounded by $t \cdot \| \eta \|$. In other words, the Hilbert space bundle $E$ can be equipped with holonomy representations which are arbitrarily close to the identity (at some fixed scale). It hence remains to show that $E$ detects the $K$-homology class $ [V] \cap[M]_K$.
However, by Kuiper’s theorem, any Hilbert space bundle is trivial. Therefore we will first reduce the structure group of $E$ in a canonical way. This will result in finitely generated Hilbert $A_t$-module bundles $E_t \to M$ with appropriate unital $C^*$-algebras $A_t$, where $t \in (0,1]$. The algebras $A_t$ will depend on $t$.
We fix a base point $p \in M$ and choose a point $q \in \widetilde M$ above $p$. The fibre over $p$ is then identified with the Hilbert space $l^2(G)$. Now we define $$A_t \subset B(l^2(G))$$ as the norm-linear closure of all maps $l^2(G) \to l^2(G)$ arising from parallel transport with respect to $\nabla^t$ along piecewise smooth loops in $M$ based at $p$. We furthermore define a bundle $E_t \to M$ whose fibre over $x \in M$ is given by the norm-linear closure in ${\operatorname{Hom}}(E|_p, E|_x)$ of all Hilbert space isomorphisms $E|_p \to E|_x$ aring from parallel transport with respect to $\nabla^t$ along piecewise smooth curves connecting $p$ with $x$. In this way we obtain, for each $t \in (0,1]$, a free Hilbert $A_t$-module bundle of rank $1$ where the $A_t$-module structure on each fibre is induced by precomposition with parallel transport along piecewise smooth loops based at $p$.
Now, on the one hand, parallel transport with respect to $\nabla^t$ induces a holonomy representation on $E_t \to M$ which, for small enough $t$, is arbitrarily closed to the identity (at a fixed scale which is independent of $t$).
On the other hand, each of the algebras $A_t$ carries a canonical trace $$\tau_t : A_t \to {\mathbb{ C}}\, , ~\tau_t(\psi) = \langle \psi(1_e), 1_e \rangle$$ where $1_e \in l^2(G)$ is the characteristic function of the neutral element $e \in G$ and $\langle - , - \rangle$ is the inner product on $l^2(G)$. For details we refer to [@HS(2008) Lemma 2.2]. Using the Chern-Weil calculus from [@Schick(2005)] we obtain $$\tau_t (\langle [E_t] , [V] \cap [M]_K \rangle) = \langle \exp(tc) , \operatorname{{\rm ch}}(h) \rangle \in {\mathbb{ R}}[t] \, .$$ See also [@HS(2008)]. The last polynomial is nonzero by our assumption $\langle c, \operatorname{{\rm ch}}(h) \rangle \neq 0$. In particular, for infinitely many $k \in {\mathbb{ N}}$ we have $$\langle [E_{1/k}] , [V] \cap [M]_K \rangle \neq 0 \in K_0(A_{1/k}) \otimes {\mathbb{ Q}}\, .$$ This implies that $[V] \cap [M]_K$ is a class of infinite $K$-area and together with Theorem \[Kess\] finishes the proof of Theorem \[strnovikov\].
Homological invariance of essentialness {#large_homology}
=======================================
Recall from Definition \[homess\] that a closed oriented manifold $M^n$ is called [*essential*]{}, if the classifying map $\phi : M \to B \pi_1(M)$ satisfies $$\phi_*([M]_H) \neq 0 \in H_n(B \pi_1(M) ; {\mathbb{ Q}}) \, .$$
Essential manifolds obey Gromov’s systolic inequality:
ÊLet $M$ be an essential Riemannian manifold of dimension $n$. Then there is a noncontractible loop $\gamma : [0,1] \to M$ satisfying $$\ell(\gamma) \leq C(n) \cdot \operatorname{vol}(M)^{1/n}$$ where the constant $C(n)$ depends only on $n$.
We show the following implication.
\[thm2\] Let $M$ be an oriented manifold of even dimension $2n$. If the class $[M]_H \in H_{2n}(M;{\mathbb{ Q}})$ has infinite $K$-area, then $M$ is essential.
Let $E \to M$ be the Mishchenko-Fomenko bundle. The proof of Theorem \[thm2\] is based on the commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{
K_0(M) \otimes {\mathbb{ Q}}\ar[d]^{=} \ar[rr]^-{\langle [E] , - \rangle} & & K_0(C^*_{max} \pi_1(M) ) \otimes {\mathbb{ Q}}\ar[d]^{=} \\
K_0(M) \otimes {\mathbb{ Q}}\ar[r]^-{\phi_*} \ar[d]^{\operatorname{{\rm ch}}}_{\cong} & K_0(B \pi_1(M)) \otimes {\mathbb{ Q}}\ar[r]^{\mu}
\ar[d]^{\operatorname{{\rm ch}}}_{\cong} & K_0(C^*_{max} \pi_1(M) ) \otimes {\mathbb{ Q}}\\
H_{ev}(M; {\mathbb{ Q}}) \ar[r]^-{\phi_*} & H_{ev}(B \pi_1(M), {\mathbb{ Q}}) & }$$ Indeed, by Theorem \[Kess\] the image of $\operatorname{{\rm ch}}^{-1}([M]_H)$ under the map in the first line is non-zero.
This theorem implies
- Closed manifolds of infinite $K$-area in the sense of Gromov are essential.
- ([@HS(2006); @HS(2007)]) Area-enlargeable manifolds are essential (use Proposition \[enlinfinite\]).
The second implication can be obtained without referring to $K$-theoretic considerations. This is carried out in [@BrunnHan], where several largeness properties of Riemannian manifolds are investigated from a purely homological point of view. The best results can be obtained for enlargeable manifolds, for which we have the following homological invariance result.
\[BrunnH\] Let $G$ be a finitely presented group. Then there is a rational vector subspace $$H^{sm}_*(BG; {\mathbb{ Q}}) \subset H_*(BG; {\mathbb{ Q}})$$ with the following property: Let $M$ be a closed oriented manifold of dimension $n$. Then $M$ is enlargeable, if and only if under the classifying map $\phi: M \to B \pi_1(M)$ we have $$\phi_*([M]) \notin H_n^{sm}(B\pi_1(M) ;{\mathbb{ Q}})$$
This result indeed implies that enlargeable manifolds are essential, because $0 \in H_n(B\pi_1(M) ; {\mathbb{ Q}})$ is contained in every vector subspace of $H_n(B\pi_1(M) ; {\mathbb{ Q}})$.
Theorem \[BrunnH\] can be seen as a form of homological invariance of enlargeability. The proof is based on the following definition of enlargeable homology classes in simplicial complexes.
\[enlhom\]Ê Let $C$ be a connected simplicial complex with finitely generated fundamental group. A homology class $h \in H_n(C; {\mathbb{ Q}})$ is called [enlargeable]{}, if the following holds: Let $S \subset C$ be a finite subcomplex carrying $h$ and inducing a surjection on $\pi_1$. Then, for every $\epsilon > 0$, there is a cover $\overline{C} \to C$ and an $\epsilon$-Lipschitz map $\overline{S} \to S^n$ which is constant outside a compact subset of $\overline{S}$ and sends the transfer ${\rm tr}(h) \in H^{l\! f}_n(\overline S ; {\mathbb{ Q}})$ in the locally finite homology of $\overline S$ to a nonzero class in the reduced homology $\widetilde H_n( S^n ; {\mathbb{ Q}})$. Here $\overline{S}$ is the preimage of $S$ under the covering map $\overline{C} \to C$.
It is shown in [@BrunnHan] that the condition for $c$ described in this definition is independent of the finite subcomplex $S \subset C$ carrying $c$ and inducing a surjection on $\pi_1$. Using this property it is not difficult to prove the following fact, see [@BrunnHan Prop. 3.4.].
Let $f: C \to D$ be a continuous map inducing an isomorphism of (finitely generated) fundamental groups. Then a class $h \in H_*(C; {\mathbb{ Q}})$ is enlargeable, if and only if the class $f_*(h) \in H_*(D; {\mathbb{ Q}})$ is enlargeable.
From this Theorem \[BrunnH\] follows, if we define $H_n^{sm}(BG ; {\mathbb{ Q}})$ as the subset consisting of all homology classes which are not enlargeable.
Theorem \[BrunnH\] transforms the problem of determining enlargeable manifolds to a problem in group homology: Given a finitely generated group $G$, determine $H_*^{sm}(BG; {\mathbb{ Q}})$, the “small” group homology of $G$. In light of Theorem \[BrunnH\] and the fact that the fundamental classes of enlargeable manifolds are of infinite $K$-area (see Proposition \[enlinfinite\]) it is desirable to decide whether $H^{sm}_*(BG; {\mathbb{ Q}})$ can be non-zero. This is answered in the positive in [@BrunnHan Theorem 4.8] by use of the Higman $4$-group [@Hig]. Together with Theorem \[BrunnH\] this implies that there are essential manifolds which are not enlargeable, see [@BrunnHan Theorem 1.5].
In contrast to these positive results we do not know, whether there are essential manifolds which are not area-enlargeable. These manifolds would exist, if the following question had an affirmative answer.
\[final\_problem\] Is there an essential manifold whose fundamental class in singular homology $[M]_H$ is of finite $K$-area?
Rosenberg index and the reduced group $C^*$-algebra
===================================================
Let $M^n$ be a closed spin manifold. The method of Section \[index\] can be used equally well to construct an index obstruction to positive scalar curvature $$\alpha(M) \in K_n(C^*_{red} \pi_1(M)) \, .$$
The reduced group $C^*$-algebra does not share the universal property of the maximal group $C^*$-algebra which we used in the proof of Theorem \[Kess\].
Exploiting the connection of $C^*_{red} \pi_1(M)$ to coarse geometry [@HR] we can still prove
\[coarse\] Let $M^n$ be an enlargeable spin manifold. Then $$\alpha(M) \neq 0 \in K_n(C^*_{red} \pi_1(M)) \, .$$
We do not know whether the same conclusion holds for area-enlargeable spin manifolds. This would be implied by an affirmative answer to the following question.
Does Theorem \[Kess\] remain true for the reduced group $C^*$-algebra?
[AAAA]{}
M. Atiyah, [*$K$-theory*]{}, Advanced Book Classics (2nd ed.), Addison-Wesley.
P. Baum, R. Douglas, [*$K$-homology and index theory*]{}. Operator algebras and applications, Part I (Kingston, Ont., 1980), pp. 117-173, Proc. Sympos. Pure Math. [**38**]{}, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, R.I. (1982)
B. Blackadar, [*$K$-Theory for Operator Algebras*]{}, MSRI Publications [**5**]{}, Springer-Verlag.
Ch. Böhm, B. Wilking, [*Manifolds with positive curvature operators are space forms*]{}, Ann. of Math. (2) [**167**]{} (2008), no. 3, 1079–1097.
S. Brendle, R. Schoen, [*Classification of manifolds with weakly $1/4$-pinched curvatures*]{}, Acta Math. [**200**]{} (2008), no. 1, 1–13.
S. Brendle, R. Schoen, [*Manifolds with $1/4$-pinched curvature are space forms*]{}, J. Amer. Math. Soc. [**22**]{} (2009), no. 1, 287–307.
M. Brunnbauer, B. Hanke, [*Large and small group homology*]{}, J. Topology [**3**]{} (2010) 463-486.
U. Christ, J. Lohkamp, [*Singular Minimal Hypersurfaces and Scalar Curvature*]{}, arXiv math.DG/0609338.
A. Connes, M. Gromov, H. Moscovici, [*Group cohomology with Lipschitz control and higher signatures*]{}, Geom. Funct. Anal. [**3**]{} (1) (1993), 1-78.
H. Davaux, [*La K-aire selon M. Gromov*]{}, in: Séminaire de théorie spectral et géometrie Vol. 21 (Année 2002-2003), 9-35, Institut Fourier, Université de Grenoble I.
A. N. Dranishnikov, [*On hypersphericity of manifolds with finite asymptotic dimension*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. [**355**]{} (2003), 155–167.
A. N. Dranishnikov, [*On hypereuclidean manifolds*]{}, Geom. Dedicata [**117**]{} (2006), 215–231.
M. Gromov, [*Filling [R]{}iemannian manifolds*]{}, J. Differential Geom. [**18**]{} (1983), 1-147.
M. Gromov, [*Positive Curvature, Macroscopic Dimension, Spectral gaps and Higher Signatures*]{}, in: Functional Analysis on the Eve of the 21st Century, Vol. II (Eds: S. Gindikin, J. Lepowsky, R. Wilson), Birkhäuser 1995.
M. Gromov, H. B. Lawson, [*The classification of simply connected manifolds of positive scalar curvature*]{}, Ann. of Math. (2) [**111**]{} (1980), no. 3, 423–434.
M. Gromov and H. B. Lawson, [*Spin and scalar curvature in the presence of a fundamental group. [I]{}*]{}, Ann. of Math. (2) [**111**]{} (1980), 209-230.
M. Gromov, [*Curvature, diameter and Betti numbers*]{}, Comment. Math. Helv. [**56**]{} (1981), no. 2, 179-195.
M. Gromov and H. B. Lawson, [*Positive scalar curvature and the Dirac operator on complete Riemannian manifolds*]{}, Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math. [**58**]{} (1984), 83–196.
B. Hanke, D. Kotschick, J. Roe and T. Schick, [*Coarse topology, enlargeability, and essentialness*]{}, Ann. Sci. École Norm. Sup. [**41**]{} (2008), 471-493.
B. Hanke and T. Schick, [*Enlargeability and index theory*]{}, J. Differential Geom. [**74**]{} (2006), 293-320.
B. Hanke and T. Schick, [*Enlargeability and index theory: infinite covers*]{}, K-Theory [**38**]{} (2007), 23-33.
B. Hanke and T. Schick, [*The strong Novikov conjecture for low degree cohomology*]{}, Geom. Dedicata [**135**]{} (2008), 119-127.
G. Higman, [*A finitely generated infinite simple group*]{}, J. London Math. Soc. [**26**]{} (1951), 61-64.
N. Higson, J. Roe, [*Analytic $K$-homology*]{}, Oxford Mathematical Monographs 2004.
N. Hitchin, [*Harmonic spinors*]{}, Advances in Math. [**14**]{} (1974), 1–55.
H. B. Lawson, M.-L. Michelsohn, [*Spin geometry*]{}, Princeton University Press 1989.
A. Lichnerowicz, [*Spineurs harmoniques*]{}, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris [**257**]{} (1963), 7-9.
M. Listing, [*Homology of finite $K$-area*]{}, arXiv:1007.3166.
J. Lohkamp, [*Metrics of negative Ricci curvature*]{}, Ann. of Math. (2) [**140**]{} (1994), no. 3, 655–683.
J. Lohkamp, [*The Higher Dimensional Positive Mass Theorem I*]{}, arXiv math.DG/0608795.
J. Lohkamp, [*Inductive Analysis on Singular Minimal Hypersurfaces*]{}, arXiv:0808.2035.
V. Mathai, [*The Novikov conjecture for low degree cohomology classes*]{}, Geom. Dedicata [**99**]{} (2003), 1-15.
A. Mishchenko, A. Fomenko, [*The index of elliptic operators over $C^*$-algebras*]{}, Izv. Akad.Nauk SSSR, Ser. Mat. [**43**]{} (1979), 831-859, English Translation: Mathematics of the USSR Izvestija [**15**]{} (1980), 87-112.
M. Matthey, H. Oyono-Oyono, W. Pitsch, [*Homotopy invariance of higher signatures and 3-manifold groups*]{}. Bull. Soc. Math. France [**136**]{} (2008), no. 1, 1-25.
J. Rosenberg, [*[$C\sp{\ast} $]{}-algebras, positive scalar curvature, and the [N]{}ovikov conjecture*]{}, Pub. Math. IHES [**58**]{} (1983),197–212.
J. Rosenberg, [*$C^\ast$-algebras, positive scalar curvature, and the Novikov conjecture. III.*]{}, Topology [**25**]{} (1986), no. 3, 319–336.
J. Rosenberg, [*Manifolds of positive scalar curvature: a progress report*]{}, in: Surveys on Differerential Geometry, vol. XI: Metric and Comparison Geometry, International Press 2007.
T. Schick, [*A counterexample to the (unstable) Gromov-Lawson-Rosenberg conjecture*]{}, Topology [**37**]{} (1998), no. 6, 1165–1168.
T. Schick, [*$L^2$-index theorems, ${K\!K}$-theory, and connections*]{}, New York J. Math. [**11**]{} (2005), 387–443.
R. Schoen, S. T. Yau, [*On the structure of manifolds with positive scalar curvature*]{}, Manuscripta Math. [**28**]{} (1979), 159-183.
N. Smale, [*Generic regularity of homologically area minimizing hypersurfaces in eight-dimensional manifolds*]{}, Comm. Anal. Geom. [**1**]{} no. 2 (1993), 217–228.
S. Stolz, [*Simply connected manifolds of positive scalar curvature*]{}, Ann. of Math. (2) [**136**]{} (1992), no. 3, 511–540.
S. Stolz, [*Manifolds of positive scalar curvature*]{}, in: T. Farrell et al. (eds.), Topology of high dimensional manifolds (Trieste 2001), ICTP Lecture Notes, vol. [**9**]{}, 661-709.
N. E. Wegge-Olsen, [*$K$-theory and $C^*$-algebras: A Friendly Approach*]{}, Oxford Science Publications, Oxford University Press 2004.
H. Yamabe, [*On a Deformation of Riemannian Structures on Compact Manifolds*]{}, Osaka Math. J. [**12**]{} (1960), 21-37.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we investigate thermal effects of the Jaynes-Cummings model (JCM) at finite temperature with a perturbative approach. We assume a single two-level atom and a single cavity mode to be initially in the thermal equilibrium state and the thermal coherent state, respectively, at a certain finite low temperature. Describing this system with Thermo Field Dynamics formalism, we obtain a low-temperature expansion of the atomic population inversion in a systematic manner. Letting the system evolve in time with the JCM Hamiltonian, we examine thermal effects of the collapse and the revival of the Rabi oscillations by means of the third-order perturbation theory under the low-temperature limit, that is to say, using the low-temperature expansion up to the third order terms. From an intuitive discussion, we can expect that the period of the revival of the Rabi oscillations becomes longer as the temperature rises. Numerical results obtained with the perturbation theory reproduce well this temperature dependence of the period.'
author:
- |
Hiroo Azuma${}^{1,}$[^1] and Masashi Ban${}^{2,}$[^2]\
\
[${}^{1}$Advanced Algorithm & Systems Co., Ltd.,]{}\
[7F Ebisu-IS Building, 1-13-6 Ebisu, Shibuya-ku, Tokyo 150-0013, Japan]{}\
[${}^{2}$Graduate School of Humanities and Sciences, Ochanomizu University,]{}\
[2-1-1 Ohtsuka, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 112-8610, Japan]{}
title: 'Thermal effects in Jaynes-Cummings model derived with low-temperature expansion'
---
[**Keywords:**]{} Jaynes-Cummings model; Thermo Field Dynamics; low-temperature expansion; thermal coherent state; collapse and revival of Rabi oscillations
\[section-introduction\]Introduction
====================================
The Jaynes-Cummings model (JCM) was originally proposed for describing the spontaneous emission in a semi-classical manner by Jaynes and Cummings during the 1960s [@Jaynes1963; @Shore1993; @Louisell1973; @Schleich2001]. The JCM consists of a single two-level atom and a single cavity mode of the electromagnetic field. The JCM interaction between the atom and the cavity mode is obtained by the rotating wave approximation, so that each photon creation causes an atomic de-excitation and each photon annihilation causes an atomic excitation. The JCM is a soluble quantum mechanical model. Moreover, it is simple enough for expressing the basic and most important characteristics of the matter-radiation interaction. Because of these distinct advantages, both theoretical and experimental researchers in the field of quantum optics have been studying the JCM eagerly for decades.
If we initially prepare the atom in the ground state and the cavity mode in the coherent state, the JCM shows the periodic spontaneous collapse and the revival of the Rabi oscillations during its time-evolution [@Cummings1965; @Eberly1980; @Narozhny1981; @Yoo1981; @Yoo1985]. This phenomenon was experimentally demonstrated in the 1980s [@Rempe1987]. We can regard this phenomenon as a direct evidence for discreteness of energy states of photons. Thus, the JCM has a fully quantum property, which cannot be explained by semi-classical physics.
In this paper, we investigate the non-dissipative JCM at finite low temperature. We assume that the atom and the cavity mode are initially in the thermal equilibrium state and the thermal coherent state, respectively, at a certain finite low temperature $\beta[=1/(k_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}T)]$. Thus, we can describe an initial probability distribution of quantum states of the system with the canonical ensemble. Moreover, we assume the time-evolution of the system is governed by a unitary operator generated with the JCM Hamiltonian. This implies that the system does not suffer from dissipation and its time-evolution is reversible.
The Thermo Field Dynamics (TFD) formalism was developed by Takahashi and Umezawa for dealing with phenomena in isolated systems during the 1970s [@Takahashi1975; @Ojima1981; @Umezawa1982; @Umezawa1992]. The TFD formalism has a wide range of applications in equilibrium situations of closed systems, as well. In this paper, we think about applications of the TFD to non-dissipative closed systems. The TFD formalism helps us to be more successful than conventional formalisms do as follows: calculating an expectation value of a pure state created by the TFD mechanics, we can obtain a thermal average in statical mechanics. In return for this benefit, the TFD formalism requires us to let the original Hilbert space double in size for the tensor product. Then, the TFD formalism induces thermal-like noises in two mode squeezed states generated by the thermal Bogoliubov transformation.
Describing the JCM at finite low temperature with the TFD formalism, we can write down a thermal average (an expectation value) of an observable as a series expansion containing powers of $\theta(\beta)$ in a systematic manner. \[The explicit form of the function $\theta(\beta)$ is given by $\theta(\beta)=\mbox{arctanh}[\exp(-\beta\hbar\omega/2)]$, where $\omega$ is a frequency of the cavity mode. We note that $\theta(\beta)\to +0$ as $\beta\to +\infty$.\] We call this series the low-temperature expansion. This prescription is a new key point of this paper as compared with the other past works.
Strictly speaking, because we introduce a finite temperature into both the atom and the cavity field, the perturbation theory has to include two parameters of the temperature. In this paper, we let $\Theta(\beta)$ and $\theta(\beta)$ denote the parameters of the temperature for the atom and the cavity field, respectively. \[The explicit form of the function $\Theta(\beta)$ is given by $\Theta(\beta)=\arctan[\exp(-\beta\hbar\omega_{0}/2)]$, where $\omega_{0}$ is a transition frequency of the two-level atom. We note that $\Theta(\beta)\to +0$ as $\beta\to +\infty$.\] However, the Hilbert space of the atom is two-dimensional, so that we can solve the problem concerning the atom exactly. On the other hand, the dimension of the Hilbert space of the cavity field is infinite, so that we cannot give a rigorous treatment for the problem concerning the cavity field, which interacts with the atom. This is the reason why the low-temperature expansion contains powers of $\theta(\beta)$, but not $\Theta(\beta)$.
As mentioned before, in this paper, we initially prepare the cavity mode in the thermal coherent state, which is proposed by Barnett, Knight, Mann and Revzen as a natural extension of the zero-temperature ordinary coherent state according to the TFD [@Barnett1985; @Mann1989a]. Then, we investigate the time-evolution of the atomic population inversion using the low-temperature expansion up to the third order terms in $\theta(\beta)$. We regard this low-temperature expansion as the third order perturbation theory.
To take another approach, we give an intuitive discussion and obtain the following expectation: the period of the revival of the Rabi oscillations becomes longer as the temperature rises, where the temperature is finite but low enough and varies in the neighborhood of the absolute zero. Numerical results obtained by the third order perturbation theory reproduce well this temperature dependence of the period.
Here, we write about related works. The thermal JCM without dissipation is investigated in Refs. [@Arroyo-Correa1990; @Liu1992; @Chumakov1993; @Klimov1999; @Azuma2008; @Azuma2010]. In these references, the cavity field is prepared initially in a thermal equilibrium state, whose statistical behavior is given by the Bose-Einstein distribution. Then, the system consisting of the atom and the cavity mode is assumed to evolve with a unitary operator generated by the JCM Hamiltonian, so that its time-evolution is reversible. However, in these works, thermal coherent states are not considered to be the initial states of the cavity field.
The thermal JCM with dissipation is investigated in Refs. [@Eiselt1991; @Daeubler1992; @Murao1995; @deFaria1999; @Kuang1997]. In Refs. [@Eiselt1991; @Daeubler1992; @Murao1995; @deFaria1999], the cavity damping in the JCM is discussed. In these works, the equation of motion for the density operator $\rho$ includes the term $\kappa L_{\mbox{\scriptsize ir}}(\rho)$, which describes the irreversible motion caused by the cavity damping. A typical form of $L_{\mbox{\scriptsize ir}}(\rho)$ is given by $(2a\rho a^{\dagger}-\rho a^{\dagger}a-a^{\dagger}a\rho)$ in Refs. [@Daeubler1992; @deFaria1999], where $a^{\dagger}$ and $a$ are the creation and annihilation operators of the cavity photons, respectively. On the other hand, in Ref. [@Kuang1997], the phase damping in the JCM is discussed. In this work, the equation of motion for the density operator $\rho$ includes the term $(-\gamma[H,[H,\rho]])$, which describes the phase damping. To obtain this term, we assume the system to interact with a heat-bath environment, namely an infinite set of harmonic oscillators. Considering the Liouville-von Neumann equation for the system and the heat bath, and applying the Markovian approximation to it, we can derive the term of the phase damping.
Some researchers attempt to extend the JCM Hamiltonian according to the TFD formalism [@Barnett1985; @Azuma2010; @Fan2004]. However, in these works, they introduce the temperature only into the cavity field and let the atom maintain the temperature at absolute zero. In this paper, we explain that such extended JCM Hamiltonians cannot be genuine ones based on the TFD formalism.
The organization of this paper is as follows: In Sec. \[section-review-JCM\], we give a brief review of the original JCM. In Sec. \[section-review-TFD\], we give a brief review of the TFD. In Sec. \[section-thermal-effects-period-qualitative-estimation\], we give an intuitive discussion about the thermal effects found in the period of the revival of the Rabi oscillations. In Sec. \[section-formulation-perturbetion-theory\], we formulate the perturbation theory under the low-temperature limit. In Sec. \[section-comparison-of-TFD-and-Liouville-von-Neumann-equation\], we compare our TFD formalism applied to the JCM with the Liouville-von Neumann equation. Although the equilibrium TFD is equivalent to the Liouville-von Neumann equation in principle, we find that the TFD formalism is more effective and easier than the Liouville-von Neumann equation for deriving the low-temperature expansion. In Secs. \[section-0th-order-correction-term\], \[section-1st-order-correction-term\] and \[section-2nd-order-correction-term\], we calculate the zero-th, first and second order perturbation corrections, respectively. In Sec. \[section-numerical-calculations\], we give numerical results of calculations. In Sec. \[section-counter-rotating-terms\], we consider thermal effects of the counter-rotating terms. In Sec. \[section-discussion\], we give a brief discussion. In Appendix \[section-3rd-order-correction-term\], we give details of calculations of the third order perturbation correction.
The evaluation of the perturbation corrections described in Secs. \[section-0th-order-correction-term\], \[section-1st-order-correction-term\], \[section-2nd-order-correction-term\] and Appendix \[section-3rd-order-correction-term\], we make use of techniques for calculations developed in Ref. [@Azuma2010]. Thus, we can regard this paper as a sequel of Ref. [@Azuma2010].
\[section-review-JCM\]A brief review of the JCM
===============================================
In this section, we review the JCM briefly. The Hamiltonian of the original JCM is expressed in the form, $$H
=
\frac{\hbar}{2}\omega_{0}\sigma_{z}
+
\hbar\omega a^{\dagger}a
+
\hbar\kappa(\sigma_{+}a+\sigma_{-}a^{\dagger}),
\label{JCM-Hamiltonian-0}$$ where $\hbar=h/2\pi$, $\sigma_{\pm}=(1/2)(\sigma_{x}\pm i\sigma_{y})$ and $[a,a^{\dagger}]=1$. The Pauli matrices ($\sigma_{i}$ for $i=x,y,z$) are operators acting on quantum states of the single atom in the cavity. The creation and annihilation operators $a^{\dagger}$ and $a$ act on quantum states of the single cavity mode. The transition frequency of the two-level atom is given by $\omega_{0}$. The frequency of the single cavity mode is given by $\omega$. From now on, for simplicity, we assume $\kappa$ to be real.
We can divide the Hamiltonian $H$ given by Eq. (\[JCM-Hamiltonian-0\]) into two parts as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
H&=&\hbar(C_{1}+C_{2}), \nonumber \\
C_{1}&=&\omega(\frac{1}{2}\sigma_{z}+a^{\dagger}a), \nonumber \\
C_{2}&=&\kappa(\sigma_{+}a+\sigma_{-}a^{\dagger})-\frac{\Delta\omega}{2}\sigma_{z},
\label{JCM-Hamiltonian-decomposition-0}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta\omega=\omega-\omega_{0}$. We can confirm $[C_{1},C_{2}]=0$. Moreover, we can diagonalize $C_{1}$ at ease.
Because of the above facts, we take the following interaction picture for expressing the time-evolution of the quantum state: First, we write down the state vector of the atom and the cavity photons in the Schr[ö]{}dinger picture as $|\psi_{\mbox{\scriptsize S}}(t)\rangle$. Second, assuming $|\psi_{\mbox{\scriptsize I}}(0)\rangle=|\psi_{\mbox{\scriptsize S}}(0)\rangle$, we define the state vector in the interaction picture as $|\psi_{\mbox{\scriptsize I}}(t)\rangle
=\exp(iC_{1}t)|\psi_{\mbox{\scriptsize S}}(t)\rangle$. Thus, we can describe the time-evolution as $|\psi_{\mbox{\scriptsize I}}(t)\rangle=U(t)|\psi_{\mbox{\scriptsize I}}(0)\rangle$, where $U(t)=\exp(-iC_{2}t)$.
We give eigenstates of the two-level atom and the cavity mode in the following forms: First, we describe the ground state and the excited state of the atom as two-component vectors, $$|g\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize A}}
=
|0\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize A}}
=
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
0 \\
1
\end{array}
\right),
\quad\quad
|e\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize A}}
=
|1\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize A}}
=
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
1 \\
0
\end{array}
\right),
\label{atom-basis-vectors}$$ where $|g\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize A}}(=|0\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize A}})$ and $|e\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize A}}(=|1\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize A}})$ are eigenvectors of $\sigma_{z}$, and their corresponding eigenvalues are $(-1)$ and $1$, respectively. The index $\mbox{A}$ stands for the atom. We can regard $|i\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize A}}$ for $i\in\{0,1\}$ as the number states of the fermions. Second, we write down the number states of the cavity photons as $|n\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize P}}
=(1/\sqrt{n!})(a^{\dagger})^{n}|0\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize P}}$ for $n=0,1,2,...$. The index $\mbox{P}$ stands for the photons.
We describe the unitary operator for the time-evolution $U(t)$ as the $2\times 2$ matrix, $$U(t)
=
\exp[-it
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
-\Delta\omega/2 & \kappa a \\
\kappa a^{\dagger} & \Delta\omega/2
\end{array}
\right)
]
=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
u_{11} & u_{10} \\
u_{01} & u_{00}
\end{array}
\right),
\label{unitary-evolution-1}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
u_{11}
&=&
\cos(\sqrt{a^{\dagger}a+c+1}|\kappa|t)
+
i
\frac{\Delta \omega}{|\Delta\omega|}
\sqrt{c}
\frac{\sin(\sqrt{a^{\dagger}a+c+1}|\kappa|t)}{\sqrt{a^{\dagger}a+c+1}}, \nonumber \\
u_{10}
&=&
-i
\frac{\kappa}{|\kappa|}
\frac{\sin(\sqrt{a^{\dagger}a+c+1}|\kappa|t)}{\sqrt{a^{\dagger}a+c+1}}
a, \nonumber \\
u_{01}
&=&
-i
\frac{\kappa}{|\kappa|}
\frac{\sin(\sqrt{a^{\dagger}a+c}|\kappa|t)}{\sqrt{a^{\dagger}a+c}}
a^{\dagger}, \nonumber \\
u_{00}
&=&
\cos(\sqrt{a^{\dagger}a+c}|\kappa|t)
-
i
\frac{\Delta \omega}{|\Delta\omega|}
\sqrt{c}
\frac{\sin(\sqrt{a^{\dagger}a+c}|\kappa|t)}{\sqrt{a^{\dagger}a+c}},
\label{unitary-evolution-2} \end{aligned}$$ and $$c
=
(\frac{\Delta\omega}{2\kappa})^{2}.
\label{unitary-evolution-3}$$ Because we take the basis vectors $\{|1\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize A}},|0\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize A}}\}$, the indices $i,j\in\{1,0\}$ for $u_{ij}$ are arranged in descending order. That is to say, we take the index ‘$1$’ for representing the first row and the first column of the $2\times2$ matrix $U(t)$, and we take the index ‘$0$’ for representing the second row and the second column of the $2\times2$ matrix $U(t)$.
After these preparations, the probability for detecting the ground state of the atom $|g\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize A}}$ at the time $t$ is given by $$P_{g}(t)
=
\|_{\mbox{\scriptsize A}}\langle g|\psi_{\mbox{\scriptsize I}}(t)\rangle\|^{2}.$$ Moreover, the atomic population inversion is given by $$\langle\sigma_{z}(t)\rangle
=
\langle\psi_{\mbox{\scriptsize I}}(t)|\sigma_{z}|\psi_{\mbox{\scriptsize I}}(t)\rangle
=
1-2P_{g}(t).
\label{definition-atomic-population-inversion}$$
As a particular case, we consider the initial state to be in $|\psi_{\mbox{\scriptsize I}}(0)\rangle
=|g\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize A}}|\alpha\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize P}}$, where $|\alpha\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize P}}$ represents the coherent state, $$\begin{aligned}
|\alpha\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize P}}
&=&
\exp(\alpha a^{\dagger}-\alpha^{*}a)|0\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize P}} \nonumber \\
&=&
e^{-|\alpha|^{2}/2}
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\frac{\alpha^{n}}{\sqrt{n!}}|n\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize P}},
\label{zero-temperature-coherent-state}\end{aligned}$$ and $\alpha$ is an arbitrary complex number. From now on, for simplicity, we always let the parameter $\alpha$ characterizing the coherent state $|\alpha\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize P}}$ be real. Then, we obtain $P_{g}(t)$ in the form, $$\begin{aligned}
P_{g}(t)
&=&
%\left
\left\|
\begin{array}{c}
{
(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 1
\end{array}
)
} \\
\quad
\end{array}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
u_{11} & u_{10} \\
u_{01} & u_{00}
\end{array}
\right)
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
0 \\
|\alpha\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize P}}
\end{array}
\right)
\right\|^{2} \nonumber \\
&=&
{}_{\mbox{\scriptsize P}}
\langle\alpha|u_{00}^{\dagger}u_{00}|\alpha\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize P}} \nonumber \\
&=&
e^{-\alpha^{2}}
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\frac{\alpha^{2n}}{n!}
[\cos^{2}(\sqrt{n+c}|\kappa|t)
+
c
\frac{\sin^{2}(\sqrt{n+c}|\kappa|t)}{n+c}].
\label{Probability-collapse-and-revival-Rabi-oscillations-0}\end{aligned}$$ The atomic population inversion given by Eqs. (\[definition-atomic-population-inversion\]) and (\[Probability-collapse-and-revival-Rabi-oscillations-0\]) shows the collapse and the revival of the Rabi oscillations.
Here, we examine the time scale of the initial collapse and the period of the revival of the Rabi oscillations [@Barnett1997]. Learning from experience, we know this phenomenon becomes more distinct as $\alpha^{2}$ increases. Thus, we assume $\alpha^{2}\gg 1$. We rewrite the index of the summation $n$ as $n=\alpha^{2}+\delta n$ in Eq. (\[Probability-collapse-and-revival-Rabi-oscillations-0\]). Then, because of the Poisson distribution, the major contribution for the summation in Eq. (\[Probability-collapse-and-revival-Rabi-oscillations-0\]) comes from $|\delta n|<\alpha^{2}$. Moreover, for simplicity, we assume $c\ll \alpha^{2}$, and we neglect the term $[c/(n+c)]\sin^{2}(\sqrt{n+c}|\kappa|t)$ in the right-hand side of Eq. (\[Probability-collapse-and-revival-Rabi-oscillations-0\]).
From the above discussions and Eqs. (\[definition-atomic-population-inversion\]) and (\[Probability-collapse-and-revival-Rabi-oscillations-0\]), writing $\sqrt{n+c}
\simeq
(\alpha^{2}+n)/(2|\alpha|)$, we obtain the following approximation: $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\sigma_{z}(t)\rangle
&\simeq&
-
e^{-\alpha^{2}}
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\frac{\alpha^{2n}}{n!}
\frac{1}{2}
[
e^{i(\alpha^{2}+n)|\kappa|t/|\alpha|}
+
e^{-i(\alpha^{2}+n)|\kappa|t/|\alpha|}
] \nonumber \\
&=&
-
\exp[\alpha^{2}(\cos\frac{|\kappa|t}{|\alpha|}-1)]
\cos(|\alpha||\kappa|t+\alpha^{2}\sin\frac{|\kappa|t}{|\alpha|}).
\label{atomic-population-inversion-approximation}\end{aligned}$$ In Eq. (\[atomic-population-inversion-approximation\]), $\exp[\alpha^{2}(\cos(|\kappa|t/|\alpha|)-1)]$ represents the amplitude envelope of the wave, and $\cos[|\alpha||\kappa|t+\alpha^{2}\sin(|\kappa|t/|\alpha|)]$ represents the Rabi oscillations. Therefore, we can estimate the time scale of the initial collapse and the period of the revival of the Rabi oscillations at $|\kappa|^{-1}$ and $2\pi|\alpha|/|\kappa|$ around, respectively. Moreover, paying attention to $\alpha^{2}\sin(|\kappa|t/|\alpha|)\sim|\alpha||\kappa|t$ for $\alpha^{2}\gg 1$, we can estimate the period of the Rabi oscillations at about $\pi/(|\alpha||\kappa|)$.
\[section-review-TFD\]A brief review of the TFD
===============================================
In this section, we give a brief review of the TFD developed by Takahashi and Umezawa [@Takahashi1975; @Ojima1981; @Umezawa1982; @Umezawa1992]. The TFD is a method for describing the quantum mechanics at finite temperature. Using this formalism, we can describe the statistical average of an observable at finite temperature as a pure state expectation value. Thus, if we take the TFD formalism, we do not need to deal with a mixed state, which is a statistical ensemble of pure states at finite temperature.
In return for the above advantage, the TFD lets us introduce the so-called tilde particles corresponding to the ordinary particles. Then, we understand that the ordinary particles and the tilde particles represent the dynamical degree of freedom and the thermal degree of freedom, respectively. Thus, to construct the TFD formalism, we introduce a fictitious Hilbert space $\tilde{\cal H}$ corresponding to an original Hilbert space ${\cal H}$ and handle quantum mechanics on ${\cal H}\otimes\tilde{\cal H}$.
In this section, according to the TFD formalism, we define the thermal vacua of bosons and fermions. Moreover, we discuss the thermal coherent state proposed by Barnett, Knight, Mann and Revzen [@Barnett1985; @Mann1989a]. After these preparations, we rewrite the Hamiltonian of the JCM according to the TFD.
First, we consider the TFD formalism for describing the system of the bosons. We define the ordinary Hilbert space $${\cal H}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}:
\{|0\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}},|1\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}},
|2\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}},...\},$$ and its corresponding tilde space, $$\tilde{\cal H}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}:
\{|\tilde{0}\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}},|\tilde{1}\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}},
|\tilde{2}\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}},...\}.$$ Then, the TFD formalism for the bosons is defined on the following space: $$\{|n\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}\otimes |\tilde{m}\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}
\in
{\cal H}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}\otimes\tilde{\cal H}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}:
n,m\in\{0,1,2,..\}\}.$$ We write the creation and annihilation operators on the Hilbert space ${\cal H}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}$ as $a^{\dagger}$ and $a$, respectively. Moreover, we write the creation and annihilation operators on the Hilbert space $\tilde{\cal H}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}$ as $\tilde{a}^{\dagger}$ and $\tilde{a}$, respectively. Then, we assume the commutation relations, $$[a,a^{\dagger}]=[\tilde{a},\tilde{a}^{\dagger}]=1,
\quad
[a,\tilde{a}]=[a,\tilde{a}^{\dagger}]=0.
\label{ordinary-tilde-commutation-relations}$$
Next, we introduce the temperature $\beta=1/(k_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}T)$ as follows: $$\hat{U}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}(\theta)=\exp[i\theta(\beta)\hat{G}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}],
\label{definition-hat-U-operator}$$ $$\hat{G}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}=i(a\tilde{a}-\tilde{a}^{\dagger}a^{\dagger}),
\label{definition-hat-G-operator}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\cosh\theta(\beta)&=&[1-\exp(-\beta\epsilon)]^{-1/2}, \nonumber \\
\sinh\theta(\beta)&=&[\exp(\beta\epsilon)-1]^{-1/2},
\label{definition-theta-beta-1}\end{aligned}$$ where $\epsilon=\hbar\omega$. We note that the relations $\hat{G}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}^{\dagger}=\hat{G}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}$, $\hat{U}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}^{\dagger}(\theta)=\hat{U}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}^{-1}(\theta)$ and $\hat{U}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}(-\theta)=\hat{U}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}^{\dagger}(\theta)$ hold. In Eqs. (\[definition-hat-U-operator\]) and (\[definition-hat-G-operator\]), to emphasize that $\hat{G}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}$ and $\hat{U}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}(\theta)$ are operators acting on both ${\cal H}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}$ and $\tilde{\cal H}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}$, we put an accent (a hat) on them. Moreover, we pay attention to the fact that $\theta(\beta)(\geq 0)$ is real and $\theta(\beta)\to +0$ as $\beta\to +\infty$ in Eq. (\[definition-theta-beta-1\]). The index $\mbox{B}$ appearing in $\hat{G}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}$ and $\hat{U}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}(\theta)$ stands for the boson.
Because of introducing the temperature, the creation and annihilation operators defined on ${\cal H}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}$ and $\tilde{\cal H}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}$ are transformed as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
a
&\rightarrow&
a(\theta)
=\hat{U}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}(\theta)a\hat{U}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}^{\dagger}(\theta)
=
\cosh \theta(\beta)a
-
\sinh \theta(\beta)\tilde{a}^{\dagger}, \nonumber \\
\tilde{a}
&\rightarrow&
\tilde{a}(\theta)
=\hat{U}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}(\theta)\tilde{a}\hat{U}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}^{\dagger}(\theta)
=
\cosh \theta(\beta)\tilde{a}
-
\sinh \theta(\beta)a^{\dagger}.
\label{temperature-transformations-a-tilde-a}\end{aligned}$$ The transformation given by Eq. (\[temperature-transformations-a-tilde-a\]) is called the Bogoliubov transformation for two mode squeezed states. From Eqs. (\[ordinary-tilde-commutation-relations\]) and (\[temperature-transformations-a-tilde-a\]), we can derive the commutation relations, $$[a(\theta),a^{\dagger}(\theta)]=[\tilde{a}(\theta),\tilde{a}^{\dagger}(\theta)]=1,
\quad
[a(\theta),\tilde{a}(\theta)]=[a(\theta),\tilde{a}^{\dagger}(\theta)]=0.
\label{ordinary-tilde-commutation-relations-finite-temperature}$$ Thus, we can regard $a(\theta)$ and $\tilde{a}(\theta)$ as quasi-particles at the temperature $\beta$.
Here, we define the zero-temperature vacuum as $$\begin{aligned}
|0,\tilde{0}\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}
=
|0\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}
\otimes
|\tilde{0}\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}
\in{\cal H}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}\otimes\tilde{\cal H}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}.\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, referring to Sec. 2.2.3 of Ref. [@Umezawa1992], we define the thermal vacuum in the form, $$\begin{aligned}
|0(\theta)\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}
&=&
\hat{U}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}(\theta)
|0,\tilde{0}\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}} \nonumber \\
&=&
\exp(-\ln \cosh\theta)\exp[(\tanh\theta)a^{\dagger}\tilde{a}^{\dagger}]
|0,\tilde{0}\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}.
\label{definition-thermal-vacuum}\end{aligned}$$ From Eqs. (\[temperature-transformations-a-tilde-a\]) and (\[definition-thermal-vacuum\]), we obtain $$a(\theta)|0(\theta)\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}
=
\tilde{a}(\theta)|0(\theta)\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}
=
0.$$ Thus, we can consider the thermal vacuum $|0(\theta)\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}$ to be a vacuum for the quasi-particles, which are represented by $a(\theta)$ and $\tilde{a}(\theta)$.
Second, we consider the TFD formalism for describing the system of the fermions. We define the ordinary Hilbert space, $${\cal H}_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}:
\{|0\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}},|1\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}\},$$ and its corresponding tilde space, $$\tilde{\cal H}_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}:
\{|\tilde{0}\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}},|\tilde{1}\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}\}.$$ Then, the TFD formalism for the fermions is defined on the following space: $$\{|n\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}\otimes |\tilde{m}\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}
\in
{\cal H}_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}\otimes\tilde{\cal H}_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}:
n,m\in\{0,1\}\}.$$ We write the creation and annihilation operators on the Hilbert space ${\cal H}_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}$ as $c^{\dagger}$ and $c$, respectively. Moreover, we write the creation and annihilation operators on the Hilbert space $\tilde{\cal H}_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}$ as $\tilde{c}^{\dagger}$ and $\tilde{c}$, respectively. Then, we assume the anti-commutation relations, $$\{c,c^{\dagger}\}=\{\tilde{c},\tilde{c}^{\dagger}\}=1,
\quad
\{c,\tilde{c}\}=\{c,\tilde{c}^{\dagger}\}=0.
\label{ordinary-tilde-commutation-relations-fermion}$$
Next, we introduce the temperature $\beta$ as follows: $$\hat{U}_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}(\theta)=\exp[i\theta(\beta)\hat{G}_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}],
\label{definition-hat-U-operator-fermion}$$ $$\hat{G}_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}=i(c\tilde{c}-\tilde{c}^{\dagger}c^{\dagger}),
\label{definition-hat-G-operator-fermion}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\cos\theta(\beta)&=&[1+\exp(-\beta\epsilon)]^{-1/2}, \nonumber \\
\sin\theta(\beta)&=&\exp(-\beta\epsilon/2)[1+\exp(-\beta\epsilon)]^{-1/2}.
\label{definition-theta-beta-2}\end{aligned}$$ We note that the relations $\hat{G}_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}^{\dagger}=\hat{G}_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}$, $\hat{U}_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}^{\dagger}(\theta)=\hat{U}_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}^{-1}(\theta)$ and $\hat{U}_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}(-\theta)=\hat{U}_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}^{\dagger}(\theta)$ hold. Moreover, we pay attention to the fact that $\theta(\beta)(\geq 0)$ is real and $\theta(\beta)\to +0$ as $\beta\to +\infty$ in Eq. (\[definition-theta-beta-2\]). $\hat{U}_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}(\theta)$ in Eq. (\[definition-hat-U-operator-fermion\]) and $\hat{G}_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}$ in Eq. (\[definition-hat-G-operator-fermion\]) are again of the same forms as $\hat{U}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}(\theta)$ in Eq. (\[definition-hat-U-operator\]) and $\hat{G}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}$ in Eq. (\[definition-hat-G-operator\]), respectively. The index $\mbox{F}$ appearing in $\hat{U}_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}(\theta)$ and $\hat{G}_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}$ stands for the fermion.
Because of introducing the temperature, the creation and annihilation operators defined on ${\cal H}_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}$ and $\tilde{\cal H}_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}$ are transformed as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
c
&\rightarrow&
c(\theta)
=\hat{U}_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}(\theta)c\hat{U}_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}^{\dagger}(\theta)
=
\cos \theta(\beta)c
+
\sin \theta(\beta)\tilde{c}^{\dagger}, \nonumber \\
\tilde{c}
&\rightarrow&
\tilde{c}(\theta)
=\hat{U}_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}(\theta)\tilde{c}\hat{U}_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}^{\dagger}(\theta)
=
\cos \theta(\beta)\tilde{c}
-
\sin \theta(\beta)c^{\dagger}.
\label{temperature-transformations-c-tilde-c}\end{aligned}$$ From Eqs. (\[ordinary-tilde-commutation-relations-fermion\]) and (\[temperature-transformations-c-tilde-c\]), we can derive the anti-commutation relations, $$\{c(\theta),c^{\dagger}(\theta)\}=\{\tilde{c}(\theta),\tilde{c}^{\dagger}(\theta)\}=1,
\quad
\{c(\theta),\tilde{c}(\theta)\}=\{c(\theta),\tilde{c}^{\dagger}(\theta)\}=0.
\label{ordinary-tilde-commutation-relations-finite-temperature-fermion}$$ Thus, we can regard $c(\theta)$ and $\tilde{c}(\theta)$ as quasi-particles at the temperature $\beta$.
Here, we define the zero-temperature vacuum as $$\begin{aligned}
|0,\tilde{0}\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}
=
|0\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}
\otimes
|\tilde{0}\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}
\in{\cal H}_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}\otimes\tilde{\cal H}_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}.\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, referring to Sec. 2.4.2 of Ref. [@Umezawa1992], we define the thermal vacuum in the form, $$\begin{aligned}
|0(\theta)\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}
&=&
\hat{U}_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}(\theta)
|0,\tilde{0}\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}} \nonumber \\
&=&
[\cos\theta+(\sin\theta)c^{\dagger}\tilde{c}^{\dagger}]
|0,\tilde{0}\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}.
\label{definition-thermal-vacuum-fermion}\end{aligned}$$ From Eqs. (\[temperature-transformations-c-tilde-c\]) and (\[definition-thermal-vacuum-fermion\]), we obtain $$c(\theta)|0(\theta)\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}
=
\tilde{c}(\theta)|0(\theta)\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}
=
0.$$ Thus, we can consider the thermal vacuum $|0(\theta)\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}$ to be a vacuum for the quasi-particles, which are represented by $c(\theta)$ and $\tilde{c}(\theta)$.
Third, we consider the thermal coherent state. After the above preparations, Barnett, Knight, Mann and Revzen define the thermal coherent state as follows [@Barnett1985; @Mann1989a]: $$|\alpha,\tilde{\gamma};\theta\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}
=
\exp[\alpha a^{\dagger}(\theta)
+\tilde{\gamma}^{*}\tilde{a}^{\dagger}(\theta)
-\alpha^{*}a(\theta)
-\tilde{\gamma}\tilde{a}(\theta)]
|0(\theta)\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}},
\label{definition-thermal-coherent-state-1}$$ where $\alpha(\theta)$ and $\tilde{\alpha}(\theta)$ are given by Eq. (\[temperature-transformations-a-tilde-a\]).
However, the TFD formalism requires all state vectors to be invariant under the tilde conjugation, which is given by $$\begin{aligned}
(XY)\tilde{\;\;}&=&\tilde{X}\tilde{Y}, \nonumber \\
(\xi_{1}X+\xi_{2}Y)\tilde{\;\;}&=&\xi_{1}^{*}\tilde{X}+\xi_{2}^{*}\tilde{Y}, \nonumber \\
(X^{\dagger})\tilde{\;\;}&=&\tilde{X}^{\dagger}, \nonumber \\
(\tilde{X})\tilde{\;\;}&=&\sigma X,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\sigma
=
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1 & \mbox{(boson)}\\
-1 & \mbox{(fermion)}
\end{array}
\right.,$$ $X$ and $Y$ are arbitrary operators defined on ${\cal H}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}$ and ${\cal H}_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}$, and $\xi_{1}$ and $\xi_{2}$ are arbitrary complex numbers. For example, the thermal vacua are obviously invariant under the tilde conjugation, that is to say, $|0(\theta)\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}\tilde{\;\;}
=|0(\theta)\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}$, ${}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}\langle 0(\theta)|\tilde{\;\;}
={}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}\langle 0(\theta)|$, $|0(\theta)\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}\tilde{\;\;}
=|0(\theta)\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}$ and ${}_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}\langle 0(\theta)|\tilde{\;\;}
={}_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}\langle 0(\theta)|$. Moreover, we can show $(\hat{G}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}})\tilde{\;\;}=-\hat{G}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}$, $(\hat{U}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}(\theta))\tilde{\;\;}=\hat{U}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}(\theta)$, $(\hat{G}_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}})\tilde{\;\;}=-\hat{G}_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}$ and $(\hat{U}_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}(\theta))\tilde{\;\;}=\hat{U}_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}(\theta)$, at ease.
In the TFD formalism, all state vectors realized actually in the physical system have to be invariant under the tilde conjugation. Thus, not only the time-evolution but also all possible transitions of state vectors have to be invariant under the tilde conjugation.
Requiring $|\alpha,\tilde{\gamma};\theta\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}$ given by Eq. (\[definition-thermal-coherent-state-1\]) to be invariant under the tilde conjugation, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
|\alpha;\theta\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}
&=&
|\alpha,\alpha^{*};\theta\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}} \nonumber \\
&=&
\exp[\alpha a^{\dagger}(\theta)
+\alpha\tilde{a}^{\dagger}(\theta)
-\alpha^{*}a(\theta)
-\alpha^{*}\tilde{a}(\theta)]
|0(\theta)\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}.
\label{definition-thermal-coherent-state-2}\end{aligned}$$ From now on, we call this state the thermal coherent state [@Mann1989b; @Kireev1989; @Mann1989c]. Moreover, for simplicity, we assume $\alpha$ characterizing $|\alpha;\theta\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}$ to be always real.
In the following paragraphs, we examine the physical meanings of the thermal vacua, $|0(\theta)\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}$ and $|0(\theta)\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}$.
First, we clarify the physical meanings of the thermal vacuum for the bosons $|0(\theta)\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}$. We begin by considering the density operator defined on ${\cal H}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}$, $$\rho_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}(\theta)
=
\mbox{Tr}_{\tilde{\cal H}}|0(\theta)\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}
{}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}\langle 0(\theta)|.
\label{density-operator-boson-thermal-vacuum-0}$$ Then, we derive an explicit representation of $\rho_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}(\theta)$ as follows: At first, from Eq. (\[definition-thermal-vacuum\]) and (\[density-operator-boson-thermal-vacuum-0\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}(\theta)
&=&
\frac{1}{\cosh^{2}\theta}
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\frac{1}{n!}
{}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}\langle\tilde{0}|\tilde{a}^{n}
\exp[(\tanh\theta)a^{\dagger}\tilde{a}^{\dagger}]
|0,\tilde{0}\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}} \nonumber \\
&&\times
{}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}\langle 0,\tilde{0}|
\exp[(\tanh\theta)\tilde{a}a](\tilde{a}^{\dagger})^{n}
|\tilde{0}\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}.
\label{density-operator-thermal-vacuum-boson-1}\end{aligned}$$ Next, we apply the following relation to Eq. (\[density-operator-thermal-vacuum-boson-1\]): $$\exp[-(\tanh\theta)a^{\dagger}\tilde{a}^{\dagger}]
\tilde{a}^{n}
\exp[(\tanh\theta)a^{\dagger}\tilde{a}^{\dagger}]
=
[\tilde{a}+(\tanh\theta)a^{\dagger}]^{n}.
\label{formula-a-tilde-a-condensation-1}$$ Then using Eq. (\[definition-theta-beta-1\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}(\theta)
&=&
\frac{1}{\cosh^{2}\theta}
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\tanh^{2n}\theta
|n\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}{}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}\langle n| \nonumber \\
&=&
(1-e^{-\beta\epsilon})\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}e^{-n\beta\epsilon}
|n\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}{}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}\langle n|.
\label{explicit-form-density-operator-thermal-vacuum-boson}\end{aligned}$$
Looking at Eq. (\[explicit-form-density-operator-thermal-vacuum-boson\]), we notice that $\rho_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}(\theta)$ is an ensemble of quantum states $\{|n\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}:n=0,1,2,...\}$, into each of which $n$ bosons ($a$-particles) are put. Moreover, the statistical probability of $|n\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}$ is given by $(1-e^{-\beta\epsilon})e^{-n\beta\epsilon}
=\mbox{Const.}\times e^{-\beta(n\epsilon)}$, so that $\rho_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}(\theta)$ represents a canonical ensemble of the Bose-Einstein distribution in thermal equilibrium. From these considerations, we understand that the $a$-particle represents the dynamical degree of freedom and the $\tilde{a}$-particle represents the thermal degree of freedom in $|0(\theta)\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}
\in
{\cal H}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}
\otimes
\tilde{\cal H}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}$.
Second, we clarify the physical meanings of the thermal vacuum for fermions $|0(\theta)\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}$. We begin by considering the density operator defined on ${\cal H}_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}$, $$\rho_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}(\theta)
=
\mbox{Tr}_{\tilde{\cal H}}|0(\theta)\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}
{}_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}\langle 0(\theta)|.
\label{density-operator-fermion-thermal-vacuum-0}$$ From Eqs. (\[definition-theta-beta-2\]), (\[definition-thermal-vacuum-fermion\]) and (\[density-operator-fermion-thermal-vacuum-0\]), we derive an explicit representation of $\rho_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}(\theta)$ in the form, $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}(\theta)
&=&
\sum_{n\in\{0,1\}}
{}_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}\langle\tilde{n}|
[\cos\theta+(\sin\theta)c^{\dagger}\tilde{c}^{\dagger}]
|0,\tilde{0}\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}
{}_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}\langle 0,\tilde{0}|
[\cos\theta+(\sin\theta)\tilde{c}c]
|\tilde{n}\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}} \nonumber \\
&=&
\cos^{2}\theta|0\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}{}_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}\langle 0|
+
\sin^{2}\theta|1\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}{}_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}\langle 1| \nonumber \\
&=&
\frac{1}{1+e^{-\beta\epsilon}}
|0\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}{}_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}\langle 0|
+
\frac{e^{-\beta\epsilon}}{1+e^{-\beta\epsilon}}
|1\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}{}_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}\langle 1|.
\label{density-operator-thermal-vacuum-fermion-1}\end{aligned}$$
Looking at Eq. (\[density-operator-thermal-vacuum-fermion-1\]), we notice that $\rho(\theta)_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}$ is an ensemble of quantum states $\{|n\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}:n\in\{0,1\}\}$, into each of which $n$ fermions ($c$-particles) are put. Moreover, the statistical probability of $|n\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}$ is given by $(1+e^{-\beta\epsilon})^{-1}e^{-n\beta\epsilon}
=\mbox{Const.}\times e^{-\beta(n\epsilon)}$, so that $\rho(\theta)_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}$ represents a canonical ensemble of the Fermi-Dirac distribution in thermal equilibrium. From these considerations, we understand that the $c$-particle represents the dynamical degree of freedom and the $\tilde{c}$-particle represents the thermal degree of freedom in $|0(\theta)\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}
\in
{\cal H}_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}
\otimes
\tilde{\cal H}_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}$.
For convenience of calculations that appear in the remains of this paper, using Eqs. (\[ordinary-tilde-commutation-relations\]) and (\[temperature-transformations-a-tilde-a\]), we rewrite $|\alpha;\theta\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}$ given by Eq. (\[definition-thermal-coherent-state-2\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
|\alpha;\theta\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}
&=&
\exp[\hat{U}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}(\theta)
(\alpha a^{\dagger}
+\alpha\tilde{a}^{\dagger}
-\alpha a
-\alpha\tilde{a})
\hat{U}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}^{\dagger}(\theta)]
\hat{U}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}(\theta)
|0,\tilde{0}\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}} \nonumber \\
&=&
\hat{U}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}(\theta)
\exp[\alpha(a^{\dagger}-a)]
\exp[\alpha(\tilde{a}^{\dagger}-\tilde{a})]
|0,\tilde{0}\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}} \nonumber \\
&=&
\hat{U}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}(\theta)
|\alpha\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}
|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}},
\label{another-form-of-thermal-coherent-state-1}\end{aligned}$$ where $|\alpha\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}$ and $|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}$ are the coherent states at zero temperature defined on ${\cal H}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}$ and $\tilde{\cal H}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}$, respectively.
Next, after the above preparations, we discuss how to construct the finite-temperature JCM according to the TFD formalism from the original JCM Hamiltonian.
For example, we consider a system, which consists of bosons $a$ and fermions $c$. We assume that the time-evolution of the system is reversible and it never causes dissipation. This implies that the Hamiltonian $H$, which is the Hermitian operator corresponding to the total energy of the system (the $a$-particles and the $c$-particles), is equivalent to the generator of the unitary operator for the time-evolution.
Obeying the TFD formalism, we introduce the $\tilde{a}$-particle corresponding to the $a$-particle and the $\tilde{c}$-particle corresponding to the $c$-particle into the system. Because $\tilde{a}$ and $\tilde{c}$ are fictitious particles representing the thermal degree of freedom, the Schr[ö]{}dinger equation governing the time-evolution of the particles $a$ and $c$ never suffers form the thermal effects. This observation suggests that the Schr[ö]{}dinger equation for $a$ and $c$ never changes in spite of introducing $\tilde{a}$ and $\tilde{c}$. From these considerations, we can conclude that the particles ($a$ and $c$) are never coupled to the tilde particles ($\tilde{a}$ and $\tilde{c}$) direct in the Hamiltonian. Hence, the total Hamiltonian based on the TFD formalism has to be a sum of the interaction terms of the particles ($a$ and $c$) and the interaction terms of the tilde particles ($\tilde{a}$ and $\tilde{c}$).
Here, we describe the total Hamiltonian for the TFD formalism as $\hat{H}$. Then, letting the Schr[ö]{}dinger equation for the whole system consisting of the particles of $a$, $\tilde{a}$, $c$ and $\tilde{c}$ be invariant under the tilde conjugation, we can express $\hat{H}$ in the form, $$\hat{H}=H-\tilde{H},
\label{hat-Hamiltonian-0}$$ where $\tilde{H}=(H)\tilde{\;\;}$ [@Takahashi1975; @Ojima1981; @Umezawa1982; @Umezawa1992]. If we give the Hamiltonian of the system $\hat{H}$ in the form of Eq. (\[hat-Hamiltonian-0\]), the time-evolution of the whole system consisting of the particles and the tilde particles is reversible and it never causes dissipation.
In Eq. (\[hat-Hamiltonian-0\]), we emphasize the following: The Hamiltonian $H$ is constructed from $a$ and $c$. Then, because of $\tilde{H}=(H)\tilde{\;\;}$, the Hamiltonian $\tilde{H}$ has to include both $\tilde{a}$ and $\tilde{c}$. This implies that we have to introduce the temperature into both the $a$-particles and the $c$-particles.
If the Hamiltonian of the total system is given by Eq. (\[hat-Hamiltonian-0\]), the thermal vacua $|0(\theta)\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}$ given by Eq. (\[definition-thermal-vacuum\]) and $|0(\theta)\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}$ given by Eq. (\[definition-thermal-vacuum-fermion\]) are not dependent on time, so that they are stationary states. We can explain this fact as follows: Turning our eyes towards Eq. (\[definition-thermal-vacuum\]), we notice that the condensation of $(a\tilde{a})$-pairs into $|0(\theta)\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}$ occurs. Thus, in the vacuum $|0(\theta)\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}$, the $a$-particle receives a phase factor $\exp[-i(H/\hbar)t]$ and the $\tilde{a}$-particle receives a phase factor $\exp[i(\tilde{H}/\hbar)t]$. Then, these phase factors cancel out their effects with each other, and the ($a\tilde{a}$)-pair acts like a zero-energy boson. Hence, we understand that the thermal vacuum $|0(\theta)\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}$ is not dependent on time. We can apply a similar discussion to the thermal vacuum of the fermions, because we can observe the condensation of $(c\tilde{c})$-pairs into $|0(\theta)\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}$ in Eq. (\[definition-thermal-vacuum-fermion\]).
To obtain the JCM Hamiltonian $\hat{H}$ which takes the form given by Eq. (\[hat-Hamiltonian-0\]), we rewrite the original Hamiltonian $H$ of the JCM given by Eq. (\[JCM-Hamiltonian-0\]) as $$H
=
\frac{\hbar}{2}\omega_{0}(2c^{\dagger}c-1)
+
\hbar\omega a^{\dagger}a
+
\hbar\kappa(c^{\dagger}a+ca^{\dagger}).
\label{JCM-Hamiltonian-1}$$ The Pauli matrices $\sigma_{z}$, $\sigma_{+}$ and $\sigma_{-}$ in the original Hamiltonian $H$ given by Eq. (\[JCM-Hamiltonian-0\]) are replaced with the creation and annihilation operators of the fermions $(2c^{\dagger}c-1)$, $c^{\dagger}$ and $c$ in the rewritten Hamiltonian $H$ given by Eq. (\[JCM-Hamiltonian-1\]).
Extending the Hamiltonian $H$ given by Eq. (\[JCM-Hamiltonian-1\]) according to Eq. (\[hat-Hamiltonian-0\]), we obtain $$\hat{H}
=
(H_{0}+H_{\mbox{\scriptsize I}})
-
(\tilde{H}_{0}+\tilde{H}_{\mbox{\scriptsize I}}),
\label{extended-JCM-Hamiltonian-0}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
H_{0}
&=&
\frac{\hbar}{2}\omega_{0}
(2c^{\dagger}c-1)
+
\hbar\omega a^{\dagger}a, \nonumber \\
H_{\mbox{\scriptsize I}}
&=&
\hbar\kappa(c^{\dagger}a+ca^{\dagger}), \nonumber \\
\tilde{H}_{0}
&=&
\frac{\hbar}{2}\omega_{0}
(2\tilde{c}^{\dagger}\tilde{c}-1)
+
\hbar\omega \tilde{a}^{\dagger}\tilde{a}, \nonumber \\
\tilde{H}_{\mbox{\scriptsize I}}
&=&
\hbar\kappa(\tilde{c}^{\dagger}\tilde{a}+\tilde{c}\tilde{a}^{\dagger}).
\label{extended-JCM-Hamiltonian-1}\end{aligned}$$ In this paper, we concentrate on examining the Hamiltonian $\hat{H}$ given by Eqs. (\[extended-JCM-Hamiltonian-0\]) and (\[extended-JCM-Hamiltonian-1\]).
Here, we think about some Hamiltonians, which are proposed in the other works. Especially, we examine whether or not we can regard them as genuine JCM Hamiltonians based on the TFD formalism.
Barnett, Knight and Azuma consider the following Hamiltonian in Refs. [@Barnett1985; @Azuma2010]: $$\hat{H}_{\mbox{\scriptsize BKA}}
=
\frac{\hbar}{2}\omega_{0}\sigma_{z}
+
\hbar\omega(a^{\dagger}a-\tilde{a}^{\dagger}\tilde{a})
+
\hbar\kappa(\sigma_{+}a+\sigma_{-}a^{\dagger}).
\label{TFD-JCM-Hamiltonian-Azuma}$$ However, the Hamiltonian $\hat{H}_{\mbox{\scriptsize BKA}}$ given by Eq. (\[TFD-JCM-Hamiltonian-Azuma\]) does not include the tilde operators corresponding to the atomic operators $\sigma_{z}$ and $\sigma_{\pm}$, so that the states of the atom are always at zero temperature. Because the Hamiltonian $\hat{H}_{\mbox{\scriptsize BKA}}$ given by Eq. (\[TFD-JCM-Hamiltonian-Azuma\]) does not introduce the temperature into the atom, we cannot regard it as a genuine Hamiltonian based on the TFD formalism.
Fan and Lu propose the following Hamiltonian in Ref. [@Fan2004]: $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{H}_{\mbox{\scriptsize FL}}
&=&
\frac{\hbar}{2}\omega_{0}\sigma_{z}
+
\hbar\omega(a^{\dagger}a-\tilde{a}^{\dagger}\tilde{a}) \nonumber \\
&&
+
\hbar\kappa
[
\sigma_{+}
\sqrt{
\frac{a-\tilde{a}^{\dagger}}{a^{\dagger}-\tilde{a}}
}
\sqrt{a^{\dagger}a-\tilde{a}^{\dagger}\tilde{a}}
+
\sqrt{a^{\dagger}a-\tilde{a}^{\dagger}\tilde{a}}
\sqrt{
\frac{a^{\dagger}-\tilde{a}}{a-\tilde{a}^{\dagger}}
}
\sigma_{-}
].
\label{Fan-Lu-Hamiltonian}\end{aligned}$$ The reason why Fan and Lu construct the Hamiltonian $\hat{H}_{\mbox{\scriptsize FL}}$ given by Eq. (\[Fan-Lu-Hamiltonian\]) is as follows: They find the commutation relations, $$\begin{aligned}
{[}
a^{\dagger}a-\tilde{a}^{\dagger}\tilde{a},
\sqrt{\frac{a^{\dagger}-\tilde{a}}{a-\tilde{a}^{\dagger}}}
{]}
&=&
\sqrt{\frac{a^{\dagger}-\tilde{a}}{a-\tilde{a}^{\dagger}}}, \nonumber \\
{[}
a^{\dagger}a-\tilde{a}^{\dagger}\tilde{a},
\sqrt{\frac{a-\tilde{a}^{\dagger}}{a^{\dagger}-\tilde{a}}}
{]}
&=&
-
\sqrt{\frac{a-\tilde{a}^{\dagger}}{a^{\dagger}-\tilde{a}}}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, if we regard $(a^{\dagger}a-\tilde{a}^{\dagger}\tilde{a})$ as an extended number operator, we can think\
$\sqrt{(a^{\dagger}-\tilde{a})/(a-\tilde{a}^{\dagger})}$ and $\sqrt{(a-\tilde{a}^{\dagger})/(a^{\dagger}-\tilde{a})}$ to be extended creation and annihilation operators, respectively. From these suggestions, Fan and Lu propose the Hamiltonian $\hat{H}_{\mbox{\scriptsize FL}}$ given in Eq. (\[Fan-Lu-Hamiltonian\]). However, Fan and Lu’s Hamiltonian $\hat{H}_{\mbox{\scriptsize FL}}$ does not include the tilde operators corresponding to the atomic operators $\sigma_{z}$ and $\sigma_{\pm}$. Thus, it can not be regarded as a genuine Hamiltonian based on the TFD formalism. Moreover, in the Hamiltonian $\hat{H}_{\mbox{\scriptsize FL}}$, the operators $a$ and $a^{\dagger}$ are coupled direct to the tilde operators $\tilde{a}$ and $\tilde{a}^{\dagger}$. Thus, Fan and Lu’s system suffers from dissipation during the time-evolution. To examine their system, we have to deal with non-equilibrium states. Because it is beyond the purpose of this paper, we do not involve ourselves in it.
From now on, we examine the Hamiltonian $\hat{H}$ given by Eqs. (\[extended-JCM-Hamiltonian-0\]) and (\[extended-JCM-Hamiltonian-1\]). We can divide the Hamiltonian $\hat{H}$ into two parts as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{H}
&=&
\hbar(\hat{C}_{1}+\hat{C}_{2}), \nonumber \\
\hat{C}_{1}
&=&
\omega
[(c^{\dagger}c-\tilde{c}^{\dagger}\tilde{c})
+
(a^{\dagger}a-\tilde{a}^{\dagger}\tilde{a})], \nonumber \\
\hat{C}_{2}
&=&
\kappa(c^{\dagger}a+ca^{\dagger})
-
\kappa(\tilde{c}^{\dagger}\tilde{a}+\tilde{c}\tilde{a}^{\dagger})
-
\Delta\omega(c^{\dagger}c-\tilde{c}^{\dagger}\tilde{c}).
\label{decomposition-hat-Hamiltonian}\end{aligned}$$ Then, we obtain a commutation relation $[\hat{C}_{1},\hat{C}_{2}]=0$. Moreover, we can diagonalize $\hat{C}_{1}$ at ease. Thus, we describe the time-evolution of the total system with the interaction picture as follows: First, we write the state vector of the total system in the Schr[ö]{}dinger picture as $|\Psi_{\mbox{\scriptsize S}}(t)\rangle$. Second, assuming $|\Psi_{\mbox{\scriptsize I}}(0)\rangle
=|\Psi_{\mbox{\scriptsize S}}(0)\rangle$, we define the state vector of the total system in the interaction picture as $|\Psi_{\mbox{\scriptsize I}}(t)\rangle
=\exp(i\hat{C}_{1}t)|\Psi_{\mbox{\scriptsize S}}(t)\rangle$. Hence, we can describe the time-evolution as $|\Psi_{\mbox{\scriptsize I}}(t)\rangle
=\hat{U}(t)|\Psi_{\mbox{\scriptsize I}}(0)\rangle$, where $\hat{U}(t)=\exp(-i\hat{C}_{2}t)$.
The unitary operator for the time-evolution of $|\Psi_{\mbox{\scriptsize I}}(t)\rangle$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{U}(t)
&=&
\exp[-i\hat{C}_{2}t] \nonumber \\
&=&
U(t)\otimes \tilde{U}(t) \nonumber \\
&=&
\exp[-it
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
-\Delta\omega/2 & \kappa a \\
\kappa a^{\dagger} & \Delta\omega/2
\end{array}
\right)
]
\otimes
\exp[it
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
-\Delta\omega/2 & \kappa \tilde{a} \\
\kappa \tilde{a}^{\dagger} & \Delta\omega/2
\end{array}
\right)
].
\label{hat-time-evolution-unitary-operator-0}\end{aligned}$$ In the right-hand side of Eq. (\[hat-time-evolution-unitary-operator-0\]), the first $2\times 2$ matrix of the tensor product acts on ${\cal H}_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}$ and the second $2\times 2$ matrix of the tensor product acts on $\tilde{\cal H}_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}$. The $2\times 2$ matrix $U(t)$ appearing in Eq. (\[hat-time-evolution-unitary-operator-0\]) and the unitary operator for the time-evolution defined in Eq. (\[unitary-evolution-1\]) are in the same form. Thus, the elements of the $2\times 2$ matrices $U(t)$ and $\tilde{U}(t)$ appearing in Eq. (\[hat-time-evolution-unitary-operator-0\]) are given by Eq. (\[unitary-evolution-2\]).
\[section-thermal-effects-period-qualitative-estimation\] Thermal effects of the period of the revival of the Rabi oscillations
===============================================================================================================================
In this paper, putting the single cavity mode and the atom in the thermal coherent state $|\alpha;\theta\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}$ and the thermal vacuum $|0(\theta)\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}$, respectively, at the time $t=0$, we aim at examining the time-evolution of the JCM. We assume that the system consisting of the single cavity mode and the atom evolve in time without dissipation, and it maintains the constant temperature $\beta$ all the time. As shown in Sec. \[section-review-JCM\], we can estimate that the period of the revival of the Rabi oscillations at zero temperature is around $2\pi|\alpha|/|\kappa|$. In this section, we discuss how the period changes at finite low temperature. We evaluate the thermal effects of the period in an intuitive manner.
The parameter $|\alpha|$, which characterizes the ordinary zero-temperature coherent state $|\alpha\rangle$, is given by $$|\alpha|
=
(\langle\alpha|a^{\dagger}a|\alpha\rangle)^{1/2}.$$ Thus, we can guess that the parameter $|\alpha|$ varies with the thermal effects of the finite low temperature as $$|\alpha|
\rightarrow
(\langle\alpha;\theta|a^{\dagger}a|\alpha;\theta\rangle)^{1/2}.$$
On the other hand, using Eqs. (\[ordinary-tilde-commutation-relations\]), (\[definition-hat-U-operator\]), (\[definition-hat-G-operator\]), (\[temperature-transformations-a-tilde-a\]) and (\[another-form-of-thermal-coherent-state-1\]), and paying attention to $a|\alpha\rangle=\alpha|\alpha\rangle$ and $\tilde{a}|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle=\alpha|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&&
\langle\alpha;\theta|a^{\dagger}a|\alpha;\theta\rangle \nonumber \\
&=&
\langle\alpha|\langle\tilde{\alpha}|
\hat{U}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}(-\theta)
a^{\dagger}a
\hat{U}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}^{\dagger}(-\theta)
|\alpha\rangle|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle \nonumber \\
&=&
\langle\alpha|\langle\tilde{\alpha}|
a^{\dagger}(-\theta)a(-\theta)
|\alpha\rangle|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle \nonumber \\
&=&
\alpha^{2}e^{2\theta}
+
(1/4)(e^{2\theta}+e^{-2\theta}-2).\end{aligned}$$
From the above observations, we can expect the following: assuming $\alpha^{2}\gg 1$ and $\theta\ll 1$, the thermal effects let the parameter characterizing the coherent state change under the low-temperature limit as $$|\alpha|
\rightarrow
(\langle\alpha;\theta|a^{\dagger}a|\alpha;\theta\rangle)^{1/2}
\simeq
|\alpha|e^{\theta}.
\label{thermal-effect-of-alpha-coherent-state-0}$$ Thus, we can expect that the period of the revival of the Rabi oscillations at finite low temperature varies as $$2\pi|\alpha|/|\kappa|
\rightarrow
2\pi|\alpha|e^{\theta}/|\kappa|.
\label{thermal-effect-period-rivival-Rabi-oscillations}$$ This phenomenon is confirmed by numerical calculations in Sec. \[section-numerical-calculations\].
The intuitive discussions given in this section is effective, when we can specify the whole system with the constant temperature $\beta$. If the system is in a non-equilibrium state and the temperature $\beta$ varies during its time-evolution, we cannot apply the above intuitive discussions to the system, so that Eq. (\[thermal-effect-period-rivival-Rabi-oscillations\]) does not hold.
\[section-formulation-perturbetion-theory\]The formulation of the perturbation theory
=====================================================================================
In this section, we initially put the states of the atom and the cavity field in the thermal vacuum of the fermions $|0(\theta)\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}$ and the thermal coherent state $|\alpha;\beta\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}$, respectively. Then, we formulate the time-evolution of the JCM based on the TFD discussed in Sec. \[section-review-TFD\] as the perturbation theory under the low-temperature limit. After formulating the perturbation theory here, we estimate the zero-th, first, second and third order corrections in Secs. \[section-0th-order-correction-term\], \[section-1st-order-correction-term\], \[section-2nd-order-correction-term\] and Appendix \[section-3rd-order-correction-term\]. To evaluate these correction terms, we make use of techniques for calculations developed in Ref. [@Azuma2010].
At first, we express the state of the system for $t=0$ in the form, $$|\Psi_{\mbox{\scriptsize I}}(0)\rangle
=
|0(\Theta)\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}
|\alpha;\theta\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}.
\label{extended-JCM-initial-state}$$ During the time-evolution of the system, we assume the atom and the cavity mode do not suffer dissipation and maintain the constant temperature $\beta$. Thus, from Eqs. (\[definition-theta-beta-1\]) and (\[definition-theta-beta-2\]), the parameters of the temperature for the fermionic atom $\Theta(\beta)$ and the bosonic cavity mode $\theta(\beta)$ are given in the following forms, respectively: $$\begin{aligned}
\cos\Theta(\beta)
&=&
[1+\exp(-\beta\hbar\omega_{0})]^{-1/2}, \nonumber \\
\sin\Theta(\beta)
&=&
\exp(-\beta\hbar\omega_{0}/2)
[1+\exp(-\beta\hbar\omega_{0})]^{-1/2}, \nonumber \\
\cosh\theta(\beta)
&=&
[1-\exp(-\beta\hbar\omega)]^{-1/2}, \nonumber \\
\sinh\theta(\beta)
&=&
[\exp(\beta\hbar\omega)-1]^{-1/2},
\label{definition-temperature-JCM-0}\end{aligned}$$ where $\omega_{0}$ represents the transition frequency of the two-level atom and $\omega$ represents the frequency of the single cavity mode, as defined in Eq. (\[JCM-Hamiltonian-0\]). From Eqs. (\[another-form-of-thermal-coherent-state-1\]) and (\[hat-time-evolution-unitary-operator-0\]), we obtain $|\Psi_{\mbox{\scriptsize I}}(t)\rangle$ as $$\begin{aligned}
|\Psi_{\mbox{\scriptsize I}}(t)\rangle
&=&
\hat{U}(t)|\Psi_{\mbox{\scriptsize I}}(0)\rangle \nonumber \\
&=&
[U(t)\otimes\tilde{U}(t)]
|0(\Theta)\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}
|\alpha;\theta\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}} \nonumber \\
&=&
[U(t)\otimes\tilde{U}(t)]
[
|0(\Theta)\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}
\hat{U}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}(\theta)
|\alpha\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}
].
\label{state-vector-Psi_I_t-0}\end{aligned}$$
From Eq. (\[definition-thermal-vacuum-fermion\]), we can rewrite $|0(\Theta)\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}$ in the form, $$|0(\Theta)\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}
=
\cos\Theta|0,\tilde{0}\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}
+
\sin\Theta|1,\tilde{1}\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}.
\label{thermal-vacuum-fermion-2}$$ Taking $\{|i,\tilde{j}\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}:i,j\in\{1,0\}\}$ for the basis vectors of the four-dimensional Hilbert space ${\cal H}_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}\otimes\tilde{\cal H}_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}$, we can write down $|0(\Theta)\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}$ as a four-component vector, $$|0(\Theta)\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}
=
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\sin\Theta \\
0 \\
0 \\
\cos\Theta
\end{array}
\right),
\label{fermion-thermal-vacuum-4-component-vector-0}$$ where the components of the above vector are arranged in the order of $|1,\tilde{1}\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}$, $|1,\tilde{0}\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}$, $|0,\tilde{1}\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}$ and $|0,\tilde{0}\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}$.
Thus, writing $|\Psi_{\mbox{\scriptsize I}}(t)\rangle$ as the four-component vector, we obtain $$|\Psi_{\mbox{\scriptsize I}}(t)\rangle
=
[U(t)\otimes\tilde{U}(t)]
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\sin\Theta
\hat{U}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}(\theta)
|\alpha\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}} \\
0 \\
0 \\
\cos\Theta
\hat{U}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}(\theta)
|\alpha\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}
\end{array}
\right).$$ Moreover, expressing $U(t)\otimes\tilde{U}(t)$ in the form of the $4\times 4$ matrix, $$U(t)\otimes\tilde{U}(t)
=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
u_{11}\tilde{U}(t) & u_{10}\tilde{U}(t) \\
u_{01}\tilde{U}(t) & u_{00}\tilde{U}(t)
\end{array}
\right),$$ $$\tilde{U}(t)
=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\tilde{u}_{11} & \tilde{u}_{10} \\
\tilde{u}_{01} & \tilde{u}_{00}
\end{array}
\right),
\label{definition-tilde-U-0}$$ where $\{u_{ij}:i,j\in\{1,0\}\}$ and $\{\tilde{u}_{ij}:i,j\in\{1,0\}\}$ are given by Eq. (\[unitary-evolution-2\]), we can write down the four-component vector $|\Psi_{\mbox{\scriptsize I}}(t)\rangle$ as the following explicit form: $$|\Psi_{\mbox{\scriptsize I}}(t)\rangle
=
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\psi_{1\tilde{1}} \\
\psi_{1\tilde{0}} \\
\psi_{0\tilde{1}} \\
\psi_{0\tilde{0}}
\end{array}
\right),$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_{1\tilde{1}}
&=&
(\sin\Theta u_{11}\tilde{u}_{11}+\cos\Theta u_{10}\tilde{u}_{10})
\hat{U}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}(\theta)
|\alpha\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}, \nonumber \\
\psi_{1\tilde{0}}
&=&
(\sin\Theta u_{11}\tilde{u}_{01}+\cos\Theta u_{10}\tilde{u}_{00})
\hat{U}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}(\theta)
|\alpha\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}, \nonumber \\
\psi_{0\tilde{1}}
&=&
(\sin\Theta u_{01}\tilde{u}_{11}+\cos\Theta u_{00}\tilde{u}_{10})
\hat{U}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}(\theta)
|\alpha\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}, \nonumber \\
\psi_{0\tilde{0}}
&=&
(\sin\Theta u_{01}\tilde{u}_{01}+\cos\Theta u_{00}\tilde{u}_{00})
\hat{U}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}(\theta)
|\alpha\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}.\end{aligned}$$
Hence, the probability that we detect the ground state of the atom at zero temperature in the state of the total system $|\Psi_{\mbox{\scriptsize I}}(t)\rangle$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
P_{g}(\Theta,\theta;t)
&=&
\|{}_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}\langle 0,\tilde{0}|\Psi_{\mbox{\scriptsize I}}(t)\rangle\|^{2}
+
\|{}_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}\langle 0,\tilde{1}|\Psi_{\mbox{\scriptsize I}}(t)\rangle\|^{2} \nonumber \\
&=&
\|\psi_{0\tilde{0}}\|^{2}+\|\psi_{0\tilde{1}}\|^{2} \nonumber \\
&=&
{}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}\langle\alpha|
{}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}\langle\tilde{\alpha}|
\hat{U}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}^{\dagger}(\theta)
[
\sin^{2}\Theta u_{01}^{\dagger}u_{01}\tilde{u}_{01}^{\dagger}\tilde{u}_{01} \nonumber \\
&&
+
\sin\Theta\cos\Theta
(u_{01}^{\dagger}u_{00}\tilde{u}_{01}^{\dagger}\tilde{u}_{00}
+
u_{00}^{\dagger}u_{01}\tilde{u}_{00}^{\dagger}\tilde{u}_{01}) \nonumber \\
&&
+
\cos^{2}\Theta u_{00}^{\dagger}u_{00}\tilde{u}_{00}^{\dagger}\tilde{u}_{00} \nonumber \\
&&
+
\sin^{2}\Theta u_{01}^{\dagger}u_{01}\tilde{u}_{11}^{\dagger}\tilde{u}_{11} \nonumber \\
&&
+
\sin\Theta\cos\Theta
(u_{01}^{\dagger}u_{00}\tilde{u}_{11}^{\dagger}\tilde{u}_{10}
+
u_{00}^{\dagger}u_{01}\tilde{u}_{10}^{\dagger}\tilde{u}_{11}) \nonumber \\
&&
+
\cos^{2}\Theta u_{00}^{\dagger}u_{00}\tilde{u}_{10}^{\dagger}\tilde{u}_{10}
]
\hat{U}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}(\theta)
|\alpha\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}
|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}.
\label{Probability-atom-ground-state-theta-0}\end{aligned}$$ Here, we pay attention to the following fact: Because $\tilde{U}(t)$ given by Eq. (\[definition-tilde-U-0\]) is a unitary matrix, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{u}_{11}^{\dagger}\tilde{u}_{11}+\tilde{u}_{01}^{\dagger}\tilde{u}_{01}
&=&
1, \nonumber \\
\tilde{u}_{10}^{\dagger}\tilde{u}_{10}+\tilde{u}_{00}^{\dagger}\tilde{u}_{00}
&=&
1, \nonumber \\
\tilde{u}_{11}^{\dagger}\tilde{u}_{10}+\tilde{u}_{01}^{\dagger}\tilde{u}_{00}
&=&
0, \nonumber \\
\tilde{u}_{10}^{\dagger}\tilde{u}_{11}+\tilde{u}_{00}^{\dagger}\tilde{u}_{01}
&=&
0.
\label{relations-unitary-tilde-U-components}\end{aligned}$$ Substitution of Eq. (\[relations-unitary-tilde-U-components\]) into Eq. (\[Probability-atom-ground-state-theta-0\]) yields $$\begin{aligned}
P_{g}(\Theta,\theta;t)
&=&
{}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}\langle\alpha|
{}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}\langle\tilde{\alpha}|
\hat{U}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}^{\dagger}(\theta)
[
\sin^{2}\Theta u_{01}^{\dagger}u_{01}
+
\cos^{2}\Theta u_{00}^{\dagger}u_{00}
]
\hat{U}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}(\theta)
|\alpha\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}
|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}} \nonumber \\
&=&
\cos^{2}\Theta
{}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}\langle\alpha|
{}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}\langle\tilde{\alpha}|
\hat{U}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}^{\dagger}(\theta)
g_{1}(a^{\dagger}a+c)
\hat{U}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}(\theta)
|\alpha\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}
|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}} \nonumber \\
&&
+
\sin^{2}\Theta
{}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}\langle\alpha|
{}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}\langle\tilde{\alpha}|
\hat{U}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}^{\dagger}(\theta)
g_{2}(a^{\dagger}a+c+1)
\hat{U}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}(\theta)
|\alpha\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}
|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}},
\label{Probability-atom-ground-state-theta-1}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
g_{1}(a^{\dagger}a+c)
&=&
u_{00}^{\dagger}u_{00} \nonumber \\
&=&
\cos^{2}(\sqrt{a^{\dagger}a+c}|\kappa|t)
+
c
\frac{\sin^{2}(\sqrt{a^{\dagger}a+c}|\kappa|t)}{a^{\dagger}a+c}, \nonumber \\
g_{2}(a^{\dagger}a+c+1)
&=&
u_{01}^{\dagger}u_{01} \nonumber \\
&=&
a
\frac{\sin^{2}(\sqrt{a^{\dagger}a+c}|\kappa|t)}{a^{\dagger}a+c}a^{\dagger} \nonumber \\
&=&
\frac{\sin^{2}(\sqrt{a^{\dagger}a+c+1}|\kappa|t)}{a^{\dagger}a+c+1}[(a^{\dagger}a+c+1)-c].
\label{definition-functions-g-1&2}\end{aligned}$$
Using Eqs. (\[definition-hat-U-operator\]) and (\[definition-hat-G-operator\]), we can rewrite $P_{g}(\Theta,\theta;t)$ given by Eqs. (\[Probability-atom-ground-state-theta-1\]) and (\[definition-functions-g-1&2\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
P_{g}(\Theta,\theta;t)
&=&
\cos^{2}\Theta
\langle\alpha|
\langle\tilde{\alpha}|
\exp[\theta(a\tilde{a}-\tilde{a}^{\dagger}a^{\dagger})]
g_{1}(a^{\dagger}a+c)
\exp[-\theta(a\tilde{a}-\tilde{a}^{\dagger}a^{\dagger})]
|\alpha\rangle
|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle \nonumber \\
&&
+
\sin^{2}\Theta
\langle\alpha|
\langle\tilde{\alpha}|
\exp[\theta(a\tilde{a}-\tilde{a}^{\dagger}a^{\dagger})]
g_{2}(a^{\dagger}a+c+1) \nonumber \\
&&\times
\exp[-\theta(a\tilde{a}-\tilde{a}^{\dagger}a^{\dagger})]
|\alpha\rangle
|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle.
\label{Probability-atom-ground-state-theta-2}\end{aligned}$$ Thus, we obtain the perturbative expansion of $P_{g}(\Theta,\theta;t)$ in the small parameter $\theta(\beta)$ as $$P_{g}(\Theta,\theta;t)
=
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\frac{\theta(\beta)^{n}}{n!}
P^{(n)}_{g}(\Theta,\theta;t),
\label{Perturbation-theory-formula-0}$$ where $$P^{(n)}_{g}(\Theta,\theta;t)
=
\cos^{2}\Theta P^{(n)}_{g,1}(t)
+
\sin^{2}\Theta P^{(n)}_{g,2}(t),
\label{Perturbation-theory-formula-1}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
P^{(0)}_{g,1}(t)
&=&
\langle\alpha|
\langle\tilde{\alpha}|
g_{1}(a^{\dagger}a+c)
|\alpha\rangle
|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle, \nonumber \\
P^{(0)}_{g,2}(t)
&=&
\langle\alpha|
\langle\tilde{\alpha}|
g_{2}(a^{\dagger}a+c+1)
|\alpha\rangle
|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle, \nonumber \\
P^{(1)}_{g,1}(t)
&=&
\langle\alpha|
\langle\tilde{\alpha}|
[a\tilde{a}-\tilde{a}^{\dagger}a^{\dagger},g_{1}(a^{\dagger}a+c)]
|\alpha\rangle
|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle, \nonumber \\
P^{(1)}_{g,2}(t)
&=&
\langle\alpha|
\langle\tilde{\alpha}|
[a\tilde{a}-\tilde{a}^{\dagger}a^{\dagger},g_{2}(a^{\dagger}a+c+1)]
|\alpha\rangle
|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle, \nonumber \\
P^{(2)}_{g,1}(t)
&=&
\langle\alpha|
\langle\tilde{\alpha}|
[a\tilde{a}-\tilde{a}^{\dagger}a^{\dagger},
[a\tilde{a}-\tilde{a}^{\dagger}a^{\dagger},g_{1}(a^{\dagger}a+c)]]
|\alpha\rangle
|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle, \nonumber \\
P^{(2)}_{g,2}(t)
&=&
\langle\alpha|
\langle\tilde{\alpha}|
[a\tilde{a}-\tilde{a}^{\dagger}a^{\dagger},
[a\tilde{a}-\tilde{a}^{\dagger}a^{\dagger},g_{2}(a^{\dagger}a+c+1)]]
|\alpha\rangle
|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle, \nonumber \\
&&...,
\label{Perturbation-theory-formula-2}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
P^{(n)}_{g,1}(t)
&=&
\langle\alpha|
\langle\tilde{\alpha}|
\underbrace{
[a\tilde{a}-\tilde{a}^{\dagger}a^{\dagger},
...,
[a\tilde{a}-\tilde{a}^{\dagger}a^{\dagger},
g_{1}(a^{\dagger}a+c)]...]
}_{\mbox{\scriptsize $n$-fold bracket}}
|\alpha\rangle
|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle, \nonumber \\
P^{(n)}_{g,2}(t)
&=&
\langle\alpha|
\langle\tilde{\alpha}|
\underbrace{
[a\tilde{a}-\tilde{a}^{\dagger}a^{\dagger},
...,
[a\tilde{a}-\tilde{a}^{\dagger}a^{\dagger},
g_{2}(a^{\dagger}a+c+1)]...]
}_{\mbox{\scriptsize $n$-fold bracket}}
|\alpha\rangle
|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle \nonumber \\
&&
\mbox{for $n=1,2,3,...$}.
\label{Perturbation-theory-formula-3}\end{aligned}$$
Here, we pay attention to the following fact: The perturbative expansion given by Eqs. (\[Perturbation-theory-formula-0\]), (\[Perturbation-theory-formula-1\]), (\[Perturbation-theory-formula-2\]) and (\[Perturbation-theory-formula-3\]) is a power series in the small parameter $\theta(\beta)$. On the other hand, all the terms of the parameter $\Theta(\beta)$ included in the perturbative expansion, namely $\cos^{2}\Theta$ and $\sin^{2}\Theta$, are expressed as explicit rigorous forms. Thus, we can strictly compute the functions of $\Theta(\beta)$ at ease in Eqs. (\[Perturbation-theory-formula-0\]) and (\[Perturbation-theory-formula-1\]), so that we do not need to worry about perturbative corrections of the parameter $\Theta(\beta)$. In this paper, we consider the power series in the small parameter $\theta(\beta)$ to be the perturbative expansion under the low-temperature limit. In contrast, we do not regard $\Theta(\beta)$ as the parameter for the perturbation.
Furthermore, the following trick lets actual computations of correction terms, that is to say, $P^{(n)}_{g}(\Theta,\theta;t)$ for $n=1,2,3,...$, be tractable. We can write down the functions $g_{1}(x)$ and $g_{2}(x)$ defined in Eq. (\[definition-functions-g-1&2\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
g_{1}(x)
&=&
\cos^{2}(\sqrt{x}|\kappa|t)
+
c
\frac{\sin^{2}(\sqrt{x}|\kappa|t)}{x}, \nonumber \\
g_{2}(x)
&=&
\frac{\sin^{2}(\sqrt{x}|\kappa|t)}{x}(x-c),
\label{definition-function-g-1&2}\end{aligned}$$ so that we can rewrite each of them as the Taylor series at $x=0$, $$g_{i}(x)
=
\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}g^{(m)}_{i}x^{m}
\quad
\mbox{for $-\infty<x<+\infty$},
\label{g-function-Taylor-series-0}$$ where $$g^{(m)}_{i}
=
\frac{1}{m!}\frac{d^{m}}{dx^{m}}g_{i}(x)
\bigg|_{x=0}
\quad
\mbox{for $i\in\{1,2\}$}.
\label{g-function-Taylor-series-1}$$ Thus, we can rewrite Eq. (\[Perturbation-theory-formula-3\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
P^{(n)}_{g,1}(t)
&=&
\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}
g^{(m)}_{1}
\langle\alpha|
\langle\tilde{\alpha}|
\underbrace{
[a\tilde{a}-\tilde{a}^{\dagger}a^{\dagger},
...,
[a\tilde{a}-\tilde{a}^{\dagger}a^{\dagger},
(a^{\dagger}a+c)^{m}]...]
}_{\mbox{\scriptsize $n$-fold bracket}}
|\alpha\rangle
|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle, \nonumber \\
P^{(n)}_{g,2}(t)
&=&
\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}
g^{(m)}_{2}
\langle\alpha|
\langle\tilde{\alpha}|
\underbrace{
[a\tilde{a}-\tilde{a}^{\dagger}a^{\dagger},
...,
[a\tilde{a}-\tilde{a}^{\dagger}a^{\dagger},
(a^{\dagger}a+c+1)^{m}]...]
}_{\mbox{\scriptsize $n$-fold bracket}}
|\alpha\rangle
|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle \nonumber \\
&&\mbox{for $n=1,2,3,...$.}
\label{Perturbation-theory-formula-4}\end{aligned}$$
In Secs. \[section-0th-order-correction-term\], \[section-1st-order-correction-term\], \[section-2nd-order-correction-term\] and Appendix \[section-3rd-order-correction-term\], using the perturbative expansion given by Eqs. (\[Perturbation-theory-formula-0\]), (\[Perturbation-theory-formula-1\]), (\[Perturbation-theory-formula-2\]), (\[Perturbation-theory-formula-3\]), (\[definition-function-g-1&2\]), (\[g-function-Taylor-series-0\]), (\[g-function-Taylor-series-1\]) and (\[Perturbation-theory-formula-4\]), we compute $P_{g}(\Theta,\theta;t)$.
\[section-comparison-of-TFD-and-Liouville-von-Neumann-equation\] Comparison of the TFD formalism and the\
Liouville-von Neumann equation
=========================================================================================================
In the previous sections, we discuss a method for examining the time-evolution caused by the Hamiltonian $\hat{H}$ defined in Eqs. (\[extended-JCM-Hamiltonian-0\]) and (\[extended-JCM-Hamiltonian-1\]) with the initial state $|\Psi(0)\rangle
=|0(\Theta)\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}|\alpha;\theta\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}$ given by Eq. (\[extended-JCM-initial-state\]) according to the TFD formalism. This method is equivalent to solving the following Liouville-von Neumann equation: $$\frac{\partial}{\partial t}
\rho(t)
=
-\frac{i}{\hbar}
[H,\rho(t)],
\label{Liouville-von-Neumann-equation-0}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\rho(0)
&=&
\mbox{Tr}_{\tilde{\cal H}}
[
|\Psi(0)\rangle\langle\Psi(0)|
] \nonumber \\
&=&
\mbox{Tr}_{\tilde{\cal H}}
[
|0(\Theta)\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}{}_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}\langle 0(\Theta)|
\otimes
|\alpha;\theta\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}{}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}\langle\alpha;\theta|
],
\label{initial-density-operator-0}\end{aligned}$$ and the Hamiltonian $H$ appearing in Eq. (\[Liouville-von-Neumann-equation-0\]) is given by Eqs. (\[JCM-Hamiltonian-0\]) and (\[JCM-Hamiltonian-1\]).
Both the Hamiltonian $\hat{H}$ based on the TFD formalism defined by Eqs. (\[extended-JCM-Hamiltonian-0\]) and (\[extended-JCM-Hamiltonian-1\]) and the Liouville-von Neumann equation given by Eq. (\[Liouville-von-Neumann-equation-0\]) represent that the total system evolves in time with maintaining the constant temperature, so that it never suffers from dissipation and its time-evolution is reversible. Thus, we understand that the Hermitian operator corresponding to the energy of the total system is equivalent to the generator of the unitary operator for the time-evolution.
Here, thinking about the Liouville-von Neumann equation given by Eq. (\[Liouville-von-Neumann-equation-0\]), we divide $H$ into the two parts $C_{1}$ and $C_{2}$ as shown in Eq. (\[JCM-Hamiltonian-decomposition-0\]) and take the interaction picture. Assuming $\rho_{\mbox{\scriptsize I}}(0)=\rho(0)$, we introduce the density operator described in the interaction picture as $$\rho_{\mbox{\scriptsize I}}(t)
=
e^{iC_{1}t}\rho(t)e^{-iC_{1}t}.$$ Then, using the commutation relation $[C_{1},C_{2}]=0$, we obtain $$\frac{\partial}{\partial t}
\rho_{\mbox{\scriptsize I}}(t)
=
-i
[C_{2},\rho_{\mbox{\scriptsize I}}(t)].
\label{Liouville-von-Neumann-equation-1}$$
From Eq. (\[Liouville-von-Neumann-equation-1\]), we notice that we can rewrite $\rho_{\mbox{\scriptsize I}}(t)$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{\mbox{\scriptsize I}}(t)
&=&
e^{-iC_{2}t}\rho_{\mbox{\scriptsize I}}(0)e^{iC_{2}t} \nonumber \\
&=&
\mbox{Tr}_{\tilde{\cal H}}
\Bigl[
e^{-iC_{2}t}
[
|0(\Theta)\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}{}_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}\langle 0(\Theta)|
\otimes
|\alpha;\theta\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}{}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}\langle\alpha;\theta|
]e^{iC_{2}t}
\Bigr].
\label{Liouville-von-Neumann-equation-2}\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, the probability that we detect the ground state of the atom at zero temperature is given by $$P_{g}(\Theta,\theta;t)
=
{}_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}\langle 0|
\mbox{Tr}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}[
\rho_{\mbox{\scriptsize I}}(t)
]
|0\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize F}}.
\label{Liouville-von-Neumann-equation-3}$$ The physical meaning of Eqs. (\[Liouville-von-Neumann-equation-2\]) and (\[Liouville-von-Neumann-equation-3\]) is equivalent to the discussion developed from Eq. (\[extended-JCM-initial-state\]) until Eq. (\[Probability-atom-ground-state-theta-2\]) in Sec. \[section-formulation-perturbetion-theory\].
Thus, comparing Eqs. (\[Probability-atom-ground-state-theta-2\]) and (\[Liouville-von-Neumann-equation-3\]), we cannot find distinct differences between the TFD formalism and the Liouville-von Neumann equation. However, if we take the TFD formalism, we can express a physical quantity as a power series in $\theta(\beta)$ such as Eqs. (\[Perturbation-theory-formula-0\]), (\[Perturbation-theory-formula-1\]), (\[Perturbation-theory-formula-2\]) and (\[Perturbation-theory-formula-3\]). Because of this advantage, the TFD formalism is superior than the Liouville-von Neumann equation for computing physical quantities actually. The reason why we take the TFD formalism in this paper for describing the JCM at finite temperature is the fact mentioned above. And this prescription is a new key point of this paper as compared with the other past works.
In fact, if we rewrite Eqs. (\[Liouville-von-Neumann-equation-2\]) and (\[Liouville-von-Neumann-equation-3\]) as a low-temperature expansion without using the TFD formalism, we have to carry out the following calculations: $$\begin{aligned}
&&
\mbox{Tr}_{\tilde{\cal H}}
[|\alpha;\theta\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}{}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}\langle\alpha;\theta|] \nonumber \\
&=&
\mbox{Tr}_{\tilde{\cal H}}
[
\hat{U}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}(\theta)
|\alpha\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}
|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}
{}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}\langle\alpha|
{}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}\langle\tilde{\alpha}|
\hat{U}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}^{\dagger}(\theta)
] \nonumber \\
&=&
\mbox{Tr}_{\tilde{\cal H}}
\Bigl(
\exp[-\theta(a\tilde{a}-\tilde{a}^{\dagger}a^{\dagger})]
|\alpha\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}
|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}
{}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}\langle\alpha|
{}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}\langle\tilde{\alpha}|
\exp[\theta(a\tilde{a}-\tilde{a}^{\dagger}a^{\dagger})]
\Bigr) \nonumber \\
&=&
\mbox{Tr}_{\tilde{\cal H}}
\Bigl(
|\alpha\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}
|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}
{}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}\langle\alpha|
{}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}\langle\tilde{\alpha}|
-\theta
[a\tilde{a}-\tilde{a}^{\dagger}a^{\dagger},
|\alpha\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}
|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}
{}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}\langle\alpha|
{}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}\langle\tilde{\alpha}|] \nonumber \\
&&
+\frac{\theta^{2}}{2!}
[a\tilde{a}-\tilde{a}^{\dagger}a^{\dagger},
[a\tilde{a}-\tilde{a}^{\dagger}a^{\dagger},
|\alpha\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}
|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}
{}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}\langle\alpha|
{}_{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}\langle\tilde{\alpha}|]]
+...
\Bigr).\end{aligned}$$ The above calculations are essentially equivalent to Eqs. (\[Perturbation-theory-formula-0\]), (\[Perturbation-theory-formula-1\]), (\[Perturbation-theory-formula-2\]) and (\[Perturbation-theory-formula-3\]). However, the perturbation theory via the TFD formalism provides us a clearer insight and a more accurate understanding than the Liouville-von Neumann equation does.
\[section-0th-order-correction-term\]The zero-th order correction
=================================================================
From Eqs. (\[definition-functions-g-1&2\]), (\[Perturbation-theory-formula-1\]) and (\[Perturbation-theory-formula-2\]), we can write down the zero-th order correction as $$P^{(0)}_{g}(\Theta,\theta;t)
=
\cos^{2}\Theta P^{(0)}_{g,1}(t)
+
\sin^{2}\Theta P^{(0)}_{g,2}(t),
\label{0th-order-perturbation-0}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
P^{(0)}_{g,1}(t)
&=&
\langle\alpha|
g_{1}(a^{\dagger}a+c)
|\alpha\rangle \nonumber \\
&=&
e^{-\alpha^{2}}
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\frac{\alpha^{2n}}{n!}
g_{1}(n+c) \nonumber \\
&=&
e^{-\alpha^{2}}
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\frac{\alpha^{2n}}{n!}
[
\cos^{2}(\sqrt{n+c}|\kappa|t)
+
c
\frac{\sin^{2}(\sqrt{n+c}|\kappa|t)}{n+c}
], \nonumber \\
P^{(0)}_{g,2}(t)
&=&
\langle\alpha|
g_{2}(a^{\dagger}a+c+1)
|\alpha\rangle \nonumber \\
&=&
e^{-\alpha^{2}}
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\frac{\alpha^{2n}}{n!}
g_{2}(n+c+1) \nonumber \\
&=&
e^{-\alpha^{2}}
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\frac{\alpha^{2n}}{n!}
\frac{\sin^{2}(\sqrt{n+c+1}|\kappa|t)}{n+c+1}(n+1).
\label{0th-order-perturbation-term}\end{aligned}$$ Referring to Eq. (\[Probability-collapse-and-revival-Rabi-oscillations-0\]), we note that $P^{(0)}_{g,1}(t)=P_{g}(t)$ and $P^{(0)}_{g}(0,0;t)=P_{g}(t)$.
For the convenience of calculations carried out in the remains of this paper, we define the following functions, each of which is represented as an infinite series: $$\begin{aligned}
Q_{1}^{(l)}(t)
&=&
e^{-\alpha^{2}}
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\frac{\alpha^{2n}}{n!}
g_{1}(n+c+l) \nonumber \\
&=&
e^{-\alpha^{2}}
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\frac{\alpha^{2n}}{n!}
[
\cos^{2}(\sqrt{n+c+l}|\kappa|t)
+
c
\frac{\sin^{2}(\sqrt{n+c+l}|\kappa|t)}{n+c+l}
], \nonumber \\
Q_{2}^{(l)}(t)
&=&
e^{-\alpha^{2}}
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\frac{\alpha^{2n}}{n!}
g_{2}(n+c+1+l) \nonumber \\
&=&
e^{-\alpha^{2}}
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\frac{\alpha^{2n}}{n!}
\frac{\sin^{2}(\sqrt{n+c+1+l}|\kappa|t)}{n+c+1+l}(n+1+l).\end{aligned}$$ From the above definitions, we obtain the zero-th order correction terms as $$\begin{aligned}
P^{(0)}_{g,1}(t)
&=&
Q_{1}^{(0)}(t), \nonumber \\
P^{(0)}_{g,2}(t)
&=&
Q_{2}^{(0)}(t).
\label{0th-order-perturbation-term-1}\end{aligned}$$
\[section-1st-order-correction-term\]The first order correction
===============================================================
From Eqs. (\[Perturbation-theory-formula-1\]) and (\[Perturbation-theory-formula-4\]), we can write down the first order correction as $$P^{(1)}_{g}(\Theta,\theta;t)
=
\cos^{2}\Theta P^{(1)}_{g,1}(t)
+
\sin^{2}\Theta P^{(1)}_{g,2}(t),
\label{1st-order-perturbation-0}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
P^{(1)}_{g,1}(t)
&=&
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
g^{(n)}_{1}
\langle\alpha|
\langle\tilde{\alpha}|
[a\tilde{a}-a^{\dagger}\tilde{a}^{\dagger},
(a^{\dagger}a+c)^{n}]
|\alpha\rangle
|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle, \nonumber \\
P^{(1)}_{g,2}(t)
&=&
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
g^{(n)}_{2}
\langle\alpha|
\langle\tilde{\alpha}|
[a\tilde{a}-a^{\dagger}\tilde{a}^{\dagger},
(a^{\dagger}a+c+1)^{n}]
|\alpha\rangle
|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle.
\label{first-order-perturbation-terms-0}\end{aligned}$$ From Eq. (\[first-order-perturbation-terms-0\]), we notice that we have to calculate the commutation relations, $$[a\tilde{a}-a^{\dagger}\tilde{a}^{\dagger},
(a^{\dagger}a+c)^{n}]
\quad\mbox{for $n=0,1,2,...$}.$$
At first, we define the following three operators: $$\hat{A}
=
a^{\dagger}\tilde{a}^{\dagger}-a\tilde{a},
\quad
\hat{B}
=
a^{\dagger}a+c,
\quad
\hat{C}
=
a^{\dagger}\tilde{a}^{\dagger}+a\tilde{a}.
\label{definition-hatA-hatB-hatC-1}$$ \[We pay attention to the fact that the operator $\hat{C}$ defined in Eq. (\[definition-hatA-hatB-hatC-1\]) is different from $C_{1}$, $C_{2}$, $\hat{C}_{1}$ and $\hat{C}_{2}$ given by Eqs. (\[JCM-Hamiltonian-decomposition-0\]) and (\[decomposition-hat-Hamiltonian\]).\] Then, we obtain the commutation relations, $$\begin{aligned}
[\hat{A},\hat{B}]
&=&
-\hat{C}, \nonumber \\
{[}\hat{A},\hat{B}^{2}{]}
&=&
\hat{A}-2\hat{B}\hat{C}, \nonumber \\
{[}\hat{A},\hat{B}^{3}{]}
&=&
-\hat{C}+3\hat{B}\hat{A}-3\hat{B}^{2}\hat{C}, \nonumber \\
{[}\hat{A},\hat{B}^{4}{]}
&=&
\hat{A}-4\hat{B}\hat{C}+6\hat{B}^{2}\hat{A}-4\hat{B}^{3}\hat{C}, \nonumber \\
&&....
\label{commutation-relations-A-Bn-1}\end{aligned}$$
Next, we define the following two operators: $$\hat{\mu}=a^{\dagger}\tilde{a}^{\dagger},
\quad
\hat{\nu}=a\tilde{a},
\label{definition-operators-mu-nu-1}$$ and we obtain $$\hat{A}=\hat{\mu}-\hat{\nu},
\quad
\hat{C}=\hat{\mu}+\hat{\nu}.
\label{definition-operators-mu-nu-2}$$ Using the operators $\hat{\mu}$ and $\hat{\nu}$, we can rewrite Eq. (\[commutation-relations-A-Bn-1\]) as the general form, $$[\hat{A},\hat{B}^{n}]
=
(\hat{B}-1)^{n}\hat{\mu}-(\hat{B}+1)^{n}\hat{\nu}-\hat{B}^{n}\hat{A}
\quad\mbox{for $n=1,2,3,...$}.
\label{commutation-relations-A-Bn-3}$$ We can prove Eq. (\[commutation-relations-A-Bn-3\]) with the mathematical induction as follows: First, we can confirm that Eq. (\[commutation-relations-A-Bn-3\]) holds for $n=1$, at ease. Second, we assume Eq. (\[commutation-relations-A-Bn-3\]) holds for some unspecified number $n(\geq 1)$. Third, we compute the commutation relation, $$\begin{aligned}
[\hat{A},\hat{B}^{n+1}]
&=&
[\hat{A},\hat{B}^{n}]\hat{B}+\hat{B}^{n}[\hat{A},\hat{B}] \nonumber \\
&=&
\Bigl((\hat{B}-1)^{n}\hat{\mu}-(\hat{B}+1)^{n}\hat{\nu}-\hat{B}^{n}\hat{A}\Bigr)\hat{B}
+\hat{B}^{n}[\hat{A},\hat{B}] \nonumber \\
&=&
(\hat{B}-1)^{n+1}\hat{\mu}-(\hat{B}+1)^{n+1}\hat{\nu}-\hat{B}^{n+1}\hat{A},\end{aligned}$$ where we use $\hat{\mu}\hat{B}=(\hat{B}-1)\hat{\mu}$ and $\hat{\nu}\hat{B}=(\hat{B}+1)\hat{\nu}$.
Thus, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&&
{[}
a\tilde{a}-a^{\dagger}\tilde{a}^{\dagger}, (a^{\dagger}a+c)^{n}
{]} \nonumber \\
&=&
-(a^{\dagger}a+c-1)^{n}\tilde{a}^{\dagger}a^{\dagger}
+(a^{\dagger}a+c+1)^{n}a\tilde{a}
-(a^{\dagger}a+c)^{n}(a\tilde{a}-a^{\dagger}\tilde{a}^{\dagger}) \nonumber \\
&=&
-a^{\dagger}\tilde{a}^{\dagger}(a^{\dagger}a+c)^{n}
+(a^{\dagger}a+c+1)^{n}a\tilde{a}
-(a^{\dagger}a+c)^{n}a\tilde{a} \nonumber \\
&&
+a^{\dagger}\tilde{a}^{\dagger}(a^{\dagger}a+c+1)^{n}.
\label{first-order-perturbation-commutation-relations-a}\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, replacing $c$ in Eq. (\[first-order-perturbation-commutation-relations-a\]) with $(c+1)$, we obtain the commutation relation, $$\begin{aligned}
&&
{[}
a\tilde{a}-a^{\dagger}\tilde{a}^{\dagger}, (a^{\dagger}a+c+1)^{n}
{]} \nonumber \\
&=&
-a^{\dagger}\tilde{a}^{\dagger}(a^{\dagger}a+c+1)^{n}
+(a^{\dagger}a+c+2)^{n}a\tilde{a} \nonumber \\
&&
-(a^{\dagger}a+c+1)^{n}a\tilde{a}
+a^{\dagger}\tilde{a}^{\dagger}(a^{\dagger}a+c+2)^{n}.
\label{first-order-perturbation-commutation-relations-b}\end{aligned}$$
Hence, using the relations $a|\alpha\rangle=\alpha|\alpha\rangle$ and $\tilde{a}|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle=\alpha|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle$, substitution of Eq. (\[first-order-perturbation-commutation-relations-a\]) into Eq. (\[first-order-perturbation-terms-0\]) yields $$\begin{aligned}
P^{(1)}_{g,1}(t)
&=&
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
g^{(n)}_{1}
\langle\alpha|
\langle\tilde{\alpha}|
[
-a^{\dagger}\tilde{a}^{\dagger}(a^{\dagger}a+c)^{n}
+(a^{\dagger}a+c+1)^{n}a\tilde{a} \nonumber \\
&&
-(a^{\dagger}a+c)^{n}a\tilde{a}
+a^{\dagger}\tilde{a}^{\dagger}(a^{\dagger}a+c+1)^{n}
]
|\alpha\rangle
|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle, \nonumber \\
&=&
\langle\alpha|
\langle\tilde{\alpha}|
[
-a^{\dagger}\tilde{a}^{\dagger}g_{1}(a^{\dagger}a+c)
+g_{1}(a^{\dagger}a+c+1)a\tilde{a} \nonumber \\
&&
-g_{1}(a^{\dagger}a+c)a\tilde{a}
+a^{\dagger}\tilde{a}^{\dagger}g_{1}(a^{\dagger}a+c+1)
]
|\alpha\rangle
|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle, \nonumber \\
&=&
-2\alpha^{2}
\langle\alpha|
\langle\tilde{\alpha}|
[g_{1}(a^{\dagger}a+c)-g_{1}(a^{\dagger}a+c+1)]
|\alpha\rangle
|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle \nonumber \\
&=&
-2\alpha^{2}
e^{-\alpha^{2}}\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\frac{\alpha^{2n}}{n!}[g_{1}(n+c)-g_{1}(n+c+1)] \nonumber \\
&=&
-2\alpha^{2}[Q_{1}^{(0)}(t)-Q_{1}^{(1)}(t)].
\label{1st-order-perturbation-term-g1}\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, substitution of Eq. (\[first-order-perturbation-commutation-relations-b\]) into Eq. (\[first-order-perturbation-terms-0\]) yields $$\begin{aligned}
P^{(1)}_{g,2}(t)
&=&
-2\alpha^{2}
e^{-\alpha^{2}}\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\frac{\alpha^{2n}}{n!}[g_{2}(n+c+1)-g_{2}(n+c+2)] \nonumber \\
&=&
-2\alpha^{2}[Q_{2}^{(0)}(t)-Q_{2}^{(1)}(t)].
\label{1st-order-perturbation-term-g2}\end{aligned}$$
\[section-2nd-order-correction-term\]The second order correction
================================================================
From Eq. (\[Perturbation-theory-formula-4\]), we can write down the second order terms as $$\begin{aligned}
P^{(2)}_{g,1}(t)
&=&
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
g^{(n)}_{1}
\langle\alpha|
\langle\tilde{\alpha}|
[a\tilde{a}-a^{\dagger}\tilde{a}^{\dagger},
[a\tilde{a}-a^{\dagger}\tilde{a}^{\dagger},
(a^{\dagger}a+c)^{n}]]
|\alpha\rangle
|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle, \nonumber \\
P^{(2)}_{g,2}(t)
&=&
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
g^{(n)}_{2}
\langle\alpha|
\langle\tilde{\alpha}|
[a\tilde{a}-a^{\dagger}\tilde{a}^{\dagger},
[a\tilde{a}-a^{\dagger}\tilde{a}^{\dagger},
(a^{\dagger}a+c+1)^{n}]]
|\alpha\rangle
|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle.
\label{second-order-perturbation-terms-0}\end{aligned}$$ Looking at Eqs. (\[definition-hatA-hatB-hatC-1\]) and (\[second-order-perturbation-terms-0\]), we notice that we need to calculate the commutation relation $[\hat{A},[\hat{A},\hat{B}^{n}]]$.
From now on, referring to Eq. (\[commutation-relations-A-Bn-3\]), we divide the commutation relation $[\hat{A},[\hat{A},\hat{B}^{n}]]$ into the following two parts and examine each of them: $$[\hat{A},[\hat{A},\hat{B}^{n}]]
=
\hat{R}_{n}+\hat{S}_{n}
\quad\mbox{for $n=1,2,3,...$},
\label{commutation-relation-Rn-Sn}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{R}_{n}
&=&
[\hat{A},(\hat{B}-1)^{n}]\hat{\mu}
-
[\hat{A},(\hat{B}+1)^{n}]\hat{\nu}
-
[\hat{A},\hat{B}^{n}]\hat{A}, \nonumber \\
\hat{S}_{n}
&=&
(\hat{B}-1)^{n}[\hat{A},\hat{\mu}]
-
(\hat{B}+1)^{n}[\hat{A},\hat{\nu}].
\label{defintion-Rn-Sn-i}\end{aligned}$$ According to Eq. (\[commutation-relation-Rn-Sn\]), we divide one of the second order terms given by Eq. (\[second-order-perturbation-terms-0\]) into two parts as $$P^{(2)}_{g,1}(t)
=
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
g^{(n)}_{1}
\langle \alpha|\langle\tilde{\alpha}|
\hat{R}_{n}
|\alpha\rangle|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle
+
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
g^{(n)}_{1}
\langle \alpha|\langle\tilde{\alpha}|
\hat{S}_{n}
|\alpha\rangle|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle.
\label{second-order-correction-i}$$ Here, we show $P^{(2)}_{g,1}(t)$ as a concrete example in Eq. (\[second-order-correction-i\]). We understand obviously that we can compute $P^{(2)}_{g,2}(t)$ after the manner of $P^{(2)}_{g,1}(t)$. Thus, for simplicity, we concentrate on evaluating $P^{(2)}_{g,1}(t)$ in the following paragraphs.
At first, we examine the part which includes $\{\hat{R}_{n}\}$ in Eq. (\[second-order-correction-i\]). From Eq. (\[defintion-Rn-Sn-i\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{R}_{0}
&=&
0, \nonumber \\
\hat{R}_{1}
&=&
0, \nonumber \\
\hat{R}_{2}
&=&
-2[\hat{A},\hat{B}]\hat{C}, \nonumber \\
\hat{R}_{3}
&=&
-3[\hat{A},\hat{B}^{2}]\hat{C}
+3[\hat{A},\hat{B}]\hat{A}, \nonumber \\
\hat{R}_{4}
&=&
-4[\hat{A},\hat{B}^{3}]\hat{C}
+6[\hat{A},\hat{B}^{2}]\hat{A}
-4[\hat{A},\hat{B}]\hat{C}, \nonumber \\
\hat{R}_{5}
&=&
-5[\hat{A},\hat{B}^{4}]\hat{C}
+10[\hat{A},\hat{B}^{3}]\hat{A}
-10[\hat{A},\hat{B}^{2}]\hat{C}
+5[\hat{A},\hat{B}]\hat{A}, \nonumber \\
\hat{R}_{6}
&=&
-6[\hat{A},\hat{B}^{5}]\hat{C}
+15[\hat{A},\hat{B}^{4}]\hat{A}
-20[\hat{A},\hat{B}^{3}]\hat{C}
+15[\hat{A},\hat{B}^{2}]\hat{A}
-6[\hat{A},\hat{B}]\hat{C}, \nonumber \\
&&....
\label{defintion-Rn-Sn-ii}\end{aligned}$$ Thus, using Eq. (\[commutation-relations-A-Bn-3\]) and the following formula: $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
n+m+1 \\
m
\end{array}
\right)
g^{(n+m+1)}_{1}
x^{n+1}
&=&
\frac{1}{m!}\frac{d^{m}}{dx^{m}}g_{1}(x)-g^{(m)}_{1} \nonumber \\
&&
\quad
\mbox{for $m=1,2,3,...$},
\label{formula-g-polynomial-1}\end{aligned}$$ where $g^{(m)}_{1}$ is defined in Eqs. (\[g-function-Taylor-series-0\]) and (\[g-function-Taylor-series-1\]), we can rewrite the part including $\{\hat{R}_{n}\}$ in the second order term of Eq. (\[second-order-correction-i\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
&&
\langle \alpha|\langle\tilde{\alpha}|
\Bigr(
-
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
n+2 \\
1
\end{array}
\right)
g^{(n+2)}_{1}[\hat{A},\hat{B}^{n+1}]\hat{C} \nonumber \\
&&
+
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
n+3 \\
2
\end{array}
\right)
g^{(n+3)}_{1}[\hat{A},\hat{B}^{n+1}]\hat{A} \nonumber \\
&&
-
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
n+4 \\
3
\end{array}
\right)
g^{(n+4)}_{1}[\hat{A},\hat{B}^{n+1}]\hat{C}
+
...
\Bigr)
|\alpha\rangle|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle \nonumber \\
&=&
\langle \alpha|\langle\tilde{\alpha}|
\Bigr(
-\hat{F}_{1}\hat{C}
+\frac{1}{2!}\hat{F}_{2}\hat{A}
-\frac{1}{3!}\hat{F}_{3}\hat{C}
+...
\Bigr)
|\alpha\rangle|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle \nonumber \\
&=&
\langle \alpha|\langle\tilde{\alpha}|
\Bigr(
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\frac{(-1)^{n}}{n!}\hat{F}_{n}\hat{\mu}
-
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\frac{1}{n!}\hat{F}_{n}\hat{\nu}
\Bigr)
|\alpha\rangle|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle \nonumber \\
&&
-
\langle \alpha|\langle\tilde{\alpha}|
\Bigr(
g_{1}(\hat{B}-1)\hat{\mu}-g_{1}(\hat{B}+1)\hat{\nu}-g_{1}(\hat{B})\hat{A}
\Bigr)\hat{A}
|\alpha\rangle|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle,
\label{second-order-correction-R-part-i}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\hat{F}_{n}
=
\frac{d^{n}}{dx^{n}}g_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}-1}\hat{\mu}
-
\frac{d^{n}}{dx^{n}}g_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}+1}\hat{\nu}
-
\frac{d^{n}}{dx^{n}}g_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}}\hat{A}.
\label{definition-operator-Fn}$$ In the derivation of Eq. (\[second-order-correction-R-part-i\]), we use Eq. (\[commutation-relations-A-Bn-3\]) in an effective manner. The form of $\hat{F}_{n}$ in Eq. (\[definition-operator-Fn\]) reflects Eq. (\[commutation-relations-A-Bn-3\]).
Using the operators $e^{\pm d/dx}$, we can rewrite the first term of the right-hand side of Eq. (\[second-order-correction-R-part-i\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
&&
\langle \alpha|\langle\tilde{\alpha}|
\Bigr(
[
e^{-d/dx}g_{1}(\hat{B}-1)\hat{\mu}
-
e^{-d/dx}g_{1}(\hat{B}+1)\hat{\nu}
-
e^{-d/dx}g_{1}(\hat{B})\hat{A}
]\hat{\mu} \nonumber \\
&&
-
[
e^{d/dx}g_{1}(\hat{B}-1)\hat{\mu}
-
e^{d/dx}g_{1}(\hat{B}+1)\hat{\nu}
-
e^{d/dx}g_{1}(\hat{B})\hat{A}
]\hat{\nu}
\Bigr)
|\alpha\rangle|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle.
\label{second-order-correction-R-part-ii}\end{aligned}$$ Then, we apply the following technique to Eq. (\[second-order-correction-R-part-ii\]): $$e^{\pm d/dx}g_{1}(\hat{X})
=
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\frac{(\pm 1)^{n}}{n!}
\frac{d^{n}}{dx^{n}}g_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{X}}
=
g_{1}(\hat{X}\pm 1),$$ where $\hat{X}$ is an arbitrary operator. Thus, we can rewrite Eq. (\[second-order-correction-R-part-ii\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
&&
\langle \alpha|\langle\tilde{\alpha}|
\Bigr(
[
g_{1}(\hat{B}-2)\hat{\mu}
-
g_{1}(\hat{B})\hat{\nu}
-
g_{1}(\hat{B}-1)\hat{A}
]\hat{\mu} \nonumber \\
&&
-
[
g_{1}(\hat{B})\hat{\mu}
-
g_{1}(\hat{B}+2)\hat{\nu}
-
g_{1}(\hat{B}+1)\hat{A}
]\hat{\nu}
\Bigr)
|\alpha\rangle|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle.
\label{second-order-correction-R-part-iii}\end{aligned}$$
Next, we examine the part including $\{\hat{S}_{n}\}$ in Eq. (\[second-order-correction-i\]). From Eqs. (\[definition-operators-mu-nu-1\]) and (\[definition-operators-mu-nu-2\]), we obtain $$[\hat{A},\hat{\mu}]=[\hat{A},\hat{\nu}]=[\hat{\mu},\hat{\nu}]=-\hat{D},
\label{commutation-relationd-related-D}$$ where $$\hat{D}=a^{\dagger}a+\tilde{a}^{\dagger}\tilde{a}+1.$$ In the remains of this section and Appendix \[section-3rd-order-correction-term\], we use Eq. (\[commutation-relationd-related-D\]) and the following commutation relations often without notice: $$[\hat{A},\hat{C}]=-2\hat{D},
\quad\quad
[\hat{A},\hat{D}]=-2\hat{C}.$$ Then, we can rewrite $\hat{S}_{n}$ given by Eq. (\[defintion-Rn-Sn-i\]) as $$\hat{S}_{n}
=
-
\Bigl(
(\hat{B}-1)^{n}-(\hat{B}+1)^{n}
\Bigr)
\hat{D}.
\label{formula-Sn-1}$$ \[In Eq. (57) of Ref. [@Azuma2010], a calculation concerning $\hat{S}_{n}$ is wrong.\] Thus, we can write down the part including $\{\hat{S}_{n}\}$ in the second order term given by Eq. (\[second-order-correction-i\]) as $$-
\langle \alpha|\langle\tilde{\alpha}|
\Bigr(
g_{1}(\hat{B}-1)-g_{1}(\hat{B}+1)
\Bigr)
\hat{D}
|\alpha\rangle|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle.
\label{second-order-correction-S-part-i}$$
Putting together Eqs. (\[second-order-correction-i\]), (\[second-order-correction-R-part-i\]), (\[second-order-correction-R-part-iii\]) and (\[second-order-correction-S-part-i\]), we can write down the whole of the second order term as $$\begin{aligned}
&&
P^{(2)}_{g,1}(t) \nonumber \\
&=&
\langle \alpha|\langle\tilde{\alpha}|
[
g_{1}(\hat{B}-2)\hat{\mu}^{2}
+
g_{1}(\hat{B}-1)(-\hat{D}-\hat{\mu}\hat{A}-\hat{A}\hat{\mu}) \nonumber \\
&&
+
g_{1}(\hat{B})(\hat{A}^{2}-\hat{\nu}\hat{\mu}-\hat{\mu}\hat{\nu})
+
g_{1}(\hat{B}+1)(\hat{D}+\hat{\nu}\hat{A}+\hat{A}\hat{\nu}) \nonumber \\
&&
+
g_{1}(\hat{B}+2)\hat{\nu}^{2}]
|\alpha\rangle|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle.
\label{second-order-correction-ii}\end{aligned}$$
Here, to compute $P^{(2)}_{g,1}(t)$ given by Eq. (\[second-order-correction-ii\]), we arrange $\hat{\mu}$ in the left side of the product of operators and $\hat{\nu}$ in the right side of the product of operators. For the arrangement of operators, we carry out the calculations, $$\begin{aligned}
(\hat{B}-2)^{n}\hat{\mu}^{2}
&=&
\hat{\mu}^{2}
\hat{B}^{n}, \nonumber \\
(\hat{B}-1)^{n}(-\hat{D}-\hat{\mu}\hat{A}-\hat{A}\hat{\mu})
&=&
-2\hat{\mu}^{2}(\hat{B}+1)^{n}
+2\hat{\mu}\hat{B}^{n}\hat{\nu}, \nonumber \\
\hat{B}^{n}(\hat{A}^{2}-\hat{\nu}\hat{\mu}-\hat{\mu}\hat{\nu})
&=&
\hat{\mu}^{2}(\hat{B}+2)^{n}
-4\hat{\mu}(\hat{B}+1)^{n}\hat{\nu}
-2\hat{B}^{n}\hat{D}+\hat{B}^{n}\hat{\nu}^{2}, \nonumber \\
(\hat{B}+1)^{n}(\hat{D}+\hat{\nu}\hat{A}+\hat{A}\hat{\nu})
&=&
2\hat{\mu}(\hat{B}+2)^{n}\hat{\nu}
-2(\hat{B}+1)^{n}\hat{\nu}^{2}
+2(\hat{B}+1)^{n}\hat{D} \nonumber \\
&&
\mbox{for $n=1,2,3,...$.}\end{aligned}$$ Substitution of the above relations into Eq. (\[second-order-correction-ii\]) yields $$\begin{aligned}
P^{(2)}_{g,1}(t)
&=&
\langle\alpha|\langle\tilde{\alpha}|
[
\hat{\mu}^{2}g_{1}(\hat{B})
-2\hat{\mu}^{2}g_{1}(\hat{B}+1)
+2\hat{\mu}g_{1}(\hat{B})\hat{\nu}
+\hat{\mu}^{2}g_{1}(\hat{B}+2) \nonumber \\
&&
-4\hat{\mu}g_{1}(\hat{B}+1)\hat{\nu}
-2g_{1}(\hat{B})\hat{D}
+g_{1}(\hat{B})\hat{\nu}^{2}
+2\hat{\mu}g_{1}(\hat{B}+2)\hat{\nu} \nonumber \\
&&
-2g_{1}(\hat{B}+1)\hat{\nu}^{2}
+2g_{1}(\hat{B}+1)\hat{D}
+g_{1}(\hat{B}+2)\hat{\nu}^{2}
]
|\alpha\rangle|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle \nonumber \\
&=&
4\alpha^{4}
\langle\alpha|\langle\tilde{\alpha}|
[
g_{1}(\hat{B})
-2g_{1}(\hat{B}+1)
+g_{1}(\hat{B}+2)
]
|\alpha\rangle|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle \nonumber \\
&&
-2
\langle\alpha|\langle\tilde{\alpha}|
g_{1}(\hat{B})\hat{D}
|\alpha\rangle|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle
+2
\langle\alpha|\langle\tilde{\alpha}|
g_{1}(\hat{B}+1)\hat{D}
|\alpha\rangle|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, preparing the following formula: $$\begin{aligned}
&&
\langle\alpha|\langle\tilde{\alpha}|
g_{1}(\hat{B})\hat{D}
|\alpha\rangle|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle \nonumber \\
&=&
\langle\alpha|\langle\tilde{\alpha}|
e^{-\alpha^{2}}
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}
\frac{\alpha^{n+m}}{\sqrt{n!m!}}
(n+m+1)g_{1}(n+c)
|n\rangle|\tilde{m}\rangle \nonumber \\
&=&
e^{-\alpha^{2}}
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\frac{\alpha^{2n}}{n!}
g_{1}(n+c)
+
e^{-\alpha^{2}}
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\frac{\alpha^{2n}}{n!}
n
g_{1}(n+c) \nonumber \\
&&
+
e^{-2\alpha^{2}}
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}
\frac{\alpha^{2(n+m)}}{n!m!}
m
g_{1}(n+c), \nonumber \\
&=&
(1+\alpha^{2})
e^{-\alpha^{2}}
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\frac{\alpha^{2n}}{n!}
g_{1}(n+c)
+
\alpha^{2}
e^{-\alpha^{2}}
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\frac{\alpha^{2n}}{n!}
g_{1}(n+c+1),
\label{g-B-D-foemula}\end{aligned}$$ we arrive at the final representation of $P^{(2)}_{g,1}(t)$ as $$\begin{aligned}
P^{(2)}_{g,1}(t)
&=&
4\alpha^{4}
e^{-\alpha^{2}}
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\frac{\alpha^{2n}}{n!}
[g_{1}(n+c)-2g_{1}(n+c+1)+g_{1}(n+c+2)] \nonumber \\
&&
-2
(1+\alpha^{2})
e^{-\alpha^{2}}
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\frac{\alpha^{2n}}{n!}
g_{1}(n+c)
-2
\alpha^{2}
e^{-\alpha^{2}}
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\frac{\alpha^{2n}}{n!}
g_{1}(n+c+1) \nonumber \\
&&
+2
(1+\alpha^{2})
e^{-\alpha^{2}}
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\frac{\alpha^{2n}}{n!}
g_{1}(n+c+1)
+2
\alpha^{2}
e^{-\alpha^{2}}
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\frac{\alpha^{2n}}{n!}
g_{1}(n+c+2) \nonumber \\
&=&
2(2\alpha^{2}+1)(\alpha+1)(\alpha-1)
Q_{1}^{(0)}(t) \nonumber \\
&&
-2(2\alpha^{2}+1)(2\alpha^{2}-1)
Q_{1}^{(1)}(t) \nonumber \\
&&
+2\alpha^{2}(2\alpha^{2}+1)
Q_{1}^{(2)}(t).
\label{2nd-order-perturbation-term-g1}\end{aligned}$$
Similarly, we obtain $P^{(2)}_{g,2}(t)$ as $$\begin{aligned}
P^{(2)}_{g,2}(t)
&=&
2(2\alpha^{2}+1)(\alpha+1)(\alpha-1)
Q_{2}^{(0)}(t) \nonumber \\
&&
-2(2\alpha^{2}+1)(2\alpha^{2}-1)
Q_{2}^{(1)}(t) \nonumber \\
&&
+2\alpha^{2}(2\alpha^{2}+1)
Q_{2}^{(2)}(t).
\label{2nd-order-perturbation-term-g2}\end{aligned}$$
\[section-numerical-calculations\]The numerical calculations
============================================================
In this section, we show numerical results for the atomic population inversion obtained with the third order perturbation theory under the low-temperature limit. In Secs. \[section-0th-order-correction-term\], \[section-1st-order-correction-term\], \[section-2nd-order-correction-term\] and Appendix \[section-3rd-order-correction-term\], we obtain $\{P_{g,1}^{(n)}(t),P_{g,2}^{(n)}(t):n\in\{0,1,2,3\}\}$ in the form of Eqs. (\[0th-order-perturbation-term-1\]), (\[1st-order-perturbation-term-g1\]), (\[1st-order-perturbation-term-g2\]), (\[2nd-order-perturbation-term-g1\]), (\[2nd-order-perturbation-term-g2\]), (\[3rd-order-perturbation-term-g1\]) and (\[3rd-order-perturbation-term-g2\]). Thus, from Eqs. (\[definition-atomic-population-inversion\]), (\[Perturbation-theory-formula-0\]) and (\[Perturbation-theory-formula-1\]), we can calculate $\langle\sigma_{z}(t)\rangle$ as the third order perturbation theory, $$\langle\sigma_{z}(t)\rangle
=
1-2
[
\cos^{2}\Theta(\beta)
\sum_{n=0}^{3}
\frac{\theta(\beta)^{n}}{n!}
P_{g,1}^{(n)}(t)
+
\sin^{2}\Theta(\beta)
\sum_{n=0}^{3}
\frac{\theta(\beta)^{n}}{n!}
P_{g,2}^{(n)}(t)
].
\label{sigma_z_t_upto-3rd-order-perturbation}$$
Figure \[Figure01\] shows the atomic population inversion $\langle\sigma_{z}(t)\rangle$ given by Eq. (\[sigma\_z\_t\_upto-3rd-order-perturbation\]) as a function of the time $t$ with $\alpha=4$, $c=1$, $\kappa=1$ and $\Theta(\beta)=\theta(\beta)=0$. Figure \[Figure03\] shows the atomic population inversion $\langle\sigma_{z}(t)\rangle$ given by Eq. (\[sigma\_z\_t\_upto-3rd-order-perturbation\]) as a function of the time $t$ with $\alpha=8$, $c=1$, $\kappa=1$ and $\Theta(\beta)=\theta(\beta)=0$. Carrying out numerical calculations for Figs. \[Figure01\] and \[Figure03\], we replace the summation $\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}$ in $Q_{1}^{(0)}(t)$ with $\sum_{n=0}^{100}$, so that we compute the sum of first one hundred and one terms in the series. (In this section, whenever we carry out numerical calculations of $Q_{1}^{(l)}(t)$ and $Q_{2}^{(l)}(t)$, we replace their summation $\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}$ with $\sum_{n=0}^{100}$.) In Figs. \[Figure01\] and \[Figure03\], we assume the system to be at zero temperature. Thus, the graphs in Figs. \[Figure01\] and \[Figure03\] do not suffer from thermal effects. We can observe the collapse and the revival of the Rabi oscillations obviously in these graphs.
Figure \[Figure02\] shows the atomic population inversion $\langle\sigma_{z}(t)\rangle$ given by Eq. (\[sigma\_z\_t\_upto-3rd-order-perturbation\]) as a function of the time $t$ with $\alpha=4$, $c=1$, $\kappa=1$, $\theta(\beta)=\pi/32$, $\omega_{0}=2$ and $\omega=4$. From Eq. (\[definition-temperature-JCM-0\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\theta(\beta)
&=&
\mbox{arctanh}(e^{-\beta\hbar\omega/2}), \nonumber \\
\Theta(\beta)
&=&
\arctan(e^{-\beta\hbar\omega_{0}/2}),
\label{definitions-theta-Theta-1}\end{aligned}$$ so that the relation $\exp(-2\beta\hbar)=\tanh[\theta(\beta)]=\tanh(\pi/32)$ holds. Thus, we can derive the following relation: $$\Theta(\beta)
=\arctan(e^{-\beta\hbar})
=\arctan[\tanh^{1/2}(\theta(\beta))]
=\arctan[\tanh^{1/2}(\pi/32)].
\label{definitions-theta-Theta-2}$$ Because the system of Fig. \[Figure02\] evolves in time with maintaining constant low temperature, its time-evolution is under the thermal effects. Comparing the graphs shown in Figs. \[Figure01\] and \[Figure02\], we notice that the period of Fig. \[Figure02\] is longer than the period of Fig. \[Figure01\]. Thus, we can suppose that the thermal effects let the period of the revival of the Rabi oscillations become longer.
Figure \[Figure04\] shows the atomic population inversion $\langle\sigma_{z}(t)\rangle$ given by Eq. (\[sigma\_z\_t\_upto-3rd-order-perturbation\]) as a function of the time $t$ with $\alpha=8$, $c=1$, $\kappa=1$, $\theta(\beta)=\pi/60$, $\omega_{0}=2$ and $\omega=4$. Then, in a similar manner for obtaining Eqs. (\[definitions-theta-Theta-1\]) and (\[definitions-theta-Theta-2\]), we achieve $\Theta(\beta)
=\arctan[\tanh^{1/2}(\theta(\beta))]
=\arctan[\tanh^{1/2}(\pi/60)]$. Comparing the graphs shown in Figs. \[Figure03\] and \[Figure04\], we notice that the period of Fig. \[Figure04\] is longer than the period of Fig. \[Figure03\], so that we can suppose that the thermal effects let the period of the revival of the Rabi oscillations become longer.
correction term min max
------------------------------------------ ----------- ----------
$\theta(\beta)P_{g,1}^{(1)}(t)$ $-0.227$ $0.199$
$\theta(\beta)P_{g,2}^{(1)}(t)$ $-0.208$ $0.225$
$(1/2)\theta(\beta)^{2}P_{g,1}^{(2)}(t)$ $-0.108$ $0.102$
$(1/2)\theta(\beta)^{2}P_{g,2}^{(2)}(t)$ $-0.0996$ $0.109$
$(1/6)\theta(\beta)^{3}P_{g,1}^{(3)}(t)$ $-0.0441$ $0.0483$
$(1/6)\theta(\beta)^{3}P_{g,2}^{(3)}(t)$ $-0.0478$ $0.0467$
: The ranges of numerical values of the perturbation corrections with $\alpha=4$, $c=1$, $\kappa=1$, $0\leq t\leq 20\pi$ and $\theta(\beta)=\pi/32$. The estimations of the minimum and the maximum in every row of the table are based on values of each correction term, which we obtain numerically at equally spaced intervals $\Delta t=20\pi\times 10^{-4}$ during $0\leq t\leq 20\pi$.[]{data-label="Table01"}
correction term min max
------------------------------------------ ----------- ----------
$\theta(\beta)P_{g,1}^{(1)}(t)$ $-0.246$ $0.247$
$\theta(\beta)P_{g,2}^{(1)}(t)$ $-0.248$ $0.245$
$(1/2)\theta(\beta)^{2}P_{g,1}^{(2)}(t)$ $-0.125$ $0.128$
$(1/2)\theta(\beta)^{2}P_{g,2}^{(2)}(t)$ $-0.127$ $0.126$
$(1/6)\theta(\beta)^{3}P_{g,1}^{(3)}(t)$ $-0.0566$ $0.0570$
$(1/6)\theta(\beta)^{3}P_{g,2}^{(3)}(t)$ $-0.0565$ $0.0567$
: The ranges of numerical values of the perturbation corrections with $\alpha=8$, $c=1$, $\kappa=1$, $0\leq t\leq 40\pi$ and $\theta(\beta)=\pi/60$. The estimations of the minimum and the maximum in every row of the table are based on values of each correction term, which we obtain numerically at equally spaced intervals $\Delta t=40\pi\times 10^{-4}$ during $0\leq t\leq 40\pi$.[]{data-label="Table02"}
When we take $\alpha=4$, $c=1$, $\kappa=1$, $0\leq t\leq 20\pi$ and $\theta(\beta)=\pi/32$, a numerical value of each order perturbation correction varies as shown in Table \[Table01\]. On the other hand, when we take $\alpha=8$, $c=1$, $\kappa=1$, $0\leq t\leq 40\pi$ and $\theta(\beta)=\pi/60$, a numerical value of each order perturbation correction varies as shown in Table \[Table02\]. Turning our eyes towards Table \[Table01\], we observe that the contribution of the third order correction is nearly equal to a half of the contribution of the second order correction in the perturbative expansion. From Table \[Table01\], we consider the perturbative expansion to be reliable for $\theta(\beta)=\pi/32$. Thus, taking $\alpha=4$, $c=1$ and $\kappa=1$, we can conclude that the third order perturbation theory is effective for the parameter $0\leq \theta(\beta) \leq \pi/32$. We notice that a similar thing happens in Table \[Table02\], as well. Thus, taking $\alpha=8$, $c=1$ and $\kappa=1$, we can conclude that the third order perturbation theory is effective for the parameter $0\leq \theta(\beta) \leq \pi/60$.
![The period of the revival of the Rabi oscillations $T(\theta)$ plotted as a function of the parameter of the temperature $\theta(\beta)$. The points are obtained from numerical calculations of the third order perturbation theory with taking $\alpha=4$, $c=1$, $\kappa=1$, $\omega_{0}=2$, $\omega=4$ and $0\leq \theta(\beta)\leq\pi/32$. In the graph, the vertical axis is scaled logarithmically as $\ln[T(\theta)]$ and the horizontal axis is scaled linearly as $\theta(\beta)$. Fitting the points with the linear function according to the least-squares method, we obtain $\ln[T(\theta)]=3.25+(0.988)\theta$, which is drawn in the graph.[]{data-label="Figure05"}](Figure05.eps)
![The period of the revival of the Rabi oscillations $T(\theta)$ plotted as a function of the parameter of the temperature $\theta(\beta)$. The points are obtained from numerical calculations of the third order perturbation theory with taking $\alpha=8$, $c=1$, $\kappa=1$, $\omega_{0}=2$, $\omega=4$ and $0\leq \theta(\beta)\leq\pi/60$. In the graph, the vertical axis is scaled logarithmically as $\ln[T(\theta)]$ and the horizontal axis is scaled linearly as $\theta(\beta)$. Fitting the points with the linear function according to the least-squares method, we obtain $\ln[T(\theta)]=3.92+(1.07)\theta$, which is drawn in the graph.[]{data-label="Figure06"}](Figure06.eps)
In Figs. \[Figure05\] and \[Figure06\], we plot the period of the revival of the Rabi oscillations $T(\theta)$ as a function of the parameter of the temperature $\theta(\beta)$. The points in Fig. \[Figure05\] are obtained from numerical calculations of the third order perturbation theory with taking $\alpha=4$, $c=1$, $\kappa=1$, $\omega_{0}=2$, $\omega=4$ and $0\leq \theta(\beta)\leq\pi/32$. The points in Fig. \[Figure06\] are obtained similarly with taking $\alpha=8$, $c=1$, $\kappa=1$, $\omega_{0}=2$, $\omega=4$ and $0\leq \theta(\beta)\leq\pi/60$. In Fig. \[Figure05\], we compute the period $T(\theta)$ numerically as follows: First, we calculate $\langle\sigma_{z}(t)\rangle$ given by Eq. (\[sigma\_z\_t\_upto-3rd-order-perturbation\]) for a certain $\theta(\beta)$. For every point of Fig. \[Figure05\], taking the interval of the time $\Delta t=5\pi\times 10^{-4}$, we obtain $\langle\sigma_{z}(t)\rangle$ at each time step during $15\pi/2\leq t\leq 10\pi$. We write the time at which $\langle\sigma_{z}(t)\rangle$ takes the maximum value as $t_{\mbox{\scriptsize max}}$ and write the time at which $\langle\sigma_{z}(t)\rangle$ takes the minimum value as $t_{\mbox{\scriptsize min}}$. Second, we obtain the period $T(\theta)$ with taking $T=(t_{\mbox{\scriptsize max}}+t_{\mbox{\scriptsize min}})/2$. \[For example, taking $\theta=\pi/32$, we obtain $t_{\mbox{\scriptsize max}}\approx 28.52$ for $\langle\sigma_{z}(t_{\mbox{\scriptsize max}})\rangle\approx 0.3923$ and $t_{\mbox{\scriptsize min}}\approx 28.86$ for $\langle\sigma_{z}(t_{\mbox{\scriptsize min}})\rangle\approx -0.4763$. Thus, we obtain $T(\pi/32)\approx 28.69$.\] The points of $T(\theta)$ in Fig. \[Figure06\] are obtained in a similar manner with taking the interval of the time $\Delta t=10\pi\times 10^{-4}$ and carrying out calculations of $\langle\sigma_{z}(t)\rangle$ at each time step during $15\pi\leq t\leq 20\pi$.
In the graphs of Figs. \[Figure05\] and \[Figure06\], the vertical axes are scaled logarithmically as $\ln[T(\theta)]$ and the horizontal axes are scaled linearly as $\theta(\beta)$. In the graph of Fig. \[Figure05\], the points form groups consisting of twos, threes and fours, so that they appear in the shape of the stairs as $\ln[T(\theta)]$ increases gradually. The reason why the points appear in the shape of the stairs is as follows: The atomic population inversion $\langle\sigma_{z}(t)\rangle$ is a bunch of the Rabi oscillations whose period is $\pi/(|\alpha||\kappa|)\simeq\pi/4$ around. (We obtain this approximation in Sec. \[section-review-JCM\].) At the same time, it shows the revival of the amplitude envelope with the period $T(\theta)\simeq 2\pi|\alpha|e^{\theta}/|\kappa|=8\pi e^{\theta}$ around. Thus, calculating $t_{\mbox{\scriptsize max}}$ and $t_{\mbox{\scriptsize min}}$ numerically, the rapid Rabi oscillations give us the smallest interval measurable as about $\pi/8$, which is the half of the period of the Rabi oscillations. This resolution of the time lets the points in Fig. \[Figure05\] form the shape of the stairs.
Contrastingly, the points in Fig. \[Figure06\] do not appear in the distinct shape of the stairs. This is because the resolution of Fig. \[Figure06\] is finer than that of Fig. \[Figure05\]. Indeed, in Fig. \[Figure06\], the period of the Rabi oscillations is given by $\pi/8$ around, so that the resolution of $T(\theta)$ is nearly equal to $\pi/16$.
Fitting the points in Fig. \[Figure05\] with the linear function according to the least-squares method, we obtain $$\ln{[}T(\theta){]}
=
3.25+(0.988)\theta.$$ We can interpret the above result as $$T(\theta)
\simeq
e^{3.25}\times e^{(0.988)\theta}
\simeq
8\pi e^{\theta},$$ which reminds us of Eq. (\[thermal-effect-period-rivival-Rabi-oscillations\]). On the other hand, fitting the points in Fig. \[Figure06\] with the linear function according to the least-squares method, we obtain $$\ln{[}T(\theta){]}
=
3.92+(1.07)\theta.$$ We can interpret the above result as $$T(\theta)
\simeq
e^{3.92}\times e^{(1.07)\theta}
\simeq
16\pi e^{\theta},$$ which also reminds us of Eq. (\[thermal-effect-period-rivival-Rabi-oscillations\]).
\[section-counter-rotating-terms\]Thermal effects of the counter-rotating terms
===============================================================================
In this section, we address thermal effects of the counter-rotating terms. Because this topic is difficult and includes subtle problems, we treat it with an intuitive manner.
First of all, we have to go back to the derivation of the JCM. At the beginning, we consider the Hamiltonian for a magnetic dipole in a magnetic field, and we obtain $$H
=
\frac{\hbar}{2}\omega_{0}\sigma_{z}
+
\hbar\omega a^{\dagger}a
+
\hbar\kappa(\sigma_{-}+\sigma_{+})
(a+a^{\dagger}).
\label{dipole-field-Hamiltonian-0}$$ Assuming near resonance $\omega\simeq\omega_{0}$, the interaction terms $\sigma_{+}a$ and $\sigma_{-}a^{\dagger}$ are practically independent of the time $t$, while the terms $\sigma_{-}a$ and $\sigma_{+}a^{\dagger}$ vary rapidly at frequencies $\pm(\omega_{0}+\omega)$. Then, applying the rotating wave approximation to Eq. (\[dipole-field-Hamiltonian-0\]) and removing the term $\hbar\kappa(\sigma_{+}a^{\dagger}+\sigma_{-}a)$, we obtain the Hamiltonian of the JCM written down as Eq. (\[JCM-Hamiltonian-0\]).
As mentioned above, the rotating wave approximation is used often in the field of the quantum optics. However, it is shown that the rotating wave approximation cannot always be a good treatment, and sometimes it causes serious defects. Ford [*et al*]{}. examine the Hamiltonian for an oscillator of the frequency $\omega_{0}$ interacting with a reservoir and its rotating wave approximation [@Ford1988; @Ford1997]. The Hamiltonian of the original model is given by $$H
=
\hbar\omega_{0}a^{\dagger}a
+
\sum_{j}\hbar\omega_{j} b_{j}^{\dagger}b_{j}
+
(a+a^{\dagger})\sum_{j}\lambda_{j}(b_{j}+b_{j}^{\dagger}),
\label{oscillator-reservoir-Hamiltonian-0}$$ where $[a,a^{\dagger}]=1$, $[b_{j},b_{j}^{\dagger}]=1$ $\forall j$, and its rotating wave approximation is given by $$H_{\mbox{\scriptsize RWA}}
=
\hbar\omega_{0}a^{\dagger}a
+
\sum_{j}\hbar\omega_{j} b_{j}^{\dagger}b_{j}
+
\sum_{j}\lambda_{j}(a^{\dagger}b_{j}+ab_{j}^{\dagger}).
\label{oscillator-reservoir-Hamiltonian-RWA-1}$$ Then, the Hamiltonian $H_{\mbox{\scriptsize RWA}}$ defined in Eq. (\[oscillator-reservoir-Hamiltonian-RWA-1\]) causes the following problem: The expectation value (the energy) of $H_{\mbox{\scriptsize RWA}}$ has no lower bound, so that we cannot specify the ground state. Thus, we have to think the system described with $H_{\mbox{\scriptsize RWA}}$ to be unphysical.
As explained above, the rotating wave approximation sometimes manifests anomalous aspects. Someone might complain that the rotating wave approximation brings us the JCM that is an exactly soluble quantum mechanical model for arbitrary $\Delta \omega$ and $\kappa$. However, the JCM also has a defect, which we cannot neglect. Here, we think around the eigenvalues and the eigenvectors of the Hamiltonian of the JCM given by Eq. (\[JCM-Hamiltonian-0\]). They are written down as follows [@Louisell1973]: $$\begin{aligned}
E_{n,1}
&=&
\hbar[\omega(n+\frac{1}{2})+\lambda_{n}], \nonumber \\
E_{n,2}
&=&
\hbar[\omega(n+\frac{1}{2})-\lambda_{n}]
\quad\quad
\mbox{for $n=0,1,2,...$}, \nonumber \\
E_{0,0}
&=&
-\frac{\hbar}{2}\omega_{0},
\label{eigenvalues-JCM}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
|\varphi(n,1)\rangle
&=&
\cos\theta_{n}|n+1\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize P}}|g\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize A}}
+
\sin\theta_{n}|n\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize P}}|e\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize A}}, \nonumber \\
|\varphi(n,2)\rangle
&=&
-\sin\theta_{n}|n+1\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize P}}|g\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize A}}
+
\cos\theta_{n}|n\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize P}}|e\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize A}}
\quad\quad
\mbox{for $n=0,1,2,...$}, \nonumber \\
|0,0\rangle
&=&
|0\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize P}}|g\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize A}},
\label{eigenvectors-JCM}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\lambda_{n}=\sqrt{(\frac{\Delta\omega}{2})^{2}+\kappa^{2}(n+1)},$$ $\Delta\omega=\omega-\omega_{0}$, and $$\tan\theta_{n}=\frac{\kappa\sqrt{n+1}}{(\Delta\omega/2)+\lambda_{n}}.$$
Looking at Eq. (\[eigenvalues-JCM\]), we notice that the ground state changes from $|0,0\rangle$ to $|\varphi(n,2)\rangle$ for $n\gg 1$ gradually as $|\kappa|$ becomes larger. To confirm it numerically, we plot $E_{0,0}$ and $\{E_{n,2}:n=0,1,2,...,24\}$ as functions of $\kappa$ in Fig. \[Figure07\]. At the same time, an excitation energy, which is required to promote the JCM system from the ground state to the first excited state, becomes smaller rapidly as $|\kappa|\to\infty$. To confirm it numerically, we plot the excitation energy as a function of $\kappa$ in Figs. \[Figure08\] and \[Figure09\].
From the analyses performed in Figs. \[Figure07\], \[Figure08\] and \[Figure09\], we can conclude as follows: If we take a large value of $|\kappa|$, the ground state of the JCM contains many photons. Then, the excitation energy takes a small value. These properties of the ground state of the JCM relate to the uncertainty principle $\Delta N \Delta \phi\geq (1/2)$. Because $\Delta E$ decreases exponentially as $|\kappa|$ becomes larger as shown in Figs. \[Figure08\] and \[Figure09\], the system of the JCM is able to jump from the ground state to excited states at ease for $|\kappa|\gg 1$. Thus, the fluctuation of the number of photons $\Delta N$ becomes very larger. Hence, according to the uncertainty principle $\Delta N \Delta \phi\geq (1/2)$, the system of the JCM around the ground state acquires very small fluctuation of the phase of each photon, so that $\Delta \phi\to 0$.
However, the ground state that contains a large number of photons with small fluctuation of the phase seems not to be practical. We may realize the ground state for $\Delta N\gg 1$ and $\Delta\phi\simeq 0$ in the laboratory by using a two-level atom in the cavity field, which is induced by a very strong laser beam.
From the viewpoint explained above, we cannot regard the JCM derived with the rotating wave approximation as a proper model in the field of the quantum optics. Hence, the JCM is valid and has physical meanings if and only if a near resonance $\omega\simeq\omega_{0}$ is assumed and $|\kappa|$ is small enough.
To overcome the defects of the rotating wave approximation in the JCM, some researchers try to extend and generalize the JCM. Ng [*et al*]{}. investigate the two-photon JCM and the intensity-dependent JCM with the counter-rotating terms [@Ng1999; @Ng2000]. In these models, the nonlinearity of the interaction between the two-level atom and the cavity field is emphasized.
In general, it is very difficult and complicated to evaluate the contributions of the counter-rotating terms in the JCM. Feranchuk [*et al*]{}. study the Schr[ö]{}dinger equation, whose Hamiltonian is given by Eq. (\[dipole-field-Hamiltonian-0\]), numerically [@Feranchuk1996].
Especially, Phoenix presents several perturbative approaches to investigate this problem. Here, we review one of his perturbation methods, which is called short time expansion of the inversion. First, we begin with the Heisenberg picture of $\sigma_{z}$, $$\sigma_{z}(t)
=
\exp(\frac{i}{\hbar}Ht)\sigma_{z}\exp(-\frac{i}{\hbar}Ht),
\label{Heisenberg-picture-sigma-z-0}$$ where the Hamiltonian is given by Eq. (\[dipole-field-Hamiltonian-0\]). Moreover, we assume $\omega=\omega_{0}$, so that we consider the optical resonance.
Second, we expand Eq. (\[Heisenberg-picture-sigma-z-0\]) in a power series in $t$ and neglect third-order terms [@Phoenix1989]. So that, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{z}(t)
&=&
\sigma_{z}(0)
+
\frac{it}{\hbar}[H,\sigma_{z}(0)]
-
\frac{t^{2}}{2\hbar^{2}}(H^{2}\sigma_{z}(0)+\sigma_{z}(0)H^{2})
+
\frac{t^{2}}{\hbar^{2}}H\sigma_{z}(0)H \nonumber \\
&&
+
{\cal O}(t^{3}) \nonumber \\
&=&
1-2(\kappa t)^{2}(a+a^{\dagger})^{2}
+
{\cal O}(t^{3}).
\label{short-time-expansion-inversion-0}\end{aligned}$$ Third, we assume the initial state as $|\alpha\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize P}}|e\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize A}}$, where $\alpha=\sqrt{\bar{n}}e^{i\phi}$, and substitute it into Eq. (\[short-time-expansion-inversion-0\]). Finally, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \sigma_{z}(t)\rangle_{\alpha}
&=&
{}_{\mbox{\scriptsize A}}\langle e|_{\mbox{\scriptsize P}}\langle\alpha|
\sigma_{z}(t)
|\alpha\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize P}}|e\rangle_{\mbox{\scriptsize A}} \nonumber \\
&=&
1-2(\kappa t)^{2}(4\bar{n}\cos^{2}\phi+1)+{\cal O}(t^{3}).
\label{short-time-expansion-inversion-coherent-state-1}\end{aligned}$$ Because Eq. (\[short-time-expansion-inversion-coherent-state-1\]) is valid for $0\leq t\ll 1$, we can expect it to describe the initial collapse of the Rabi oscillations.
We note that Eq. (\[short-time-expansion-inversion-coherent-state-1\]) depends on the phase $\phi$. This characteristic can always be found in any perturbative expansion of $\langle\sigma_{z}(t)\rangle_{\alpha}$. (This fact is indicated by Phoenix first.)
In Sec. \[section-thermal-effects-period-qualitative-estimation\], we give the intuitive discussions about the thermal effects of the JCM, and we obtain Eq. (\[thermal-effect-of-alpha-coherent-state-0\]) under the low-temperature limit. Hence, we can add the thermal effects to Eq. (\[short-time-expansion-inversion-coherent-state-1\]) as $$\langle\sigma_{z}(t)\rangle_{\alpha}
=
1-2(\kappa t)^{2}(4\bar{n}e^{2\theta}\cos^{2}\phi+1)+{\cal O}(t^{3}),
\label{short-time-expansion-inversion-coherent-state-2}$$ where $\theta$ is given by Eq. (\[definition-theta-beta-1\]). To examine whether or not Eq. (\[short-time-expansion-inversion-coherent-state-2\]) holds remains to be solved in the future.
In this section, we argue only the short time expansion of $\langle\sigma_{z}(t)\rangle_{\alpha}$ with the counter-rotating terms. We point out that to examine long time behaviour of the JCM with counter-rotating terms is very difficult even if we use perturbative techniques.
\[section-discussion\]Discussion
================================
Turning our eyes towards the graphs shown in Figs. \[Figure05\] and \[Figure06\], we observe that the period of the revival of the Rabi oscillations becomes longer as the temperature rises. This phenomenon is predicted form an intuitive discussion in Sec. \[section-thermal-effects-period-qualitative-estimation\]. In Sec. \[section-numerical-calculations\], we confirm this phenomenon (or this expectation) with numerical calculations based on the third order low-temperature expansion.
Why is the low-temperature expansion in $\theta(\beta)$ given by Sec. \[section-formulation-perturbetion-theory\] effective for a perturbation theory? The reason why is as follows: The thermal coherent state is defined in Eqs. (\[definition-thermal-coherent-state-2\]) and (\[another-form-of-thermal-coherent-state-1\]). This definition is suitable for the low-temperature expansion because of the Baker-Hausdorff theorem [@Louisell1973].
\[section-3rd-order-correction-term\]The third order correction
===============================================================
In this section, we give details of calculations of $P^{(3)}_{g,1}(t)$ and $P^{(3)}_{g,2}(t)$ defined in Eq. (\[Perturbation-theory-formula-4\]). From Eq. (\[Perturbation-theory-formula-4\]), we can write down the third order correction terms as $$\begin{aligned}
P^{(3)}_{g,1}(t)
&=&
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
g^{(n)}_{1}
\langle\alpha|
\langle\tilde{\alpha}|
[a\tilde{a}-a^{\dagger}\tilde{a}^{\dagger},
[a\tilde{a}-a^{\dagger}\tilde{a}^{\dagger}, \nonumber \\
&&
[a\tilde{a}-a^{\dagger}\tilde{a}^{\dagger},
(a^{\dagger}a+c)^{n}]]]
|\alpha\rangle
|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle, \nonumber \\
P^{(3)}_{g,2}(t)
&=&
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
g^{(n)}_{2}
\langle\alpha|
\langle\tilde{\alpha}|
[a\tilde{a}-a^{\dagger}\tilde{a}^{\dagger},
[a\tilde{a}-a^{\dagger}\tilde{a}^{\dagger}, \nonumber \\
&&
[a\tilde{a}-a^{\dagger}\tilde{a}^{\dagger},
(a^{\dagger}a+c+1)^{n}]]]
|\alpha\rangle
|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle.
\label{third-order-perturbation-terms-0}\end{aligned}$$ As mentioned in Secs. \[section-0th-order-correction-term\], \[section-1st-order-correction-term\] and \[section-2nd-order-correction-term\], we can obtain $P^{(3)}_{g,2}(t)$ after the manner of $P^{(3)}_{g,1}(t)$. Thus, from now on, we compute $P^{(3)}_{g,1}(t)$. For the convenience of calculations carried out in the remains of this section, according to Eq. (\[commutation-relation-Rn-Sn\]), we divide $P^{(3)}_{g,1}(t)$ into the following two parts: $$\begin{aligned}
P^{(3)}_{g,1}(t)
&=&
-
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
g^{(n)}_{1}
\langle \alpha|\langle\tilde{\alpha}|
[\hat{A},
[\hat{A},
[\hat{A},
\hat{B}^{n}]]]
|\alpha\rangle|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle \nonumber \\
&=&
-
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
g^{(n)}_{1}
\langle \alpha|\langle\tilde{\alpha}|
[\hat{A},\hat{R}_{n}]
|\alpha\rangle|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle
-
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
g^{(n)}_{1}
\langle \alpha|\langle\tilde{\alpha}|
[\hat{A},\hat{S}_{n}]
|\alpha\rangle|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle.
\label{definition-3rd-order-correction-terms-1}\end{aligned}$$
First, we examine the part which includes $\{[\hat{A},\hat{R}_{n}]\}$ in Eq. (\[definition-3rd-order-correction-terms-1\]). From Eqs. (\[defintion-Rn-Sn-i\]) and (\[defintion-Rn-Sn-ii\]), after slightly tough calculations, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
[\hat{A},\hat{R}_{0}]
&=&
0, \nonumber \\
{[}\hat{A},\hat{R}_{1}{]}
&=&
0, \nonumber \\
{[}\hat{A},\hat{R}_{2}{]}
&=&
-2(\hat{R}_{1}+\hat{S}_{1})\hat{C}
-2
{[}\hat{A},\hat{B}{]}
{[}\hat{A},\hat{C}{]}, \nonumber \\
{[}\hat{A},\hat{R}_{3}{]}
&=&
-3(\hat{R}_{2}+\hat{S}_{2})\hat{C}
-3
{[}\hat{A},\hat{B}^{2}{]}
{[}\hat{A},\hat{C}{]}
+
3(\hat{R}_{1}+\hat{S}_{1})\hat{A}, \nonumber \\
{[}\hat{A},\hat{R}_{4}{]}
&=&
-4(\hat{R}_{3}+\hat{S}_{3})\hat{C}
-4
{[}\hat{A},\hat{B}^{3}{]}
{[}\hat{A},\hat{C}{]}
+6(\hat{R}_{2}+\hat{S}_{2})\hat{A}
-4(\hat{R}_{1}+\hat{S}_{1})\hat{C} \nonumber \\
&&
-4
{[}\hat{A},\hat{B}{]}
{[}\hat{A},\hat{C}{]}, \nonumber \\
{[}\hat{A},\hat{R}_{5}{]}
&=&
-5(\hat{R}_{4}+\hat{S}_{4})\hat{C}
-5
{[}\hat{A},\hat{B}^{4}{]}
{[}\hat{A},\hat{C}{]}
+10(\hat{R}_{3}+\hat{S}_{3})\hat{A}
-10(\hat{R}_{2}+\hat{S}_{2})\hat{C} \nonumber \\
&&
-10
{[}\hat{A},\hat{B}^{2}{]}
{[}\hat{A},\hat{C}{]}
+5(\hat{R}_{1}+\hat{S}_{1})\hat{A}, \nonumber \\
{[}\hat{A},\hat{R}_{6}{]}
&=&
-6(\hat{R}_{5}+\hat{S}_{5})\hat{C}
-6
{[}\hat{A},\hat{B}^{5}{]}
{[}\hat{A},\hat{C}{]}
+15(\hat{R}_{4}+\hat{S}_{4})\hat{A}
-20(\hat{R}_{3}+\hat{S}_{3})\hat{C} \nonumber \\
&&
-20
{[}\hat{A},\hat{B}^{3}{]}
{[}\hat{A},\hat{C}{]}
+15(\hat{R}_{2}+\hat{S}_{2})\hat{A}
-6(\hat{R}_{1}+\hat{S}_{1})\hat{C}
-6
{[}\hat{A},\hat{B}{]}
{[}\hat{A},\hat{C}{]}, \nonumber \\
&&....\end{aligned}$$ Thus, we can rewrite the part including $\{[\hat{A},\hat{R}_{n}]\}$ in Eq. (\[definition-3rd-order-correction-terms-1\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
g^{(n)}_{1}
[\hat{A},\hat{R}_{n}]
&=&
-
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
n+2 \\
1
\end{array}
\right)
g^{(n+2)}_{1}
(\hat{R}_{n+1}+\hat{S}_{n+1})\hat{C} \nonumber \\
&&
-
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
n+2 \\
1
\end{array}
\right)
g^{(n+2)}_{1}
[\hat{A},\hat{B}^{n+1}][\hat{A},\hat{C}] \nonumber \\
&&
+
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
n+3 \\
2
\end{array}
\right)
g^{(n+3)}_{1}
(\hat{R}_{n+1}+\hat{S}_{n+1})\hat{A} \nonumber \\
&&
-
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
n+4 \\
3
\end{array}
\right)
g^{(n+4)}_{1}
(\hat{R}_{n+1}+\hat{S}_{n+1})\hat{C} \nonumber \\
&&
-
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
n+4 \\
3
\end{array}
\right)
g^{(n+4)}_{1}
[\hat{A},\hat{B}^{n+1}][\hat{A},\hat{C}] \nonumber \\
&&
+
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
n+5 \\
4
\end{array}
\right)
g^{(n+5)}_{1}
(\hat{R}_{n+1}+\hat{S}_{n+1})\hat{A} \nonumber \\
&&
-
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
n+6 \\
5
\end{array}
\right)
g^{(n+6)}_{1}
(\hat{R}_{n+1}+\hat{S}_{n+1})\hat{C} \nonumber \\
&&
-
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
n+6 \\
5
\end{array}
\right)
g^{(n+6)}_{1}
(\hat{R}_{n+1}+\hat{S}_{n+1})[\hat{A},\hat{C}] \nonumber \\
&&
-
....
\label{sum-g-A-R-1}\end{aligned}$$ In the following paragraphs, we examine the terms in the right-hand side of Eq. (\[sum-g-A-R-1\]), one by one.
Here, we think about the first term of the right-hand side of Eq. (\[sum-g-A-R-1\]). At first, referring to Eq. (\[defintion-Rn-Sn-ii\]), we calculate the part including $\{\hat{R}_{n+1}\}$ in the first term of the right-hand side of Eq. (\[sum-g-A-R-1\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
&&
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
n+2 \\
1
\end{array}
\right)
g^{(n+2)}_{1}
\hat{R}_{n+1} \nonumber \\
&=&
-
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
n+2 \\
1
\end{array}
\right)
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
n+3 \\
1
\end{array}
\right)
g^{(n+3)}_{1}
[\hat{A},\hat{B}^{n+1}]\hat{C} \nonumber \\
&&
+
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
n+3 \\
2
\end{array}
\right)
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
n+4 \\
1
\end{array}
\right)
g^{(n+4)}_{1}
[\hat{A},\hat{B}^{n+1}]\hat{A} \nonumber \\
&&
-
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
n+4 \\
3
\end{array}
\right)
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
n+5 \\
1
\end{array}
\right)
g^{(n+5)}_{1}
[\hat{A},\hat{B}^{n+1}]\hat{C} \nonumber \\
&&
+
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
n+5 \\
4
\end{array}
\right)
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
n+6 \\
1
\end{array}
\right)
g^{(n+6)}_{1}
[\hat{A},\hat{B}^{n+1}]\hat{A} \nonumber \\
&&
-
....
\label{summation-gR-1}\end{aligned}$$ We prepare the following formula: $$\begin{aligned}
&&
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
n+m+1 \\
m
\end{array}
\right)
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
n+m+2 \\
1
\end{array}
\right)
g^{(n+m+2)}_{1}
x^{n+1} \nonumber \\
&=&
\frac{1}{m!}
\frac{d^{m}}{dx^{m}}
g'_{1}(x)
-
(m+1)g^{(m+1)}_{1}
\quad\quad
\mbox{for $m=1,2,3,...$}.\end{aligned}$$ From Eq. (\[commutation-relations-A-Bn-3\]) and the above formula, we can rewrite Eq. (\[summation-gR-1\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
&&
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
n+2 \\
1
\end{array}
\right)
g^{(n+2)}_{1}
\hat{R}_{n+1} \nonumber \\
&=&
-
\Bigl(
\frac{d}{dx}g'_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}-1}\hat{\mu}
-
\frac{d}{dx}g'_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}+1}\hat{\nu}
-
\frac{d}{dx}g'_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}}\hat{A}
\Bigr)
\hat{C} \nonumber \\
&&
+
\Bigl(
\frac{1}{2!}\frac{d^{2}}{dx^{2}}g'_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}-1}\hat{\mu}
-
\frac{1}{2!}\frac{d^{2}}{dx^{2}}g'_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}+1}\hat{\nu}
-
\frac{1}{2!}\frac{d^{2}}{dx^{2}}g'_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}}\hat{A}
\Bigr)
\hat{A} \nonumber \\
&&
-
\Bigl(
\frac{1}{3!}\frac{d^{3}}{dx^{3}}g'_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}-1}\hat{\mu}
-
\frac{1}{3!}\frac{d^{3}}{dx^{3}}g'_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}+1}\hat{\nu}
-
\frac{1}{3!}\frac{d^{3}}{dx^{3}}g'_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}}\hat{A}
\Bigr)
\hat{C} \nonumber \\
&&
+
\Bigl(
\frac{1}{4!}\frac{d^{4}}{dx^{4}}g'_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}-1}\hat{\mu}
-
\frac{1}{4!}\frac{d^{4}}{dx^{4}}g'_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}+1}\hat{\nu}
-
\frac{1}{4!}\frac{d^{4}}{dx^{4}}g'_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}}\hat{A}
\Bigr)
\hat{A} \nonumber \\
&&
+... \nonumber \\
&=&
\Bigl(
e^{-d/dx}g'_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}-1}
-
g'_{1}(\hat{B}-1)
-
e^{-d/dx}g'_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}}
+
g'_{1}(\hat{B})
\Bigr)
\hat{\mu}^{2} \nonumber \\
&&
+
\Bigl(
-
e^{d/dx}g'_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}-1}
+
g'_{1}(\hat{B}-1)
+
e^{d/dx}g'_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}}
-
g'_{1}(\hat{B})
\Bigr)
\hat{\mu}\hat{\nu} \nonumber \\
&&
+
\Bigl(
-
e^{-d/dx}g'_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}+1}
+
g'_{1}(\hat{B}+1)
+
e^{-d/dx}g'_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}}
-
g'_{1}(\hat{B})
\Bigr)
\hat{\nu}\hat{\mu} \nonumber \\
&&
+
\Bigl(
e^{d/dx}g'_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}+1}
-
g'_{1}(\hat{B}+1)
-
e^{d/dx}g'_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}}
+
g'_{1}(\hat{B})
\Bigr)
\hat{\nu}^{2} \nonumber \\
&=&
\Bigl(
g'_{1}(\hat{B}-2)-2g'_{1}(\hat{B}-1)+g'_{1}(\hat{B})
\Bigr)
\hat{\mu}^{2} \nonumber \\
&&
+
\Bigl(
g'_{1}(\hat{B}-1)-2g'_{1}(\hat{B})+g'_{1}(\hat{B}+1)
\Bigr)
\hat{\mu}\hat{\nu} \nonumber \\
&&
+
\Bigl(
g'_{1}(\hat{B}-1)-2g'_{1}(\hat{B})+g'_{1}(\hat{B}+1)
\Bigr)
\hat{\nu}\hat{\mu} \nonumber \\
&&
+
\Bigl(
g'_{1}(\hat{B})-2g'_{1}(\hat{B}+1)+g'_{1}(\hat{B}+2)
\Bigr)
\hat{\nu}^{2}.
\label{summation-results-01}\end{aligned}$$
Next, from Eqs. (\[formula-g-polynomial-1\]) and (\[formula-Sn-1\]), we can compute the part including $\{\hat{S}_{n+1}\}$ in the first term of the right-hand side of Eq. (\[sum-g-A-R-1\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
&&
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
n+2 \\
1
\end{array}
\right)
g^{(n+2)}_{1}
\hat{S}_{n+1} \nonumber \\
&=&
-
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
n+2 \\
1
\end{array}
\right)
g^{(n+2)}_{1}
\Bigl(
(\hat{B}-1)^{n+1}-(\hat{B}+1)^{n+1}
\Bigr)
\hat{D} \nonumber \\
&=&
-
\Bigl(
g'_{1}(\hat{B}-1)-g'_{1}(\hat{B}+1)
\Bigr)
\hat{D}.
\label{summation-results-02}\end{aligned}$$
From Eqs. (\[commutation-relations-A-Bn-3\]) and (\[formula-g-polynomial-1\]), we calculate the second term in the right-hand-side of Eq. (\[sum-g-A-R-1\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
&&
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
n+2 \\
1
\end{array}
\right)
g^{(n+2)}_{1}
{[}\hat{A},\hat{B}^{n+1}{]} \nonumber \\
&=&
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
n+2 \\
1
\end{array}
\right)
g^{(n+2)}_{1}
\Bigl(
(\hat{B}-1)^{n+1}\hat{\mu}-(\hat{B}+1)^{n+1}\hat{\nu}-\hat{B}^{n+1}\hat{A}
\Bigr) \nonumber \\
&=&
g'_{1}(\hat{B}-1)\hat{\mu}
-
g'_{1}(\hat{B}+1)\hat{\nu}
-
g'_{1}(\hat{B})\hat{A}.
\label{summation-results-03}\end{aligned}$$
We consider the third term in the right-hand side of Eq. (\[sum-g-A-R-1\]) in the following manner. At first, referring to Eq. (\[defintion-Rn-Sn-ii\]), we calculate the part including $\{\hat{R}_{n+1}\}$ in the third term of the right-hand side of Eq. (\[sum-g-A-R-1\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
&&
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
n+3 \\
2
\end{array}
\right)
g^{(n+3)}_{1}
\hat{R}_{n+1} \nonumber \\
&=&
-
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
n+2 \\
1
\end{array}
\right)
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
n+4 \\
2
\end{array}
\right)
g^{(n+4)}_{1}
[\hat{A},\hat{B}^{n+1}]\hat{C} \nonumber \\
&&
+
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
n+3 \\
2
\end{array}
\right)
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
n+5 \\
2
\end{array}
\right)
g^{(n+5)}_{1}
[\hat{A},\hat{B}^{n+1}]\hat{A} \nonumber \\
&&
-
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
n+4 \\
3
\end{array}
\right)
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
n+6 \\
2
\end{array}
\right)
g^{(n+6)}_{1}
[\hat{A},\hat{B}^{n+1}]\hat{C} \nonumber \\
&&
+
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
n+5 \\
4
\end{array}
\right)
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
n+7 \\
2
\end{array}
\right)
g^{(n+7)}_{1}
[\hat{A},\hat{B}^{n+1}]\hat{A} \nonumber \\
&&
-
....
\label{summation-gR-2}\end{aligned}$$ Here, we prepare the following formula: $$\begin{aligned}
&&
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
n+m+1 \\
m
\end{array}
\right)
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
n+m+3 \\
2
\end{array}
\right)
g^{(n+m+3)}_{1}
x^{n+1} \nonumber \\
&=&
\frac{1}{2}
\frac{1}{m!}
\frac{d^{m}}{dx^{m}}
g''_{1}(x)
-
\frac{(m+1)(m+2)}{2}g^{(m+2)}_{1}
\quad\quad
\mbox{for $m=1,2,3,...$}.\end{aligned}$$ From Eq. (\[commutation-relations-A-Bn-3\]) and the above formula, we can rewrite Eq. (\[summation-gR-2\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
&&
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
n+3 \\
2
\end{array}
\right)
g^{(n+3)}_{1}
\hat{R}_{n+1} \nonumber \\
&=&
-
\frac{1}{2}
\Bigl(
\frac{d}{dx}g''_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}-1}\hat{\mu}
-
\frac{d}{dx}g''_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}+1}\hat{\nu}
-
\frac{d}{dx}g''_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}}\hat{A}
\Bigr)
\hat{C} \nonumber \\
&&
+
\frac{1}{2}
\Bigl(
\frac{1}{2!}\frac{d^{2}}{dx^{2}}g''_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}-1}\hat{\mu}
-
\frac{1}{2!}\frac{d^{2}}{dx^{2}}g''_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}+1}\hat{\nu}
-
\frac{1}{2!}\frac{d^{2}}{dx^{2}}g''_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}}\hat{A}
\Bigr)
\hat{A} \nonumber \\
&&
-
\frac{1}{2}
\Bigl(
\frac{1}{3!}\frac{d^{3}}{dx^{3}}g''_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}-1}\hat{\mu}
-
\frac{1}{3!}\frac{d^{3}}{dx^{3}}g''_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}+1}\hat{\nu}
-
\frac{1}{3!}\frac{d^{3}}{dx^{3}}g''_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}}\hat{A}
\Bigr)
\hat{C} \nonumber \\
&&
+
\frac{1}{2}
\Bigl(
\frac{1}{4!}\frac{d^{4}}{dx^{4}}g''_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}-1}\hat{\mu}
-
\frac{1}{4!}\frac{d^{4}}{dx^{4}}g''_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}+1}\hat{\nu}
-
\frac{1}{4!}\frac{d^{4}}{dx^{4}}g''_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}}\hat{A}
\Bigr)
\hat{A} \nonumber \\
&&
-... \nonumber \\
&=&
\frac{1}{2}
\Bigl(
e^{-d/dx}g''_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}-1}
-
g''_{1}(\hat{B}-1)
-
e^{-d/dx}g''_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}}
+
g''_{1}(\hat{B})
\Bigr)
\hat{\mu}^{2} \nonumber \\
&&
+
\frac{1}{2}
\Bigl(
-
e^{d/dx}g''_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}-1}
+
g''_{1}(\hat{B}-1)
+
e^{d/dx}g''_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}}
-
g''_{1}(\hat{B})
\Bigr)
\hat{\mu}\hat{\nu} \nonumber \\
&&
+
\frac{1}{2}
\Bigl(
-
e^{-d/dx}g''_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}+1}
+
g''_{1}(\hat{B}+1)
+
e^{-d/dx}g''_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}}
-
g''_{1}(\hat{B})
\Bigr)
\hat{\nu}\hat{\mu} \nonumber \\
&&
+
\frac{1}{2}
\Bigl(
e^{d/dx}g''_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}+1}
-
g''_{1}(\hat{B}+1)
-
e^{d/dx}g''_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}}
+
g''_{1}(\hat{B})
\Bigr)
\hat{\nu}^{2} \nonumber \\
&=&
\frac{1}{2}
\Bigl(
g''_{1}(\hat{B}-2)-2g''_{1}(\hat{B}-1)+g''_{1}(\hat{B})
\Bigr)
\hat{\mu}^{2} \nonumber \\
&&
+
\frac{1}{2}
\Bigl(
g''_{1}(\hat{B}-1)-2g''_{1}(\hat{B})+g''_{1}(\hat{B}+1)
\Bigr)
\hat{\mu}\hat{\nu} \nonumber \\
&&
+
\frac{1}{2}
\Bigl(
g''_{1}(\hat{B}-1)-2g''_{1}(\hat{B})+g''_{1}(\hat{B}+1)
\Bigr)
\hat{\nu}\hat{\mu} \nonumber \\
&&
+
\frac{1}{2}
\Bigl(
g''_{1}(\hat{B})-2g''_{1}(\hat{B}+1)+g''_{1}(\hat{B}+2)
\Bigr)
\hat{\nu}^{2}.
\label{summation-results-04}\end{aligned}$$
Next, using Eqs. (\[formula-g-polynomial-1\]) and (\[formula-Sn-1\]), we compute the part including $\{\hat{S}_{n+1}\}$ in the third term of the right-hand side of Eq. (\[sum-g-A-R-1\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
&&
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
n+3 \\
2
\end{array}
\right)
g^{(n+3)}_{1}
\hat{S}_{n+1} \nonumber \\
&=&
-
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
n+3 \\
2
\end{array}
\right)
g^{(n+3)}_{1}
\Bigl(
(\hat{B}-1)^{n+1}-(\hat{B}+1)^{n+1}
\Bigr)
\hat{D} \nonumber \\
&=&
-
\frac{1}{2}
\Bigl(
g''_{1}(\hat{B}-1)
-
g''_{1}(\hat{B}+1)
\Bigr)
\hat{D}.
\label{summation-results-05}\end{aligned}$$
Using Eqs. (\[commutation-relations-A-Bn-3\]) and (\[formula-g-polynomial-1\]), we compute the fifth term in the right-hand side of Eq. (\[sum-g-A-R-1\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
&&
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
n+4 \\
3
\end{array}
\right)
g^{(n+4)}_{1}
[\hat{A},\hat{B}^{n+1}] \nonumber \\
&=&
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
n+4 \\
3
\end{array}
\right)
g^{(n+4)}_{1}
\Bigl(
(\hat{B}-1)^{n+1}\hat{\mu}-(\hat{B}+1)^{n+1}\hat{\nu}-\hat{B}^{n+1}\hat{A}
\Bigr) \nonumber \\
&=&
\frac{1}{3!}
\Bigl(
\frac{d^{3}}{dx^{3}}g_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}-1}\hat{\mu}
-
\frac{d^{3}}{dx^{3}}g_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}+1}\hat{\nu}
-
\frac{d^{3}}{dx^{3}}g_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}}\hat{A}
\Bigr).
\label{summation-results-06}\end{aligned}$$
Second, we examine the part which includes $\{[\hat{A},\hat{S}_{n}]\}$ in Eq. (\[definition-3rd-order-correction-terms-1\]). From Eq. (\[formula-Sn-1\]), after slightly tough calculations, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{[}\hat{A},\hat{S}_{n}{]}
&=&
2
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
n \\
1
\end{array}
\right)
[\hat{A},\hat{B}^{n-1}]\hat{D}
+
2
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
n \\
3
\end{array}
\right)
[\hat{A},\hat{B}^{n-3}]\hat{D}
+
...
+
2
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
n \\
n-1
\end{array}
\right)
[\hat{A},\hat{B}]\hat{D} \nonumber \\
&&
+
\Bigl(
(\hat{B}+1)^{n}-(\hat{B}-1)^{n}
\Bigr)
[\hat{A},\hat{D}] \nonumber \\
&&
\mbox{for $n=0,2,4,...$ (even)}, \nonumber \\
{[}\hat{A},\hat{S}_{n}{]}
&=&
2
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
n \\
1
\end{array}
\right)
[\hat{A},\hat{B}^{n-1}]\hat{D}
+
2
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
n \\
3
\end{array}
\right)
[\hat{A},\hat{B}^{n-3}]\hat{D}
+
...
+
2
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
n \\
n-2
\end{array}
\right)
[\hat{A},\hat{B}^{2}]\hat{D} \nonumber \\
&&
+
\Bigl(
(\hat{B}+1)^{n}-(\hat{B}-1)^{n}
\Bigr)
[\hat{A},\hat{D}] \nonumber \\
&&
\mbox{for $n=1,3,5,...$ (odd)}.
\label{commutation-relation-A-Sn}\end{aligned}$$
Here, we prepare the following formulae: $$\begin{aligned}
&&
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
g^{(n+2m-1)}_{1}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
n+2m-1 \\
2m-1
\end{array}
\right)
x^{n} \nonumber \\
&=&
\frac{1}{(2m-1)!}
\frac{d^{2m-1}}{dx^{2m-1}}g_{1}(x)
\quad\quad
\mbox{for $m=1,2,3,...$},
\label{summation-power-series-formula-1}\end{aligned}$$ $$\frac{d}{dx}
+
\frac{1}{3!}
\frac{d^{3}}{dx^{3}}
+
\frac{1}{5!}
\frac{d^{5}}{dx^{5}}
+...
=
\frac{1}{2}(e^{d/dx}-e^{-d/dx}).
\label{differential-operator-series-formula-1}$$ From Eqs. (\[commutation-relations-A-Bn-3\]), (\[commutation-relation-A-Sn\]), (\[summation-power-series-formula-1\]) and (\[differential-operator-series-formula-1\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&&
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
g^{(n)}_{1}[\hat{A},\hat{S}_{n}] \nonumber \\
&=&
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
g^{(n)}_{1}
\Bigl(
(\hat{B}+1)^{n}-(\hat{B}-1)^{n}
\Bigr)
[\hat{A},\hat{D}] \nonumber \\
&&
+
2
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
g^{(n)}_{1}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
n+1 \\
1
\end{array}
\right)
[\hat{A},\hat{B}^{n}]\hat{D} \nonumber \\
&&
+
2
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
g^{(n+3)}_{1}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
n+3 \\
3
\end{array}
\right)
[\hat{A},\hat{B}^{n}]\hat{D} \nonumber \\
&&
+
2
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
g^{(n+5)}_{1}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
n+5 \\
5
\end{array}
\right)
[\hat{A},\hat{B}^{n}]\hat{D} \nonumber \\
&&
+... \nonumber \\
&=&
\Bigl(
g_{1}(\hat{B}+1)-g_{1}(\hat{B}-1)
\Bigr)
[\hat{A},\hat{D}] \nonumber \\
&&
+
2
\Bigl(
\frac{d}{dx}g_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}-1}\hat{\mu}
-
\frac{d}{dx}g_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}+1}\hat{\nu}
-
\frac{d}{dx}g_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}}\hat{A}
\Bigr)
\hat{D} \nonumber \\
&&
+
2
\Bigl(
\frac{1}{3!}
\frac{d^{3}}{dx^{3}}g_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}-1}\hat{\mu}
-
\frac{1}{3!}
\frac{d^{3}}{dx^{3}}g_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}+1}\hat{\nu}
-
\frac{1}{3!}
\frac{d^{3}}{dx^{3}}g_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}}\hat{A}
\Bigr)
\hat{D} \nonumber \\
&&
+
2
\Bigl(
\frac{1}{5!}
\frac{d^{5}}{dx^{5}}g_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}-1}\hat{\mu}
-
\frac{1}{5!}
\frac{d^{5}}{dx^{5}}g_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}+1}\hat{\nu}
-
\frac{1}{5!}
\frac{d^{5}}{dx^{5}}g_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}}\hat{A}
\Bigr)
\hat{D} \nonumber \\
&&
+... \nonumber \\
&=&
\Bigl(
g_{1}(\hat{B}+1)-g_{1}(\hat{B}-1)
\Bigr)
[\hat{A},\hat{D}] \nonumber \\
&&
+
\Bigl(
(e^{d/dx}-e^{-d/dx})g_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}-1}\hat{\mu}
-
(e^{d/dx}-e^{-d/dx})g_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}+1}\hat{\nu} \nonumber \\
&&
-
(e^{d/dx}-e^{-d/dx})g_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}}\hat{A}
\Bigr)
\hat{D} \nonumber \\
&=&
\Bigl(
g_{1}(\hat{B}+1)-g_{1}(\hat{B}-1)
\Bigr)
[\hat{A},\hat{D}] \nonumber \\
&&
+
\Bigl(
(g_{1}(\hat{B})-g_{1}(\hat{B}-2))\hat{\mu}
-
(g_{1}(\hat{B+2})-g_{1}(\hat{B}))\hat{\nu} \nonumber \\
&&
-
(g_{1}(\hat{B}+1)-g_{1}(\hat{B}-1))\hat{A}
\Bigr)
\hat{D}.
\label{summation-results-07}\end{aligned}$$
Putting together Eqs. (\[sum-g-A-R-1\]), (\[summation-results-01\]), (\[summation-results-02\]), (\[summation-results-03\]), (\[summation-results-04\]), (\[summation-results-05\]), (\[summation-results-06\]) and (\[summation-results-07\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&&
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
g^{(n)}_{1}
(
[\hat{A},\hat{R}_{n}]
+
[\hat{A},\hat{S}_{n}]
) \nonumber \\
&=&
\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}
\frac{(-1)^{n}}{n!}
\Bigl(
\frac{d^{n}}{dx^{n}}g_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}-2}
-
2
\frac{d^{n}}{dx^{n}}g_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}-1}
+
\frac{d^{n}}{dx^{n}}g_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}}
\Bigr)
\hat{\mu}^{3} \nonumber \\
&&
-
\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}
\frac{1}{n!}
\Bigl(
\frac{d^{n}}{dx^{n}}g_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}-2}
-
2
\frac{d^{n}}{dx^{n}}g_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}-1}
+
\frac{d^{n}}{dx^{n}}g_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}}
\Bigr)
\hat{\mu}^{2}\hat{\nu} \nonumber \\
&&
+
\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}
\frac{(-1)^{n}}{n!}
\Bigl(
\frac{d^{n}}{dx^{n}}g_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}-1}
-
2
\frac{d^{n}}{dx^{n}}g_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}}
+
\frac{d^{n}}{dx^{n}}g_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}+1}
\Bigr)
\hat{\mu}\hat{\nu}\hat{\mu} \nonumber \\
&&
-
\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}
\frac{1}{n!}
\Bigl(
\frac{d^{n}}{dx^{n}}g_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}-1}
-
2
\frac{d^{n}}{dx^{n}}g_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}}
+
\frac{d^{n}}{dx^{n}}g_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}+1}
\Bigr)
\hat{\mu}\hat{\nu}^{2} \nonumber \\
&&
+
\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}
\frac{(-1)^{n}}{n!}
\Bigl(
\frac{d^{n}}{dx^{n}}g_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}-1}
-
2
\frac{d^{n}}{dx^{n}}g_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}}
+
\frac{d^{n}}{dx^{n}}g_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}+1}
\Bigr)
\hat{\nu}\hat{\mu}^{2} \nonumber \\
&&
-
\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}
\frac{1}{n!}
\Bigl(
\frac{d^{n}}{dx^{n}}g_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}-1}
-
2
\frac{d^{n}}{dx^{n}}g_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}}
+
\frac{d^{n}}{dx^{n}}g_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}+1}
\Bigr)
\hat{\nu}\hat{\mu}\hat{\nu} \nonumber \\
&&
+
\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}
\frac{(-1)^{n}}{n!}
\Bigl(
\frac{d^{n}}{dx^{n}}g_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}}
-
2
\frac{d^{n}}{dx^{n}}g_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}+1}
+
\frac{d^{n}}{dx^{n}}g_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}+2}
\Bigr)
\hat{\nu}^{2}\hat{\mu} \nonumber \\
&&
-
\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}
\frac{1}{n!}
\Bigl(
\frac{d^{n}}{dx^{n}}g_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}}
-
2
\frac{d^{n}}{dx^{n}}g_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}+1}
+
\frac{d^{n}}{dx^{n}}g_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}+2}
\Bigr)
\hat{\nu}^{3} \nonumber \\
&&
-
\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}
\frac{(-1)^{n}}{n!}
\Bigl(
\frac{d^{n}}{dx^{n}}g_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}-1}
-
\frac{d^{n}}{dx^{n}}g_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}+1}
\Bigr)
\hat{D}\hat{\mu} \nonumber \\
&&
+
\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}
\frac{1}{n!}
\Bigl(
\frac{d^{n}}{dx^{n}}g_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}-1}
-
\frac{d^{n}}{dx^{n}}g_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}+1}
\Bigr)
\hat{D}\hat{\nu} \nonumber \\
&&
-
\Bigl(
\frac{d}{dx}g_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}-1}\hat{\mu}
-
\frac{d}{dx}g_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}+1}\hat{\nu}
-
\frac{d}{dx}g_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}}\hat{A} \nonumber \\
&&
+
\frac{1}{3!}
\frac{d^{3}}{dx^{3}}g_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}-1}\hat{\mu}
-
\frac{1}{3!}
\frac{d^{3}}{dx^{3}}g_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}+1}\hat{\nu}
-
\frac{1}{3!}
\frac{d^{3}}{dx^{3}}g_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}}\hat{A} \nonumber \\
&&
+
\frac{1}{5!}
\frac{d^{5}}{dx^{5}}g_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}-1}\hat{\mu}
-
\frac{1}{5!}
\frac{d^{5}}{dx^{5}}g_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}+1}\hat{\nu}
-
\frac{1}{5!}
\frac{d^{5}}{dx^{5}}g_{1}(x)\bigg|_{x=\hat{B}}\hat{A} \nonumber \\
&&
+...
\Bigr)
[\hat{A},\hat{C}] \nonumber \\
&&
+
\Bigl(
g_{1}(\hat{B}+1)-g_{1}(\hat{B}-1)
\Bigr)
[\hat{A},\hat{D}] \nonumber \\
&&
+
[
\Bigl(
g_{1}(\hat{B})-g_{1}(\hat{B}-2)
\Bigr)
\hat{\mu}
-
\Bigl(
g_{1}(\hat{B}+2)-g_{1}(\hat{B})
\Bigr)
\hat{\nu} \nonumber \\
&&
-
\Bigl(
g_{1}(\hat{B}+1)-g_{1}(\hat{B}-1)
\Bigr)
\hat{A}
]
\hat{D} \nonumber \\
&=&
\Bigl(
e^{-d/dx}g_{1}(\hat{B}-2)-g_{1}(\hat{B}-2)
-
2e^{-d/dx}g_{1}(\hat{B}-1)+2g_{1}(\hat{B}-1) \nonumber \\
&&
+
e^{-d/dx}g_{1}(\hat{B})-g_{1}(\hat{B})
\Bigr)
\hat{\mu}^{3} \nonumber \\
&&
+
\Bigl(
-e^{d/dx}g_{1}(\hat{B}-2)+g_{1}(\hat{B}-2)
+
2e^{d/dx}g_{1}(\hat{B}-1)-2g_{1}(\hat{B}-1) \nonumber \\
&&
-
e^{d/dx}g_{1}(\hat{B})+g_{1}(\hat{B})
\Bigr)
\hat{\mu}^{2}\hat{\nu} \nonumber \\
&&
+
\Bigl(
e^{-d/dx}g_{1}(\hat{B}-1)-g_{1}(\hat{B}-1)
-
2e^{-d/dx}g_{1}(\hat{B})+2g_{1}(\hat{B}) \nonumber \\
&&
+
e^{-d/dx}g_{1}(\hat{B}+1)-g_{1}(\hat{B}+1)
\Bigr)
\hat{\mu}\hat{\nu}\hat{\mu} \nonumber \\
&&
+
\Bigl(
-e^{d/dx}g_{1}(\hat{B}-1)+g_{1}(\hat{B}-1)
+
2e^{d/dx}g_{1}(\hat{B})-2g_{1}(\hat{B}) \nonumber \\
&&
-
e^{d/dx}g_{1}(\hat{B}+1)+g_{1}(\hat{B}+1)
\Bigr)
\hat{\mu}\hat{\nu}^{2} \nonumber \\
&&
+
\Bigl(
e^{-d/dx}g_{1}(\hat{B}-1)-g_{1}(\hat{B}-1)
-
2e^{-d/dx}g_{1}(\hat{B})+2g_{1}(\hat{B}) \nonumber \\
&&
+
e^{-d/dx}g_{1}(\hat{B}+1)-g_{1}(\hat{B}+1)
\Bigr)
\hat{\nu}\hat{\mu}^{2} \nonumber \\
&&
+
\Bigl(
-e^{d/dx}g_{1}(\hat{B}-1)+g_{1}(\hat{B}-1)
+
2e^{d/dx}g_{1}(\hat{B})-2g_{1}(\hat{B}) \nonumber \\
&&
-
e^{d/dx}g_{1}(\hat{B}+1)+g_{1}(\hat{B}+1)
\Bigr)
\hat{\nu}\hat{\mu}\hat{\nu} \nonumber \\
&&
+
\Bigl(
e^{-d/dx}g_{1}(\hat{B})-g_{1}(\hat{B})
-
2e^{-d/dx}g_{1}(\hat{B}+1)+2g_{1}(\hat{B}+1) \nonumber \\
&&
+
e^{-d/dx}g_{1}(\hat{B}+2)-g_{1}(\hat{B}+2)
\Bigr)
\hat{\nu}^{2}\hat{\mu} \nonumber \\
&&
+
\Bigl(
-e^{d/dx}g_{1}(\hat{B})+g_{1}(\hat{B})
+
2e^{d/dx}g_{1}(\hat{B}+1)-2g_{1}(\hat{B}+1) \nonumber \\
&&
-
e^{d/dx}g_{1}(\hat{B}+2)+g_{1}(\hat{B}+2)
\Bigr)
\hat{\nu}^{3} \nonumber \\
&&
+
\Bigl(
-e^{-d/dx}g_{1}(\hat{B}-1)+g_{1}(\hat{B}-1)
+
e^{-d/dx}g_{1}(\hat{B}+1)-g_{1}(\hat{B}+1)
\Bigr)
\hat{D}\hat{\mu} \nonumber \\
&&
+
\Bigl(
e^{d/dx}g_{1}(\hat{B}-1)-g_{1}(\hat{B}-1)
-
e^{d/dx}g_{1}(\hat{B}+1)+g_{1}(\hat{B}+1)
\Bigr)
\hat{D}\hat{\nu} \nonumber \\
&&
-
\Bigl(
\frac{1}{2}(e^{d/dx}-e^{-d/dx})g_{1}(\hat{B}-1)\hat{\mu}
-
\frac{1}{2}(e^{d/dx}-e^{-d/dx})g_{1}(\hat{B}+1)\hat{\nu} \nonumber \\
&&
-
\frac{1}{2}(e^{d/dx}-e^{-d/dx})g_{1}(\hat{B})\hat{A}
\Bigr)
[\hat{A},\hat{C}] \nonumber \\
&&
+
\Bigl(
g_{1}(\hat{B}+1)-g_{1}(\hat{B}-1)
\Bigr)
[\hat{A},\hat{D}] \nonumber \\
&&
+
[
\Bigl(
g_{1}(\hat{B})-g_{1}(\hat{B}-2)
\Bigr)
\hat{\mu}
-
\Bigl(
g_{1}(\hat{B}+2)-g_{1}(\hat{B})
\Bigr)
\hat{\nu} \nonumber \\
&&
-
\Bigl(
g_{1}(\hat{B}+1)-g_{1}(\hat{B}-1)
\Bigr)
\hat{A}
]
\hat{D} \nonumber \\
&=&
\Bigl(
-g_{1}(\hat{B})+3g_{1}(\hat{B}-1)-3g_{1}(\hat{B}-2)+g_{1}(\hat{B}-3)
\Bigr)
\hat{\mu}^{3} \nonumber \\
&&
+
\Bigl(
-g_{1}(\hat{B}+1)+3g_{1}(\hat{B})-3g_{1}(\hat{B}-1)+g_{1}(\hat{B}-2)
\Bigr)
\hat{\mu}^{2}\hat{\nu} \nonumber \\
&&
+
\Bigl(
-g_{1}(\hat{B}+1)+3g_{1}(\hat{B})-3g_{1}(\hat{B}-1)+g_{1}(\hat{B}-2)
\Bigr)
\hat{\mu}\hat{\nu}\hat{\mu} \nonumber \\
&&
+
\Bigl(
-g_{1}(\hat{B}+2)+3g_{1}(\hat{B}+1)-3g_{1}(\hat{B})+g_{1}(\hat{B}-1)
\Bigr)
\hat{\mu}\hat{\nu}^{2} \nonumber \\
&&
+
\Bigl(
-g_{1}(\hat{B}+1)+3g_{1}(\hat{B})-3g_{1}(\hat{B}-1)+g_{1}(\hat{B}-2)
\Bigr)
\hat{\nu}\hat{\mu}^{2} \nonumber \\
&&
+
\Bigl(
-g_{1}(\hat{B}+2)+3g_{1}(\hat{B}+1)-3g_{1}(\hat{B})+g_{1}(\hat{B}-1)
\Bigr)
\hat{\nu}\hat{\mu}\hat{\nu} \nonumber \\
&&
+
\Bigl(
-g_{1}(\hat{B}+2)+3g_{1}(\hat{B}+1)-3g_{1}(\hat{B})+g_{1}(\hat{B}-1)
\Bigr)
\hat{\nu}^{2}\hat{\mu} \nonumber \\
&&
+
\Bigl(
-g_{1}(\hat{B}+3)+3g_{1}(\hat{B}+2)-3g_{1}(\hat{B}+1)+g_{1}(\hat{B})
\Bigr)
\hat{\nu}^{3} \nonumber \\
&&
+
\Bigl(
-g_{1}(\hat{B}-2)+g_{1}(\hat{B})+g_{1}(\hat{B}-1)-g_{1}(\hat{B}+1)
\Bigr)
\hat{D}\hat{\mu} \nonumber \\
&&
+
\Bigl(
g_{1}(\hat{B})-g_{1}(\hat{B}+2)-g_{1}(\hat{B}-1)+g_{1}(\hat{B}+1)
\Bigr)
\hat{D}\hat{\nu} \nonumber \\
&&
+
2
\Bigl(
g_{1}(\hat{B})-g_{1}(\hat{B}-2)
\Bigr)
\hat{\mu}\hat{D} \nonumber \\
&&
-
2
\Bigl(
g_{1}(\hat{B}+2)-g_{1}(\hat{B})
\Bigr)
\hat{\nu}\hat{D} \nonumber \\
&&
-
\Bigl(
g_{1}(\hat{B}+1)-g_{1}(\hat{B}-1)
\Bigr)
\hat{D}\hat{A} \nonumber \\
&&
-
\Bigl(
g_{1}(\hat{B}+1)-g_{1}(\hat{B}-1)
\Bigr)
\hat{A}\hat{D}.
\label{3rd-order-correction-terms-2}\end{aligned}$$
Here, to compute the right-hand side of Eq. (\[3rd-order-correction-terms-2\]), we arrange $\hat{\mu}$ in the left side of the product of operators and $\hat{\nu}$ in the right side of the product of operators. For the arrangement of operators, we carry out the following calculations: $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{B}^{n}\hat{\mu}^{3}
&=&
\hat{\mu}^{3}(\hat{B}+3)^{n}, \nonumber \\
\hat{B}^{n}\hat{\mu}^{2}\hat{\nu}
&=&
\hat{\mu}^{2}(\hat{B}+2)^{n}\hat{\nu}, \nonumber \\
\hat{B}^{n}\hat{\mu}\hat{\nu}\hat{\mu}
&=&
\hat{\mu}^{2}(\hat{B}+2)^{n}\hat{\nu}
+
\hat{\mu}(\hat{B}+1)^{n}\hat{D}, \nonumber \\
\hat{B}^{n}\hat{\mu}\hat{\nu}^{2}
&=&
\hat{\mu}(\hat{B}+1)^{n}\hat{\nu}^{2}, \nonumber \\
\hat{B}^{n}\hat{\nu}\hat{\mu}^{2}
&=&
\hat{\mu}^{2}(\hat{B}+2)^{n}\hat{\nu}
+
2\hat{\mu}(\hat{B}+1)^{n}(\hat{D}+1), \nonumber \\
\hat{B}^{n}\hat{\nu}\hat{\mu}\hat{\nu}
&=&
\hat{\mu}(\hat{B}+1)^{n}\hat{\nu}^{2}
+
\hat{B}^{n}\hat{D}\hat{\nu}, \nonumber \\
\hat{B}^{n}\hat{\nu}^{2}\hat{\mu}
&=&
\hat{\mu}(\hat{B}+1)^{n}\hat{\nu}^{2}
+
2\hat{B}^{n}(\hat{D}+1)\hat{\nu}, \nonumber \\
\hat{B}^{n}\hat{D}\hat{\mu}
&=&
\hat{\mu}(\hat{B}+1)^{n}(\hat{D}+2), \nonumber \\
\hat{B}^{n}\hat{\mu}
&=&
\hat{\mu}(\hat{B}+1)^{n}, \nonumber \\
\hat{B}^{n}\hat{A}\hat{D}
&=&
\hat{\mu}(\hat{B}+1)^{n}\hat{D}
-
\hat{B}^{n}(\hat{D}+2)\hat{\nu}, \nonumber \\
\hat{B}^{n}\hat{D}\hat{A}
&=&
\hat{\mu}(\hat{B}+1)^{n}(\hat{D}+2)
-
\hat{B}^{n}\hat{D}\hat{\nu} \nonumber \\
&&
\mbox{for $n=1,2,3,...$},
\label{mu-nu-arrangement-formulae-1}\end{aligned}$$ $$\hat{\nu}\hat{D}
=
(\hat{D}+2)\hat{\nu}.
\label{nu-D-arrangement-formula}$$
With making use of Eqs. (\[g-B-D-foemula\]) and (\[definition-3rd-order-correction-terms-1\]), substitution of Eqs. (\[mu-nu-arrangement-formulae-1\]) and (\[nu-D-arrangement-formula\]) into Eq. (\[3rd-order-correction-terms-2\]) yields $$\begin{aligned}
P^{(3)}_{g,1}(t)
&=&
-
\langle\alpha|\langle\tilde{\alpha}|
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
g_{1}^{(n)}
([\hat{A},\hat{R}_{n}]+[\hat{A},\hat{S}_{n}])
|\alpha\rangle|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle \nonumber \\
&=&
-
8\alpha^{6}
\langle\alpha|\langle\tilde{\alpha}|
[
-g_{1}(\hat{B}+3)
+3g_{1}(\hat{B}+2)
-3g_{1}(\hat{B}+1)
+g_{1}(\hat{B})
]
|\alpha\rangle|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle \nonumber \\
&&
-
2\alpha^{2}
\langle\alpha|\langle\tilde{\alpha}|
[
-g_{1}(\hat{B}+2)
+3g_{1}(\hat{B}+1)
-3g_{1}(\hat{B})
+g_{1}(\hat{B}-1)
]
\hat{D}
|\alpha\rangle|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle \nonumber \\
&&
-
4\alpha^{2}
\langle\alpha|\langle\tilde{\alpha}|
[
-g_{1}(\hat{B}+2)
+3g_{1}(\hat{B}+1)
-3g_{1}(\hat{B})
+g_{1}(\hat{B}-1)
]
(\hat{D}+1)
|\alpha\rangle|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle \nonumber \\
&&
-
\alpha^{2}
\langle\alpha|\langle\tilde{\alpha}|
[
-g_{1}(\hat{B}-1)
+g_{1}(\hat{B}+1)
+g_{1}(\hat{B})
-g_{1}(\hat{B}+2)
]
(\hat{D}+2)
|\alpha\rangle|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle \nonumber \\
&&
-
\alpha^{2}
\langle\alpha|\langle\tilde{\alpha}|
[
g_{1}(\hat{B})
-g_{1}(\hat{B}+2)
-g_{1}(\hat{B}-1)
+g_{1}(\hat{B}+1)
]
\hat{D}
|\alpha\rangle|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle \nonumber \\
&&
-2
\alpha^{2}
\langle\alpha|\langle\tilde{\alpha}|
[
g_{1}(\hat{B}+1)
-g_{1}(\hat{B}-1)
]
\hat{D}
|\alpha\rangle|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle \nonumber \\
&&
+2
\alpha^{2}
\langle\alpha|\langle\tilde{\alpha}|
[
g_{1}(\hat{B}+2)
-g_{1}(\hat{B})
]
(\hat{D}+2)
|\alpha\rangle|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle \nonumber \\
&&
+
\alpha^{2}
\langle\alpha|\langle\tilde{\alpha}|
[
g_{1}(\hat{B}+2)
-g_{1}(\hat{B})
]
\hat{D}
|\alpha\rangle|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle \nonumber \\
&&
-
\alpha^{2}
\langle\alpha|\langle\tilde{\alpha}|
[
g_{1}(\hat{B}+1)
-g_{1}(\hat{B}-1)
]
(\hat{D}+2)
|\alpha\rangle|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle \nonumber \\
&&
+
\alpha^{2}
\langle\alpha|\langle\tilde{\alpha}|
[
g_{1}(\hat{B}+2)
-g_{1}(\hat{B})
]
(\hat{D}+2)
|\alpha\rangle|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle \nonumber \\
&&
-
\alpha^{2}
\langle\alpha|\langle\tilde{\alpha}|
[
g_{1}(\hat{B}+1)
-g_{1}(\hat{B}-1)
]
\hat{D}
|\alpha\rangle|\tilde{\alpha}\rangle \nonumber \\
&=&
4\alpha^{4}(2\alpha^{2}+3)
Q_{1}^{(3)}(t) \nonumber \\
&&
-
12\alpha^{2}(2\alpha^{4}+\alpha^{2}-2)
Q_{1}^{(2)}(t) \nonumber \\
&&
+
4\alpha^{2}(6\alpha^{4}-3\alpha^{2}-10)
Q_{1}^{(1)}(t) \nonumber \\
&&
-
4\alpha^{2}(2\alpha^{4}-3\alpha^{2}-4)
Q_{1}^{(0)}(t).
\label{3rd-order-perturbation-term-g1}\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, we obtain $P^{(3)}_{g,2}(t)$ as $$\begin{aligned}
P^{(3)}_{g,2}(t)
&=&
4\alpha^{4}(2\alpha^{2}+3)
Q_{2}^{(3)}(t) \nonumber \\
&&
-
12\alpha^{2}(2\alpha^{4}+\alpha^{2}-2)
Q_{2}^{(2)}(t) \nonumber \\
&&
+
4\alpha^{2}(6\alpha^{4}-3\alpha^{2}-10)
Q_{2}^{(1)}(t) \nonumber \\
&&
-
4\alpha^{2}(2\alpha^{4}-3\alpha^{2}-4)
Q_{2}^{(0)}(t).
\label{3rd-order-perturbation-term-g2}\end{aligned}$$
Here, we pay attention to the following facts: In Eqs. (\[3rd-order-perturbation-term-g1\]) and (\[3rd-order-perturbation-term-g2\]), replacing $Q_{1}^{(n)}(t)$ and $Q_{2}^{(n)}(t)$ for $n\in\{0,1,2,3\}$ with a certain constant that is not equal to zero, we can rewrite both of $P^{(3)}_{g,1}(t)$ and $P^{(3)}_{g,2}(t)$ as polynomials of $\alpha$. Because all of the terms cancel each other out in these polynomials, we can finally confirm that they are equal to zero. This fact can be found in any order corrections of the perturbative expansion, such as the first, second and third order corrections.
[99]{} E. T. Jaynes and F. W. Cummings, [*Proc. IEEE*]{} [**51**]{}, 89–109 (1963). B. W. Shore and P. L. Knight, [*J. Mod. Opt.*]{} [**40**]{}, 1195–1238 (1993). W. H. Louisell, [*Quantum Statistical Properties of Radiation*]{} (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1973). W. P. Schleich, [*Quantum Optics in Phase Space*]{} (Wiley-VCH, Berlin, 2001). F. W. Cummings, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**140**]{}, A1051–A1056 (1965). J. H. Eberly, N. B. Narozhny and J. J. Sanchez-Mondragon, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**44**]{}, 1323–1326 (1980). N. B. Narozhny, J. J. Sanchez-Mondragon and J. H. Eberly, [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**23**]{}, 236–247 (1981). H.-i. Yoo, J. J. Sanchez-Mondragon and J. H. Eberly, [*J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.*]{} [**14**]{}, 1383–1397 (1981). H.-i. Yoo and J. H. Eberly, [*Phys. Rep.*]{} [**118**]{}, 239–337 (1985). G. Rempe, H. Walther and N. Klein, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**58**]{}, 353–356 (1987). Y. Takahashi and H. Umezawa, [*Collective Phenomena*]{} [**2**]{}, 55–80 (1975); [*Int. J. Mod. Phys. B*]{} [**10**]{}, 1755–1805 (1996). I. Ojima, [*Ann. Phys. (N.Y.)*]{} [**137**]{}, 1–32 (1981). H. Umezawa, H. Matsumoto and M. Tachiki, [*Thermo Field Dynamics and Condensed States*]{} (North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 1982). H. Umezawa, [*Advanced Field Theory*]{} (American Institute of Physics, New York, 1992). S. M. Barnett and P. L. Knight, [*J. Opt. Soc. Am. B*]{} [**2**]{}, 467–479 (1985). A. Mann and M. Revzen, [*Phys. Lett. A*]{} [**134**]{}, 273–275 (1989). G. Arroyo-Correa and J. J. Sanchez-Mondragon, [*Quantum Opt.*]{} [**2**]{}, 409–421 (1990). W. S. Liu and P. Tombesi, [*Quantum Opt.*]{} [**4**]{}, 229–243 (1992). S. M. Chumakov, M. Kozierowski and J. J. Sanchez-Mondragon, [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**48**]{}, 4594–4597 (1993). A. B. Klimov and S. M. Chumakov, [*Phys. Lett. A*]{} [**264**]{}, 100–102 (1999). H. Azuma, [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**77**]{}, 063820 (2008). H. Azuma, [*Int. J. Mod. Phys. C*]{} [**21**]{}, 1021–1049 (2010). J. Eiselt and H. Risken, [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**43**]{}, 346–360 (1991). B. Daeubler, H. Risken and L. Schoendorff, [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**46**]{}, 1654–1662 (1992). M. Murao and F. Shibata, [*J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.*]{} [**64**]{}, 2394–2404 (1995). J. G. P. de Faria and M. C. Nemes, [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**59**]{}, 3918–3925 (1999). L.-m. Kuang, X. Chen, G.-h. Chen and M.-l. Ge, [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**56**]{}, 3139–3149 (1997). H.-y. Fan and H.-l. Lu, [*Phys. Lett. A*]{} [**332**]{}, 1–7 (2004). S. M. Barnett and P. M. Radmore, [*Methods in Theoretical Quantum Optics*]{} (Oxford University Press, Oxford UK, 1997). A. Mann, M. Revzen, H. Umezawa and Y. Yamanaka, [*Phys. Lett. A*]{} [**140**]{}, 475–478 (1989). A. Kireev, A. Mann, M. Revzen and H. Umezawa, [*Phys. Lett. A*]{} [**142**]{}, 215–221 (1989). A. Mann, M. Revzen, K. Nakamura, H. Umezawa and Y. Yamanaka, [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**30**]{}, 2883–2890 (1989). G. W. Ford, J. T. Lewis and R. F. O’Connell, [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**37**]{}, 4419–4428 (1988). G. W. Ford and R. F. O’Connell, [*Physica A*]{} [**243**]{}, 377–381 (1997). K. M. Ng, C. F. Lo and K. L. Liu, [*Eur. Phys. J. D.*]{} [**6**]{}, 119–126 (1999). K. M. Ng, C. F. Lo and K. L. Liu, [*Physica A*]{} [**275**]{}, 463–474 (2000). I. D. Feranchuk, L. I. Komarov and A. P. Ulyanenkov, [*J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.*]{} [**29**]{}, 4035–4047 (1996). S. J. D. Phoenix, [*J. Mod. Optics*]{} [**36**]{}, 1163–1172 (1989).
[^1]: On leave from Information and Mathematical Science Laboratory Inc., Meikei Building, 1-5-21 Ohtsuka, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 112-0012, Japan. Email: [email protected]
[^2]: Email: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We introduce a generalization of expander graphs, which is called a weak expander sequence. It is proved that a uniform Roe algebra of a weak expander sequence is not locally reflexive. It follows that uniform Roe algebras of expander graphs are not exact. We introduce the notion of a generalized box space to discuss box spaces and expander sequences in a unified framework. Key tools for the proof are amenable traces and measured groupoids associated with generalized box spaces.'
address: 'Research Institute for Mathematical Sciences, Kyoto University, Kyoto 606-8502, Japan'
author:
- Hiroki Sako
bibliography:
- 'wexpander.bib'
title: A generalization of expander graphs and local reflexivity of uniform Roe algebras
---
Introduction
============
An expander sequence is a family of finite graphs which are uniformly locally finite but highly connected. It has applications to computer sciences, error correcting codes, and networks. The first explicit example of an expander sequence was constructed by Margulis [@MargulisExpander]. It was constructed from a residually finite group with relative property (T).
Expander graphs give important examples in coarse geometry. Coarse geometry is a study of ‘large scale uniform structure’ of a space. We study features which do not depend on the local structure. The most fundamental properties for coarse spaces are property A defined by Yu [@Yu:CoarseHilbert Definition 2.1] and coarse embeddability into a Hilbert space. Yu dealt with these two properties in the study of the coarse Baum–Connes conjecture. The conjecture states that the geometric K-theory of a metric space and the analytic K-theory are isomorphic. Property A implies coarse embeddability and coarse embeddability implies the conjecture.
An expander sequence does not coarsely embed into a Hilbert space, since its components are highly connected. In this paper, we introduce a generalization of expander sequence, which is called a sequence of weak expander spaces. It is proved that weak expander spaces do not have property A (Corollary \[CorollaryNotA\]). This means that connectivity of the spaces is high enough to negate property A.
We often analyze a uniformly locally finite coarse space $X$ by its uniform Roe algebra. The algebra is a C$^*$-algebra and can be regarded as a natural linear representation of the space $X$. Property A is equivalent to nuclearity of the uniform Roe algebra $C^*_\mathrm{u}(X)$ (Skandalis, Tu, and Yu [@SkandalisTuYu Theorem 5.3]). Nuclearity of C$^*$-algebras can be interpreted as a finite dimensional approximation property (Choi–Effros [@ChoiEffrosNuclearCPAP Theorem 3.1], Kirchberg [@KirchbergNuclear]). In this paper, we deal with another approximation property, called local reflexivity ([@EffrosHaagerup Section 5]). It is much weaker than nuclearity. Because a weak expander sequence does not have property A, a uniform Roe algebra of a weak expander sequence is not nuclear. The goal of this paper is to show much stronger negation.
Let $X = \bigsqcup_{m = 1}^\infty X_m$ be a sequence of weak expander spaces. Then the uniform Roe algebra $C^*_\mathrm{u}(X)$ is not locally reflexive.
Since exactness implies local reflexivity [@KirchbergExactUHF], we have the following corollary.
A uniform Roe algebra of a sequence of expander graphs is not exact.
In Section \[SectionGenBox\], we prepare the notion of a generalized box space, which is a special kind of a coarse space. In Section \[SectionLocalReflexivity\], we review the definition of a uniform Roe algebras and local reflexivity of C$^*$-algebras. In Section \[SectionGroupoid\], we construct a topological groupoid associated to a coarse space. The groupoid is different from that in [@SkandalisTuYu]. Its topology is generated by countably many compact and open subsets. In Section \[SectionProof\], it is proved that the groupoid has an invariant measure, if the space is a generalized box space. If the uniform Roe algebra is locally reflexive, the measured groupoid has a Følner property. This is a key for the proof of the main theorem. In the last section, we make comments on uniform local amenability (ULA) defined by Brodzki, Niblo, Špakula, Willett, and Wright [@BNSWW Definition 2.2]. Definition of weak expander sequence is related to ULA.
Generalized box space and weak expander sequence {#SectionGenBox}
================================================
Coarse space
------------
We prepare several notations related to coarse geometry. See Roe’s lecture note [@RoeLectureNote Chapter 2] for details. Let $X$ be a set. For subsets $T, T_1, T_2 \subseteq X^2$, we define the inverse $T^{-1}$ and the product $T_1 \circ T_2$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
T^{-1} &=& \{(x, y) \in X^2 \ |\ (y,x) \in T\},\\
T_1 \circ T_2 &=& \{ (x, y) \in X^2 \
|\ \textrm{there exists\ } z \in X \textrm{\ such that\ }
(x, z) \in T_1, (z, y) \in T_2 \}.\end{aligned}$$ Denote by $T^{\circ n}$ the $n$-th power $T \circ T \circ \cdots \circ T$. For a subset $Y \subseteq X$ and $T \subseteq X^2$, let $T[Y]$ be a set defined by $$\begin{aligned}
T[Y] = \{x \in X\ | \ \textrm{there exists\ } y \in Y \textrm{\ such that\ } (x, y) \in T \}.\end{aligned}$$ For a one-point set $\{x\}$, we simply write $T[x] = T[\{ x \}]$. A subset $F \subseteq X$ is called a $T$-bounded set if there exists $x \in X$ such that $F \subseteq T[x]$.
\[Definition 2.3 in [@RoeLectureNote]\] Let $X$ be a set and let $\mathcal{C}$ be a family of subsets of $X^2$. The pair $(X, \mathcal{C})$ is said to be a coarse space if it satisfies the following:
- The diagonal subset $\Delta_X \subseteq X^2$ is an element of $\mathcal{C}$.
- If $T_1 \subseteq T_2$ and $T_2 \in \mathcal{C}$, then $T_1 \in \mathcal{C}$.
- If $T \in \mathcal{C}$, then $T^{-1} \in \mathcal{C}$.
- If $T_1, T_2 \in \mathcal{C}$, then $T_1 \circ T_2 \in \mathcal{C}$.
- If $T_1, T_2 \in \mathcal{C}$, then $T_1 \cup T_2 \in \mathcal{C}$.
Two elements $x, y \in X$ are said to be connected if $\{(x, y)\} \in \mathcal{C}$. Sometimes, a coarse space is assumed to be connected. In this paper, connectivity is not required. For the coarse space $(X, \mathcal{C})$, elements of $\mathcal{C}$ are called controlled sets (or entourages).
A metric space $(X, d)$ is naturally equipped with a coarse structure $\mathcal{C}$ defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{C} = \{ T \subseteq X^2 \ |\ d \mathrm{\ is\ bounded\ on\ } T \}.\end{aligned}$$ Other metrics on $X$ can define the same coarse structure. In coarse geometry, we focus on features which only depends on the coarse structure $\mathcal{C}$.
A coarse space $(X, \mathcal{C})$ is said to be uniformly locally finite if every controlled set $T \in \mathcal{C}$ satisfies $\sup_{x \in X} \sharp(T[x]) < \infty$.
Let us observe what uniform local finiteness means in the case of metric spaces. For a metric space $(X, d)$, we use the following notations: $$\begin{aligned}
N_R(Y) &=& \{x \in X \ |\ d(x, Y) \le R \}, \\
\partial_R (Y) &=& N_R(Y) \setminus Y.\end{aligned}$$ A metric space $(X, d)$ is uniformly locally finite if and only if for every distance $R > 0$, all the balls $N_R(x)$ of radius $R$ are finite and the numbers of their elements are uniformly bounded, namely, $\mathrm{sup}_{x \in X} \sharp(N_R(x)) < \infty$. In many references, metric spaces with this property are said to have bounded geometry.
The other typical example of a coarse space arises from groups and group actions. Let $G$ be a discrete group. A set $X$ equipped with a $G$-action naturally has a coarse structure. For a finite subset $K \subseteq G$, define $\Gamma_K \subseteq X^2$ by $T_K = \{ (g x, x) \ |\ g \in K, x \in X\}$. We say that a subset $T \subseteq X \times X$ is controlled if there exists a finite subset $K \subseteq G$ such that $T \subseteq T_K$. This coarse structure on $X$ is uniformly locally finite.
Generalized box space
---------------------
The term ‘box space’ was introduced in [@RoeLectureNote Definition 11.24]. It is a sequence of finite quotient groups of a residually finite group $G$. Let $H_1 \supseteq H_2 \supseteq \cdots$ be finite index normal subgroups of $G$ whose intersection $\bigcap_{m=1}^\infty H_m$ is $\{1_G\}$. A box space is the disjoint union $\square G = G / H_1 \bigsqcup G/H_2 \bigsqcup \cdots$ of finite quotient groups. The natural left translation action of $G$ gives a uniformly locally finite coarse structure on $\square G$.
Box spaces give interesting examples related to property A as follows:
- Guentner observed that $\square G$ has property A if and only if $G$ is amenable ([@RoeLectureNote Proposition 11.39]).
- It has been already pointed out by Willett that the uniform Roe algebra $C^*_\mathrm{u}( \square G )$ is not even exact if $G$ is not amenable (see the last sentence of [@ArzhantsevaGuentnerSpakula]). This is a conclusion of the argument of [@OzawaBook Proposition 3.7.11].
- For an appropriate choice of finite index normal subgroups of the free group $F_2$, the box space $\square F_2$ coarsely embeds into a Hilbert Space, although it does not have property A (Arzhantseva, Guentner, and Špakula [@ArzhantsevaGuentnerSpakula]).
- Let $G$ be a residually finite group with Kazhdan’s property (T). The box space $\square G$ is an expander sequence (see e.g., [@BekkaDelaHarpeValette Section 6.1]).
The construction of box spaces relies on discrete groups. In this paper, we generalize the notion of a box space in the context of coarse geometry and investigate its operator algebraic feature.
\[DefinitionGBS\] A uniformly locally finite coarse space $(X, \mathcal{C})$ is called a generalized box space, if there exists a disjoint decomposition $X = \bigsqcup_{m = 1}^\infty X_m$ satisfying the following conditions:
- Every subset $X_m$ is finite and not empty,
- Every controlled set $T \in \mathcal{C}$ is a subset of $\bigsqcup_{m=1}^\infty X_m \times X_m$.
The second condition means that the components $\{X_m\}$ are mutually disjoint in the sense of coarse geometry. This notion allows us to discuss box spaces and expander sequences in the same framework.
Weak expander spaces {#SubsectionWeakExpander}
--------------------
We introduce the notion of weak expander spaces.
\[DefinitionWeakExpander\] A generalized box space $X = \bigsqcup_{m = 1}^\infty X_m$ is called a sequence of weak expander spaces if there exist a controlled set $T$ and a positive number $c$ satisfying the following condition: for every controlled set $\widetilde{T}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\liminf_{m \rightarrow \infty} \left(
\inf \left\{ \frac{ \sharp(T[Y]) }{ \sharp(Y) } \ \colon\
\emptyset \neq Y \subseteq X_m, Y \textrm{\ is\ a }
\widetilde{T} \textrm{-bounded\ set} \right\} \right) > 1 + c.\end{aligned}$$
Consider the case that $T$ contains the diagonal set. Then the set $T[Y]$ is a kind of $Y$’s neighborhood and we regard the term $\sharp(T[Y]) / \sharp (Y)$ as the expansion of $Y$. The condition in Definition \[DefinitionWeakExpander\] means that the expansion of $Y$ is uniformly greater than $1 + c$ if $m$ is large enough and if $Y$ is a $\widetilde{T}$-bounded set. We first observe that the cardinality of $X_m$ diverges, like an expander sequence.
\[LemmaDiverge\] If a generalized box space $X = \bigsqcup_{m = 1}^\infty X_m$ is a sequence of weak expander spaces, then $\lim_{m \rightarrow \infty} \sharp(X_m) = \infty$.
Take a controlled set $T$ and a positive number $c$ in Definition \[DefinitionWeakExpander\]. We may assume that $T$ contains the diagonal set $\Delta_X$. Let $n$ be a large natural number. If $m$ is large enough, then we have $$\begin{aligned}
\inf \left\{ \frac{ \sharp(T[Y]) }{ \sharp(Y) } \ \colon\
\emptyset \neq Y \subseteq X_m, Y \textrm{\ is\ a }
T^{\circ n} \textrm{-bounded\ set} \right\} > 1.\end{aligned}$$ Take an element $x \in X_m$. By the inequality, we have $$\begin{aligned}
1
= \sharp(\{x\})
< \sharp(T[x])
< \sharp(T \circ T [x])
< \cdots
< \sharp(T^{\circ n} [x])\end{aligned}$$ and $n < \sharp(T^{\circ n} [x]) \le \sharp(X_m)$. It follows that $\sharp(X_m)$ is grater than $n$ for large $m$.
For a box space of a residually finite group $G$, being a weak expander sequence means non-amenability of $G$.
Let $G$ be a finitely generated residually finite group. Let $H_1 \supseteq H_2 \supseteq \cdots$ be a sequence of finite index normal subgroups of $G$ which satisfies $\bigcap_{m = 1}^\infty H_m = \{1_G\}$. Then the following conditions are equivalent:
1. \[LemmaBoxConditionNonAme\] The group $G$ is not amenable,
2. \[LemmaBoxPropertyNotA\] The box space $\square G = \bigsqcup_{m = 1}^\infty G / H_m$ does not have property A,
3. \[LemmaBoxPropertyWES\] The box space $\square G$ is a sequence of weak expander spaces.
By [@RoeLectureNote Proposition 11.39], conditions (\[LemmaBoxConditionNonAme\]) and (\[LemmaBoxPropertyNotA\]) are equivalent. We prove the equivalence of conditions (\[LemmaBoxConditionNonAme\]) and (\[LemmaBoxPropertyWES\]). Let $K$ be a symmetric generating set of $G$ containing $1_G$. Define a controlled set $T_K$ by the action of $K$, i.e., $T_K = \{ (g x, x) \
|\ g \in K, x \in \square G \}$. The controlled set $T_K^{\circ n}$ corresponds to the action of $K^n$, namely, $$\begin{aligned}
T_K^{\circ n} = \{ (g_1 g_2 \cdots g_n x, x) \
|\ g_1, g_2, \cdots, g_n \in K, x \in \square G \}.\end{aligned}$$
Suppose that $G$ is amenable. For every controlled set $T$ of $\square G$, there exists a natural number $n$ such that $T \subseteq T_K^{\circ n}$. For an arbitrary positive number $\epsilon$, there exists an $\epsilon$-Følner set $F \subseteq G$ for the action of $K^n$. We mean by $\epsilon$-Følner that $\sharp(F) < \infty$ and that $\sharp(K^n F) < (1 + \epsilon) \sharp (F)$. If $m$ is large enough, then the quotient map $q_m \colon G \rightarrow G / H_m$ is injective on the subset $K^n F \subseteq G$. For large $m$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sharp(T[q_m(F)])
\le \sharp(T_K^{\circ n}[q_m(F)])
= \sharp(q_m(K^n F))
< (1 + \epsilon) \sharp (q_m(F)).\end{aligned}$$ This implies the inequality $$\begin{aligned}
\liminf_{m \rightarrow \infty} \left(
\frac{ \sharp(T[q_m(F)]) }{ \sharp(q_m(F)) } \right) < 1 + \epsilon.\end{aligned}$$ There exists a controlled set $\widetilde{T}$ such that for every $m$ the finite subset $q_m(F)$ is $\widetilde{T}$-bounded. Indeed, there exists a natural number $l$ such that $F \subseteq K^l$. By the inclusion $q_m(F) \subseteq T_K^{\circ l} [1_{G/H_m}]$, the subsets $q_m(F)$ are $T_K^{\circ l}$-bounded. It follows that the box space $\square G$ is not a sequence of weak expander spaces.
Conversely, suppose that $\square G$ is not a sequence of weak expander spaces. For every positive number $\epsilon$, there exists a controlled set $\widetilde{T}$ satisfying the following inequality: $$\begin{aligned}
\liminf_{m \rightarrow \infty} \left(
\inf \left\{ \frac{ \sharp(T_K[Y]) }{ \sharp(Y) } \ \colon\
\emptyset \neq Y \subseteq G / H_m, Y \textrm{\ is\ a }
\widetilde{T} \textrm{-bounded\ set} \right\} \right)
< 1 + \epsilon.\end{aligned}$$ We may assume that $\widetilde{T} = T_K^{\circ n}$. For large enough $m$, the quotient map $q_m \colon G \rightarrow G / H_m$ is injective on $K^{n + 1} \subseteq G$. Take $m$ such that $q_m |_{K^{n + 1}}$ is injective and that $$\begin{aligned}
\inf \left\{ \frac{ \sharp(T_K[Y]) }{ \sharp(Y) } \ \colon\
\emptyset \neq Y \subseteq G / H_m, Y \textrm{\ is\ a }
T_K^{\circ n} \textrm{-bounded\ set} \right\} < 1 + \epsilon.\end{aligned}$$ Choose a $T_K^{\circ n}$-bounded subset $Y \subseteq G / H_m$ satisfying $\sharp(T_K[Y]) < (1 + \epsilon) \sharp(Y)$. Replacing $Y$ with a right translation of $Y$, we may assume that $1_{G/H_m} \in Y$. Since $T_K[Y]$ is $T_K^{\circ (n+1)}$-bounded, $T_K[Y]$ is included in the image of $K^{n + 1}$. The inverse image $F$ of $Y$ under the injective map $q_m |_{K^{n + 1}}$ satisfies the inequality $$\begin{aligned}
\sharp(K F) < (1 + \epsilon) \sharp(F).\end{aligned}$$ It turns out that there exists an $\epsilon$-Følner set with respect to the generating set $K$. It follows that $G$ is amenable.
Expander and weak expander {#SubsectionExpander}
--------------------------
Let $\{(X_m, d)\}_{m \in \mathbb{N}}$ be a sequence of finite metric spaces. The disjoint union $\bigsqcup_{m = 1}^\infty X_m$ is equipped with a coarse structure defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{C} =
\left\{\left.
T \subseteq \bigsqcup X_m \times X_m \ \right| \
d \mathrm{\ is\ bounded\ on\ } T \right\}.\end{aligned}$$ Suppose that $\left( \bigsqcup_{m = 1}^\infty X_m, \mathcal{C} \right)$ is a uniformly locally finite coarse space. Definition \[DefinitionWeakExpander\] can be rephrased in terms of the metric $d$. The space $\bigsqcup_{m = 1}^\infty (X_m, d)$ is a sequence of weak expander spaces if and only if there exist positive numbers $c$ and $R$ such that for every positive number $S$, $$\begin{aligned}
\liminf_{m \rightarrow \infty} \left(
\inf \left\{ \frac{ \sharp(N_R(Y)) }
{ \sharp(Y) } \ \colon\
\emptyset \neq Y \subseteq X_m, \mathrm{diam}(Y) \le S
\right\} \right) > 1 + c.\end{aligned}$$
To get a better understanding about a weak expander sequence, take an expanding sequence of subsets $Y, N_R(Y), N_R(N_R(Y)), \cdots \subseteq X_m$. Let us think that the sequence describes how information spreads. The numbers $\sharp(Y)$, $\sharp(N_R(Y))$, $\cdots$ indicate how many points the information reaches. The inequality $$\begin{aligned}
\inf \left\{ \sharp(N_R(Y)) / \sharp(Y) \ \colon\
\emptyset \neq Y \subseteq X_m, \mathrm{diam}(Y) \le S
\right\} > 1 + c.\end{aligned}$$ means that the number of the points increases exponentially ($\ge O((1 + c)^n))$), until the diameter of the area exceeds $S$. We can make the constant $S$ bigger, by choosing a larger component of $\bigsqcup X_m$.
The notion of weak expander spaces is a generalization of expander graphs. We recall the definition of expander graphs. For a connected graph $(X, E)$ with a vertex set $X$ and an edge set $E$, we define a metric on $X$ by $$\begin{aligned}
d(x, y) = \mathrm{min} \{d \in \mathbb{N} \
|\ x = z_0, z_1, \cdots, z_d = y \in X,
z_{j-1} \textrm{\ and\ } z_j \textrm{\ are\ connected}\}.\end{aligned}$$ For a subset $Y \subseteq X$, $N_1(Y)$ is the collection of all the vertices which are connected with $Y$ by edges. A sequence $\{(X_m, E_m)\}_{m \in \mathbb{N}}$ of finite graphs is called an expander sequence, if the following conditions hold:
1. The graphs $(X_m, E_m)$ are connected,
2. There exists a natural number $D$ such that the graphs $(X_m, E_m)$ are all $D$-regular. Namely, for every $m$ and $x \in X_m$, $\sharp(\partial_1(x)) = D$,
3. \[DefinitionExpanderCardinality\] $\lim_m \sharp (X_m) = \infty$,
4. \[DefinitionExpanderExpansion\] There exists a constant $c > 0$ such that for every subset $Y \subseteq X_m$ satisfying $\sharp(Y) \le \sharp(X_m) / 2$, the inequality $\sharp(N_1(Y)) > (1 + c) \sharp(Y)$ holds.
Fix distance $S > 0$. For a subset $Y \subseteq X_m$, if $\mathrm{diam} (Y) < S$ and if $m$ is large enough, then $\sharp(Y) \le \sharp (X_m) / 2$ by condition (\[DefinitionExpanderCardinality\]). By condition (\[DefinitionExpanderExpansion\]), an expander sequence is a sequence of weak expander spaces.
A sequence of expander graphs is characterized in two ways. In the above description, we used a kind of negation of the Følner condition. A sequence of weak expander spaces is a generalization in this context. A sequence of expander graphs can also be characterized by means of Poincar[' e]{} inequality. Ostrovskii [@Ostrovskii Theorem 2.4] and Tessera [@TesseraPoincare] independently characterized metric spaces which are not coarsely embeddable into Hilbert spaces and $L^1$-spaces. They made use of weaker versions of Poincar[' e]{} inequality. Tessera also studied non-embeddability into uniformly convex Banach spaces and ${\rm CAT}(0)$ spaces ([@TesseraPoincare Corollary 17]). Our generalization does not imply this kind of non-embeddability. Indeed, the box space $\square F_2$ of Arzhantseva, Guentner, and Špakula [@ArzhantsevaGuentnerSpakula] is a sequence of weak expanders and coarsely embeds into a Hilbert space.
Preliminary on operator algebra {#SectionLocalReflexivity}
===============================
Translation algebra and uniform Roe algebra
-------------------------------------------
Let us recall the definition of a uniform Roe algebra. We regard the algebra as a natural linear representation of a coarse space. A bounded linear operator $a$ on $\ell_2 X$ is said to have finite propagation if its matrix coefficient is located on a controlled set. More precisely, there exists a controlled set $T_a \subseteq X \times X$ such that $\langle a \delta_y, \delta_x \rangle = 0, (x, y) \in (X \times X) \setminus T_a$. The collection of all the operators with finite propagation is called the translation algebra $\mathcal{A}^\infty(X)$. The uniform Roe algebra $C^*_\mathrm{u}(X)$ is the operator norm closure of $\mathcal{A}^\infty(X)$. A coarse geometric property of $X$ sometimes implies an operator algebraic property of $C^*_\mathrm{u}(X)$. The typical example is the following:
\[Theorem 5.3 in [@SkandalisTuYu]\] Let $X$ be a uniformly locally finite metric space. The space $X$ has property A if and only if $C^*_\mathrm{u}(X)$ is nuclear.
Local reflexivity
-----------------
In this paper, we consider the following properties for C$^*$-algebras: Nuclearity, exactness, and local reflexivity. Nuclearity implies exactness. Conclusions in Kirchberg [@KirchbergExactUHF] show that exactness implies local reflexivity. They are all related to minimal tensor products between C$^*$-algebras. The following is the definition of local reflexivity.
A C$^*$-algebra $B$ is said to be locally reflexive if for every finite dimensional operator system $V \subseteq B^{**}$, there exists a net of contractive completely positive maps $\Phi_j \colon V \rightarrow B$ which converges to $\mathrm{id}_V$ in the point-ultraweak topology.
Instead of the definition, we only use the following features of local reflexivity.
\[Theorem 3.2, Theorem 5.1, and Proposition 5.3 of [@EffrosHaagerup]\] \[PropositionLocalSplit\]
- A C$^*$-subalgebra of a locally reflexive C$^*$-algebra is also locally reflexive.
- If $B$ is locally reflexive and $J$ is an ideal of $B$, then the exact sequence $0 \rightarrow J \rightarrow B \rightarrow B/J \rightarrow 0$ locally splits. Namely, for every finite dimensional operator system $V \subseteq B / J$, there exists a unital completely positive map $\Phi \colon V \rightarrow B$ such that $\Phi(a) + J = a$, $a \in V$.
For a neat description on local reflexivity, the reader is referred to the book [@OzawaBook Chapter 9] by Brown–Ozawa.
Amenable trace {#SubsectionAmeTr}
--------------
We recall the definition of amenable trace.
\[DefinitionAmeTr\] Let $B \subseteq \mathbb{B}(\mathcal{H})$ be a unital C$^*$-algebra. A tracial state $\theta$ on $B$ is said to be amenable if there exists a state $\rho$ on $\mathbb{B}(\mathcal{H})$ such that $\rho |_B = \theta$ and $\rho(uau^*) = \rho(a)$ for every $a \in \mathbb{B}(\mathcal{H})$ and unitary $u \in B$.
By Arveson’s extension theorem, this definition does not depend on the choice of the faithful representation. Kirchberg defined the notion of a liftable trace ([@KirchbergT Definition 3.1]) and proved that it is equivalent to amenability in the above sense ([@KirchbergT Proposition 3.2]). Instead of Definition \[DefinitionAmeTr\], we use other equivalent conditions. Let $\pi_\theta \colon B \rightarrow \mathbb{B}(\mathcal{H}_\theta)$ be the GNS-representation for the tracial state $\theta$.
\[TheoremAmenableTrace\] Let $\theta$ be a tracial state of a unital C$^*$-algebra $B$. The following statements are equivalent:
1. The tracial state $\theta$ is amenable,
2. \[TheoremAmenableTraceConditionNet\] There exists a net of unital completely positive maps $\Psi_j \colon B \rightarrow \mathbb{M}(n(j))$ satisfying that $\theta(b) = \lim \mathrm{tr} \circ \Psi_j(b)$ and $\lim \| \Psi_j(ab) - \Psi_j (a) \Psi_j (b) \|_{\mathrm{tr}, 2} = 0$, for every $a, b \in B$, where $\mathrm{tr}$ stands for the normalized trace of $\mathbb{M}(n(j))$,
3. For every faithful representation $B \subseteq \mathbb{B} (\mathcal{H})$, there exists a unital completely positive map $\Psi \colon \mathbb{B} (\mathcal{H}) \rightarrow \pi_\theta(B)^{\prime\prime}$ whose restriction to $B$ is $\pi_\theta$.
Amenability of $\theta$ passes to that on the algebra $\pi_\theta(B)$, if $B$ is locally reflexive.
\[PropositionQuotient\] Let $\theta$ be an amenable trace of a unital C$^*$-algebra $B$. If $B$ is locally reflexive, then the state $\tau = \langle \cdot \xi_\theta, \xi_\theta \rangle$ is an amenable trace of $\pi_\theta(B)$.
Since $B$ is locally reflexive, by Proposition \[PropositionLocalSplit\], the sequence $0 \rightarrow \mathrm{Ker}(\pi_\theta) \rightarrow B \rightarrow \pi_\theta(B) \rightarrow 0$ is a locally split extension. By [@OzawaBook Proposition 6.3.5 (4)], $\tau$ is an amenable trace of $\pi_\theta(B)$.
For a generalized box space $X = \bigsqcup_{m = 1}^\infty X_m$, the uniform Roe algebra $C^*_\mathrm{u} (X)$ and its unital subalgebra $B$ have amenable traces. Let $\Psi_m \colon C^*_\mathrm{u} (X) \rightarrow \mathbb{B}(\ell _2 X_m) = \mathbb{M}(\sharp(X_m), \mathbb{C})$ be the unital completely positive map by compression. Since $X_m$ is isolated in the coarse space $X$, $\Psi_m$ is a $*$-homomorphism. The composition $\theta_m = \mathrm{tr} \circ \Psi_m$ is a trace on $C^*_\mathrm{u} (X)$. Let $\theta$ be an accumulation point of $\{\theta_m\}$ in the state space of $C^*_\mathrm{u} (X)$. By Theorem \[TheoremAmenableTrace\] (\[TheoremAmenableTraceConditionNet\]), this is an amenable trace of $C^*_\mathrm{u} (X)$ and of its unital C$^*$-subalgebra $B$.
Construction of groupoid associated to label {#SectionGroupoid}
============================================
Groupoid is an algebraical object equipped with partially defined associative product, a space of units, and inverse. We often consider additional structures such as measure and topology. Measured groupoids are related to constructions of von Neumann algebras and ergodic theory of group actions. Topological groupoids serve as fundamental tools for operator K-theory and coarse geometry. For the axioms of groupoids, the reader is referred to Renault’s book [@BookRenault Chapter 1].
Skandalis, Tu, and Yu described a coarse space $X$ in terms of topological groupoid in [@SkandalisTuYu Section 3]. Their groupoid was constructed from Stone–Čech compactification of $X$. For the proof of our theorem, this groupoid is too big. We need separability of translation C$^*$-algebra and the groupoid must be second countable. In this section, we first construct a C$^*$-algebra, which is associated to a finite collection of partial bijections. We describe the algebra as a representation of a groupoid, whose topology is generated by countably many closed and open subsets.
Let $X$ be a uniformly locally finite coarse space. For a controlled set $T$, there exists a label $L$ in the following sense.
Let $T$ be a controlled set containing the diagonal subset $\Delta_X \subseteq T \subseteq X^2$. Label on $T$ is a family $L = \{\Delta_X = \phi(0), \phi(1), \phi(2), \cdots, \phi(k) \}$ of subsets of $T$ satisfying the following conditions:
- $T = \Delta_X \bigcup \left(\bigcup_{i = 1}^k \phi(i) \right)$,
- Each $\phi(i)$ gives a bijection from a subset of $X$ to a subset of $X$. Namely, if $(z, x), (z, y) \in \phi(i)$, then $x = y$, if $(x, z), (y, z) \in \phi(i)$, then $x = y$.
When $(x, y) \in X^2$ is an element of $\phi(i)$, we regard $x$ as the image of $y$ with respect to the map $\phi(i)$. Then we write $x = [\phi(i)](y)$. Let $(X, T)^{(2)} \subseteq X^2$ be the set of the pairs which are connected in the coarse structure generated by $T$. Namely, $(X, T)^{(2)}$ is the set $\bigcup_{n = 1}^\infty (T \cup T^{-1})^{\circ n}$. The set $(X, T)^{(2)}$ naturally has a groupoid structure by
- range map: $\mathrm{Image}_X \colon (x, y) \mapsto x$,
- source map: $\mathrm{Dom}_X \colon (x, y) \mapsto y$,
- product: $(x, y)(y, z) = (x, z)$,
- inverse: $(x, y)^{-1} = (y, x)$.
We often identify the space of units $\Delta_X$ with $X$. The first goal of this section is Theorem \[TheoremGroupoid\]. The theorem states that there exists a ‘good’ groupoid $\Gamma$ which encodes the partial bijections $\phi(i)$.
Translation C$^*$-algebra associated to label {#SubsectionC$^*$-SubalgebraLabel}
---------------------------------------------
For $i = -k, -k+1, \cdots , -1$, define $\phi(i)$ by the inverse $\phi(-i)^{-1}$. Let $I$ be the index set $\{ -k, -k+1, \cdots , 0, \cdots, k \}$. For $i \in I$, we denote by $v(i) : \ell_2 X \rightarrow \ell_2 X$ the partial isometry defined by $$\begin{aligned}
[v(i)](\delta_y)
=
\left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
\delta_{[\phi(i)](y)}, & \quad y \in \mathrm{Dom}_X (\phi(i)),\\
0, & \quad y \notin \mathrm{Dom}_X (\phi(i)).
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ The operator $v(i)$ is an element of the uniform Roe algebra $C^*_\mathrm{u}(X) \subseteq \mathbb{B}(\ell_2 X)$. The operators satisfy the relation $v(-i) = v(i)^*$. Let $I^*$ be the index set $\bigsqcup_{n = 1}^\infty I^n$. For $$\begin{aligned}
g = (g(1), g(2), \cdots, g(n)) \in I^n \subseteq I^*,\end{aligned}$$ we define a partial bijection $\phi(g)$ by the composition $\phi(g(1)) \circ \phi(g(2)) \circ \cdots \circ \phi(g(n))$, restricting the domain in the obvious way. The composition $\circ$ is identical to the product as controlled sets.
Let $E \colon \mathbb{B}(\ell_2 X) \rightarrow \ell_\infty X$ be the conditional expectation onto $\ell_\infty X$. We define operators $v(g), p(g)$ in $C^*_\mathrm{u}(X)$ as follows:
- a partial isometry $v(g) = v(g(1)) v(g(2)) \cdots v(g(n))$,
- a projection $p(g) = E(v(g))$.
Let $B = B_L$ be the unital C$^*$-subalgebra of $C^*_\mathrm{u}(X)$ generated by $\{ v(g) \ |\ g \in I^* \}$ and $\{ p(g) \ |\ g \in I^* \}$. Let $A$ be the commutative C$^*$-algebra generated by $E(B) \subseteq \ell_\infty X$.
\[Lemma;First\] The algebra $A$ is generated by at most countably many projections. The algebra $B$ contains $A$. The algebra $A$ is equal to $E(B)$.
Let $B_0$ be the linear span of the set $$\begin{aligned}
\{ v(g_1) p(h_1) v(g_2) p(h_2) \cdots v(g_n) p(h_n) \ | \ g_1, h_1, g_2, h_2, \cdots, g_n, h_n \in I^* \}.\end{aligned}$$ The set $B_0$ is closed under multiplication and involution. The algebra $B$ is the closure of $B_0$. Note that all the partial isometries $v(g_l)$ correspond to partial bijections of $X$ and that $p(h_l) \in \ell_\infty X$ is a characteristic function of a subset of $X$. It turns out that the image of the conditional expectation $E(v(g_1) p(h_1) \cdots v(g_n) p(h_n))$ has to be a projection. It follows that $A$ is generated by these countably many projections.
Define $g \in I^*$ by $(g_1(1), g_1(2), \cdots, g_2(1), g_2(2), \cdots, \cdots, g_n(1), g_n(2), \cdots)$. Define $v$ by $v(g_1) p(h_1) v(g_2) p(h_2) \cdots v(g_n) p(h_n) \in B_0$. The matrix coefficients of $v$ are $1$ only on a subset of $\phi(g) \subseteq X \times X$. It follows that $v^* v \le v(g)^* v(g)$. Since $v$ corresponds to a partial bijection on $X$, the projection $v^* v$ is in $\ell_\infty X$. By the equality $v = v(g) v^* v$, we have $E(v) = p(g) v^* v$. It follows that $E(B_0)$ is a subset of $B$. We conclude that $A$ is a subalgebra of $B$ and equal to $E(B)$.
Groupoid associated to label {#SubsectionGroupoidLabel}
----------------------------
Let $\Omega$ be a Gelfand spectrum of the unital commutative C$^*$-algebra $A$. We often identify $A$ and $C(\Omega)$. The projection $p \in C(\Omega)$ is a characteristic function of a closed and open subset $\mathrm{supp}_\Omega(p) \subseteq \Omega$. We identify $A p$ and $C(\mathrm{supp}_\Omega(p))$. By Lemma \[Lemma;First\], the topology of $\Omega$ is generated by at most countably many closed and open subsets. For $g \in I^*$, $\mathrm{Ad} (v(g))$ gives an isomorphism from $A v(g)^* v(g)$ to $A v(g) v(g)^*$. This isomorphism defines a homeomorphism $\psi_g \colon \mathrm{supp}_\Omega(v(g)^* v(g)) \rightarrow \mathrm{supp}_\Omega(v(g) v(g)^*)$ by $$\begin{aligned}
[v(g) a v(g)^* ] (\psi_g (\alpha)) = a (\alpha),
\quad
a \in A v(g)^* v(g),
\alpha \in \mathrm{supp}_\Omega(v(g)^* v(g)).\end{aligned}$$ We denote by $\mathrm{Dom}_\Omega(\psi_g)$, $\mathrm{Image}_\Omega(\psi_g) \subseteq \Omega$ the domain and the image of $\psi_g$.
We define a set $\Sigma(g)$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\Sigma(g) = \{ (\psi_g (\alpha), g, \alpha) \
|\ g \in I^*, \alpha \in \mathrm{Dom}_\Omega(\psi_g)\}\end{aligned}$$ and define its topology by the identification $\Sigma(g) \cong \mathrm{Dom}_\Omega(\psi_g) \subseteq \Omega$. We define $\Sigma$ by the disjoint union $\Sigma = \bigsqcup_{g \in I^*} \Sigma(g)$ and introduce its topology by the product of the compact Hausdorff topology and the discrete topology. We define an relation $\sim$ on $\Sigma$ by the following: two elements $(\psi_g(\alpha), g, \alpha)$ and $(\psi_h(\beta), h, \beta)$ are said to be equivalent if $\alpha = \beta$ and $\alpha \in \mathrm{supp}_\Omega (E(v(h)^* v(g)))$.
\[RemarkPsi\] If $(\psi_g(\alpha), g, \alpha) \sim (\psi_h(\beta), h, \beta)$, then $\psi_h(\beta)$ is equal to $\psi_g(\alpha)$. Since the function $E(v(h)^* v(g)) \in A$ is a characteristic function of the set $\{x \in X \ | \ [\phi(g)](x) = [\phi(h)](x) \} \subseteq X$, $\mathrm{Ad} (v(g))$ and $\mathrm{Ad} (v(h))$ are identical on $A E(v(h)^* v(g))$. Since $\alpha \in \Omega$ is in $\mathrm{supp}_\Omega (E(v(h)^* v(g)))$, we have $\psi_h(\beta) = \psi_h(\alpha) = \psi_g(\alpha)$. The converse does not hold in general.
The relation $\sim$ on $\Sigma$ is an equivalence relation.
For the proof of transitivity, suppose that $(\psi_g(\alpha), g, \alpha) \sim (\psi_h(\beta), h, \beta)$ and $(\psi_h(\beta), h, \beta) \sim
(\psi_g(\alpha^\prime), g^\prime, \alpha^\prime)$. Then $\alpha$ is equal to $\alpha^\prime$ and included in the supports of $E(v(h)^* v(g))$ and $E(v(g^\prime)^* v(h))$. Regarding the operators $E(v(g^\prime)^* v(h))$ and $E(v(h)^* v(g))$ as elements in $\ell_\infty X$, we have the inequality $E(v(g^\prime)^* v(h)) E(v(h)^* v(g)) \le E(v(g^\prime)^* v(g))$. It follows that $\alpha \in \mathrm{supp}_\Omega (E(v(g^\prime)^* v(g)))$. We have $(\psi_g(\alpha), g, \alpha) \sim
(\psi_g(\alpha^\prime), g^\prime, \alpha^\prime)$.
Let $\Gamma$ be the quotient topological space $\Sigma / \sim$ and $q \colon \Sigma \rightarrow \Gamma$ be the quotient map.
\[LemmaTopologyOfGamma\]
1. \[Hausdorff\] The space $\Gamma$ is Hausdorff.
2. For every $g \in I^*$, $q(\Sigma(g))$ is a closed and open subset of $\Gamma$.
3. For every $g \in I^*$, $q |_{\Sigma(g)} \colon \Sigma(g) \rightarrow q(\Sigma(g))$ is a homeomorphism.
Let $\gamma_1, \gamma_2$ be two distinct elements of $\Gamma$. Take representatives $(\psi_g(\alpha_1), g, \alpha_1)$, $(\psi_h(\alpha_2), h, \alpha_2) \in \Sigma$ of $\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$, respectively. We first suppose that $\alpha_1 \neq \alpha_2 \in \Omega$. Since $\Omega$ is a Hausdorff space, there exist disjoint open subsets $\Omega_1, \Omega_2 \subseteq \Omega$ such that $\alpha_l \in \Omega_l$ for $l = 1, 2$. The subsets $$\begin{aligned}
O_1 &=&
\bigcup_{k \in I^*} \{ q (\psi_k(\beta), k, \beta) \
|\ \beta \in \mathrm{Dom}_\Omega(\psi_k) \cap \Omega_1 \},\\
O_2 &=&
\bigcup_{k \in I^*} \{ q (\psi_k(\beta), k, \beta) \
|\ \beta \in \mathrm{Dom}_\Omega(\psi_k) \cap \Omega_2 \}\end{aligned}$$ are open in $\Sigma$. Indeed, these inverse images $$\begin{aligned}
q^{-1} (O_1) &=&
\bigcup_{k \in I^*} \{ (\psi_k(\beta), k, \beta) \
|\ \beta \in \mathrm{Dom}_\Omega(\psi_k) \cap \Omega_1 \},\\
q^{-1} (O_2) &=&
\bigcup_{k \in I^*} \{ (\psi_k(\beta), k, \beta) \
|\ \beta \in \mathrm{Dom}_\Omega(\psi_k) \cap \Omega_2 \} \end{aligned}$$ are open in $\Sigma$. The subset $O_1$ contains $\gamma_1$ and $O_2$ contains $\gamma_2$. These open subsets are disjoint.
Suppose that $\alpha_1 = \alpha_2$ and $\alpha_1 \notin \mathrm{supp}_\Omega E(v(h)^* v(g))$. Define a projection $p \in A$ by $p = 1 - E(v(h)^* v(g))$. Define two subsets $O_1, O_2$ of $\Gamma$ by $$\begin{aligned}
O_1
&=& \{ q (\psi_g(\beta), g, \beta) \
|\ \beta \in \mathrm{Dom}_\Omega(\psi_g) \cap \mathrm{supp}_\Omega (p) \},\\
O_2
&=& \{ q (\psi_h(\beta), h, \beta) \
|\ \beta \in \mathrm{Dom}_\Omega (\psi_h) \cap \mathrm{supp}_\Omega (p) \}.\end{aligned}$$ The inverse images are $$\begin{aligned}
q^{-1} (O_1)
&=& \bigcup_{k \in I^*}
\{ (\psi_k(\beta), k, \beta) \
|\ k \in I^*, \beta \in
\mathrm{supp}_\Omega (E(v(k)^* v(g)))
\cap \mathrm{supp}_\Omega (p) \},\\
q^{-1} (O_2)
&=& \bigcup_{k \in I^*}
\{ (\psi_k(\beta), k, \beta) \
|\ k \in I^*, \beta \in
\mathrm{supp}_\Omega(E(v(k)^* v(h)))
\cap \mathrm{supp}_\Omega (p) \}.\end{aligned}$$ Since they are open in $\Sigma$, $O_1$ and $O_2$ are open in $\Gamma$. Moreover, $q^{-1} (O_1)$ and $q^{-1} (O_2)$ are disjoint, since $E(v(k)^* v(g)) E(v(k)^* v(h)) p = 0$. Therefore the open subsets $O_1$ and $O_2$ are also disjoint. Since $\gamma_1 \in O_1$ and $\gamma_2 \in O_2$, $\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$ are separated by two open subsets. It follows that $\Gamma$ is Hausdorff.
By compactness of $\Sigma(g)$ and continuity of $q$, the image $q (\Sigma(g))$ is also compact. Since $\Gamma$ is Hausdorff, $q (\Sigma(g))$ is closed. The inverse image $q^{-1} (q (\Sigma(g)))$ is equal to $$\begin{aligned}
\bigcup_{k \in I^*} \{ (\psi_k (\beta), k, \beta) \
|\ k \in I^*, \beta \in \mathrm{supp}_\Omega (E(v(k)^* v(g))) \}.\end{aligned}$$ This is an open subset of $\Sigma$. It follows that $q (\Sigma(g))$ is open.
The map $q |_{\Sigma(g)}$ is injective by the definition of the equivalence relation $\sim$. The map $q |_{\Sigma(g)} \colon \Sigma(g) \rightarrow q(\Sigma(g))$ is a bijective continuous map from a compact space onto a Hausdorff space. It follows that the map is homeomorphic.
We denote by $\Gamma(g)$ the subset $q(\Sigma(g)) \subset \Gamma$. We describe an element $q (\psi_g(\alpha), g, \alpha)$ of $\Gamma(g)$ as $[\psi_g(\alpha), g, \alpha]$. Before stating the next proposition, fix some notations.
- The element $0 \in I^*$ stands for $(0) \in I^1$.
- For $g = (g(1), g(2), \cdots, g(n)), h = (h(1), h(2), \cdots, h(m)) \in I^*$, the product $g * h$ is defined by $(g(1), g(2), \cdots, g(n), h(1), h(2), \cdots, h(m))$.
- The inverse $g^{-1}$ is defined by $(- g(n), - g(n - 1), \cdots, - g(1))$.
The following relations in $B$ holds: $v(0) = 1$, $v(g) v(h) = v(g * h)$, and $v(g)^* = v(g^{-1})$.
We prove that $\Gamma$ naturally has a structure of an étale groupoid.
The set $\Gamma$ is an étale groupoid with the space of units $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega \cong \Gamma(0) = \{ [\alpha, 0, \alpha] \ |\ \alpha \in \Omega \}\end{aligned}$$ equipped with the following well-defined continuous operations:
1. [range map or target map]{}, $t \colon \Gamma\rightarrow \Omega \colon [\psi_g (\alpha), g, \alpha]
\mapsto \psi_g(\alpha)$,
2. [source map]{}, $s \colon \Gamma\rightarrow \Omega \colon [\psi_g (\alpha), g, \alpha] \mapsto \alpha$,
3. [product]{} $\colon
\Gamma^{(2)} \rightarrow \Gamma \colon
([\psi_g (\alpha), g, \alpha], [\psi_h (\beta), h, \beta]) \mapsto [\psi_g (\alpha), g * h, \beta]$,\
where $\Gamma^{(2)}$ is $\{ ([\psi_g (\alpha), g, \alpha], [\psi_h (\beta), h, \beta]) \in \Gamma \times \Gamma\
|\ \alpha = \psi_h (\beta)\} $,
4. [inverse]{} $\colon \Gamma\rightarrow \Gamma
\colon [\psi_g (\alpha), g, \alpha] \mapsto [\alpha, g^{-1}, \psi_g (\alpha)]$.
By the definition of $\Gamma$, the source map $s$ is well-defined. The map is continuous, since $s \circ q \colon \Sigma \rightarrow \Omega$ is continuous. By Lemma \[LemmaTopologyOfGamma\] (2), $\Gamma(g)$ is an open subset of $\Gamma$. Since the map $s$ is homeomorphic on $\Gamma(g)$, $s$ is locally homeomorphic.
We prove that the product map is well-defined. We only show that the product map does not depend on the choice of representatives of the first entry. Take an element $[\psi_{g * h}(\beta), g, \psi_h(\beta)], [\psi_h(\beta), h, \beta]) \in \Gamma^{(2)}$ and choose another representative $(\psi_{g * h}(\beta), g^\prime, \psi_h(\beta))$ of $[\psi_{g * h}(\beta), g, \psi_h(\beta)]$. By Remark \[RemarkPsi\], every representative is of this form. By the definition, we have $\psi_h(\beta) \in \mathrm{supp}_\Omega (E(v(g^\prime)^* v(g)))$. It follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\beta
\in \psi_h^{-1} (\mathrm{supp}_\Omega (E(v(g^\prime)^* v(g))))
&=& \mathrm{supp}_\Omega (v(h)^* E(v(g^\prime)^* v(g)) v(h))\\
&=& \mathrm{supp}_\Omega
(E(v(h)^* v(g^\prime)^* v(g) v(h)))\\
&=& \mathrm{supp}_\Omega (E(v(g^\prime * h)^* v(g * h))).\end{aligned}$$ This implies the equality $[\psi_{g * h}(\beta), g * h, \beta] =
[\psi_{g * h}(\beta), g^\prime * h, \beta]$. We obtain the claim.
To prove the continuity of the product map, define $\Sigma^{(2)}$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\Sigma^{(2)} = (q \times q)^{-1} (\Gamma^{(2)}) =
\{ ((\psi_g (\alpha), g, \alpha), (\psi_h (\beta), h, \beta)) \in \Sigma \times \Sigma \
|\ \alpha = \psi_h (\beta) \}.\end{aligned}$$ The map $\Sigma^{(2)} \ni ((\psi_g (\alpha), g, \alpha), (\psi_h (\beta), h, \beta))
\mapsto (\psi_g (\alpha), g * h, \beta) \in \Sigma$ is continuous. Since the space $\Gamma^{(2)}$ is a quotient of $\Sigma^{(2)}$, the product map on $\Gamma^{(2)}$ is also continuous.
To prove that the inverse map is well-defined, take an element $\gamma = [\psi_g(\alpha), g, \alpha]$. By Remark \[RemarkPsi\], every representative of $\gamma$ is of the form $(\psi_g(\alpha), h, \alpha)$. We also have $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_h (\beta)
\in \psi_h (\mathrm{supp}_\Omega (E(v(h)^* v(g))))
&=& \mathrm{supp}_\Omega (v(h) E(v(h)^* v(g)) v(h)^*)\\
&=& \mathrm{supp}_\Omega (E(v(g^{-1})^* v(h^{-1}))).\end{aligned}$$ It follows that $[\alpha, g^{-1}, \psi_g(\alpha)] = [\beta, h^{-1}, \psi_h(\beta)]$. This means that the inverse map is well-defined. The map is also continuous, since the map $\Sigma \rightarrow \Sigma
\colon (\psi_g (\alpha), g, \alpha) \mapsto (\alpha, g^{-1}, \psi_g (\alpha))$ is continuous. The range map $t$ is also well-defined and continuous, since $t$ is the composition of $s$ and the inverse map.
Simple calculations show that $\Gamma$ satisfy algebraic axioms of groupoid.
Construction of a homomorphism {#SubsectionProofGroupoid}
------------------------------
We finish the proof of Theorem \[TheoremGroupoid\].
\[TheoremGroupoid\] Let $T$ be a controlled set on a uniformly locally finite coarse space $X$. Suppose that $T$ contains the diagonal subset $\Delta_X$. Let $L$ be a label $\{\Delta_X = \phi(0), \phi(1), \phi(2), \cdots, \phi(k) \}$ on $T$. There exist a groupoid $\Gamma$, a groupoid homomorphism $\Phi^* \colon (X, T)^{(2)} \rightarrow \Gamma$, and compact and open subsets $\Gamma(1), \Gamma(2), \cdots, \Gamma(k) \subseteq \Gamma$ which satisfy the following conditions:
(a) \[TheoremGroupoidEtale\] The groupoid $\Gamma$ is étale and Hausdorff.
(b) \[TheoremGroupoidClopen\] The space of the units $\Gamma(0)$ is compact, and the topology is generated by at most countably many closed and open subsets.
(c) \[TheoremGroupoidGenerator\] The groupoid $\Gamma$ is generated by $\Gamma(0), \Gamma(1), \cdots, \Gamma(k)$. For $i = 0, 1, 2, \cdots, k$, \[[\[(a)\]]{}\]
(d) \[TheoremGroupoidInverseImagek\] The source map $s$ and the range map $t$ are injective on $\Gamma(i)$ .
(e) \[TheoremGroupoidUnits\] The inverse image $(\Phi^*)^{-1} (\Gamma(i))$ is $\phi(i)$. The image $\Phi^*(\phi(i))$ is dense in $\Gamma(i)$.
(f) \[TheoremGroupoidSurjectivity\] Let $\gamma$ be an element of $\Gamma$ and let $x$ be an element of $X$. If $t(\gamma) = \Phi^*(x, x)$, then there exists $y \in X$ such that $\gamma = \Phi^*(x, y)$. If $s(\gamma) = \Phi^*(x, x)$, then there exists $y \in X$ such that $\gamma = \Phi^*(y ,x)$.
We have already shown that our concrete $\Gamma$ satisfies (\[TheoremGroupoidEtale\]), (\[TheoremGroupoidClopen\]), and (\[TheoremGroupoidInverseImagek\]). Condition (\[TheoremGroupoidGenerator\]) also holds. Indeed, every element $[\psi_g(\alpha), g, \alpha]$ of $\Gamma$ can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
[\psi_{g(1)}(\psi_{(g(2), \cdots, g(n))}(\alpha)), g(1), \psi_{(g(2), \cdots, g(n))}(\alpha)] \cdot \cdots \cdot
[\psi_{g(n)}(\alpha), g(n), \alpha].\end{aligned}$$ This is a product of elements in $\Gamma(i)$ and their inverses.
We construct a homomorphism $\Phi^*$ satisfying conditions (\[TheoremGroupoidUnits\]) and (\[TheoremGroupoidSurjectivity\]).
\[LemmaPhi\*\] Let $\Gamma$ be the groupoid constructed in the previous subsections. Let $(x, y)$ be an element of $(X, T)^{(2)}$. Suppose that $g \in I^*$ satisfies $x = [\phi(g)](y)$. Denote by $\widehat{x} ,\widehat{y} \in \Omega$ the characters of $A$ by the evaluations at $x$ and $y$.
- If $g \in I^*$ satisfies $x = [\phi(g)](y)$, then $[\widehat{x}, g, \widehat{y}]$ is an element of $\Gamma$,
- If $g, h \in I^*$ satisfy $x = [\phi(g)](y) = [\phi(h)](y)$, then $[\widehat{x}, g, \widehat{y}] = [\widehat{x}, h, \widehat{y}]$.
For every function $a \in A \subseteq \ell_\infty X$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
[\psi_g (\widehat{y})] (a) = \widehat{y} (v(g)^* a v(g))
= [v(g)^* a v(g)] (y) = a([\phi(g)](y)) = a(x) = \widehat{x} (a).\end{aligned}$$ We obtain the equality $\widehat{x} = \psi_g (\widehat{y})$. The first assertion follows. The equality $[\phi(g)] (y) = [\phi(h)] (y)$ implies that $y$ is in $\mathrm{supp}_X (E(v(h)^* v(g)))$. Thus we have $\widehat{y} \in
\mathrm{supp}_\Omega (E(v(h)^* v(g)))$. We obtain the second assertion.
We define a map $\Phi^* \colon (X, T)^{(2)} \rightarrow \Gamma$ by $\Phi^*(x, y) = [\widehat{x}, g, \widehat{y}]$, where $g$ is an element of $I^*$ satisfying $[\phi(g)](y) = x$. Lemma \[LemmaPhi\*\] shows that $\Phi^*$ is well-defined. Simple calculations show that $\Phi^*$ is a groupoid homomorphism.
\[LemmaSurjectivity\] If $\gamma \in \Gamma(g)$ and $x \in X$ satisfy $t(\gamma) = \widehat{x}$, then there exists $y \in X$ such that $(x, y) \in \phi(g)$ and $\gamma = [\widehat{x}, g, \widehat{y}]$. If $s(\gamma) = \widehat{x}$, then there exists $y \in X$ such that $(y, x) \in \phi(g)$ and $\gamma = [\widehat{y}, g, \widehat{x}]$.
Take an element $\gamma = [\alpha, g, \beta]$ of $\Gamma(g)$. If $t(\gamma) = \widehat{x}$, then $\alpha = \widehat{x}$ and $\beta = \psi_g^{-1} (\widehat{x})$. The equality $\psi_g^{-1} (\widehat{x}) = \widehat{[\phi(g)]^{-1}(x)}$ holds. By letting $y = [\phi(g)]^{-1} (x)$, we get the first assertion. We obtain the second assertion in the same way.
We obtain condition (\[TheoremGroupoidSurjectivity\]). We next prove that $\Gamma$ satisfies (\[TheoremGroupoidUnits\]). Suppose that $\Phi^*(x, y) \in \Gamma(i)$. Take $g \in I^*$ satisfying $x = [\phi(g)](y)$. Since $[\widehat{x}, g, \widehat{y}]
= \Phi^*(x, y) \in \Gamma(i)$, we obtain the equality $[\widehat{x}, g, \widehat{y}]
= [\psi_i (\widehat{y}), i, \widehat{y}]$. Since $\widehat{y} \in \mathrm{supp}_\Omega(E(v(i)^* v(g)))$, we have $y \in \mathrm{supp}_X (E(v(i)^* v(g)))$. The equation $x = [\phi(g)](y) = [\phi(i)]y$ follows. It follows that the inverse image of $\Gamma(i)$ under $\Phi^*$ is $\phi(i)$. This is the first half of (\[TheoremGroupoidUnits\]). Note that $s$ gives a homeomorphism from $\Gamma(i)$ onto $\mathrm{Dom}_\Omega (\psi_i)$. Since the map $\ \widehat{}\ \colon \mathrm{Dom}_X (\phi(i)) \rightarrow \mathrm{Dom}_\Omega (\psi_i)$ has dense image, so does $\Phi^* \colon \phi(i) \rightarrow \Gamma(i)$. We conclude the second half of (\[TheoremGroupoidUnits\]). This is the end of the proof of Theorem \[TheoremGroupoid\].
Translation algebra as a representation of groupoid
---------------------------------------------------
We observe several conclusions of Theorem \[TheoremGroupoid\]. We assume that $\Gamma$, $\Phi^* \colon (X, T)^{(2)} \rightarrow \Gamma$, and $\Gamma(1)$, $\cdots$, $\Gamma(k)$ satisfy the conditions in Theorem \[TheoremGroupoid\]. One does not need to think that they are items constructed in the previous subsections. We prove that the translation algebra of $X$ gives a representation of $\Gamma$. For the rest of this paper, we use the following notations.
- Let $I$ be the set $\{-k, -k +1, \cdots, 0, 1, \cdots, k\}$ and $I^*$ be the index set $\bigsqcup_{n = 1}^\infty I^n$.
- For negative $i \in I$, define $\Gamma(i)$ by $\Gamma(-i)^{-1}$.
- For $g = (g(1), g(2), \cdots, g(n)) \in I^n \subseteq I^*$, define $\Gamma(g)$ by the product $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma(g(1)) \cdots \Gamma(g(n))
= \{ \gamma_1 \gamma_2 \cdots \gamma_n \ |\
\gamma_i \in \Gamma(g(i)), s(\gamma_i) = t(\gamma_{i + 1}) \}.\end{aligned}$$ The set $\Gamma(g)$ is compact and open.
- For $g \in I^*$, denote by $\psi_g$ the characteristic function of $\Gamma(g)$. The function $\psi_g$ is continuous and compactly supported.
By condition (\[TheoremGroupoidGenerator\]), $\{\Gamma(g)\}$ is an open covering of $\Gamma$.
\[LemmaBij\] For any $x \in X$, the map $\Phi^*$ defines a bijection from $(\mathrm{Image}_X)^{-1}(x)$ to $t^{-1} (\Phi^*(x, x))$. The map $\Phi^*$ gives a bijection from $(\mathrm{Dom}_X)^{-1}(x)$ to $s^{-1} (\Phi^*(x, x))$.
We only prove that $\Phi^* \colon (\mathrm{Image}_X)^{-1}(x) \rightarrow t^{-1} (\Phi^*(x, x))$ is bijective. Take arbitrary elements $(x, y), (x, z) \in (\mathrm{Image}_X)^{-1}(x)$ and suppose that $\Phi^*(x, y) = \Phi^*(x, z)$. Then we have $\Phi^*(y, z) = \Phi^*(x, y)^{-1} \Phi^*(x, z)$ $\in \Gamma(0)$. By condition (\[TheoremGroupoidUnits\]) for $\Gamma(0)$, we have $(y, z) \in \phi(0)$ and $y = z$. We conclude that $\Phi^* \colon (\mathrm{Image}_X)^{-1}(x) \rightarrow t^{-1} (\Phi^*(x, x))$ is injective. By condition (\[TheoremGroupoidSurjectivity\]), the map is surjective.
\[LemmaInverseImage\] Let $\Lambda_1, \Lambda_2$ be subsets of $\Gamma$. Define $\Lambda_1 \Lambda_2$ by $
\{\gamma_1 \gamma_2 \ |\ \gamma_l \in \Gamma_l, s(\gamma_1) = t(\gamma_2)\}$. Then we have $(\Phi^*)^{-1}(\Lambda_1 \Lambda_2) =
(\Phi^*)^{-1}(\Lambda_1) \circ (\Phi^*)^{-1}(\Lambda_2)$.
It suffices to show that $(\Phi^*)^{-1} (\Lambda_1 \Lambda_2) \subseteq (\Phi^*)^{-1}(\Lambda_1) \circ (\Phi^*)^{-1}(\Lambda_2)$. Suppose that $(x, z) \in (\Phi^*)^{-1} (\Lambda_1 \Lambda_2)$. Then there exist $\gamma_1 \in \Lambda_1$ and $\gamma_2 \in \Lambda_2$ such that $\Phi^*(x, z) = \gamma_1 \gamma_2$. By the equation $\Phi^*(x, x) = t(\gamma_1)$ and by condition (\[TheoremGroupoidSurjectivity\]), there exists $y \in X$ such that $\Phi^*(x, y) = \gamma_1$. We also have $\Phi^*(y, z) = \Phi^*(y, x) \Phi^*(x, z) = \gamma_1^{-1} (\gamma_1 \gamma_2) = \gamma_2$. It follows that $(x, z) = (x, y)(y, z) \in (\Phi^*)^{-1}(\Lambda_1) \circ (\Phi^*)^{-1}(\Lambda_2)$.
Denote by $C_c(\Gamma)$ the set of all the continuous functions on $\Gamma$ whose supports are compact. The space $C_c(\Gamma)$ is a $*$-algebra equipped with product and involution $$\begin{aligned}
[f f^\prime](\gamma_0) &=& \sum_
{(\gamma, \gamma^{\prime}) \in \Gamma^{(2)}, \
\gamma \gamma^\prime = \gamma_0}
f(\gamma) f^\prime(\gamma^\prime),\\
f^*(\gamma_0) &=& \overline{f(\gamma_0^{-1})},
\quad f, f^\prime \in C_c(\Gamma), \quad \gamma_0 \in \Gamma.\end{aligned}$$ The characteristic function $\psi_0$ of $\Gamma(0)$ is the unit of $C_c(\Gamma)$.
Define a map $\Phi$ from $C_c(\Gamma)$ to the set of functions on $(X, T)^{(2)}$ by the pull back of $\Phi^*$. Namely, $\Phi$ is given by the equality $[\Phi(f)](x, y) = f(\Phi^*(x, y))$. We regard $\Phi(f) = [[\Phi(f)](x, y)]_{(x, y) \in (X, T)^{(2)}}$ as an infinite matrix and as an operator on $\ell_2 X$.
\[LemmaEquationOfPhi\] The map $\Phi$ gives a unital $*$-homomorphism from $C_c(\Gamma)$ to the translation algebra $\mathcal{A}^\infty(X)$.
Since $\{\Gamma(g)\}$ covers $\Gamma$, $\bigcup_g C(\Gamma(g))$ spans $C_c(\Gamma)$. For every continuous function $f$ on $\Gamma(g)$, $\Phi(f) = f \circ \Phi^*$ is supported on a graph of a partial bijection $\phi(g) \subseteq (X, T)^{(2)}$, by condition (\[TheoremGroupoidUnits\]). The matrix $\Phi(f)$ defines a bounded operator with finite propagation. It follows that that the image of $\Phi$ is contained in $\mathcal{A}^\infty(X)$.
For $f, f^\prime \in C_c(\Gamma)$ and $(x, y) \in (X, T)^{(2)}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \Phi(f) \Phi(f^\prime) \delta_y, \delta_x \rangle
&=&
\sum_{(x, z) \in (\mathrm{Image}_X)^{-1}(x)}
\langle \Phi(f) \delta_z, \delta_x \rangle
\langle \Phi(f^\prime) \delta_y, \delta_z \rangle \\
&=&
\sum_{(x, z) \in (\mathrm{Image}_X)^{-1}(x)}
f (\Phi^*(x, z)) f^\prime (\Phi^*(z, y)).\end{aligned}$$ Since $\Phi^* \colon (\mathrm{Image}_X)^{-1}(x)
\rightarrow t^{-1}(\Phi^*(x, x))$ is a bijection (Lemma \[LemmaBij\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \Phi(f) \Phi(f^\prime) \delta_y, \delta_x \rangle
&=&
\sum_{\gamma \in t^{-1}(\Phi^*(x, x))}
f (\gamma) f^\prime (\gamma^{-1} \Phi^*(x, y))\\
&=&
[f f^\prime] (\Phi^*(x, y))\\
&=&
\langle \Phi(f f^\prime) \delta_y, \delta_x \rangle.\end{aligned}$$ It follows that $\Phi$ is multiplicative. Since $\Phi^*$ is compatible with the inverse maps, $\Phi$ is a $*$-homomorphism. By condition (\[TheoremGroupoidUnits\]) for $\Gamma(0)$, the matrix coefficients of $\Phi(\psi_0)$ are $1$ on the diagonal set and $0$ on the compliment. It follows that $\Phi$ is unital.
Haar system on the groupoid $\Gamma$
------------------------------------
For an unit $\alpha \in \Gamma(0)$ of $\Gamma$, let $\nu^\alpha$ be the counting measure on the set $t^{-1}(\alpha)$. The family of measures $\nu = \{\nu^\alpha\}$ satisfies the axioms of continuous Haar system:
- The support of $\nu^\alpha$ is $t^{-1}(\alpha)$,
- For $f \in C_c(\Gamma)$, the map $\Gamma(0) \ni \alpha \mapsto \int_{\gamma \in t^{-1}(\alpha)} f d \nu^\alpha \in \mathbb{C}$ is continuous,
- For every $\gamma \in \Gamma$ and every $f \in C_c(\Gamma)$, $\int_{\gamma^\prime}
f(\gamma \gamma^\prime) d \nu^{s(\gamma)}
= \int_{\gamma^\prime} f(\gamma^\prime) d \nu^{t(\gamma)}$.
For Haar systems, the reader is referred to Renault’s book [@BookRenault Chapter I. 2]. Let $\mu$ be a measure on $\Gamma(0)$. Consider a measure $\mu \circ \nu$ on $\Gamma$ defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\gamma \in \Gamma}
f(\gamma) d \mu \circ \nu(\gamma) =
\int_{\alpha \in \Gamma(0)}
\left( \int_{\gamma \in t^{-1} (\alpha) }
f(\gamma) d \nu^\alpha(\gamma) \right)
d \mu(\alpha), \quad f \in C_c(\Gamma).\end{aligned}$$
Let $w = \sum_{x \in X} w_x \delta_x$ be a probability measure on $X$. Denote by $c^x$ be the counting measure of the set $(\mathrm{Image}_X)^{-1} (x)$. We define the measure $w \circ c$ by $$\begin{aligned}
w \circ c (Z) =
\sum_{x \in X} w_x c^x
((\mathrm{Image}_X)^{-1}(x) \cap Z), \quad
Z \subseteq (X, T)^{(2)}.\end{aligned}$$
\[LemmaPushForward\] Suppose that $\mu$ is the push forward of $w$ with respect to $\Phi^* \colon X \cong \Delta_X \rightarrow \Gamma(0)$. Then the measure $\mu \circ \nu$ is equal to the push forward of $w \circ c$.
This lemma immediately follows from Lemma \[LemmaBij\].
Proof of the main theorem {#SectionProof}
=========================
From now on, we focus on box spaces. For a box space of a residually finite group, every component has group structures. Components of a generalized box space do not have group structures. Instead of groups, we exploit the groupoid in Theorem \[TheoremGroupoid\]. The groupoid naturally has an invariant measure.
Generalized box space and measured groupoid {#SubsectionMeasuredGroupoid}
-------------------------------------------
Let $X = \bigsqcup_{m = 1}^\infty X_m$ be a generalized box space and let $T$ be a controlled set of $X$. Let $L$ be a label on $T$. Suppose that a groupoid $\Gamma$, a homomorphism $\Phi^* \colon (X, T)^{(2)} \rightarrow \Gamma$ and closed and open subsets $\Gamma(1), \cdots, \Gamma(k) \subseteq \Gamma$ satisfy Theorem \[TheoremGroupoid\]. Let $w_m$ be the normalized counting measure on the component $X_m$, i.e., $w_m(Y) = \sharp(Y) / \sharp(X_m), \ Y \subseteq X_m$. Define $\mu_m$ by the push forward of $w_m$. Let $\mu$ be an accumulation point of $\{\mu_m\}_{m \in \mathbb{N}} \in \mathrm{Prob}(\Gamma(0))$. We call $\mu$ a ‘limit measure.’
\[LemmaInvInv\] The measure $\mu \circ \nu$ on $\Gamma$ is invariant under the inverse map. Namely, the equation $\mu \circ \nu(\Lambda) = \mu \circ \nu(\Lambda^{-1})$ holds for every Borel subset $\Lambda \subseteq \Gamma$.
The measure $w_m \circ c$ on $(X, T)^{(2)}$ is invariant under the inverse map, since the measure is a scalar multiple of the counting measure of $(X_m, T)^{(2)}$. By Lemma \[LemmaPushForward\], $\mu_m \circ \nu$ is also invariant under the inverse map. The measure $\mu \circ \nu$ is an accumulation point of $\{ \mu_m \circ \nu \}$ on every $\Gamma(g)$. It follows that $\mu \circ \nu$ is also an invariant measure.
An element $\psi \in C_c (\Gamma)$ acts on the Hilbert space $L^2(\Gamma, \mu \circ \nu)$ by a bounded operator $\lambda(f)$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
[\lambda(\psi) \xi](\gamma) &=& \sum_
{(\gamma^\prime, \gamma^{\prime\prime}) \in \Gamma^{(2)}, \
\gamma^\prime \gamma^{\prime\prime} = \gamma}
\psi(\gamma^\prime) \xi(\gamma^{\prime\prime}),
\quad \xi \in L^2(\Gamma, \mu \circ \nu), \gamma \in \Gamma.\end{aligned}$$ The map $\lambda \colon C_c(\Gamma) \rightarrow \mathbb{B}(\mathcal{H})$ is a $*$-representation of $C_c(\Gamma)$ and called the regular representation of the measured groupoid $(\Gamma, \nu, \mu)$. The closure of the image $\lambda(C_c(\Gamma))$ is called the reduced C$^*$-algebra and written as $C^*_{\mathrm{red}}(\Gamma, \nu, \mu)$. We denote by $W^*(\Gamma, \nu, \mu)$ the von Neumann algebra generated by $C^*_{\mathrm{red}}(\Gamma, \nu, \mu)$. Denote by $\psi_0$ be the characteristic function of $\Gamma(0)$ in $L^2(\Gamma, \mu \circ \nu)$.
1. The vector $\psi_0$ is cyclic for $C^*_{\mathrm{red}} (\Gamma, \nu, \mu)$.
2. The state $\tau = \langle \cdot \psi_0, \psi_0 \rangle_{L^2(\Gamma, \mu \circ \nu)}$ on $W^* (\Gamma, \nu, \mu)$ is tracial.
3. The state $\tau$ is faithful.
Because $\lambda(C_c(\Gamma))\psi_0$ consists of compactly supported continuous functions, the first statement follows. For every $f \in C_c(\Gamma)$, we have $\tau (\lambda(f)^* \lambda(f)) =
\| \lambda(f) \psi_0 \|^2_2 =
\| f \|_2^2$. Since the measure $\mu \circ \nu$ is invariant under the inverse map, the equality $\| f \|_2^2 =
\| f^* \|_2^2$ follows. We have $\tau (\lambda(f)^* \lambda(f))
= \tau (\lambda(f) \lambda(f)^*)$. It follows that $\tau$ has the trace property.
Define an anti-linear isometry $J$ on $L^2(\Gamma, \mu \circ \nu)$ by $$\begin{aligned}
[J \xi](\gamma) = \overline{\xi (\gamma^{-1})}, \quad
\xi \in L^2(\Gamma, \mu \circ \nu), \gamma \in \Gamma.\end{aligned}$$ A simple calculation shows the following equality: $$\begin{aligned}
[\lambda(f_1) J \lambda(f_2) J \xi](\gamma)
&=&
\sum_{(\gamma_1, \gamma^\prime, \gamma_2) \in \Gamma^{(3)},
\gamma_1 \gamma^\prime \gamma_2 = \gamma}
f_1(\gamma_1) \xi(\gamma^\prime) \overline{f_2(\gamma_2)}\\
&=&
[J \lambda(f_2) J \lambda(f_1) \xi](\gamma). \end{aligned}$$ It follows that $J \lambda(f_2) J$ belongs to $W^* (\Gamma, \nu, \mu)^\prime$. The space $J \lambda(C_c(\Gamma)) J \psi_0$ is equal to $\lambda(C_c(\Gamma)) \psi_0$ and dense in $L^2(\Gamma, \mu \circ \nu)$. Since $J \lambda(C_c(\Gamma)) J \subseteq
W^* (\Gamma, \nu, \mu)^\prime$, the vector $\psi_0$ is cyclic for $W^* (\Gamma, \nu, \mu)^\prime$. It follows that $\psi_0$ is a separating vector for $W^* (\Gamma, \nu, \mu)$.
The C$^*$-algebra $C(\Gamma(0))$ is a unital $*$-subalgebra of $C_c(\Gamma)$. Let $A$ be the algebra $\Phi(C(\Gamma(0))) \subseteq \ell_\infty X$. By condition (\[TheoremGroupoidUnits\]) in Theorem \[TheoremGroupoid\], $A$ is isomorphic to $C(\Gamma(0))$. We denote by $B$ the closure of $\Phi(C_c(\Gamma))$. Let $E$ be the conditional expectation from $\mathbb{B}(\ell_\infty X)$ onto $\ell_\infty X$. Again by condition (\[TheoremGroupoidUnits\]), we have the equation $\Phi(f |_{\Gamma(0)}) = E(\Phi(f))$, $f \in C_c(\Gamma)$. It follows that $A$ is a subalgebra of $B$ and equals to $E(B)$. The limit measure $\mu$ on $\Gamma(0)$ gives a state $\theta$ on $A$. We extend the state $\theta$ to $B$ by $\theta \circ E \in B^*$. Let $(\pi_\theta, \mathcal{H}_\theta, \xi_\theta)$ be the GNS triple of the state $\theta \in B^*$, namely, $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \pi_\theta(b) \xi_\theta, \xi_\theta \rangle = \theta(b), \quad b \in B, \quad
\overline{ \pi_\theta(B) \xi_\theta} = \mathcal{H}_\theta.\end{aligned}$$ This construction of the trace $\theta \in B^*$ is the same as that in Subsection \[SubsectionAmeTr\]. By the last paragraph of Subsection \[SubsectionAmeTr\], the trace $\theta \in B^*$ is amenable.
\[LemmaQuotient\] The Hilbert spaces $\mathcal{H}_\theta$ and $L^2(\Gamma, \mu \circ \nu)$ are isometric by the correspondence $U \colon \pi_\theta(\Phi(f)) \xi_\theta \mapsto
\lambda(f)\psi_0, \ f \in C_c(\Gamma)$. The equality $U \pi_\theta(\Phi(f)) U^*
=
\lambda (f)$ holds.
Note that the state $\theta$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\theta(\Phi(f))
=
\theta(E(\Phi(f)))
=
\theta \circ \Phi(f |_{\Gamma(0)})
=
\int_{\Gamma(0)} f|_{\Gamma(0)} \ d \mu,
\quad f \in C_c(\Gamma).\end{aligned}$$ For $f_1, f_2 \in C_c(\Gamma)$, we compute $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \pi_\theta(\Phi(f_1)) \xi_\theta,
\pi_\theta(\Phi(f_2)) \xi_\theta \rangle_{\mathcal{H}_\theta}
=
\theta(\Phi(f_2^* f_1))
=
\int_{\Gamma(0)} (f_2^* f_1)|_{\Gamma(0)} \ d \mu
=
\langle f_1, f_2 \rangle_{L^2(\Gamma, \mu \circ \nu)}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $\{\pi_\theta(\Phi(f)) \xi_\theta\} \subseteq \mathcal{H}_\theta$ and $\{f \} \subseteq L^2(\Gamma, \mu \circ \nu)$ span dense subspaces, $U$ defines a unitary operator. For $f, f_1, f_2 \in C_c(\Gamma)$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \pi_\theta(\Phi(f)) U^* f_1,
U^* f_2 \rangle_{L^2(\Gamma, \mu \circ \nu)}
&=& \langle \pi_\theta(\Phi(f_2^* f f_1)) \xi_\theta,
\xi_\theta \rangle_{\mathcal{H}_\theta} \\
&=& \theta(\Phi(f_2^* f f_1))\\
&=& \int_{\Gamma(0)} (f_2^* f f_1)|_{\Gamma(0)} \ d \mu \\
&=& \langle \lambda(f) f_1,
f_2 \rangle_{L^2(\Gamma, \mu \circ \nu)}.\end{aligned}$$ It follows that $U \pi_\theta(\Phi(f)) U^*
=
\lambda (f)$.
By Lemma \[LemmaQuotient\], we obtain the identification of $\pi_\theta(B)$ and $C^*_{\mathrm{red}}(\Gamma, \nu, \mu)$.
\[PropositionAmenableTrace\] The trace $\tau$ of $C^*_{\mathrm{red}} (\Gamma, \nu, \mu)$ is amenable if $B$ is locally reflexive.
By the last paragraph of Subsection \[SubsectionAmeTr\], the tracial state $\theta$ of $B$ is amenable. The trace $\theta$ equals to $\tau \circ \pi_\theta$. By Proposition \[PropositionQuotient\], we obtain amenability of $\tau$.
Among several equivalent conditions for amenability of $\tau$, we only use the following: There exists a unital completely positive map $\Psi \colon \mathbb{B} (L^2(\Gamma, \mu \circ \nu))
\rightarrow W^*(\Gamma, \nu, \mu)$ whose restriction on $C^*_\mathrm{red} (\Gamma, \nu, \mu)$ is the identity map.
Proof of the main theorem {#proof-of-the-main-theorem}
-------------------------
For the first half of the proof, we use an idea by Popa [@Popa:NotesOnCartan Lemma 4.2]. Connes, Feldman, and Weiss proved that the hyperfinte factor of type II$_1$ has a unique Cartan subalgebra up to automorphism ([@ConnesFeldmanWeiss]). Popa gave a proof of the uniqueness theorem, making use of hypertrace. In this paper, the state $\tau \circ \Psi
\in \mathbb{B}(L^2(\Gamma, \mu \circ \nu))^*$ plays the role of hypertrace.
\[PropositionLimInf\] Let $X = \bigsqcup_{m = 1}^\infty X_m$ be a generalized box space and let $L = \{ \Delta_X = \phi(0), \phi(1), \cdots, \phi(k)\}$ be label on a controlled set $T$ of $X$. Let $\Gamma$ be a groupoid in Theorem \[TheoremGroupoid\] and let $\mu$ be a limit measure on the units $\Gamma(0)$. If the trace $\tau$ of $C^*_\mathrm{red} (\Gamma, \nu, \mu)$ is amenable, then $X$ and $T$ satisfy the following condition: for every positive number $\epsilon > 0$, there exists a controlled set $F$, $$\begin{aligned}
\liminf_{m \rightarrow \infty} \left(
\inf \left\{ \frac{ \sharp(T[Y]) }{ \sharp(Y) } \ \colon\
Y \subseteq X_m, Y \textrm{\ is\ an }
F \textrm{-bounded\ set} \right\} \right) < 1 + \epsilon.\end{aligned}$$
For $i= 0, 1, \cdots, k$, define a homeomorphism $\widetilde{\psi_i}$ by the product of $\Gamma(i)$ $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{\psi_i}
\colon
t^{-1}(s(\Gamma(i)))
\longrightarrow
t^{-1}(t(\Gamma(i)))
\colon
\gamma
\mapsto
\gamma^\prime \gamma,\end{aligned}$$ where $\gamma^\prime$ is the unique element of $s^{-1}(\{t(\gamma)\}) \cap \Gamma(i)$. The map $\widetilde{\psi_i}$ is well-defined and homeomorphic, by condition (\[TheoremGroupoidInverseImagek\]) in Theorem \[TheoremGroupoid\]. A Borel subset $\Lambda \subseteq \Gamma$ is said to be an $\epsilon$-Følner set with respect to $\{ \widetilde{\psi_i}\}$ if $0 < \mu \circ \nu(\Lambda) < \infty$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i = 0}^k \mu \circ \nu
\left(
\bigcup_{i = 0}^k
\widetilde{\psi_i}
\left(
\Lambda
\right)
\setminus
\Lambda
\right)
< \epsilon\ \mu \circ \nu(\Lambda).\end{aligned}$$ We first prove that there exists an $\epsilon$-Følner set of these transformations.
Since the trace $\tau$ on $C^*_\mathrm{red} (\Gamma, \nu, \mu)$ is amenable, there exists a unital completely positive map $\Psi \colon \mathbb{B} (L^2(\Gamma, \mu \circ \nu))
\rightarrow W^*(\Gamma, \nu, \mu)$ whose restriction on $C^*_\mathrm{red} (\Gamma, \nu, \mu)$ is the identity map. It follows that the map $\Psi$ has the $C^*_\mathrm{red} (\Gamma, \nu, \mu)$-bimodule property. Define a linear functional $\rho$ on $L^\infty(\Gamma, \mu \circ \nu)$ by the composition of $\tau$ and $\Psi |_{L^\infty(\Gamma, \mu \circ \nu)}$, namely, $\rho(\zeta) = \langle \Psi(\zeta) \psi_0, \psi_0 \rangle _{L^2(\Gamma, \mu \circ \nu)}$. By the bimodule property of $\Psi$ and the trace property of $\tau$, for every $\zeta \in L^\infty(\Gamma, \mu \circ \nu)$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\rho(\lambda(\psi_i)^* \zeta \lambda(\psi_i))
&=&
\tau (\lambda(\psi_i)^* \Psi(\zeta) \lambda(\psi_i))\\
&=&
\tau (\lambda(\psi_i \psi_i^*) \Psi(\zeta))\\
&=&
\tau (\Psi(\lambda(\psi_i \psi_i^*) \zeta))\\
&=&
\rho(\lambda(\psi_i \psi_i^*) \zeta) .\end{aligned}$$ Note that $\lambda(\psi_i \psi_i^*) \zeta
\in L^\infty(\Gamma, \mu \circ \nu)$ is the restriction of $\zeta$ to the range of $\widetilde{\psi_i}$ and that $\lambda(\psi_i)^* \zeta \lambda(\psi_i) \in L^\infty(\Gamma, \mu \circ \nu)$ is a translation of $\lambda(\psi_i \psi_i^*) \zeta$ by $\widetilde{\psi_i}^{-1}$. The above equality is rephrased as follows: $\rho ( \zeta \circ \widetilde{\psi_i} )
=
\rho(\zeta),\
\zeta \in L^\infty ( \mathrm{Image} \, \widetilde{\psi_i} )$.
Take a net $\{ \eta_j \} \subseteq L^1(\Gamma, \mu \circ \nu)$ of positive $L^1$-functions with norm $1$ which converges to $\rho \in L^\infty(\Gamma, \mu \circ \nu) ^*$ in the weak$^*$-topology. For every $\zeta \in L^\infty ( \mathrm{Image}\, \widetilde{\psi_i} )$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_j \int_{\mathrm{Image}\, \widetilde{\psi_i}}
\left( \eta_j \circ \widetilde{\psi_{i}}^{-1} \right)
\zeta d \mu \circ \nu
&=&
\lim_j \int_{\mathrm{Dom}\, \widetilde{\psi_i}}
\eta_j \left( \zeta \circ \widetilde{\psi_i} \right)
d \mu \circ \nu \\
&=&
\rho \left( \zeta \circ \widetilde{\psi_i} \right) \\
&=&
\rho(\zeta) \\
&=&
\lim_j \int_{\mathrm{Image}\, \widetilde{\psi_i}}
\eta_j \zeta d \mu \circ \nu.\end{aligned}$$ It follows that $\eta_j \circ \widetilde{\psi_i}^{-1}
- \left( \eta_j \left|_{\mathrm{Image}\, \widetilde{\psi_i}} \right.\right) \in L^1\left( \mathrm{Image}\, \widetilde{\psi_i} \right)$ converges to $0$ in the weak topology for every $i \in I$. By the Hahn–Banach theorem, for an arbitrary positive number $\epsilon$, there exists a convex combination $\eta$ of $\{ \eta_j \}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i = 0}^k
\left\| \eta \circ \widetilde{\psi_i}^{-1} -
\left(\eta \left|_{\mathrm{Image}\, \widetilde{\psi_i}} \right.\right) \right\| _{L^1\left( \mathrm{Image}\, \widetilde{\psi_i} \right)}
< \epsilon = \epsilon \| \eta \|_{L^1(\Gamma, \mu \circ \nu)}.\end{aligned}$$ It follows that there exists a level set $\Lambda$ of $\eta$ satisfying that $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i = 0}^k
\mu \circ \nu \left(\widetilde{\psi_i} \left(
\Lambda
\right)
\bigtriangleup \left(\Lambda \cap \mathrm{Image}\, \widetilde{\psi_i} \right) \right)
< \epsilon \mu \circ \nu (\Lambda).\end{aligned}$$ By the inclusion $$\begin{aligned}
\bigcup_{i = 0}^k \widetilde{\psi_i}
\left(
\Lambda
\right)
\setminus
\Lambda
\subseteq
\bigcup_{i = 0}^k
\widetilde{\psi_i} \left(
\Lambda
\right)
\bigtriangleup
\left( \Lambda \cap \mathrm{Image}\, \widetilde{\psi_i} \right),\end{aligned}$$ we conclude that $\Lambda$ is an $\epsilon$-Følner set.
By conditions (\[TheoremGroupoidClopen\]) and (\[TheoremGroupoidGenerator\]) in Theorem \[TheoremGroupoid\], the topology of $\Gamma$ is generated by countably many compact open subsets. We may assume that the Følner set $\Lambda$ is compact and open. On the compact subset $\bigcup_{i = 0}^k \widetilde{\psi_i}
\left( \Lambda \right)$, the measure $\mu \circ \nu$ is an accumulation point of $\{\mu_m \circ \nu\}_{m \in \mathbb{N}}$. Since the characteristic function of $\bigcup_{i = 0}^k \widetilde{\psi_i} \left( \Lambda \right) \setminus \Lambda$ is continuous, there exist infinitely many $m(l)$ satisfying the inequality $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_{m(l)} \circ \nu \left(
\bigcup_{i = 0}^k \widetilde{\psi_i}
\left(
\Lambda
\right)
\setminus
\Lambda
\right)
<
\epsilon\ \mu_{m(l)} \circ \nu (\Lambda).&\end{aligned}$$
Let $F \subseteq (X, T)^{(2)}$ be the inverse image of $\Lambda$ with respect to the map $\Phi^*$. By Lemma \[LemmaInverseImage\], the inverse image of $\bigcup_{i = 0}^k \widetilde{\psi_i} (\Lambda) \setminus \Lambda$ with respect to $\Phi^*$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\bigcup_i \phi(i) \circ F \setminus F = T \circ F \setminus F.\end{aligned}$$ Let $w_{m(l)}$ be the normalized counting measure on $X_{m(l)}$. Since the measure $\mu_{m(l)} \circ \nu$ is the push forward of $w_{m(l)} \circ c$, we have $w_{m(l)} \circ c (T \circ F \setminus F)
<
\epsilon\ w_{m(l)} \circ c (F)$. By multiplying $\sharp(X_{m(l)})$, we also have $$\begin{aligned}
\sharp
((T \circ F \setminus F) \cap X_{m(l)}^2)
<
\epsilon\ \sharp (F \cap X_{m(l)}^2).\end{aligned}$$ By the equalities $$\begin{aligned}
F \cap X_{m(l)}^2 &=&
\bigsqcup_{y \in X_{m(l)}} F[y] \times \{y\},\\
(T \circ F \setminus F) \cap X_{m(l)}^2
&=& \bigsqcup_{y \in X_{m(l)}}
\left( T [F[y]]
\setminus F[y] \right) \times \{y\},\end{aligned}$$ there exists an $F$-ball $Y_{m(l)} = F[y]$ satisfying the following F[ø]{}lner condition: $$\begin{aligned}
\sharp \left(
T[Y_{m(l)}] \setminus Y_{m(l)}
\right)
<
\epsilon\ \sharp (Y_{m(l)}).\end{aligned}$$ Thus we get the following inequality: $$\begin{aligned}
\liminf_{m \rightarrow \infty} \left(
\inf \left\{ \frac{ \sharp(T[Y]) }{ \sharp(Y) } \ \colon\
Y \subseteq X_m, Y \textrm{\ is\ an }
F \textrm{-bounded\ set} \right\} \right)
< 1 + \epsilon.\end{aligned}$$ Since $\Lambda$ is a compact open subset of $\Gamma$, there exists $n \in \mathbb{N}$ such that $\Lambda \subseteq \bigcup_{g \in I^n} \Gamma(g)$. Taking the inverse images with respect to $\Phi^*$, we have $F \subseteq (T \cup T^{-1})^{\circ n}$. It follows that the subset $F \subseteq X^2$ is controlled.
\[TheoremLocalReflexivity\] If $X = \bigsqcup_{m = 1}^\infty X_m$ be a sequence of weak expander spaces, then the uniform Roe algebra $C^*_\mathrm{u}(X)$ is not locally reflexive.
Suppose that the uniform Roe algebra $C^*_\mathrm{u}(X)$ is locally reflexive. Take a controlled set $T$ including the diagonal subset and fix a label $\{\Delta_X = \phi(0), \phi(1), \cdots, \phi(k) \}$ on $T$. Take a groupoid $\Gamma$ in Theorem \[TheoremGroupoid\]. The translation C$^*$-algebra $B$ associated to $\Gamma$ is also locally reflexive, since $C^*_\mathrm{u}(X)$ is locally reflexive. Let $\mu$ be a limit measure on $\Gamma(0)$ constructed in Subsection \[SubsectionMeasuredGroupoid\]. By Proposition \[PropositionAmenableTrace\], the corresponding trace of the reduced C$^*$-algebra $C^*_\mathrm{red}(\Gamma, \nu, \mu)$ is amenable. By Proposition \[PropositionLimInf\], the controlled set $T$ satisfies the following: for every positive number $\epsilon > 0$, there exists a controlled set $F$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\liminf_{m \rightarrow \infty} \left(
\inf \left\{ \frac{ \sharp(T[Y]) }{ \sharp(Y) } \ \colon\
Y \subseteq X_m, Y \textrm{\ is\ a }
F \textrm{-bounded\ set} \right\} \right) < 1 + \epsilon.\end{aligned}$$ This condition holds true for every controlled set $T$. It follows that $X$ is not a sequence of weak expander spaces.
For a weak expander sequence $X = \bigsqcup_{m = 1}^\infty X_m$ consisting of finite metric spaces, we can define a metric $d$ on $X$ so that $d(X_m, X_n)$ goes to infinity as $m, n \rightarrow \infty$. The coarse structure of the metric space $(X, d)$ is larger than that of the generalized box space $X$. Since the uniform Roe algebra $C^*_\mathrm{u}(X, d)$ of the metric space contains $C^*_\mathrm{u}(X)$, the algebra in Theorem \[TheoremLocalReflexivity\] can be replaced with $C^*_\mathrm{u}(X, d)$.
Problems related to uniform local amenability {#SectionULA}
=============================================
Brodzki, Niblo, Špakula, Willett, and Wright introduced two kinds of uniform local amenability in their study of property A. The following is related to weak expander spaces.
Let $X$ be a uniformly locally finite metric space. The space $X$ is said to have property ULA if for every $\epsilon > 0$ and $R > 0$, there exists $S > 0$ satisfying the following condition: For any finite subset $W$ of $X$, there exists $Y \subseteq X$ such that $\mathrm{diam}(Y) \le S$ and $\sharp(\partial_R Y \cap W) < \epsilon \sharp(Y)$
The property ULA is the weaker form of uniform local amenability. The stronger one is called ULA$_\mu$. The property ULA$_\mu$ is equivalent to property A (Combination of [@BNSWW] and [@SakoONLP Theorem 4.1]). We note that $\ \textrm{Property A} \Leftrightarrow
\textrm{ULA}_\mu \Rightarrow
\textrm{ULA}$.
Let $(X, d)$ be a uniformly locally finite metric space. The space $X$ does not have property ULA if and only if there exists a sequence of finite subsets $X_m \subseteq X$ whose disjoint union $\bigsqcup_{m = 1}^\infty X_m$ is a sequence of weak expander spaces.
Suppose that $X$ does not have property ULA. Then there exist $c > 0$ and $R > 0$ with the following condition: for every natural number $m$, there exists a finite subset $X_m \subseteq X$ such that every subset $Y \subseteq X_m$ with $\mathrm{diam}(Y) < m$ satisfies the inequality $\sharp(\partial_R (Y) \cap X_m) \ge c \sharp(Y)$. In other words, the space $(X_m, d)$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{inf} \left\{ \left.
\frac{\sharp(N_R (Y) \cap X_m)}{\sharp(Y)}
\right| Y \subseteq X_m, \mathrm{diam}(Y) \le m
\right\}
\ge 1 + c. \end{aligned}$$ It follows that $\bigsqcup_{m = 1}^\infty X_m$ is a sequence of weak expander spaces.
Conversely, we suppose that there exists a sequence of finite subspaces $X_m \subseteq X$ such that $\bigsqcup_{m = 1}^\infty X_m$ is a sequence of weak expander spaces. Then there exist $c > 0$ and $R > 0$ such that the following holds for every $S > 0$: for large enough $m \ge M_S$, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{inf} \left\{ \left.
\frac{\sharp(N_R (Y) \cap X_m)}{\sharp(Y)}
\right| Y \subseteq X_m, \mathrm{diam}(Y) < S
\right\}
\ge 1 + c. \end{aligned}$$ For $m \ge M_S$, there exists no finite subset $Y \subseteq X_m$ such that $\mathrm{diam}(Y) < S$ and $\sharp(\partial_R Y \cap X_m) < c \sharp(Y)$. It follows that $X$ does not have ULA.
\[CorollaryNotA\] Let $(X, d)$ be a uniformly locally finite metric space. The space $X$ does not have property A if there exists a sequence of finite subsets $X_m \subseteq X$ such that the disjoint union $\bigsqcup_{m = 1}^\infty X_m$ is a sequence of weak expander spaces.
Property A implies property ULA ([@BNSWW Lemma 2.7 and Proposition 3.2]).
We close this paper by proposing three problems. Let $X$ be a uniformly locally finite metric space.
\[ProblemDisjoint\] Suppose that $X$ does not have property ULA. Can one find finite subsets $X_m \subseteq X$ such that $\bigsqcup_{m = 1}^\infty X_m$ is a sequence of weak expander spaces?
\[ProblemExact\] Let $\{X_m\}_{m \in \mathbb{N}}$ be copies of $X$. Suppose that $C^*_\mathrm{u}(X)$ is exact (resp. locally reflexive). Is $C^*_\mathrm{u}(\bigsqcup X_m)$ also exact (resp. locally reflexive)?
If the answer of Problem \[ProblemDisjoint\] or Problem \[ProblemExact\] is affirmative, so is Problem \[ProblemExactImpliesULA\].
\[ProblemExactImpliesULA\] Suppose that the uniform Roe algebra $C^*_\mathrm{u}(X)$ is locally reflexive. Does the space $X$ have property ULA? What about the case that $C^*_\mathrm{u}(X)$ is exact?
In the case that $X$ coarsely embeds into a discrete group, Brodzki, Niblo, and Wright proved in [@PaperBrodzkiNiblo] that exactness of $C^*_\mathrm{u}(X)$ implies property A of $X$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
David E. Rowe\
Mainz University
title: On Resolving Singularities of Plane Curves via a Theorem attributed to Clebsch
---
Abstract: This paper discusses a central theorem in birational geometry first proved by Eugenio Bertini in 1891. J.L. Coolidge described the main ideas behind Bertini’s proof, but he attributed the theorem to Clebsch. He did so owing to a short note that Felix Klein appended to the republication of Bertini’s article in 1894. The precise circumstances that led to Klein’s intervention can be easily reconstructed from letters Klein exchanged with Max Noether, who was then completing work on the lengthy report he and Alexander Brill published on the history of algebraic functions [@B-N]. This correspondence sheds new light on Noether’s deep concerns about the importance of this report in substantiating his own priority rights and larger intellectual legacy.
MSCCode: 14-03, 01A55, 01A60
Key words: algebraic curves; birational geometry; resolution of singularities
Introduction
============
Julian Lowell Coolidge was a great expert on classical algebraic geometry [@Struik1955]. After studying under Corrado Segre in Turin, he went on to take his doctorate under Eduard Study in Bonn. As a mathematician, Coolidge excelled in writing books, some of them familiar to historians of geometry, others less so. Among the latter, his [*Treatise on Algebraic Plane Curves*]{} [@Coolidge1931] is easily overlooked. Certainly its style and contents appear very old-fashioned today, especially when set alongside a text like [@B-K], despite obvious similarities in the subject matter. Coolidge cultivated an unusually informal writing style, even when describing rather technical matters. He was also disarmingly honest, informing the reader whenever he happened to discuss a work without actually having held it in his hands.[^1]
One of the authors Coolidge admired most deeply was Max Noether,[^2] whose publications from the 1870s exerted a lasting influence on Italian algebraic geometers [@CES]. Noether followed in the footsteps of his principal mentor, Alfred Clebsch, who opened the doors to exploring the rich possibilities of Riemann’s theory of complex functions for algebraic geometry, in particular the birational geometry of curves [@Klein1926 295–309].
The present paper discusses a central theorem in birational geometry first proved by Eugenio Bertini in [@Bertini1891]. Coolidge described the main ideas behind Bertini’s proof in [@Coolidge1931 208–212], but he attributed the theorem to Clebsch. He did so owing to a short note that Felix Klein appended to the republication of Bertini’s article in [*Mathematische Annalen*]{} [@Bertini1894 160]. The precise circumstances that led to Klein’s intervention have never been described before, but they can be easily reconstructed from letters Klein exchanged with Max Noether. This correspondence took place just as Noether and Alexander Brill were putting the last touches on their massive report on the history of algebraic functions [@B-N].[^3]
This episode, as it emerges from the Klein–Noether correspondence, sheds new light on Noether’s deep concerns about his report and the reception it might receive. Quite clearly, he saw parts of it as substantiating his own priority rights and larger intellectual legacy. Furthermore, the story told here testifies to the importance of oral communication not only for disseminating mathematical knowledge but also as a factor in contemporary discussions of priority claims. It can thus be seen as a case study supporting my longstanding interest in the oral dimensions of modern mathematical cultures (see [@Rowe2003], [@Rowe2004], [@Rowe2018]).
{width="8cm" height="12cm"}
The result that Coolidge called “Clebsch’s Transformation Theorem” states that any arbitrary plane algebraic curve can be birationally transformed into another having only double points as singularities. Jean Dieudonné, quite possibly on Coolidge’s authority, also attributed this theorem to Clebsch in [@JD 37–38], whereas Bertini described it as well known, part of the folklore of the era. He republished his paper [@Bertini1891] three years later in [*Mathematische Annalen*]{}, after noticing that prominent French authors – among them Picard, Simart, and Poincaré – continued to mention the theorem without citing his proof. On the other hand, Bertini failed to reference [@Noether1871] and other subsequent papers that showed how to transform a curve to obtain another with simple multiple points, i.e. distinct tangents for each branch. This oversight was perhaps entirely innocent, but in fact Noether’s work represented the most difficult part in proving Clebsch’s Theorem. As we shall see, this aspect helps to explain Noether’s evident irritation in some of his letters to Klein.
Klein’s Correspondence with Noether
===================================
When Felix Klein received Bertini’s note in early January 1894, what he read immediately set off alarm bells. So he turned to his long-time friend, Max Noether, asking him to help put out a potential fire.[^4] Klein quickly realized that Bertini’s proof of this folklore theorem in birational geometry was essentially the same as one he had learned about from Clebsch some 25 years earlier. He also vaguely remembered writing to Noether about Clebsch’s idea for removing higher-order singularities by exploiting the birational mapping of a plane to a cubic surface, as first presented in [@Clebsch1866]. Klein had only recently returned from his journey to the United States, during which he delivered his famous [*Evanston Colloquium Lectures*]{} [@Klein1894].
The first of these lectures dealt directly with the work of Clebsch and included these remarks about the above theorem:
> Clebsch begins his whole investigation on the consideration of what he takes to be the most general type of an algebraic curve, and this [*general curve*]{} he assumes as having only double points, but no other singularities. To obtain a sure foundation for the theory, it must be proved that any algebraic curve can be transformed rationally into a curve having only double points. This proof was not given by Clebsch; it has since been supplied by his pupils and followers, but the demonstration is long and involved. [@Klein1894 4]
Here Klein cited the two papers [@B-N1874] and [@Noether1884]. Presumably, he had never studied these papers very carefully, so that when he read Bertini’s note, which claimed to give the first real proof of this theorem, he realized that the assertion he had made in Evanston – and that would soon be in print – was mistaken.
Still, he made no mention of this in his letter to Noether from 4 January 1894.[^5] Instead, he gently suggested to Noether that he write Bertini, informing him that his proof was by no means new and that Clebsch had communicated it orally to Klein long ago. In the letters that follow it should be borne in mind that Klein had been the principal editor of [*Mathematische Annalen*]{} for nearly twenty years, whereas Noether only joined the board as an associate editor in 1893.
> You will perhaps want to attach a comment from your side to the note by Bertini included here. I send it to you with the request that, if necessary, you take up correspondence with the author and also pass the note on to Dyck \[Walther Dyck was the managing editor of [*Mathematische Annalen*]{}\]. The offprint itself I would like to have returned because I took it from my own copy of the Revista.[^6] As far is the matter itself is concerned, I remember that Kronecker and Clebsch discussed this during the fall of 1869 in Berlin, which led me to the basic method I’ve since often explained and which is essentially the same as Bertini’s: I view the plane as the image of a cubic surface and then project the curve carried onto the surface back again into a plane, etc. etc.
>
> In any case, I wrote or spoke to you about this once. If you, as I suspect, wish to add a note to Bertini’s article, perhaps you could take the opportunity to say a word about this as well.[^7]
Noether was out of town when Klein’s letter arrived, but on returning to Erlangen he wrote back in an agitated state of mind. At first, he could not believe that Klein had actually written to him about this matter long ago, and that neither of them had ever spoken about it since. After looking through Klein’s letters from late 1869, however, he found that this was, indeed, the case. At that time, Klein had been studying in Berlin along with his new-found Norwegian friend, Sophus Lie, while Noether was working under Clebsch in Göttingen. During the fall vacation, Clebsch visited Berlin for a few days, during which time he and Kronecker discussed methods for desingularizing an algebraic curve. Klein then learned about this discussion from Clebsch and wrote the following in a letter to Noether from 17 December 1869:[^8]
> You will perhaps also be interested in what I learned from Clebsch when he was here during the fall vacation. (I really don’t know any more whether I already wrote you this or not.) Kronecker has proved, namely, that a plane curve with arbitrary singularities can always be transformed into one with a single multiple point whose tangents are all distinct. Clebsch then pointed out that one can easily resolve this multiple point into ordinary double points. One views the plane containing the curve as the image of an $F_3$ \[cubic surface\] in such a way that a fundamental point passes into the given multiple point. – This comment of Clebsch appears to me to possess considerable mathematical value. If I’m not mistaken, it allows for a type of extension so that one can immediately reduce arbitrary singularities to ordinary double points.[^9]
One can easily imagine Noether’s astonishment when he read this passage, which not only clearly indicated that Clebsch had found a simple method for reducing the singularities of a plane curve to double points. It also indicated that Kronecker may have anticipated Noether’s own argument using quadratic transformations to show how to obtain a curve having only ordinary singularities – those whose branches have distinct tangents.
Since Noether was very familiar with the mapping in [@Clebsch1866], he would have realized immediately how it can be used to desingularize a given mutliple point. Clebsch’s mapping takes six fundamental points in general position in the plane and blows these up into six of the 27 lines on a cubic surface $F_3$ (Fig. 2). Each set of five fundamental points determines a conic, and these six conics also go over into six lines. The remaining 15 are the images of the lines connecting pairs of the six fundamental points. If one then starts with a plane algebraic curve $C_n$ with singular point $P\in C_n$ of multiplicity $m$, then by letting $P$ coincide with one of the six fundamental points of a Clebsch mapping has the effect of blowing up this singularity into $m$ points on the image line. The curve $C_n$ will then pass over to a space curve $C'$ lying on $F_3$. The remainder of the argument then involves carefully finding a point $Q\in F_3$ so that the projection of $C'$ back into the plane will only introduce double points as singularities. As Coolidge shows in some detail [@Coolidge1931 210–212], the point $Q$ has to be chosen so as not to fall on a line that happens to belong to any of four different 1-parameter systems, which of course can always be done. The image of $C'$ is then a new planar curve $C''$ on which the singular point $P\in C_n$ now corresponds to $m$ nonsingular points; moreover, the only new singularities that arise will be simple nodes. Repeating this argument for each higher singularity then yields a new curve birationally equivalent to $C_n$ and whose only singularities are double points.
![Clebsch’s Mapping of a Plane to a Cubic Surface from [@Clebsch1866] (Pictures Courtesy of Oliver Labs)](ClebschDiag){width="12cm" height="7cm"}
Klein’s request that Noether inform Bertini of these oral communications from 1869 left Noether at a loss as to what he should do. He regarded Klein’s intervention as a very belated and also highly unexpected attempt to set the record straight. Under normal circumstances, Noether would have surely wanted to clarify such matters as well. This particular case, however, put him in a very awkward situation. He was certainly less concerned about informing Bertini regarding these matters. What worried him about the revelations in Klein’s letter from 1869 was that this new information might have deeper implications for assessing priority claims with regard to the resolution of singularities. If so, this would presumably require that Noether reconsider what he had recently written about this topic for the forthcoming report [@B-N]. That thought left him deeply troubled. Since Noether’s own work on this topic had played a central role, he clearly had a personal interest in clarifying the situation. In particular, he wanted to ensure that what he wrote in no way clashed with Klein’s views on these matters. His concern about a potential conflict of this sort thus prompted him to write a lengthy and somewhat defensive letter to Klein on 12 January.[^10]
> Due to my absence from Erlangen nothing was done with the mailing from the $4^{th}$ regarding Bertini. I also cannot take care of it without first reaching an understanding with you.
>
> Your message, that you had written to me in that you had resolved a singular point by repeated use of plane mappings of cubic surfaces, astonished me incredibly. I have absolutely no recollection of this, and also know precisely, that my note for the Göttingen Nachrichten [@Noether1871] in was completely independent, and I cannot understand why in 1871 neither you nor Clebsch ever mentioned that alleged communication from 1869 or why you have since then, until now, never come back to this, for example in the book Clebsch-Lindemann.[^11]
Noether’s irritation over having been left in the dark was evident, but he saw from the passage in Klein’s old letter that Clebsch and Kronecker had, indeed, discussed this matter. Furthermore, Klein had already contemplated using the Clebsch mapping as a method for reducing singularities to double points. He, therefore, felt compelled to inform Klein about what he had written regarding Kronecker’s contributions as well as his own for the report [@B-N].
> I now went through your correspondence from 1869, which confirms your message, as shown by the enclosed letter. So now I have to deal with this not only due to Bertini’s note but also owing to my report on algebraic functions.[^12]
Noether then proceeded to summarize the relevant parts of his report, in some places citing verbatim from the text itself. He then continued with a provisional assessment of the various discoveries from 1869:
> I wrote about all this in such detail because I must know whether you wish to make a priority claim against any part of this \[report\].
>
> So far as I can see, 1) Kronecker was incorrect, if he opined, that the curve in his article on the discriminant has only multiple point; 2) that Clebsch was the first to use the mapping of an $F_3$ for the resolution of ordinary point; that you used the $F_3$ successively to resolve several ordinary singular points; 4) you do not show that this method is effective for arbitrary singular points; 5) nor, in particular, that the process terminates; 6) you give no applications of it.[^13]
At this point, Noether briefly listed some of his own accomplishments, obviously in order to make clear why he saw no need to pay great heed to the problem of reducing ordinary singularities to double points. “I did not give any further resolution of multiple points because I held this to be unnecessary, and above all, because this seemed to then as it does now completely evident.” (Die weitere Auflösung der vielf\[achen\] Pktn habe ich nicht mitgegeben, weil ich sie für unnötig hielt, und vor Allem: weil sie mir völlig evident schien und noch scheint.”) Nevertheless, he asked Klein to state his views about these matters as clearly as possible:
> If your priority claim is directed toward the last part V \[of the report\] (ordinary multiple points) – which alone concerns Bertini etc., I have nothing against adding some information if that is suitable for you; if you however today believe, after such a long time and after your silence throughout the year 1870 when we corresponded with one another, that you have grounds for a priority claim for the resolution of points based on a remark that passed over me in 1869 without a trace, then that would not pertain to Bertini but rather to me: I would appear in rather false light as having known of Kronecker’s \[result\] and your successive method without citing these. I cannot see any good way to reach a compromise in this last respect, and so I must first ask you in this second, for me completely unanticipated case for precise indications as to how far you are now in disagreement with the above contents from my report.[^14]
As for Klein’s original request – that Noether consider writing a note that would be appended to Bertini’s reprinted article, mentioning the state of affairs in 1869 – he saw no reason why he should add any comment whatsoever:
> Furthermore, I remark that I have no real motivation to comment on Bertini’s note, since the question concerning the transformation of a curve with ordinary multiple points into another with double points is a matter of complete indifference to me – and evident, as I already said. That Bertini neglected to cite me in connection with the passage from a singular curve to one with multiple points[^15] should hardly matter; that is of course known. Probably I will send the note on to Dyck without any comment.[^16]
Klein was clearly more than a little surprised when he read Noether’s long response to his original inquiry. This response also included Klein’s own letter from 17 December 1869 containing the key passage cited above. He probably never imagined that Noether would consider writing about these oral communications in [@B-N], but in fact this official report for the German Mathematical Society went well beyond the literature found in journals and books. In particular, Noether wrote at length about Kronecker’s unpublished program for desingularizing algebraic curves, an approach he contrasted with his own.[^17] His report also addressed in great detail the contributions of Karl Weierstrass, which required many references to unpublished results from the latter’s lecture courses. Since the 1870s, Noether and Klein had both studied Weierstrass’ work very avidly by means of various [*Ausarbeitungen*]{} made by his students in Berlin. In many instances, these served as the basis for various priority claims made by Weierstrass, but especially by his closer associates.
Noether thus had every reason to take Klein’s overlooked letter from 1869 quite seriously. Surely he felt very relieved to learn that Klein had no intention at all of raising a priority claim. Probably Klein never imagined that Noether should consider revising his report in order to bring out these early discussions of “Clebsch’s Theorem,” but since Noether raised this possibility himself, Klein now made a simple suggestion in this direction:[^18]
> This is truly a very strange situation. I did not want to direct any priority claim against you recently, all the less so as I had myself completely forgotten the contents of my letter, insofar as it stood in competition with your works. My intention was only to take a stand against Bertini, and I also only do that because I would otherwise appear in false light. The point is namely this, that often in recent years – and, in particular, also recently in the New York Mathematical Society, where I was asked about the resolution of multiple points with distinct branches – I have lectured about this, naturally without any mention of Bertini. If now immediately afterward I publish Bertini’s note in the Annalen it creates the impression that I had intentionally neglected to mention Bertini’s name. I thus believe it is necessary that I add a comment to Bertini’s note, which I include for provisional passage to Dyck. That way I will create no problems for you.
>
> On the other hand it would appear to me correct if you would perhaps include in your report the passage from my letter …with the comment that we both only later became aware of this communication, and that I naturally do not want to make any priority claim based on a sketch as opposed to a thorough investigation of the object in question. But I leave that entirely up to you, and if you decide not to do ths I will certainly not raise any objection.[^19]
Klein surely found Noether’s letter a quite bizarre and certainly hypersensitive overreaction to this whole matter. Probably he remembered nothing about the details of the discussion between Kronecker and Clebsch. On the other hand, Noether’s lengthy remarks to Klein about Kronecker’s methods and claims – remarks based on the not yet published text of [@B-N] – reveal how carefully he approached this terrain. Did Klein even bother to read these parts of Noether’s letter? He was a busy man; futhermore, he fully accepted Noether’s authority as [*the*]{} leading expert on all such matters.
Klein’s Note and Noether’s Commentary
=====================================
Noether’s relationship with Klein had always been harmonious, and it would remain that way in the future, despite occasional differences with respect to [*Mathematische Annalen*]{}, the journal co-founded by their mutual mentor, Alfred Clebsch. Once he saw that Klein merely wanted to clarify his own early and certainly quite marginal involvement with what Noether regarded as a theorem of no great importance for the resolution of singularities for curves, the latter was more than happy to accomodate him. Klein’s appended [*Zusatz*]{} to [@Bertini1894] reads:
> The method of Bertini, speaking geometrically, amounts to regarding the plane, in which the curve with a singular point lies, as a single-valued image of a cubic surface, by which the curve is transformed into a space curve, and the latter is projected into another plane by means of a sufficiently general \[projection\] point. In this formulation I am familiar with the Ansatz through Clebsch, who communicated it to me orally in the fall of 1869. I mention this only because I have especially in recent times often appealed to this in my courses and lectures. The readers of the Annalen will have no less reason to be thankful to Mr. Bertini for his detailed presentation.[^20]
This was the note that Coolidge mentioned in attributing to Clebsch the theorem stating that every algebraic curve can be birationally transformed to another having only double points as singularities [@Coolidge1931 212]. Oddly enough, Coolidge seems to have overlooked the nearly contemporaneous note that Noether, acting on Klein’s suggestion, added to his report. This contains the main substance of the passage from Klein’s letter from 1869, as given above. Noether placed this as a footnote to a sentence stating that [@Noether1871] gave the first (incomplete) proof for resolving the singularities of an algebraic curve [@B-N 371]. The footnote begins by downplaying the critical passage, “which at the time remained [*completely*]{} ignored by \[Noether\] and which was just recently brought to his and the author’s attention by accident” (“welche damals von \[Noether\] [*gänzlich*]{} unbeachtet geblieben war, und auf welche seine, wie des Schreibers Aufmerksamkeit erst jetzt wieder zufällig gelenkt wurde”). Noether might have left the matter there, but he decided to add some commentary to be sure that nothing in Klein’s letter left the reader wondering.
> Clebsch’s observation only concerns a special form of his general investigations on the transformation of an $h$-fold point with distinct tangents into $h$ simply separated points …; the significance of Klein’s observation, which was given only as a mere sketch without further elaboration, cannot be judged. In any case it was not exploited for the resolution of truly [*singular*]{} points. It could thus not serve as the basis for a priority claim.[^21]
Whether or not Coolidge ever read these remarks, he certainly did not share Noether’s dismissive attitude with regard to “Clebsch’s Theorem,” based on the argument in [@Bertini1894]. This is apparent not only from his lengthy exposition of it, but also from some remarks he made in the concluding section of [@Coolidge1931]. There he describes various systems of plane curves that remain invariant under finite groups of Cremona transformations. In this connection, he called attention to a paper by Anders Wiman and wrote: “In many cases there is much to be gained by reverting to the method of mapping the plane on an auxiliary cubic surface that we developed …to prove Clebsch’s transformation theorem …. The problem then becomes one of finding groups of collineations of a three-dimensional space which leave a certain cubic surface invariant” [@Coolidge1931 498]. The paper Coolidge cited, [@Wiman1896], appeared just two years after Noether’s report and was published, appropriately enough, in Clebsch’s journal, [*Mathematische Annalen*]{}.
[99]{}
Bertini, Eugenio: Dimonstrazione di uno teorema sulla trasformazione delle curve algebriche, [*Rivista di matematica*]{}, 1: 21–24.
Bertini, Eugenio: Trasformazione di una curva algebrica in un’altra con soli punti doppi, [*Mathematische Annalen*]{}, 44: 158–160.
Brieskorn, Egbert and Knörrer, Horst: [Plane Algebraic Curves]{}, Basel: Birkhäuser.
Brill, Alexander: Max Noether, [*Jahresbericht der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung*]{}, 32: 211–233.
Brill, Alexander und Noether, Max: Ueber die algebraische Functionen und ihre Anwendungen in der Geometrie, [*Mathematische Annalen*]{}, 7: 269–310.
Brill, Alexander und Noether, Max: Die Entwicklung der Theorie der algebraischen Functionen in älterer und neuer Zeit, [*Jahresbericht der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung*]{}, 3: 107–566.
Castelnuovo, Guido, Enriques, Federigo, Severi, Francesco: Max Noether, [*Mathematische Annalen*]{}, 93: 161–181.
Clebsch, Alfred: Die Geometrie auf den Flächen dritter Ordnung, [*Journal für die reine und angewandte Mathematik*]{}, 65: 359–380.
Coolidge, Julian L.; [*Treatise on Algebraic Plane Curves*]{}, Oxford: Clarendon.
Dieudonné, Jean: [*Cours de géométrie algébrique I*]{}, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, [*History of Algebraic Geometry*]{}, trans. J. Sally, Monterey, CA: Wadsworth.
Klein, Felix: [*The Evanston Colloquium: Lectures on Mathematics*]{}, New York: Macmillan.
Klein, Felix: [*Vorlesungen über die Entwicklung der Mathematik im 19. Jahrhundert*]{}, vol. 1, Berlin: Julius Springer.
Kronecker, Leopold: Über die Discriminante algebraischer Functionen einer Variabeln, [*Journal für die reine und angewandte Mathemtaik*]{}, 91: 301–334.
Noether, Max: Über die algebraischen Functionen, [*Göttinger Nachrichten*]{}, 7. Juni 1871, 267–278.
Noether, Max: Rationale Aufführung der Operationen in der Theorie der algebraischen Functionen, [*Mathematische Annalen*]{}, 23: 311–358.
Noether, Emmy: Die arithmetische Theorie der algebraischen Funktionen einer Veränderlichen in ihrer Beziehung zu den übrigen Theorien und zu der Zahlkörpertheorie, [*Jahresbericht der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung*]{}, 28: 182–203.
Rowe, David E.: Mathematical Schools, Communities, and Networks, in [*The Cambridge History of Science*]{}, vol. 5 [*Modern Physical and Mathematical Sciences*]{}, ed. Mary Jo Nye, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 113–132.
Rowe, David E.: Making Mathematics in an Oral Culture: Göttingen in the Era of Klein and Hilbert, [*Science in Context*]{}, 17(1/2): 85–129.
Rowe, David E.: [*A Richer Picture of Mathematics: The Göttingen Tradition and Beyond*]{}, New York: Springer.
Struik, Dirk J.: Obituary: Julian Lowell Coolidge, [*The American Mathematical Monthly*]{} 62(9): 669–682.
Tobies, Renate: [*Felix Klein. Visionen für Mathematik, Anwendungen und Unterricht*]{}, Heidelberg: Springer.
Wiman, Anders: Zur Theorie der endlichen Gruppen von birationalen Transformationen in der Ebene, [*Mathematische Annalen*]{}, 48: 195–240.
[^1]: Since he taught for many years at Harvard University, Coolidge had ready access to the rich holdings in Widener Library, whose director was his older brother [@Struik1955 670]. So it did not often happen that he could not read a mathematical text firsthand.
[^2]: In his preface, Coolidge wrote: “Large protions of the work are written according to the spirit and methods of the Italian geometers, to whom, indeed, the whole is dedicated \[Ai Geometri Italiani, Morti, Viventi\]. It would be quite impossible to describe the extent of the writer’s obligation to them. Yet behind the Italians stands one whose contributions are even greater, Max Noether” [@Coolidge1931 x].
[^3]: After Noether’s death, Brill clarified that they had adopted a clear division of labor in writing [@B-N]: Brill was responsible for the largely historical part up to and including Riemann’s work, whereas Noether wrote about the various directions taken by contemporary researchers working in the wake of Riemann’s novel innovations [@Brill1923]. In the discussion below, we will be concerned only with Noether’s portion of the report. Noether chose to omit the more recent work on higher-dimensional algebraic varieties inaugurated by Italian researchers as well as the arithmetical approach taken by Dedekind and Weber. The latter as well as Hensel and Landsberg, [*Theorie der algebraischen Funktionen einer Variabeln und ihre Anwendung auf algebraische Kurven und Abelsche Integrale*]{} (1902) were taken up much later in a shorter report by Emmy Noether in [@Noether1919].
[^4]: Their friendship began in 1869 when both were studying under Clebsch in Göttingen; see [@Tobies2019 40–48].
[^5]: Cod.Ms. Felix Klein, XII 637, SUB Göttingen.
[^6]: Bertini presumably had sent Klein an offprint of [@Bertini1891] along with a request that this short note be reprinted in the [*Annalen*]{}.
[^7]: Beifolgende Notiz von Bertini wirst Du vielleicht mit einer Bemerkung von Deiner Seite versehen wollen. Ich schicke sie daher zu, mit der Bitte, wenn nötig mit dem Verf\[asser\] selbst zu correspondieren und übrigens die Note an Dyck. weitergehen zu lassen. Den Druckbogen selbst möchte ich mir später zurück erbitten, da ich ihn aus meinem Exemplar der Rivista ausgelöst habe. Was die Sache angeht, so erinnere ich mich, dass Kronecker und Clebsch im Herbst 1869 in Berlin darüber verhandelten, worauf ich den Ansatz fand, den ich seither oft vortrug und der im Wesen mit dem von Bertini identisch ist: ich sah die Ebene als “Abbildung” einer Fläche dritter Ordnung an und projecierte dann wieder die auf diese Fläche übertragenen Curve auf eine Ebene, etc. etc.
Ich habe Dir jedenfalls einmal davon geschrieben oder gesprochen. Wenn Du, wie ich vermuthe, von Dir aus \[eine\] Note zu dem Aufsatz von Bertini hinzufügen willst, nimmst Du vielleicht Gelegenheit auch hierüber ein Wort einfliessen zu lassen.
[^8]: Cod.Ms. Felix Klein, XII 527, SUB Göttingen.
[^9]: Dann wird Dich vielleicht noch interessieren, was ich von Clebsch erfahren habe, als er in den Herbstferien hier war. (Ich wei[ß]{} wirklich nicht mehr, ob ich es Dir nicht schon geschrieben habe.) Kronecker nämlich hat nachgewiesen, da[ß]{} sich eine ebene Kurve mit beliebigen Singularitäten immer auf eine solche zurückführen lä[ß]{}t, die einen einzigen mehrfachen Punkt besitzt, dessen Tangenten sämtlich verschieden sind. Damals machte Clebsch darauf aufmerksam, da[ß]{} man diesen Punkt nun sehr einfach in gewöhnliche Doppelpunkte auflösen kann, indem man die Ebene der Kurve als Bild einer $F_3$ auffa[ß]{}t, wobei ein Fundamentalpunkt in den gegebenen mehrfachen Punkt rückt. – Mir scheint diese Bemerkung von Clebsch einen hohen mathematischen Wert zu besitzen. Irre ich nicht, so lä[ß]{}t sie sich in einer solchen Art erweitern, da[ß]{} man beliebige Singularitäten unmittelbar auf gewöhnliche Doppelpunkte reduzieren kann.
[^10]: Cod.Ms. Felix Klein, XI 112, SUB Göttingen.
[^11]: Durch meine Abwesenheit von Erlangen ist diese, Bertini betreffende Sendung vom $4^{ten}$ liegen geblieben. Ich kann dieselbe auch nicht erledigen, ohne mich vorher mit Dir verständigt zu haben.
Deine Mitteilung, da[ß]{} Du im Jahre die Auflösung eines singulären Punktes durch wiederholte Benutzung der eb\[enen\] Abbildungen von Flächen $3^{ter}$ O\[rdnung\] bewerkstelligt hattest und mir dies damals auch geschrieben hattest, hat mich auf’s Äu[ß]{}ersten frappiert. Ich erinnerte mich absolut nicht daran, wei[ß]{} auch völlig genau, da[ß]{} ich im beim Verfassen meiner Note in den Göttinger Nachrichten \[dieser?\] durchaus unabhängig war, und kann nicht begreifen, warum \[?\] 1871 weder Clebsch noch Du mit irgend einem Wort mir gegenüber jemals auf jene angebliche Mitteilung von 1869 hinwiesen oder warum Du auch seitdem, bis jetzt, nicht darauf zurückgekommen bist, z.B. nicht im Buche Clebsch-Lindemann.
[^12]: Deine Correspondenz von 1869, die ich nun durchsuchte, bestätigt Deine Mitteilung, wie Dein hier mitfolgende Brief zeigt. Ich habe mich nun mit Dir nicht nur wegen der Bertini’schen Note, sondern auch wegen meines Referates über algebr. Funktionen, auseinanderzusetzen.
[^13]: Ich habe dies Alles so ausführlich geschrieben, weil ich wissen mu[ß]{}, ob Du gegen irgend einen Teil desselben eine Prioritätsreclamation geltend zu machen wünschst.
So viel ich sehe, hat 1) Kronecker nicht Recht, wenn er meint, da[ß]{} in seinem Discr\[iminaten\] Aufsatz seine \[?\] Curve nur mehrfachen Punkt hat; 2) hat Clebsch zuerst die Abbildung der $F_3$ zur Auflösung gewöhnlichen Punktes benutzt; 3) hast Du die succ\[essive\] $F_3$ zur Auflösung mehrerer gewöhnlichen sing. Punkte benutzt; 4) führst Du nicht aus, da[ß]{} diese Methode bei beliebigen singulären Punkten in der That \[wirksam?\] ist; 5) zeigst Du insbesondere nicht, da[ß]{} der Proze[ß]{} abschlie[ß]{}t; 6) gibst Du keine Anwendung davon.
[^14]: Richtet sich nun Dein Prioritätsanspruch auf den letzteren Teil V (gewöhnliche vielfache Punkte) – der bei Bertini etc. allein in Betracht kommt, so habe ich nichts dagegen, eine Zufügung zu machen, wenn es Dir pa[ß]{}t; wenn Du aber glaubst, auch für die Auflösung der Punkte heut, nach so langer Zeit, und nachdem Du im Jahr 1870, wo wir doch in Correspondenz standen, geschwiegen, einen Anspruch begründen zu können – auf ein Aperçu hin – das an mir 1869 spurlos vorüberschwand – so würde sich das nicht auf Bertini, sondern auf mich beziehen: ich käme in eher falsches Licht, als hätte ich Kronecker und Dein succ\[essive\] Verfahren gekannt, ohne es zu nennen. Ich sehe in dieser letzteren Beziehung keinen richtigen Weg des Ausgleiches, und mü[ß]{}t Dich in diesem zweiten, mir gänzlich unvermuthet kommenden Falle erst um genaue Angabe darüber bitten, wie weit Du nun mit dem obigen Inhalte meines Referates nicht einverstanden sein wirst.
[^15]: Bertini began his proof with a single sentence asserting that one should first transform the curve by a suitable Cremona transformation to obtain another having only ordinary multiple points [@Bertini1894 159].
[^16]: Noch bemerke ich, da[ß]{} ich zur Bertini’schen Note eine Anmerkung zu machen eigentlich gar kein Anla[ß]{} habe, da mir die Frage der Überführung einer Curve mit gew\[öhnlichen\] mehrfachen Punkten in eine solche mit Doppelpunkten ganz gleichgültig ist – und evident, wie ich schon sagte. Da[ß]{} B\[ertini\] mich in der Frage der Überführung einer sing\[ulären\] Curve auf eine solche mit mehrfachen Punkten nicht citiert, soll wohl nichts hei[ß]{}en; das ist ja bekannt. Wahrscheinlich würde ich die Note unvermerkt an Dyck weiter schicken.
[^17]: In [@B-N 370] Noether cited Kronecker’s statement that he had communicated his methodological views to Riemann and Weierstrass in 1858, presented these ideas to the Berlin Academy in 1862, and expounded the same in his lectures beginning in the winter semester of 1870/71. They were only published in [@Kronecker1881], which announces a sequel that never appeared.
[^18]: Klein to Noether, 19 January 1894, Cod.Ms. Felix Klein, XII 638, SUB Göttingen.
[^19]: Das ist wirklich eine sehr merkwürdige Situation. Ich habe neulich gegen Dich gar keine Prioritätsreclamation richten wollen, um so weniger, als ich den Inhalt meines Briefes, soweit er mit Deinen Arbeiten in Concurrenz tritt, selber vollkommen vergessen hatte. Meine Absicht war nur gegen Bertini Stellung zu nehmen. Und auch dies thue ich nur, weil ich sonst in schiefes Licht komme. Die Sache ist nämlich die, dass ich den letzten Jahren öfter und insbesondere auch neulich in der New Yorker Mathematical Society, als ich nach der Auflösung der vielfachen Puncte mit getrennten Aesten gefragt wurde, die Sache vorgetragen habe, natürlich ohne Bertini zu nennen. Wenn ich nun unmittelbar hernach die Note von Bertini in den Annalen drucke, so entsteht der Eindruck, als habe ich Bertini’s Namen absichtlich verschwiegen. Ich glaube also, dass es nothwendig ist, dass ich der Note von Bertini einen Zusatz mache, wie ich ihn zu ev. Weiterbeförderung an Dyck beilege. Damit gerathe ich Dir gar nicht in’s Gehege.
Andererseits schien mir richtig, dass Du vielleicht in Deinem Referate die Stelle meines Briefes zwischen den beiden jetzt von mir am Rande angebrachten Sternchen unter der Seite abdrucktest, mit dem Bemerken, dass wir beide erst hinterher wieder auf diese Mitteilung aufmerksam geworden sind und dass ich selbstverständlich auf ein Aperçu keinen Prioritätsanspruch gegenüber einer ausführlichen Durcharbeitung des Gegenstandes gründen will. Aber ich überlasse Dir das vollkommen und werde gewi[ß]{} nicht, wenn Du es nicht thust, reclamieren.
[^20]: Die Methode von Bertini kommt geometrisch zu reden darauf zurück, die Ebene, in welcher uns die Curve mit singulärem Punkte gegeben ist, als eindeutige Abbildung einer Fläche dritter Ordnung zu betrachten, dadurch die Curve in eine Raumcurve zu verwandeln und letztere hinterher wieder von einem hinreichend allgemeinen Punkt aus auf eine andere Ebene zu projiciren. In dieser Form ist mir der Ansatz noch von Clebsch her bekannt, der mir denselben im Herbst 1869 mündlich mittheilte. Ich erwähne dies nur, weil ich gerade in letzter Zeit in meinen Vorlesungen und Vorträgen wiederholt daran angeknüpft hatte. Die Leser der Annalen werden darum Hrn. Bertini für seine ausführliche Darstellung nicht geringeren Dank wissen.
[^21]: Die Bemerkung von Clebsch bezieht sich nur auf eine specielle Form seiner allgemeinen Betrachungen über Transformation eines $h$-fachen Punktes mit getrennten Tangenten in $h$ einfach getrennte Punkte …; die Tragweite der Klein’schen Bemerkung lässt sich, wie dieselbe als blosses Aperçu ohne weitere Ausführung gegeben ist, nicht beurteilen, jedenfalls ist sie für die Auflösung der wirklich [*singulären*]{} Punkte nicht verwertet worden. Einen Prioritätsanspruch könnte dieselbe also nicht begründen.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Cosmic rays are the highest energy particles available for our study and as such serve as excellent probes of the effects of Lorentz Invariance Violations, which are expected to increase with energy. This general paradigm is investigated in this paper by studying the effects of such violations within the Coleman-Glashow model in which each particle species may have its own maximum attainable velocity, even exceeding that of light *in vacuo*. The particular focus here is that the muon neutrino may have the maximum speed exceeding that of light. We show that such an assumption leads to the elongation of the decay lifetime of the pion that increases with energy over and above the time dilation effects. We provide a transparent analytical derivation of the spectral intensities of muon neutrinos and muons generated in the Earth’s atmosphere by cosmic rays. In this derivation we not only account for elongation of the pion lifetime, but also for the loss of energy by the neutrinos by radiation of the electron-positron pairs through the Cohen-Glashow process, during their propagation. We then compare the theoretical spectra with observations of neutrinos and muons from large instruments like IceCube and BUST to set a limit of $\sim10^{-13}$ on the fractional excess speed of neutrinos over that of light. We also show that the ratio of the spectral intensities of downward and upward moving neutrinos at various angles constitute a diagnostic exclusively for the Cohen-Glashow process, which may be searched for in the IceCube data set. We conclude the paper with several comments, including those related to improvements of these tests when definite signals of GZK neutrinos will be observed.'
author:
- 'R. Cowsik$^1$, T. Madziwa-Nussinov$^1$, S. Nussinov$^2$, and U. Sarkar$^3$'
title: '**Testing Violations of Lorentz Invariance with Cosmic Rays.**'
---
Introduction
============
The study of several exciting aspects of high energy astrophysics and indeed of many subtle aspects of basic physics have been given a boost by the commissioning of large detectors of cosmic ray secondaries such as ANITA, IceCube, Auger, BUST, Kolar Gold Fields, Kamiokande and other experiments with collecting powers of $\sim100$ km$^3$ [@Krishnaswamy1982; @Krishnaswamy1975; @Krishnaswamy1971; @Gorham2010; @Hoover2010; @Becker; @2011; @Aglietta2000; @Gray2011; @Aharmim2009; @Abbasi2011; @Novoseltsev2010; @Abraham2008; @Abbasi2004; @MultiKm3; @Fechner2009]. These detectors have already detected $\sim10^9$ cosmic-ray muons of median energy $\sim2\times10^4$ GeV and $\sim10^4$ neutrinos that allow the spectra to be determined up to $\sim10^6$ GeV. The physics input regarding high energy nuclear interactions from accelerators, colliders and other sources help in reliably modeling the propagation of cosmic-rays through the atmosphere and qualitatively account for the observed spectral intensities of the muons and the neutrinos. Comparison of these spectral intensities with the model predictions then allow us to probe into primary cosmic ray composition at high energies and search for effects due to new physics, such as small violations of the Lorentz Invariance that may manifest themselves only at the highest energies. This paper is devoted to such an exercise.
Violation of Lorentz Invariance is studied from two distinct perspectives. The first is exemplified by Michaelson-Morley and Hughes-Drever experiments which test the existence of preferred frames of reference and the anisotropy of Machian type long-range interactions of matter in the laboratory with astronomically distant matter. The extraordinary accuracy achieved in such interactions validated relativistic theories of gravity, especially GR [@Will1981; @Will2006]. The other perspective is exemplified by the theoretical considerations of Coleman and Glashow [@Coleman1997; @Coleman1999], who accept the possible existence of a preferred frame, such as the frame in which the dipole anisotropy of the universal microwave background at 2.7K vanishes. In the preferred frame, the laws of physics are assumed to be invariant under translations and rotations. However they investigate the possibility that different particles could have maximum attainable speeds different from that of light *in vacuo*, and these speeds could, in principle, exceed that of light by a small amount. Coleman and Glashow have developed a perturbative framework to discuss the violations of Lorentz Invariance (LIV) with terms that are renormalizeable and are invariant under the $\textup{SU} (3)\times\textup{SU}(2)\times\textup{U}(1)$ gauge symmetry of the standard model. Going beyond the standard model, Kostelecky and collaborators have carried out extensive analysis of models where Planck scale physics yields signals in the propagation of photons, neutrinos and other particles that have the potential for being observed in present-day or future experiments [@Kostelecky2011a; @Kostelecky1989; @Kostelecky2011b]. These later papers provide a comprehensive overview of the physics and the observational status of these models: Observations of high-energy gamma rays from distant astronomical sources have also been used to set lower bounds on the energy scale at which quantum gravity effects lead to increase in the velocity of light with energy [@Biller1999]. The aim of this paper is to discuss the bounds on LIV derived from cosmic-ray observations based on the formalism developed by Coleman and Glashow [@Coleman1997; @Coleman1999]. In this context, we may refer to the elegant review of earlier work by Bietenholz [@Bietenholz2011].
We begin by recalling briefly the earlier efforts in the field of cosmic rays to search for the effects of superluminal velocities. An excellent review of the efforts to observe tachyons [@Bilaniuk1962] in cosmic ray showers is provided by R. W. Clay [@Clay1962]. The air-shower group of the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research pioneered these studies by searching for energetic particles that arrive at the air-shower array some 10-50 $\mu$s before the main shower front of electron-positron pairs, muons and gamma rays initiated by cosmic ray particles of $\gtrsim10^6$ GeV [@Ramana1971; @Wolfendale1973].
Following the lead given by Coleman and Glashow [@Coleman1997], with specific reference to the present paper, the early bounds on LIV using horizontal air showers were obtained by Cowsik and Sreekantan [@Cowsik1999]; detailed comments on this paper may be found in the papers of Coleman and Glashow [@Coleman1997; @Coleman1999] and of Halperin and Kim [@Halperin1999]. This later paper maps the violations of Lorentz invariance into violations of the Equivalence Principle. In a subsequent paper, Cowsik et. al. [@Cowsik1999b] have investigated the possibility that if similar effects can induce $\nu_\mu\rightarrow \nu_e+\gamma$, then such a rate is far more strictly bounded. Stecker and Glashow [@Stecker2001] discuss the bounds on LIV of electrons based on observations of energetic cosmic rays. Similarly Stecker and Scully [@Stecker2005; @Stecker2009] have put bounds on LIV in the hadronic sector by consideration of the GZK cut-off [@Griesen1966; @Zatsepin1966]. Direct observations of the neutrinos from supernova 1987A [@Hirata1987; @Bionta1987] allowed Stodolsky [@Stodolsky1988] and Longo [@Longo1987] to set bounds on any excess speed of neutrinos over that of light at the $\sim10^{-8}$ level, a significant improvement over early results at accelerators [@Adam2011]. In the context of OPERA experiments [@Alexandre2012; @Adamson2007; @Adam2011; @Cacciapaglia2011; @Haridass2011; @Li2011; @Gilles2011; @Drago2011; @Alexandre2011; @Bi2011] several ideas of interest have been put forward and we reference a few for completeness [@Ellis2008; @Adam2011; @Giudice2012; @Hagen1987; @Grossman2005; @Alfaro2005; @Cowsik1999; @Kostelecky2011a; @Hambye1998a; @Hambye1998b; @Kostelecky1998; @Kostelecky1999; @Bluhm2000; @Pas2005; @Hollenberg2009; @Coleman1998; @Stecker2005; @Maccione2009].
The particular focus here is to provide an analytical calculation of the spectral intensity of muons and muon neutrinos arising from the decay of pions produced by cosmic rays in the Earth’s atmosphere. In carrying out these calculations, we have included the enhancement of pion life-time and the decrease in the average energy transferred to the neutrino in pion decay due to any posited superluminal motion of the muon neutrino. Secondly, we have included the effect of such a neutrino losing energy by emitting electron-positron pairs during its flight even through vacuum, as pointed out recently by Cohen and Glashow [@Cohen2011] in the context of OPERA experiments.
We will not embark here on the ambitious program of getting the best limits for the rich variety of the LIV modifications for the various particles involved. Instead what we will attempt here is more limited and yet clearly illustrates the potential reach of this approach. Here we will focus on the effects of modifying the energy-momentum relation for $\nu_\mu$ only to $ E_{\nu} = p_{\nu} (1+\alpha )$, as suggested by Coleman and Glashow for modeling violations of Lorentz Invariance. Our analysis presented here exclude values of $\alpha$ values down to $\sim10^{-13}$. This is achieved by providing a transparent analytical calculation for the propagation of cosmic rays in the Earth’s atmosphere that accurately reproduces the known data when no anomaly is assumed, and then comparing the theoretical spectra for various values of $\alpha$ with the observational data.
Calculation of the spectral intensities of neutrinos and muons generated by cosmic rays in the atmosphere.
==========================================================================================================
The earliest calculations of the fluxes of neutrinos and muons in the earth’s atmosphere were due to Volkova and Zatsepin in 1961 and Zatsepin and Kuzmin in 1962 [@Volkova1961; @Zatsepin1962]. This was followed by a slightly more detailed calculation by Cowsik and collaborators in 1963 and in 1966 [@Cowsik1963; @Cowsik1966]. This later paper also describes the experimental aspects of the detection of these energetic neutrinos with detectors located deep underground. Since then, the calculations have progressively improved with the explicit inclusion of the inelastic cross sections for the production of pions and other particles measured with particle beams at accelerators [@Volkova1980; @Volkova1980a; @Honda2007; @Gaisser1988; @Gaisser12002]. In this section, we derive analytical formulae for the spectral intensities of muons and neutrinos arising from the decay of pions and include the effects of posited superluminal speeds for the muon neutrinos. There are basically two effects: (1) a progressive lengthening of the pion lifetime [@Cowsik2011] and the reduction in energy transferred to the neutrino in the decay process due to LIV effects [@Swordy2001] and (2) the loss of energy suffered by the neutrino during propagation owing to the emission of electron-positron pairs through the Cohen-Glashow process [@Cohen2011]. We will describe these two effects below and present an analytical calculation of the cosmic ray fluxes.
Kinematics of pion decay with superluminal neutrinos.
-----------------------------------------------------
In the discussion of the kinematics of pion decay we make the minimal assumption that only the muon neutrino has a maximum attainable speed exceeding that of light *in vacuo*, and work within the framework of the Coleman-Glashow model for LIV [@Coleman1997; @Coleman1999]. The analysis below follows closely our earlier work in relation to OPERA results [@Cowsik2011]. The key assumptions for this analysis are the following: (1) The relation $\partial E/\partial p = v$, the velocity of the particle, (2) energy-momentum conservation holds, and (3) the positivity of energy for free particles, which excludes tachyons. Since the mass of the muon neutrino is in the sub-eV domain and our considerations are limited to neutrinos generated by cosmic rays at high energies, say above 10 GeV, we may safely neglect the neutrino mass and write $$\label{eq:1}
E_\nu =p_\nu(1+\alpha )$$ where $\alpha$ is the superluminal parameter, a very small quantity with $\alpha \ll 1$. Note that $\alpha=2\delta$, where $\delta$ is the LIV parameter defined similarly by Coleman and Glashow [@Coleman1997; @Coleman1999].
The superluminal energy-momentum relation in Eq. (\[eq:1\]) suppresses the pion decay both through its effect on the matrix element of the decay and through kinematic effects, which become progressively more severe with the increasing energy of the pion. We begin with the description of the kinematic effects: The pions and muons follow the standard mass-energy relation $$\label{eq:2}
E_i =(p_{i}^{2}+m_{i}^{2})^\frac{1}{2}$$ It is convenient to express the momentum four-vector of the particles as $$\label{eq:3}
\hat{p}_\pi=(E_\pi , p_\pi, 0, 0) , \textup{ }\hat{p}_\mu=(E_\mu , p_{\mu l}, p_{\mu t}, 0) \textup{ and } \hat{p}_\nu=(E_\nu , p_{\nu l}, p_{\nu t}, 0)$$ where the subscripts $l$ and $t$ refer to the longitudinal and transverse components. We explicitly satisfy momentum conservation by choosing $$\label{eq:4}
p_{\nu l} = \eta p_\pi, \textup{ }p_{\mu l} = (1-\eta )p_\pi \textup{ and } p_{\nu t} = -p_{\mu t} = p_t$$ The equation for conservation of energy now reads $$\label{eq:5}
( p_\pi^2 + m_\pi^2 )^\frac{1}{2} = \left [ p_\pi^2 (1-\eta)^2 + p_t^2 + m_\mu^2\right ]^{\frac{1}{2}}+ \left [ p_\pi^2 \eta^2 + p_t^2 \right ]^\frac{1}{2}(1+\alpha )$$ At cosmic ray energies all the momenta are large compared with the masses of the particles and the square roots in Eq. (\[eq:5\]) may be expanded keeping only the leading terms. This leads to the relation $$\label{eq:6}
\frac{m_\pi ^2}{2p_\pi } = \frac{m_\mu ^2 + p_t ^2}{2p_\pi (1-\eta )} +\alpha \eta p_\pi + \frac{p_t ^2 (1+\alpha )}{2p_\pi \eta}$$ This equation of energy conservation may be thought of as a relationship between $p_t$ and $\eta$. Accordingly, rearranging the terms, we get $$\label{eq:7}
p_t ^2= \eta\left \{\frac{(m_\pi ^2 - m_\mu ^2) - \eta\left [ m_\pi ^2 + 2 p_\pi ^2 \alpha (1-\eta )\right ]}{(1+\alpha) - \alpha \eta} \right \}$$ The minimum and maximum value of $\eta$ are obtained by solving Eq. (\[eq:7\]) for $p_t = 0$: $$\label{eq:8}
\eta_{min}= 0; \textup{ } \eta_{max}\approx \frac{m_\pi ^2 - m_\mu ^2}{m_\pi ^2 + 2 p_\pi ^2 \alpha}$$ It is interesting to note that Eq. \[eq:8\] implies a maximum energy for the neutrino arising from the pions of arbitrarily high energy for a given value of $\alpha$. This maximum energy is given by $$\label{eq:9}
E_{\nu,max}=\frac{m_{\pi}^{2}-m_{\mu}^{2}}{\left (4m_{\pi}^{2}\alpha \right )^{\frac{1}{2}}}\approx \frac{0.25}{\sqrt{\alpha}}\approx2.5\times 10^{4}\textup{ }GeV\textup{ for }\alpha =10^{-10}$$ This limit is noticeable in Fig. \[fig:Etan\].
We next consider the modification of the pion decay matrix element due to VLI effects in the Coleman-Glashow model. We begin by writing the pion-decay matrix element in the standard form: $$\label{eq:10}
\textbf{M}_{\pi\mu } =\frac{g_{w}^{2}}{8m_{w}^{2}}\left \{ \bar{u} (\mu)\gamma _\alpha (1-\gamma ^5) v(\nu _\mu )\right \} f_\pi \hat{p}_{\pi }^{\alpha }$$ The symbols $\mu$ and $\nu_\mu$ in the brackets next to the wave functions are introduced to indicate the particles they refer to. The essential change with respect to the standard calculation is that we now have $$\label{eq:11}
v(\nu _\mu ) \bar{v}(\nu _\mu ) = \not{\hat{p}} - m _\nu + \alpha \vec{\gamma }\cdot \vec{p}$$ After some simplification we have $$\label{eq:12}
|\textbf{M}_{\pi\mu }|^2 = \left ( f_\pi \frac{g_{w}^{2}}{8m_{w}^{2}} \right )^2 T$$ $$\label{eq:13}
T_{\pi \mu } = [2(\hat{p}_\pi \cdot \hat{p}_\mu )\left \{ \hat{p}_\pi \cdot \hat{p}_\nu-\alpha (\vec{p}_\pi \cdot \vec{p}_\nu) \right \}-m_{\pi }^{2} \left \{ \hat{p}_\nu \cdot \hat{p}_\mu - \alpha (\vec{p}_\nu \cdot \vec{p}_\mu)\right \}]$$ The following simplifications are relevant: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:14}
\hat{p}_\pi \cdot \hat{p}_\mu = \frac{1}{2}\left ( m_{\pi }^2 + m_{\mu }^2\right ) - \alpha(\eta ^2 p_{\pi }^2 +p_t^2 ) \nonumber\\
\left \{ (\hat{p}_\pi \cdot \hat{p}_\nu) - \alpha (\vec{p}_\pi \cdot \vec{p}_\nu) \right \} = \frac{1}{2}\left ( m_{\pi }^2 - m_{\mu }^2\right ) + \alpha \left \{ p_t^2 -\eta (1-\eta)p_{\pi }^2 \right \}\\
\left \{ (\hat{p}_\nu \cdot \hat{p}_\mu) - \alpha (\vec{p}_\nu \cdot \vec{p}_\mu) \right \} = \frac{1}{2}\left ( m_{\pi }^2 - m_{\mu }^2\right ) - \alpha \eta p_{\pi }^2 \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Accordingly, the decay rate of the pion maybe written as $$\label{eq:15}
\Gamma_{\pi \mu }=\int \frac{(2\pi)^4 }{2E_\pi}|M|^2 \delta^4(\hat{p} _\pi - \hat{p} _\mu - \hat{p} _\nu) \frac{d^3 \vec{p}_\mu }{(2\pi)^32E_\mu}\cdot \frac{d^3 \vec{p}_\nu }{(2\pi)^32E_\nu}$$ The integration $d^3 \vec{p}_\mu$ is accomplished with the choice of
$p_{\mu L} = (1-\eta) p_\pi$, $p_{\mu t} =-p_{\nu t} \textup{ and } p_{\nu L} =- \eta p_{\pi} $, dictated by the $ \delta^3(\vec{p} _\pi - \vec{p} _\mu - \vec{p} _\nu)$ part of the integral. Suppressing the constants, we are now left with the integral
$$\label{eq:16}
\Gamma_{\pi \mu }=\int \frac{T }{E_\mu E_\nu} \delta (E_\pi - E _\mu - E _\nu) p_\pi \textup{ }d\eta \textup{ }d\varphi \textup{ }p_t \textup{ }dp_t$$
where we have written explicitly $d^3 \vec{p}_\nu = p_\pi \textup{ }d\eta \textup{ }d\varphi \textup{ }p_t \textup{ }dp_t$
Noting that the Jacobian $\frac{d(E_\pi - E_\mu - E_\nu )}{d p_{t \nu}}= - \frac{d E_\nu}{d p_{t \nu}} = - \frac{(1+ \alpha)}{2 E_\nu}$ and that $d\varphi$ integrates to $2 \pi$, the decay width of the pion is proportional to $$\label{eq:17}
\Gamma_{\pi \mu } = \int_ {{0}}^{{\eta_{max}}} \frac{p_\pi T d\eta}{(1+ \alpha) \left \{ m_\mu ^2 + p_\pi ^2 (1- \eta)^2 + p_t ^2(\eta)\right \}^\frac{1}{2}}$$
\[ht\] ![We show here the elongation of the decay lifetime of the pion due to superluminal motion of the neutrino, for various values of the parameter $\alpha$ as a function of the pion momentum. All the curves are normalized to $\alpha=0$, for which $\tau$ is taken to be $\sim2.2\times10^{-8}$ s. The additional factor, E$_\pi$/m$_\pi$, is included in the propagation equations, so that for $\alpha=0$ we get the standard results.[]{data-label="fig:Ptau"}](Pion_tau2.JPG "fig:"){width="12cm"}
Note that in Eq. (\[eq:17\]) $p_t$ is a function of $\eta$ as given in Eq. (\[eq:7\]), and the limits of the integration are given in Eq. (\[eq:8\]). As $\eta_{max}$ decreases with increasing $p_\pi$, the decay probability decreases. The other LIV effects are contained in the trace T and the denominator of the integrand in Eq. (\[eq:17\]). The electronic mode of the pion decay is assumed to be without any LIV effects, and contributes about $10^{-4}$ of the muonic mode for $\alpha=0$. $\Gamma_e \approx 1.2 \times 10^{-4}\textup{ }\Gamma_{\pi -\mu }(\alpha = 0)$ and the full decay width of the pion may be written as $$\label{eq:18}
\Gamma_{\pi }= \Gamma_{\pi \mu } + \Gamma_{\pi e }$$ Noting that the pion lifetime $\tau$ is inversely proportional to $\Gamma$, we show in Fig. \[fig:Ptau\]. the factor by which the pion life-time is prolonged when $\alpha$ is different from zero at various pion energies.
Simple model for Earth’s atmosphere.
------------------------------------
![The left panel indicates a cosmic ray nucleon incident at a zenith angle $\theta$ that suffers an inelastic interaction with a nucleus in the atmosphere leading to multi-particle production. The surviving energetic nucleon in the atmosphere and the high energy pion travel essentially in the same direction, as do the muons and neutrinos arising from the decay of pions. The path length ‘$t$’ is measured from the earth’s surface at the zenith angle $\theta$. The right panel displays the overall geometry: the neutrinos and muons enter the detector D at angle $\theta'\approx \theta$ for the depth d $\ll $ R and $\theta \gtrsim \pi/2$. The zenith angle $\theta$ for downward and upward moving particles through the detectors are the same. []{data-label="fig:GeomIO"}](GeometryOut.png "fig:"){width="8cm"} ![The left panel indicates a cosmic ray nucleon incident at a zenith angle $\theta$ that suffers an inelastic interaction with a nucleus in the atmosphere leading to multi-particle production. The surviving energetic nucleon in the atmosphere and the high energy pion travel essentially in the same direction, as do the muons and neutrinos arising from the decay of pions. The path length ‘$t$’ is measured from the earth’s surface at the zenith angle $\theta$. The right panel displays the overall geometry: the neutrinos and muons enter the detector D at angle $\theta'\approx \theta$ for the depth d $\ll $ R and $\theta \gtrsim \pi/2$. The zenith angle $\theta$ for downward and upward moving particles through the detectors are the same. []{data-label="fig:GeomIO"}](GeometryInOut.png "fig:"){width="8cm"}
We assume an isothermal atmosphere with the density falling off exponentially with height, $h$: $$\label{eq:19}
\rho(h)= \frac{\textup{ x}_0}{h_0} \textup{ }e^{-\frac{h}{h_0}}$$
Here we take $\textup{x}_0=1030 \textup { g} \textup{ cm} ^{-2}$ and the scale height $h_0=7 \times 10^5 \textup{ cm}$ to express the density $\rho$ in $\textup{g }\textup{cm}^{-3}$. Let $t$ be the length from the surface of the earth along the path of a cosmic ray incident at a zenith angle $\theta$, as shown in Fig. \[fig:GeomIO\]. The column density $ \textup{x}(t, \theta)$ that this cosmic ray particle arriving from infinity has to penetrate to reach this point is given by $$\label{eq:20}
\textup{x}(t, \theta) = \textup{x}_0 \textup{ sec} \theta \textup{ }e^{-t/(h_0 sec \theta)}$$ so that $$\label{eq:21}
\left | dt/d\textup{x} \right |=h_0 \textup{ } sec \theta/ \textup{x} \equiv H/\textup{x}$$ Such an assumption of plane-parallel atmosphere is an adequate approximation up to zenith angles of $\approx 85^o$. (For a cosmic ray particle arriving precisely horizontally with $\theta = \pi /2$, the maximum column density saturates at $\approx 35 \textup{ x}_o$).
Propagation of cosmic rays in the Earth’s atmosphere.
-----------------------------------------------------
At the high energies relevant to the present context, the cosmic rays are incident isotropically on the top of the Earth’s atmosphere. They interact repeatedly as they descend into the atmosphere losing energy through the production of secondary particles, mostly pions. These pions are produced with low transverse momenta, $\sim0.5$ GeV/c and consequently the energetic pions and the leading nucleon propagate essentially in the same direction of the primary nucleons. The same is true of the neutrino arising from pion decay where the transverse momentum imparted to the decay products has a maximum of $\approx 45$ MeV/c. Accordingly, we assume all the products of the interactions or decay, including muons generated through the interactions of neutrinos underground preserve the zenith angle of the parent particle. To proceed, we assume a simple power law for the high-energy spectrum of cosmic ray nuclei incident on top of the atmosphere [@Swordy2001]. $$\label{eq:22}
f_n (E, \textup{ x}=0, \textup{ } \theta) = \frac{A_n}{E^{\gamma + 1}} (\textup{ }cm^2 \cdot s \cdot sr \cdot GeV)^{-1}$$ Here $A_n$ is a constant, $\gamma \approx 1.7$, and $E$ is the energy of the cosmic ray particle in GeV per nucleon. The nucleons interact inelastically with the air nuclei with an effective mean free path, $\lambda_n$ of $\sim80 \textup{ g} \textup{ cm}^{-2}$ generating pions and other particles. The leading nucleon emerges from such collisions with a significant fraction, $\eta _n$, of the initial energy. Because of this, the reduction in flux of primary nuclei in the earth’s atmosphere occurs with a mean free path $\Lambda $ that is significantly larger than $\lambda_n$. Specifically it can be shown that $$\label{eq:23}
\Lambda = \frac{\lambda_n}{1-<\eta_n^\gamma >}\approx 120\textup{g}/\textup{cm}^2$$ where $$\label{eq:24}
<\eta_n^\gamma >=\int_{0}^{1}(\eta_n')^\gamma P(\eta_n') \textup{d}\eta_n'$$ with $P(\eta_n') $ the probability that the leading nucleon emerges with a fraction $\eta'$ of the initial energy. We will encounter similar averages; but we will just use the appropriate averages without explicitly showing the angular brackets indicating the average. The flux of the nucleons at a depth x in the atmosphere is then; $$\label{eq:25}
f_n(E,\textup{x},\theta ) = \frac{A_n}{E^{\gamma +1}}e^{-\textup{x}/\Lambda }$$ These nucleons interact inelastically with air nuclei and generate pions which carry an effective fraction $\eta_\pi$ of the primary energy and have an effective multiplicity $n_\pi$. Thus the rate of production of pions of energy E in the atmosphere at column density depth x is given by $$\label{eq:26}
q_\pi(E,\textup{x},\theta )=\frac{A_n n_\pi \eta_\pi^\gamma }{\lambda _n E^{\gamma +1}}\cdot e^{-\textup{x}/\Lambda }
=\frac{B_\pi }{ E^{\gamma +1}}\cdot e^{-\textup{x}/\Lambda }$$ The pions interact and decay in the atmosphere and their spectral intensity is controlled by the equation $$\label{eq:27}
\frac{\textup{d}f_\pi(E,\textup{x})}{\textup{dx}} = q_\pi(E,\textup{x},\theta ) - f_\pi(E,\textup{x}) \left \{ \frac{1}{\lambda _\pi} + \frac{m_\pi |\textup{d}t(\theta )/d\textup{x}|}{Ec\tau (\alpha ,E)}\right \}$$ Here $\lambda _\pi \sim120$g/cm$^2$ is the interaction mean free path of the pions, and $\tau (\alpha ,E)$ is the pion lifetime elongated due to the LIV $(\alpha\neq 0)$ effects at energy $E$ (see Fig. \[fig:Ptau\]) and the factor $|\textup{d}t(\theta )/d\textup{x}| = h_0 \textup{sec}\textup{ }\theta/\textup{x} $ is the conversion factor from grammage x to path length at zenith angle $\theta$. To facilitate a parallel calculation for the $\alpha = 0$ case, the factor $m_\pi/E$ is shown separately in the decay probability. Defining $$\label{eq:28}
\varepsilon_\pi=h_0 \textup{ } \textup{sec } \theta \textup{ } m_\pi /c \tau(\alpha ,E)=Hm_\pi/c\tau(\alpha,E)$$ Eq. (\[eq:27\]) may be written as $$\label{eq:29}
\frac{\textup{d}f_\pi(E,\textup{x})}{\textup{dx}} = q_\pi(E,\textup{x},\theta ) - f_\pi(E,\textup{x}) \left \{ \frac{1}{\lambda _\pi } +\frac{\varepsilon _\pi(\alpha ,\theta,E )}{E\textup{x}} \right \}$$ For $\textup{sec }\theta=1$ and $\alpha =0$, $\varepsilon_\pi \approx\textup{ }$125 GeV. The solution to Eq.( \[eq:27\]) simplifies considerably for $\Lambda \approx \lambda _\pi \approx $120 g/cm$^2$ to yield $$\label{eq:30}
f_\pi(E,\textup{x} )= A_\pi\textup{ }\textup{x}\textup{ }e^{-\textup{x}/\lambda _\pi }E^{-(\gamma +1)}\left ( \frac{E}{\varepsilon _\pi +E} \right )$$ where $ A_\pi$ is a constant.
![The value of $<\eta_\nu> \textup{ }\approx \textup{ }0.75\textup{ }\eta_{max}$ is shown as a function of $E_\nu$ for various values of $\alpha$. A neutrino of energy E$_\nu$ arises in the decay of a pion of energy E$_\pi=$ E$_\nu/\eta_\nu$. Note that for $\alpha \neq 0$, there are two values of $<\eta_\nu>$ for each $E_\nu$. As the cosmic-ray spectrum is steep, only the larger value of $\eta_\nu$ contributes significantly. Note that for a given value of $\alpha$, there is a maximum value for the neutrino energy, E$_\nu$, as stated in Eq. \[eq:9\].[]{data-label="fig:Etan"}](Etan_En.JPG){width="12cm"}
The neutrinos arise through the decay of pions in the Earth’s atmosphere and the calculation of this production rate involves some subtle considerations. Neutrinos of energy $E$ are produced in the decay of pions with higher energy $E_\pi=E/\eta$. Yet the effective average value of $\eta$ is in itself a function of $E_\pi$ and $\alpha$. In order to address this issue, we show the weighted average, $<\eta _\nu>$ = $\eta_\nu\approx 0.75 \textup{ }\eta_{max}$ as a function of the energy of the neutrino, $E_\nu$ in Fig. \[fig:Etan\]. For any given values of the neutrino energy, $E$ and LIV parameter $\alpha$, we then can read off the effective mean value of $\eta$, and find the typical energy of the pion $E_\pi=E/\eta_\nu$ that generated the neutrino. It is at this energy that we should evaluate the pion lifetime, $\tau (\alpha ,E_\pi =E_{\nu }/\eta _\nu )$, which we write as $\tau_\eta$. Note that for $\alpha \neq 0$ there are two values of $<\eta>$ that occur; because of the steepness of the cosmic-ray spectrum, it is only the larger value of $<\eta>$ that contributes significantly to spectral intensity of the neutrinos. Defining $\varepsilon_\eta =h_0\textup{ sec }\theta \textup{ }m_\pi /(c\textup{ }\tau _\eta)$, and using a similar reasoning to that used above in deriving equation (\[eq:29\])and (\[eq:30\]), the rate of neutrino production may be written as $$\label{eq:31}
q_\nu(E,\textup{x})=A_\pi \textup{x }e^{-\textup{x}/\lambda _\pi}E^{-(\gamma +1)}\eta _{\nu }^{\gamma }\left \{ \frac{(E/\eta_\nu)}{\varepsilon _{\eta_\nu} +(E/\eta _\nu)} \right \}\textup{ }\frac{1}{\textup{x}}\textup{ }\frac{\varepsilon _{\eta}}{(E/\eta _\nu)}$$ or $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:32}
q_\nu(E,\textup{x})&=&A_\pi \textup{ }e^{-\textup{x}/\lambda _\pi}E^{-(\gamma +1)}\eta _{\nu }^{\gamma +1}\left \{ \frac{\varepsilon _\eta }{\eta _\nu \varepsilon _\eta +E} \right \} \nonumber\\
&\equiv& Q_\nu(E) \textup{ }e^{-\textup{x}/\lambda _\pi}\end{aligned}$$ where we factored the energy dependent and x dependent terms as $Q_\nu(E)$ and $e^{-\textup{x}/\lambda _\pi}$.
The final step in the calculation of the neutrino flux due to the source function $q_\nu$ is to include the Cohen-Glashow process of energy loss for the neutrinos [@Cohen2011]. Noting that in a single emission of an electron-positron pair through this process, the neutrino loses more than $70\%$ of its energy, we treat this process as a decay with an effective lifetime $\tau_G$ given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:33}
\tau_G=\left | E/c (dE/d\textup{x})_{CG} \right | =E/\left \{ c\omega G_{F}^{2} \alpha^{3}E^{6}\right \} \equiv \frac{\tau _{CG}}{E_{GeV}^{5}\alpha ^3} \end{aligned}$$ Using the constant $\omega$ given by Cohen and Glashow [@Cohen2011], we find $\tau _{CG} \approx 6.5 \times 10^{-11}s$. Keeping in mind that in writing the differential equation for the evolution of $f_\nu(E,\textup{x})$ we need to introduce the factor $|dt/d\textup{x}|$ for converting grammage to length, as we did before in Eq.( \[eq:27\]) while describing the decay of pions, we write $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:34}
\frac{\textup{d}f_\nu}{\textup{dx}} &= &q_\nu(E,\textup{x} ) - f_\nu\textup{ }\cdot \frac{h_0\textup{ sec }\theta }{\textup{x}c\tau _G} \nonumber\\
& =& Q_\nu(E)e^{-(\textup{x}/\lambda _\pi)}-f_\nu \cdot \frac{H}{\textup{x}c\tau _G}\end{aligned}$$ To solve this we let $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:35}
g(E,\textup{x})&=&f_\nu(E,\textup{x})\textup{exp}\left [- \int_{\textup{x}}^{\textup{x}_{max}} \frac{H}{\textup{x}'c\tau _G}d\textup{x}'\right ] \nonumber\\
&=&f_\nu(E,\textup{x}) \left ( \frac{\textup{x}}{\textup{x}_{max}} \right )^{\frac{H}{c\tau _G}}\end{aligned}$$ where $\textup{x}_{max}=\textup{x}_0\textup{sec}\theta $ and get $$\label{eq:36}
\frac{\textup{d}g}{\textup{dx}} = Q_\nu(E)\left ( \frac{\textup{x}}{\textup{x}_{max}} \right )^{\frac{H}{c\tau _G}}e^{-\textup{x}/\lambda _\pi}$$ This leads to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:37}
g &=& Q_\nu(E)\left ( \frac{\textup{1}}{\textup{x}_{max}} \right )^{\frac{H}{c\tau _G}}\int_{0}^{\textup{x}_{max}}\textup{x}^{\frac{H}{c\tau _G}}e^{-\textup{x}/\lambda _\pi}d\textup{x} \nonumber\\
&=&Q_\nu(E)\lambda _\pi \left ( \frac{\lambda _\pi}{\textup{x}_{max}} \right )^{\frac{H}{c\tau _G}}\int_{0}^{\textup{x}_{max}/\lambda _\pi}u^{\frac{H}{c\tau _G}}e^{-u}du \\
&\approx& Q_\nu(E)\lambda _\pi \left ( \frac{\lambda _\pi}{\textup{x}_{max}} \right )^{\frac{H}{c\tau _G}}\Gamma \left ( {\frac{H}{c\tau _G}}+1\right ) \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The final step of writing the integral as a complete gamma function follows by noting that $\textup{x}_{max}\gg \lambda _\pi$. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:38}
f_\nu(E,\textup{x})&=&g(E,\textup{x})\cdot\left ( \frac{\textup{x}_{max}}{\textup{x}} \right )^{-\frac{H}{c\tau _G}} \nonumber\\
&=&A_\pi \lambda_\pi \eta _{\nu}^{\gamma +1} \left ( \frac{\lambda_\pi }{\textup{x}} \right )^{\frac{h_0\textup{ sec}\theta }{c \tau_G}} E^{-(\gamma +1)} \left ( \frac{\varepsilon _\eta }{\eta _\nu \varepsilon _\eta +E} \right ) \Gamma \left ( \frac{H}{c \tau_G}+1 \right )\end{aligned}$$ At the surface of the earth, $\textup{x}= \textup{x}_{max}$ and the spectral intensity of the neutrinos is given by $$\label{eq:39}
f_\nu(E,\textup{x}_{max})=A_\pi \lambda_\pi \eta _{\nu}^{\gamma +1} \left ( \frac{\lambda_\pi }{\textup{x}_0\textup{sec}\theta } \right )^{\gamma +1} E^{-(\gamma +1)} \left ( \frac{\varepsilon _\eta }{\eta _\nu \varepsilon _\eta +E} \right ) \Gamma \left ( \frac{h_0\textup{sec}\theta }{c \tau_G}+1 \right )$$ Detectors for cosmic rays and cosmic neutrinos are placed underground to reduce the background due to other particles and gamma rays generated by cosmic rays. Consider such a detector, $D$, placed at a vertical depth, $d$, as shown in the Fig. \[fig:GeomIO\]. The straight line though $D$ at a zenith angle $\theta' \approx \theta$ (for $\theta \lesssim \pi/2$) emerges from the Earth’s surface at distances $L_z$ and $L_n$ respectively. A theorem in Euclidian geometry yields $$\label{eq:40}
L_z \cdot L_n= (2R-d)d$$ or $$\label{eq:40b}
L_n = (2Rd-d^2)/L_z \nonumber$$ and $L_z$, for $\theta \lesssim \pi/2$ is given by $$\label{eq:41}
L_z =\left |(R-d)\textup{cos}\theta -\sqrt{(R-d)^2\textup{cos}^2\theta +2Rd-d^2} \right |$$ From this we can calculate $L_n$ using Eq. (\[eq:40\]). The propagation of the neutrino spectral intensities is straightforward if we assume their flux is not significantly depleted due to interactions and assume only the Cohen-Glashow process to operate. Accordingly, their flux at depth $d$ maybe written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:42}
f_\nu(E,\theta,L_z)&=&f(E,\textup{x}_{max},\theta)\textup{exp}\left[-L_z/c\tau_G\right] \nonumber\\
f_\nu(E,\theta,L_n) &=& f(E,\textup{x}_{max},\theta )\textup{exp}\left[-L_n/c\tau_G\right ] \end{aligned}$$ We note that the ratio of these two spectral intensities $R_{z,n}(E)$ is given by $$\label{eq:43}
R_{z,n}(E)=\textup{exp} \left [ -(L_z-L_n)/c\tau_G(\alpha,E) \right ]$$ It is interesting to add a comment here that for most neutrino telescopes operating underground, the geometrical collecting factor isessentially independent of the hemisphere from which the particle arrives, i.e it is the same for downward and upward moving particles. To the extent we can neglect neutrino oscillation effects, $R_{z,n}(E)$ will be a good probe of the the Cohen-Glashow process. Even though the zenith angle $\theta$, in the Earth’s atmosphere, of the particles entering the detector after traversing the distances $L_z$ and $L_n$ are the same, there could be a few percent differences in the scale height of the atmosphere at the antipodal points. When the observational data are averaged over a year, the differences will be reduced further. More importantly, the cross section for the interaction of neutrinos of energy greater than $\sim10^5$ GeV is $\sim10^{-34}(E/10^5 \textup{ GeV})^{\frac{1}{2}} \textup{}\textup{cm}^2$, so that the interaction probability across the diameter of the Earth is about $\sim 30\%$ and increases with increasing neutrino energy as $E^{\frac{1}{2}}$. Allowance for this has to be made during the analysis of the data while searching for the Cohen-Glashow effect. Alternatively, with stringent bounds on $\alpha$ obtained from other observations, the asymmetry in the downward and upward intensities may be used to estimate neutrino cross-sections at high energies. The vacuum oscillation length in meters is $\sim2.5\textup{ }E_\nu\textup{ (GeV)}/\Delta m^2\left ( eV^2 \right )$ so that at the energies of neutrinos under consideration this process may be neglected.
Calculation of the spectral intensities of muons.
-------------------------------------------------
This calculation follows along similar lines as that for the neutrinos and becomes indeed simpler when we neglect effects of energy loss due to bremsstralung and ionization in the Earth’s atmosphere in the region of interest. The muons are generated at a rate $$\label{eq:44}
q_\mu(E,\textup{x},\theta )=A_\pi\textup{x}e^{-\textup{x}/\lambda _\pi}E^{-(\gamma +1)}\eta _{\mu}^{\gamma } \left \{ \frac{E/\eta _\mu}{\varepsilon _{\eta_\mu}+E/\eta _\mu} \right \}
\frac{1}{\textup{x}} \frac{\varepsilon _{\eta_\mu}}{E/\eta _\mu}$$ Here $\eta_\mu$ is the effective average of fraction of energy that the muon receives in the decay of a pion of energy $E/\eta_\mu$. As noted earlier in the context of calculating neutrino fluxes, because the steepness of the cosmic-ray spectrum, the effective average is $\sim 0.75$ times the maximum fraction. Also noting that the minimum fractional energy carried by the neutrino $\eta_{min}\approx 0$, $\eta_\mu\approx 0.75$, and is nearly a constant independent of the energy of the pion and the value of $\alpha$. The critical energy is $\varepsilon_{\eta\mu}=Hm_\mu/c\tau_\mu$.
The mean lifetime of the muon $\tau_\mu$ is $\sim 2.2\times 10^{-6} s$ so that even at $\sim1\textup{ } GeV$ its decay length is $\sim 6$ km, roughly equal to the scale height of the atmosphere. Thus in the calculation of the spectral intensities of the muons in the atmosphere at energies greater than about $10\textup{ } sec\textup{ }\theta$ GeV, we may safely neglect the decay of the muon. We may also neglect the energy losses due to ionization at $E > 30\textup{ } sec\textup{ }\theta$ GeV. Thus the muon intensity, $f_\mu(E,\textup{x}_{max},\theta)$, at the surface of the earth is given by the integral of the source function. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:45}
f_\mu(E,\textup{x}_{max},\theta ,\alpha )&=&\int_{0}^{\textup{x}_{max}} q_\mu(E,\textup{x},\theta ,\alpha ) d\textup{x}\nonumber\\
&=&A_\pi \lambda _\pi \eta _{\mu}^{\gamma+1 } \left \{ \frac{\eta _{\mu} \varepsilon _{\eta_\mu} (\alpha, \theta, E/\eta_\mu)}{\eta _{\mu} \varepsilon_{\eta_\mu} (\alpha, \theta, E/\eta_\mu)+E}\right \} \end{aligned}$$ In writing Eq.( \[eq:45\]) we have taken $\left \{ 1-\textup{exp}(\textup{x}_{max}/\lambda _\pi) \right \}\approx 1$.
Comparison of the theoretical spectral intensities with cosmic ray observations
===============================================================================
![The spectrum of neutrinos for various values of $\alpha$ and a fixed value of sec $\theta=10$ is displayed. Notice that the spectrum steepens sharply at progressively lower energies for increasing values of $\alpha$. For the extremely small value of $\alpha=10^{-20}$ there is no perceptible steepening even up to $10^7$ GeV.[]{data-label="fig:NeutVA"}](NeutrinoVaryAlpha.JPG){width="10cm"}
![The dependence of the neutrino spectra on sec $\theta$, for a fixed value of $\alpha=1\times10^{-10}$. The enhancement in the intensities at high energies with sec $\theta$ is seen, even with the presence of the LIV effects.[]{data-label="fig:NeutVS"}](NeutrinoVarySec.JPG){width="10cm"}
![The asymmetry in the spectral intensity in the forward/backward direction is displayed as a function of the arrival direction of the neutrino-induced muons in detectors placed $\sim 1$ km underground, for various values of the LIV parameter $\alpha$ (lower panel). Note that we have shown $R_{z,n}-1$ along the y-axis, in order to clearly bring out the dependence on the parameters, (see Eq. \[eq:43\] in the text).[]{data-label="fig:RznVE"}](RznVE1newest.JPG "fig:"){width="10cm"} ![The asymmetry in the spectral intensity in the forward/backward direction is displayed as a function of the arrival direction of the neutrino-induced muons in detectors placed $\sim 1$ km underground, for various values of the LIV parameter $\alpha$ (lower panel). Note that we have shown $R_{z,n}-1$ along the y-axis, in order to clearly bring out the dependence on the parameters, (see Eq. \[eq:43\] in the text).[]{data-label="fig:RznVE"}](RznVA1newest.JPG "fig:"){width="10cm"}
The calculations presented in the preceding section indicate that the spectral intensities of neutrinos and muons generated in the Earth’s atmosphere through pion decay are sensitive to the posited level of LIV in the maximal attainable velocities of $\nu_\mu$. We illustrate the main effects of the superluminal motion of $\nu_\mu$ on the penetrating components of cosmic rays in a sequence of figures: Figs. \[fig:NeutVA\] - \[fig:MwDataVA\]. The effect of increasing $\alpha$ on the spectrum of neutrinos is shown in Fig. \[fig:NeutVA\], where the value of sec $\theta$ is fixed at 10, and $\alpha$ is varied in the interval $10^{-20}$ to $10^{-6}$. Here we can see the neutrino spectra steepening from progressively lower energies with increasing $\alpha$. For the smallest value of $\alpha=10^{-20}$, there is no perceptible steepening even up to $\sim10^7$ GeV. In Fig. \[fig:NeutVS\], we show the dependence of the neutrino spectra on sec $\theta$, for a fixed value of $\alpha$. The well-known enhancement of the intensities at high energies with sec $\theta$, due to the increased fraction of pions which interact rather than decay, is reproduced even when the superluminal effects are included. The propagation of neutrinos through the Earth is exclusively determined by the Cohen-Glashow process, to the extent the neutrino interactions with the material of the Earth may be neglected or accounted for. The ratio of the neutrino spectral intensities $R_z(E,\theta,\alpha) $ at $\theta$ and $\theta+\pi$ calculated in Eq. (\[eq:43\]) are displayed in Fig. \[fig:RznVE\]. The $\theta$ dependence of the ratio spectral intensities is displayed for $\alpha=10^{-11}$ for a set of neutrino energies $E=1\times 10^4$ to $1\times10^5$ GeV in the top panel and ratio for a fixed $E=10^5$ GeV for selected values of $\alpha$ is shown as a function of energy in the bottom panel of Fig. \[fig:RznVE\].
Similarly we show in Fig. \[fig:MuonVS\] the dependence of the muon spectra on sec $\theta$, for a fixed value of $\alpha$, and in Fig. \[fig:MuonVA\] we show how the muon spectra become steep from progressively lower energies as we increase the value of $\alpha$, for a fixed value of sec $\theta$. We recall that our calculation neglects ionization and other losses of energy suffered by muons as they propagate through the Earth’s atmosphere. The effects of such losses will be to flatten the spectra of muons at low energies.
![This figure illustrates the muon spectra generated by the pions in the atmosphere with their decay times elongated by LIV effects; the sec $\theta$ enhancement of the intensities at high energies, well known in the cosmic-ray field is reproduced, even when LIV effects are present.[]{data-label="fig:MuonVS"}](MuonVarySec.JPG){width="10cm"}
![The theoretically calculated muon spectra for various values of $\alpha$, with a fixed zenith angle, sec $\theta=10$, are displayed. The elongation of pion lifetime due to LIV effects make them preferentially interact in the atmosphere rather than decay. The progressive reduction of the high energy flux of muons with increasing $\alpha$ is seen clearly. []{data-label="fig:MuonVA"}](MuonVaryAlpha.JPG){width="10cm"}
We now proceed to compare these theoretical estimates with the available data and derive the bounds on the LIV parameter, $\alpha$. The first cosmic-ray observations of muon neutrinos date back to half a century or more, and the instruments have progressively increased in collecting power to achieve good sensitivities that we can observe cosmic ray neutrinos even up to $\sim$10$^6 $ GeV. Since the LIV effects in the Coleman-Glashow model increase with increasing energy, these observations probe very sensitively the effects of such violations.
Comparison with cosmic ray neutrino intensities.
------------------------------------------------
\[h\] ![Top panel: The theoretical spectral intensities of the muon neutrinos for various values of $\alpha$ are superimposed on the observed spectra for sec $\theta=5$, which is taken to represent the weighted average of the neutrino spectra at various zenith angles. Note that for very small $\alpha=10^{-20}(\approx0)$ the theoretical fluxes are in good agreement with the observations. Significant deviations appear for $\alpha \approx10^{-13}$ at high energies. Bottom panel: The value of sec $\theta$ has been changed to 10.[]{data-label="fig:NwDataVA"}](NeutWithDataVA_s5_correct.JPG "fig:"){width="11.6cm"} ![Top panel: The theoretical spectral intensities of the muon neutrinos for various values of $\alpha$ are superimposed on the observed spectra for sec $\theta=5$, which is taken to represent the weighted average of the neutrino spectra at various zenith angles. Note that for very small $\alpha=10^{-20}(\approx0)$ the theoretical fluxes are in good agreement with the observations. Significant deviations appear for $\alpha \approx10^{-13}$ at high energies. Bottom panel: The value of sec $\theta$ has been changed to 10.[]{data-label="fig:NwDataVA"}](NeutWithDataVA_s10_correct.JPG "fig:"){width="11.6cm"}
The measurement of cosmic ray neutrino fluxes started with the pioneering efforts of Reines *et al.* [@Reines1965] and Achar *et al.* [@Achar1965]. Progressively the size and sophistication of the detectors have improved so much that today we have the spectrum well measured by the IceCube collaboration up to $\sim3\times10^5$ GeV [@Abbasi2011]. The observed spectral intensities of neutrinos as reviewed by IceCube [@Abbasi2011] is displayed in Fig. \[fig:NwDataVA\]. In the same figure we superimpose the theoretical spectra calculated by us for various values of the LIV parameter $\alpha$, with sec $\theta$ = 5 representing the weighted average of the intensities over zenith angles of $90^{\circ}$ to $180^{\circ}$. In fact, the effective average value of sec $\theta$ increases with increasing neutrino energy as a consequence of the competition between interaction and decay of the pions. At the highest energies the mean value of sec $\theta$ is expected to be higher. For comparison, we show in the lower panel of Fig. \[fig:NwDataVA\] the theoretically calculated neutrino intensities at sec $\theta=10$, along with the observational data. We normalize all the theoretical spectra to the observed fluxes at neutrino energies $\sim$500 GeV.
We note that the theoretical spectra for $\alpha = 10^{-20} \approx 0$ fits the observations well. As $\alpha$ increases above $10^{-14}$, the theoretical curves start falling below the observation at the highest energies. For $\alpha=10^{-13}$, the theoretical curves fall a factor of $\sim300$ below the observed intensities at $\sim2\times10^5$ GeV, and by progressively smaller factors at lower energies. Thus it is safe to conclude that the value of the LIV parameter is less than $\sim10^{-13}$.
![Differential muon energy spectra from various experiments as reviewed by the IceCube collaboration [@Novoseltsev2011] is compared with the theoretical expectation for different values of $\alpha$ and a fixed value of sec $\theta=1$. The theoretical spectra are normalized at $\sim1000$ GeV. Note that for $\alpha=10^{-13}$ the theoretical spectrum steepens significantly below the the observed intensities at $\sim10^5$ GeV. The theoretical spectra shown here are for a fixed sec $\theta=5$.[]{data-label="fig:MwDataVA"}](MuonWithDataVA.JPG){width="12cm"}
Comparison with cosmic ray muon spectra.
----------------------------------------
Novoseltsev [@Novoseltsev2011] provides an extensive compilation of the spectral intensities of cosmic ray muons at energies beyond 1 TeV, and we compare the theoretical spectrum given in Eq. (\[eq:45\]) with data in Fig. \[fig:MwDataVA\]. First, we note that for the very small values of $\alpha \approx 0$ the theoretical curve reproduces the observations very well, up to $\sim 2\times10^5$ GeV. The two points at $\sim4-5\times10^5$ GeV with large error bars lie above the theoretical predictions. For values of $\alpha>10^{-13}$, the theoretical curves peel off downwards from the data at progressively lower energies. We may thus conclude that these data also constrain the LIV parameter, $\alpha$ to be less than $\sim 10^{-13}$.
Discussion
==========
In the preceding sections our aim was to provide a transparent description of the propagation of high energy cosmic rays in the atmosphere, resulting in simple analytical expressions for the spectral intensities of the neutrinos and muons. Despite the many simplifying assumptions made, our analytical expressions reproduce with adequate accuracy the observations and the well-known sec $\theta$ enhancement of the fluxes of the penetrating component at high energies. These analytical expressions incorporate the effect of novel LIV physics into the propagation of cosmic rays through the Earth’s atmosphere and the propagation of neutrinos arising from pion decay through the Earth up to the detectors deployed deep underground.
By tracking how the spectral and angular dependence of the muons and neutrinos are thereby modified we have placed a strong limit on the LIV parameter: $\alpha< 10 ^{-13}$. Several remarks are now in order: (i) *The electronic decay mode.*
The electronic $(e+\nu_e)$ decay mode of the pion is suppressed in the Lorentz Invariant standard model by a “helicity" factor of $10^{-4}$. Furthermore unlike the muons, the energetic electrons generated by the cosmic ray $\nu_e$ in the Earth cannot penetrate very far from their production site. Thus our analysis and the bounds obtained with an exclusive focus on the muon sector do not depend on wether we include or ignore the electronic decay mode. (ii) *Neutrino mixing.*
It has been pointed out [@Fargion2012] that the observed oscillations between neutrinos of different flavors are strongly suppressed if the LIV parameters $\alpha(\nu_\mu)$ and $\alpha(\nu_e)$ differ by more than $\Delta m_{1,2}^2/E(\nu)^2 \sim10^{-18}$ for $E(\nu)\sim$ O(10 MeV) and $\Delta m_{1,2}^2\sim10^{-4}$ eV$^2$. Assuming however an energy independent common - LIV ${\alpha}(\nu_i) \lesssim 10^{-10}$ seems quite consistent with all other data in particular the supernova 1987 upper bound of $\sim10^{-8}$ on $\alpha(\nu_e)$ [@Stodolsky1988; @Longo1987]. (iii) *Charm production.*
A $10^6$ GeV neutrino in cosmic rays would arise from the decay of pions of energy $\sim4\times10^6$ GeV, which in itself will be generated in the interactions of nucleons of $\sim4\times10^7$ GeV. Such an energy for the nucleons correspond to beam energies of $\sim5$ TeV in a collider. Accordingly, we may expect good data for the production cross section for the very short lived charmed and other mesons which may decay readily giving high energy neutrinos. We may expect that such processes may start to dominate the neutrino fluxes at these energies [@Volkova1987; @Volkova2009; @Amsler2008], making the spectra themselves not so very good probes of the $\alpha$ parameter. On the other hand these neutrinos will suffer energy losses through the Cohen-Glashow process and the asymmetry parameter $R_{z,n}(E)$ given in equation Eq. \[eq:43\] will provide a useful signature of the superluminal neutrinos even in this energy region. (iv) *LIV for charged leptons.*
Strict SU(2)$_L$ gauge invariance in the Standard Model suggests that any non-vanishing $\alpha(\nu_i)$ parameter be associated with an equal LIV parameter for the corresponding lepton. Specifically we will then have: $$E(l_i) = [ m(l_i)^2 + (1+\alpha(\nu_i))^2 p_i^2]^{1/2}
\label{eq:46}$$ This would imply that asymptotically $E_i\sim(1+\alpha_i)p_i$ so that the muon also becomes equally superluminal at high energy. This, in turn, makes prolongation of the lifetime of the pions even much more dramatic - since at energies greater than $m_\pi/{\alpha^{1/2}}$ the pion becomes stable and neutrinos or muons of this energy should simply not be produced at all by high energy cosmic rays. Note however that if we extend this to a universality of all the $\alpha(i)$ including those of the electrons, then the Cohen-Glashow process is kinematically forbidden. An order of magnitude estimate indicates that $10^{-10}$ LIV alpha is (marginally) consistent with the precise measurements and calculations of the g-2 of the electron and certainly is allowed for the muon and the tau leptons.
When the Cohen-Glashow process is suppressed, then the leading process would be $$\label{eq:47}
\nu_\mu\rightarrow \nu' + \gamma$$ which will have a lower rate due to W in the loop. However, the severe limits on this process placed by Cowsik, Rajalakshmi and Sreekantan [@Cowsik1999b] will apply.
\(v) *Connection to GRB’s and Supernovae*
A direct $10^{-8}$ upper bound on the superluminality parameter $\alpha(\nu_e)$ is derived from the observed difference in arrival time of about a few hours between the neutrino pulses from SN1987a and the optical signature which travel together from the LMC to earth for $\sim3\times10^{12}$ seconds [@Stodolsky1988]. Gamma ray bursts (GRB’s), detected by satellites at a rate of about one per day seem to originate at cosmological distances of $\sim$500 mega-parsecs $\sim10^4$ times larger than the distance from the 1987a supernova. Several GRB models suggest that protons should be accelerated up to $\sim10^{-20}$ eV in the fireball and the interaction of these energetic protons with the ambient material and radiation should generate pions which eventually decay into neutrinos. This motivated the IceCube collaboration to search for coincidences between GRBs and upward moving muons - namely energetic muons pointing in the same direction [@Abbasi2012]. The good angular resolution ($\sim$1 degree) of both IceCube and the satellite detectors make for small $\sim0.03$ probabilities of one random coincidence even within a generous time window of an hour. While no such coincidence has been observed to-date, future observations of any coincidences would lead to a $10^4$ times stronger bound $\alpha(\nu_{\mu}) < 5\times10^{-12}$, on the superluminality of muon neutrinos in the TeV range to be compared with that found for 10MeV electron neutrino by using SN1987a data. The bounds set by observing neutrinos in coincidence with gamma ray bursts would improve by a further $\sim$100 for a coincidence observed within $\sim$1 minute. Amusingly, even using cosmological baseline in putative direct timing experiments yields bounds similar to those obtained by our analysis of high energy atmospheric muons and neutrinos!
\(vi) *G.Z.K and Anita UHE neutrinos.*
Since our bounds improve with the observation of higher energy neutrinos, the searches for ultra high energy neutrinos with energies $\gtrsim10^9$ GeV are of special interest. The searches for such neutrinos were launched a while ago. The ANITA experiment suspended over Antarctica from a high altitude balloon detects the Cherenkov radio emission from neutrinos that skim the south pole ice [@Hoover2010]. So far only one candidate event has been found [@Gorham2010] and in view of a similar expected background, we cannot establish the existence of such ultra high energy neutrinos. Should however future flights provide enough statistics and neutrino initiated events of such high energies be definitely detected - the bounds will dramatically improve. To see this let us assume that the detected neutrinos are indeed of the GZK type namely coming from decays of pions produced via interactions of ultra high energy cosmic rays’s with the background photons. The neutrinos would then have to travel some large distance $L\sim100$ Mega-parsecs $\sim10^{26}$ cm to arrive here. Demanding that the mean free path for energy loss through the Cohen-Glashow process of these neutrinos exceed this distance implies $E^5\alpha^3 < 10^{-26}$ so that $\alpha<10^{-23}$!!
Conclusions
===========
In this paper we have developed a transparent analytical model for the propagation of cosmic rays in the Earth’s atmosphere that explicitly includes the effects of a superluminal motion of the muon neutrino on the decay probability and kinematics of pion decay and energy losses suffered by the neutrino through the Cohen-Glashow process as it propagates from the production site in the atmosphere onwards to the proximity to the detectors placed deep underground. The available observational data to date on the cosmic ray generated neutrinos and muons place a bound of $\alpha\lesssim10^{-13}$. We have pointed out how detectors like IceCube may search exclusively for signatures of the Cohen-Glashow process by observing the forward-backward ratio of high energy neutrinos arriving at the same zenith angles but from upper and lower hemispheres. Keeping in mind that the data published by the IceCube collaboration is limited to those acquired in 2009 and earlier years, their full data up to the present date should be able to extend the spectra to $\gtrsim10^6$ GeV and the bounds on $\alpha$ to $\sim10^{-14}$. The observations of GZK neutrinos with $E \sim 10^9$ GeV will push $\alpha$ to well below $\sim10^{-23}$!!
[99]{}
M. R. Krishnaswamy, M. G. K. Menon, N. K. Mondal, V. S. Narasimham, B. V. Sreekantan, Y. Hayashi, N. Ito, S. Kawakami and S. Miyake, Pramana, **19**, 525 (1982). M. R. Krishnaswamy, M. G. K. Menon, V. S. Narasimham, N Ito, S. Kawakami and S. Miyake, Pramana, **5**, 59 (1975). M. R. Krishnaswamy, M. G. K. Menon, V. S. Narasimham, K. Hinotami, N. Ito, S. Miyake, J. L. Osborne, A. J. Parsons, A. W. Wolfendale, Proc. of the Royal Soc. A, **323**, 1555 (1971). P. W. Gorham *et al.*, Phys. Rev. D **82**,022004, (2010). S. Hoover *et al.*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **105**, 15101 (2010). J. K. Becker et al. (IceCube Collaboration), Nucl. Phys. B, Proc. Suppl. **217**, 269 (2011). M. Aglietta et al. (BAKSAN and EAS-TOP Collaboration), Astropart. Phys. **14**, 189 (2000). F. E. Gray, C. Ruybal, J. Totushek, D.-M. Mei, K. Thomas, and C. Zhang, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A **638**, 63 (2011). B. Aharmim *et al.*, (SNO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D **80**, 012001 (2009). R. Abbasi *et al.*, (IceCube Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D **83**, 012001 (2011). Yu. F. Novoseltsev, A. G. Bogdanov, R. P. Kokoulin, R. V. Novoseltseva, V. B. Petkov, and A. A. Petrukhin, 22nd European Cosmic Ray Symposium, Turku, Finland, August 3-6, 2010, (University of Turku, Turku, Finland, 2010). J. Abraham *et al.*, (Pierre Auger Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett., **101**, 061101 (2008). R. U. Abbasi *et al.*, (High Resolution Fly’s Eye Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett., **92**, 151101 (2004). A Multi-Km3 Sized Neutrino Telescope, http://www.km3net.org/. M. Fechner *et al.* (Super-Kamiokande Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D **79**, 112010 (2009).
C. M. Will, Theory and Experiment in Gravitational Physics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, (1981,1993). C. M. Will, “The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment", Living Rev. Relativity 9, (2006), 3. URL (cited on ): http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2006-3.
S. Coleman and S. L. Glashow, Phys. Lett. B. **405**, 249-252 (1997). S. Coleman and S. L. Glashow, Phys. Rev. D. **59**, 116008 (1999).
V.A. Kostelecky and N. Russel, Rev. Mod. Phys. **83** 11 (2011). V.A. Kostelecky and S. Samuel, Phys. Rev. D **39**, 683, (1989). V.A. Kostelecky and M. Mewes, arXiv: 1112.6395 \[hep-ph\] (2011).
S. D. Biller et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. **83**, 2108, (1999).
W. Bietenholz, Phys. Rept. **505**, 145, (2011)
O. M. P. Bilaniuk , V. K. Deshpande, and E. C. G. Sudarshan, American Journal of Physics **30**, 718, (1962).
R. W. Clay, Aust. J. Phys. **41**, 93, (1988).
P. V. Ramana Murthy Lett. Nuovo Cimento, **1**, 908, (1971). A. W. Wolfendale, G. D. Rochester, Cosmic rays at ground level, Institute of Physics, London, (1973).
R. Cowsik and B. V. Sreekantan, Phys. Lett. B **449**, 219, (1999).
A. Halprin and H. B. Kim, Phys. Lett. B **469**, 78, (1999).
R. Cowsik and G. Rajalakshimi, and B. V. Sreekantan, ICRC **2**, 360, (1999).
F. W. Stecker and S. L. Glashow, Astroparticle Physics **16**, 97, (2001).
F. W. Stecker and S. T. Scully, Astropart. Phys. **23**, 203, (2005). F. W. Stecker and S. T. Scully, New J. Phys. **11**, 085003, (2009).
K. Griesen, Phys. Rev. Lett., **16**, 748, (1966). G. T. Zatsepin and V. A. Kuzmin, Zh. Eks. Theor. Fiz. Pis’ma Red. **4**, 144, (1966).
K. Hirata et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. **58**, 1490 (1987). R. M. Bionta et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. **58**, 1494 (1987). L. Stodolsky, Phys. Lett. B **201**, 353 (1988). M. J. Longo, Phys. Rev. D **36**, 3276 (1987).
T. Adam et al. (OPERA Collaboration), arXiv:1109.4897v1 (2011).
J. Alexandre, J. Ellis, N. E. Mavromatos, Phys. Lett. B **706**, 456, (2012).
P. Adamson et al. (MINOS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D **76**, 072005, (2007). G. Cacciapaglia, A. Deandrea and L. Panizzi, J. High Energy Physics **11**, 137, (2011). N. D. Haridass, arXiv:1110.0351. T. Li and D. V. Nanopoulos, arXiv:1110.0451. H. Gilles, arXiv:1110.0239. A. Drago, I. Masina, G. Pagliara, and R. Tripiccione, arXiv:1109.5917. J. Alexandre, J. Ellis, and N. E. Mavromatos, arXiv:1109.6296. X.-J. Bi, P.-F. Yin, Z.-H. Yu, and Q. Yuan, Phys. Rev. Lett. **107**, 241802, (2011). J. Ellis, N. Harries, A. Meregaglia et al., Phys. Rev. D **78** ,033013 (2008). M. P. Hagen and C. M. Will, Phys. Today **40**, 69 (1987). G. F. Giudice, S. Sibiryakov, and A. Strumia, arXiv:1109.5682. Y. Grossman, C. Kilic, J. Thaler, and D. G. E. Walker, Phys. Rev. D **72**, 125001, (2005). J. Alfaro, Phys. Rev. Lett. **94**, 221302 (2005). T. Hambye, R. B. Mann, and U. Sarkar, Phys. Rev. D **58**, 025003, (1998). T. Hambye, R. B. Mann, and U. Sarkar, Phys. Lett. B **421**, 105, (1998). V. A. Kostelecky, Phys. Rev. Lett. **80**, 1818 (1998). V. A. Kostelecky, Phys. Rev. D **61**, 016002 (1999). R. Bluhm, V. A. Kostelecky, and C. D. Lane, Phys. Rev. Lett. **84**, 1098, (2000). H. Pas, S. Pakvasa, and T. J. Weiler, Phys. Rev. D **72**, 095017 (2005). S. Hollenberg, O. Micu, H. Pas, and T. J. Weiler, Phys. Rev. D **80**, 093005, (2009). S. Coleman and S. L. Glashow, arXiv:hep-ph/9808446, (1998). L. Maccione, A. M. Taylor, D. M. Mattingly, and S. Liberati, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. **0904**, 22, (2009).
A. G. Cohen and L. S. Glashow, Phys. Rev. Lett. **107**, 181803, (2011).
L. V. Volkova and G. T. Zatsepin, Physics of Atomic Nuclei, **27** 385, (1961).
G. T. Zatsepin and V. A. Kuzmin, J.E.T.P. **14**, 1294, (1962).
R. Cowsik, Yash Pal, T. N. Rengarajan and S. N. Tandon, Proc. Intern. Cosmic Ray Conf., Jaipur **6**, 221, (1963). R. Cowsik, Yash Pal, and S. N. Tandon, Proc. Indian Acad. Sciences. **63**, 217, (1966).
L. V. Volkova, Yad. Fiz. **31**, 1510, (1980). L. V. Volkova, J. Nucl. Phys. **31**, 784, (1980). M. Honda, Phys. Rev. D **75**, 043006 (2007). T. K. Gaisser and T. Stanev and G. Barr , Phys. Rev. D **38**, 85 (1988). T. K. Gaisser and M. Honda, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science **52**, 153, (2002).
R. Cowsik, S. Nussinov and U. Sarkar, Phys. Rev. Lett. **107**, 251801 (2011) .
S. P. Swordy, Space Sci. Rev. **99**, 85 (2009).
F. Reines *et al.*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **15**, 429 (1965). C. V. Achar *et al.*, Phys. Lett. **18**, 196 (1965).
Yu. F. Novoseltsev, A. G. Bogdanov, R. P. Kokoulin, R. V. Novoseltseva, V. B. Petkov, and A. A. Petrukhin ASTRA **7**, 483, (2011).
D. Fargion, \[Astroph - HE\] arXiv:1109.5368 (2012).
L. V. Volkova, W. Falgione, P. Galiotti *et al.*, Nuo. Cim. C **10**, 465, (1987). L. V. Volkova and O. Saavedra, Astropart. Phys., **32**, 136, (2009) C. Amsler, M. Doser, M. Antonelli M et al., Phys. Lett. B **667**, 1, (2008)
R. Abbasi *et al.*, (IceCube Collaboration), Nature **484**, 351,(2012).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we give a direct construction for a set of dice realizing any given tournament $T$. The construction for a tournament with $n$ vertices requires a number of sides on the order of $n$, which is the best general construction to date. Our construction relies only on a standard theorem from graph theory.'
author:
- |
Levi Angel and Matt Davis[^1]\
Muskingum University
title: 'A Direct Construction of Non-Transitive Dice Sets'
---
Introduction
============
Non-transitive dice have been a object of wide interest since Martin Gardner introduced some work (now known as Efron Dice) of Bradley Efron to the general public in [@G]. For a set of at least 3 dice $\{X_{1},X_{2},X_{3}, \ldots\}$, with faces labeled in a nonstandard way, we define the relation $\succeq$ by declaring that $X_{i} \succeq X_{j}$ exactly if, when the dice are rolled, the probability that $X_{i}$ rolls a higher number than $X_{j}$ is greater than $1/2$. Paradoxically, it is entirely possible to put numbers on the dice in order to make the relation $\succeq$ non-transitive. The most basic example of such a set of dice is the following set of three 3-sided dice:
$$\label{eq:example} \begin{tabular}{c|c} \textrm{Die:} & \textrm{Faces:} \\ \hline $X_{1}$ & 1,5,9 \\ $X_{2}$ & 3,4,8 \\ $X_{3}$ & 2,6,7 \end{tabular}$$
One can easily check that $X_{1} \succeq X_{2}$, $X_{2} \succeq X_{3}$, and $X_{3} \succeq X_{1}$, where the stronger die in each pair has probability 5/9 of winning. Note that we could widen our focus and examine non-transitive sets of general random variables. (See for example [@ST] and [@T], which seem to predate any notion of non-transitive dice specifically). However, even focusing on dice, there are many open questions. Our aim in this paper is to consider larger sets of dice with arbitrary relations between them. A *tournament* on $n$ vertices is a directed realization of the complete graph $K_{n}$. In other words, it is a directed graph on the vertices $\{1,2, \ldots n \}$, where for any pair of vertices $i$ and $j$, either there is an edge from $i$ to $j$ or from $j$ to $i$, but not both. We can interpret this as a definition of a relation on a set of dice - we say that a set of dice *realizes* a tournament $T$ if $X_{i} \succeq X_{j}$ if and only if there is an edge from $i$ to $j$ in $T$. So the set of dice in realizes the tournament in Figure \[tournex\].
$$\beginpicture
\setcoordinatesystem units <0.2in,0.2in>
\put{$\bullet$} at 0 5
\put{$\bullet$} at 1.4 3
\put{$\bullet$} at -1.4 3
\put{$1$} at 0 5.7
\put{$2$} at 1.9 3
\put{$3$} at -1.9 3
\arrow <10pt> [.2,.67] from 0 5 to 1.4 3
\arrow <10pt> [.2,.67] from 1.4 3 to -1.4 3
\arrow <10pt> [.2,.67] from -1.4 3 to 0 5
\endpicture$$
A natural problem to solve is, given an arbitrary tournament $T$, to construct a set of dice which realize $T$. There are many examples of general constructions that can be used to solve this problem. But going further, can we find a set of dice with a relatively small number of sides that realizes $T$? The most efficient general construction appears to be that of Bednay and Bozóki ([@BB], Construction 5 and Corollary 7), which shows that any tournament with $n$ vertices can be realized with a set of dice with $\lceil \frac{6}{5}n \rceil$ sides. In this paper, we give a construction which allows us to realize any tournament on $n$ vertices with dice with at most $n+1$ sides.
Preliminaries {#sect:design}
=============
Our construction relies on a well-known construction from graph theory, which we recall here. The edge set of the (undirected) complete graph on the vertices $\{1,2, \ldots \}$ is the set of all unordered pairs chosen from that set: $\{\{1,2\}, \{1,3\}, \ldots \{n-1,n\}\}$.
\[thm:design\] Let $E = \{\{1,2\}, \{1,3\}, \ldots \{n-1,n\}\}$. If $n$ is even, there is a partition of $E$ into $n-1$ sets of size $n/2$, where no two pairs within a single set share an element. If $n$ is odd, there is a partition of $E$ into $n$ sets of size $\frac{n-1}{2}$ where no two pairs within a single set share an element.
In the language of graph theory, this theorem establishes the edge chromatic number of $K_{n}$. As such, in the following we will refer to the pairs as *edges* and the elements of those pairs as *vertices*. We do not give a full proof of the theorem, since we only need the statement of the standard construction. In the odd case, let $n=2k+1$. Then, for $i$ from 1 to $n$, we let $Y_{i}$ be the set containing the edges $\{i-1,i+1\}, \{i-2,i+2\}, \ldots \{i-k,i+k\}$. We reduce the entries of these pairs mod $n$ if needed, so that all entries are in the range from 1 to $n$. The standard proof of this theorem (see, for example [@A]) shows that the set $Y_{i}$ form a partition of the edges of $K_{n}$, where a vertex $j$ appears in exactly one edge in every set $Y_{i}$ except $Y_{j}$. To be able to refer to specific pairs later, we let $Y_{ij} = \{i+j,i-j\}$ for $j$ from $1$ to $k$. As an example for the next section, note that for $n=7$, this algorithm creates the sets in Figure \[ex2\].
--------- -------------------
$Y_{1}$ {2,7},{3,6},{4,5}
$Y_{2}$ {1,3},{4,7},{5,6}
$Y_{3}$ {2,4},{1,5},{6,7}
$Y_{4}$ {3,5},{2,6},{1,7}
$Y_{5}$ {4,6},{3,7},{1,2}
$Y_{6}$ {5,7},{1,4},{2,3}
$Y_{7}$ {1,6},{2,5},{3,4}
--------- -------------------
In the even case, we let $n=2k$ and define the $i$th set of our partition, $Y_{i}$, to contain the edges $\{i,n\}, \{i-1,i+1\}, \{i-2,i+2\}, \ldots \{i-(k-1),i+(k-1)\}$, where the entries besides $n$ are reduced mod $n-1$ to fall in the range between $1$ and $n-1$. (We will not mention this reduction later, but it is always in effect when discussing these pairs.) In the case where $n=6$, this creates the partition in Figure \[pfex1\].
--------- -------------------
$Y_{1}$ {2,5},{1,6},{3,4}
$Y_{2}$ {1,3},{2,6},{4,5}
$Y_{3}$ {2,4},{3,6},{1,5}
$Y_{4}$ {3,5},{4,6},{1,2}
$Y_{5}$ {1,4},{5,6},{2,3}
--------- -------------------
As above, the standard proof of the theorem shows that each edge appears once in this table, and each vertex appears once in each row of this table. An additional property of these sets that we will need in the even case is that for each $j$ from $1$ to $k-1$, each vertex other than $n$ appears exactly twice in sets of the form $\{i + j, i-j\}$. To see this, note that the two vertices in $\{i+j,i-j\}$ have a difference of exactly $2j$ mod $n-1$. Thus for a vertex $m$, the sets containing $m$ are exactly $\{m,m+2j\}$ and $\{m,m-2j\}$. These sets are distinct since $m$ cannot be congruent to $m \pm 2j$ mod $n-1$ since $2j < n-1$, and if $m+2j \equiv m-2j$ mod $n-1$, then $4j \equiv 0$ mod $n-1$, and since $n-1$ is odd, this would mean $j \equiv 0$ mod $n-1$.
In the case where $n$ is even but not divisible by 4, we again define a numbering $Y_{ij}$ of the pairs in $Y_{i}$. However, we choose a somewhat non-intuitive ordering, for reasons that will be clear later. (This ordering is also reflected in the way we have arranged the pairs in Figure $\eqref{pfex1}$.) We define $Y_{ij}$ for $j$ from $1$ to $\frac{n-2}{4}$ to be the pair $\{i + j, i-j\}$. Then we let $Y_{i\frac{n+2}{4}} = \{i,n\}$. Finally, for $j$ from $\frac{n+6}{4}$ to $\frac{n}{2}$, we let $Y_{ij} = \{i+j-1,i-j+1\}$. Intuitively, we start with the pairs in the “natural” order: $\{i,n\}, \{i+1,i-1\}$, etc. Then we move the pair $\{i,n\}$ so it is the middle pair in our list. This creates the ordering just described.
Notice we have arranged the edges $Y_{ij}$ in order in our table, so we can restate our previous observation as saying that each vertex other than $n$ appears twice in each column other than the middle column.
There is one other property of the sets $Y_{ij}$ which will be important for our construction below. In Figure $\ref{ex2}$, note that for any two vertices $w$ and $x$, the number of rows for which $w$’s pair appears to the left of $x$’s is the same as the number of rows for which $w$’s pair appears to the right of $x$’s. For example, 3 appears to the left of 6 in rows 2 and 4, and 3 appears to the right of 6 in rows 5 and 7. (Row 1 has the pair $\{3,6\}$, and 3 and 6 are absent from rows 3 and 6,respectively, so these rows are ignored.) A similar statement is true about Figure \[pfex1\]. We formalize these observations in the following lemma.
\[lemma:lemma\] If $n$ is even and not a multiple of 4, let $w$ and $x$ be two vertices. For $i$ from 1 to $n$, define $w_{i}$ and $x_{i}$ so that $w \in Y_{iw_{i}}$ and $x \in Y_{ix_{i}}$. Then $w_{i} < x_{i}$ for exactly $\frac{n}{2}-2$ values of $i$.
If $n$ is odd, let $w$ and $x$ be any two vertices. For $i$ from 1 to $n$, define $w_{i}$ and $x_{i}$ so that $w \in Y_{iw_{i}}$ and $x \in Y_{ix_{i}}$, assuming such values exist. Then $w_{i} < x_{i}$ for exactly $\frac{n-3}{2}$ values of $i$.
Proof. We begin with the odd case. Imagine a circle with the $n$ points $1,2, \ldots n$ drawn, in order, equally spaced around the circle. Then the pairs $Y_{ij}$ are, in order from $j=1$ to $j=k$, the two vertices closest to $i$, then the next two vertices, etc. (See Figure \[pfex3\].)
$$\beginpicture
\setcoordinatesystem units <0.15in,0.15in>
\circulararc 360 degrees from 5 0 center at 0 0
\put{$\bullet$} at 0 0
\put{$\bullet$} at 5 0
\put{1} at 5.6 0
\put{$\bullet$} at 3.11 3.90
\put{2} at 2.3 5
\put{$\bullet$} at 3.11 -3.90
\put{7} at 2.3 -5
\plot 3.11 3.90 3.11 -3.90 /
\put{$\bullet$} at -1.11 4.874
\put{3} at -1.6 5.5
\put{$\bullet$} at -1.11 -4.874
\put{6} at -1.6 -5.5
\plot -1.11 4.874 -1.11 -4.874 /
\put{$\bullet$} at -4.5 2.169
\put{4} at -4.6 3.2
\put{$\bullet$} at -4.5 -2.169
\put{5} at -4.6 -3.2
\plot -4.5 2.169 -4.5 -2.169 /
\setlinear
\endpicture$$
So for a vertex $w$, the number $w_{i}$ is exactly the “distance” from $w$ to $i$ on this circle. (We count moving from one vertex to the next as a distance of 1.) Thus for a pair of vertices $w$ and $x$, $w_{i} < x_{i}$ exactly if $w$ is closer to $i$ than $x$ is. The pair $\{w,x\}$ will appear in the set $Y_{m}$ for the unique $m$ which is equidistant from both of them. In geometric terms, the perpendicular bisector of the segment between $w$ and $x$ will be the diameter of the circle going through $m$, and this line has half of the remaining points on either side of it. Thus, $w$ is closer to $i$ than $y$ is for the $\frac{n-3}{2}$ other points on $w$’s side of the bisector. Thus $w_{i} < y_{i}$ for exactly $\frac{n-3}{2}$ values of $i$. In Figure \[pfex4\], we see that $\{3,6\}$ is in $Y_{i}$ in Figure \[ex2\] for $n=7$. Also, as observed, 3 appears to the left of 6 in the second and fourth rows, and to the right of 6 in the fifth and seventh rows of Figure \[ex2\].
$$\beginpicture
\setcoordinatesystem units <0.15in,0.15in>
\circulararc 360 degrees from 5 0 center at 0 0
\put{$\bullet$} at 0 0
\put{$\bullet$} at 5 0
\put{1} at 5.6 0
\plot 5 0 -5 0 /
\put{$\bullet$} at 3.11 3.90
\put{2} at 2.3 5
\put{$\bullet$} at 3.11 -3.90
\put{7} at 2.3 -5
\put{$\bullet$} at -1.11 4.874
\put{3} at -1.6 5.5
\put{$\bullet$} at -1.11 -4.874
\put{6} at -1.6 -5.5
\plot -1.11 4.874 -1.11 -4.874 /
\put{$\bullet$} at -4.5 2.169
\put{4} at -4.6 3.2
\put{$\bullet$} at -4.5 -2.169
\put{5} at -4.6 -3.2
\setlinear
\endpicture$$
For the even case of our proof, we can draw a similar picture, now putting vertex $n$ as the center of the circle and spacing the points $1,2, \ldots n-1$ evenly on the circle. Then $Y_{i}$ can be visualized by connecting $i$ to $n$ and connecting the other points pairwise with lines perpendicular to the segment between $i$ and $n$, as in Figure \[pfex2\].
$$\beginpicture
\setcoordinatesystem units <0.15in,0.15in>
\circulararc 360 degrees from 5 0 center at 0 0
\put{$\bullet$} at 0 0
\put{6} at -.6 0
\put{$\bullet$} at 5 0
\put{1} at 5.6 0
\put{$\bullet$} at 1.545 4.75
\put{2} at 1.8 5.4
\put{$\bullet$} at 1.545 -4.75
\put{5} at 1.8 -5.4
\put{$\bullet$} at -4.045 2.93
\put{3} at -4.6 3.2
\put{$\bullet$} at -4.045 -2.93
\put{4} at -4.6 -3.2
\setlinear
\plot 5 0 0 0 /
\plot 1.545 4.75 1.545 -4.75 /
\plot -4.045 2.93 -4.045 -2.93 /
\endpicture$$
If the edges $Y_{ij}$ were in the “natural” order in this case, an argument analoguous to the odd case would suffice to prove the lemma for $w$, $x \neq n$. However, the pair $\{i,n\}$ has been moved to be the “middle” pair $Y_{i\frac{n+2}{4}}$ for each $i$. So we just need to check that the result holds when $w$ or $x$ is $n$, and that moving the pairs $\{i,n\}$ does not change the result when $w,x \neq n$. The first observation follows from the fact that, for fixed $j \neq \frac{n+2}{4}$, any vertex $w$ occurs in exactly two sets $Y_{ij}$, as observed above. For the second, notice that for any vertices $w$ and $x$ other than $n$, moving the pair $\{i,n\}$ does not interfere with the relative order of the pairs containing $w$ and $x$ in $Y_{i}$ unless $i=w$ or $x$. However, the pair containing $w$ in $Y_{x}$ is the pair $\{x+j,x-j\}$, where $w \cong x \pm j$ mod $n-1$. But then of course $x \cong w \pm j$ mod $n-1$, so that $w_{x} = x_{w}$. And since $w_{w} = x_{x} = \frac{n+2}{4}$, we know that $w_{x} < x_{x}$ exactly if $x_{w} < w_{w}$. Thus moving the pair $\{i,n\}$ as described will change the relative orders of $w$ and $x$ either in both of rows $w$ and $x$ or neither, and the result holds for our final ordering.
$\square$
Note: The ordering of the $Y_{ij}$ in the even case was chosen exactly so that the lemma holds in the case where $w$ or $x$ is $n$. This will be important for our main construction.
The Construction
================
We need one piece of terminology for our main proof. For two dice $X_{1}$ and $X_{2}$, the number of *face wins* (or simply *wins*) for $X_{1}$ over $X_{2}$ is the number of ordered pairs $(a,b)$ where $a$ is a face of $X_{1}$, $b$ is a face of $X_{2}$, and $a > b$. So in our example $$
--------- -------
$X_{1}$ 1,5,9
$X_{2}$ 3,4,8
$X_{3}$ 2,6,7
--------- -------
,$$ $X_{1}$ has 5 face wins over $X_{2}$, corresponding to the pairs $(9,8),(9,4),(9,3),(5,4)$, and $(5,3)$. Note that if the dice have $n$ sides, then the probability that $X_{1}$ rolls higher than $X_{2}$ is exactly the number of wins for $X_{1}$ over $X_{2}$ divided by $n^{2}$.
We are now in a position where we can prove our main theorem. We construct our set of $n$ dice so that the first face of each die has a number from 1 to $n$, the second face has a number from $n+1$ to $2n$, etc. Moreover, the $i$th face of each die will be constructed based on the set $Y_{i}$, and for each pair of dice in $Y_{i}$, the matchup between those two dice is determined by that particular face. So, for example, when $n=6$, $Y_{1} = \{\{1,6\},\{2,5\},\{3,4\}\}$. This means that we construct our dice so that $X_{1}$’s first face is greater than $X_{6}$’s first face exactly if 1 beats 6 in our tournament $T$. The same holds for $X_{2}$ and $X_{5}$, and $X_{3}$ and $X_{4}$. The difficulty lies in ensuring that the remaining sides give a probability of exactly $1/2$ that $X_{1}$ beats $X_{6}$, so that the first face determines the matchup between the dice as intended. It turns out that the partitions above give us a way to do just that.
\[thm:main\] Let $T$ be a tournament on $n$ vertices. If $n$ is odd, there is a set of $n$-sided dice that realize $T$. If $n$ is divisible by 4, there is a set of $n+1$-sided dice that realize $T$. If $n$ is even and not divisible by 4, then there is a set of $n-1$-sided dice that realize $T$.
Proof. First assume $n$ is odd. Construct the sets $Y_{i}$ as in Theorem $\ref{thm:design}$. Now we construct our dice as follows. For $i$ from 1 to $n$, the $i$th face of each die will contain a number from $n(i-1)+1$ to $ni$. Specifically, if $i=k$, the $i$th face of Die $k$ will contain $n(i-1) +1$. If $i \neq k$, then there is some set $Y_{ij}$ containing $k$. In this case, the $ith$ face of Die $k$ will contain either $n(i-1) + 2j$ or $n(i-1) + 2j+1$. Then for each pair $Y_{ij}$, the $i$th face of the corresponding dice will have one of the two numbers $n(i-1) + 2j$ or $n(i-1) + 2j+1$, and we give the higher number to the die designated to win the matchup by the corresponding edge in $T$.
As an example of this construction, Figure \[pfex5\] is the constructed set of dice for $n=7$. In this table, the $i$th column represents the $i$th face of each die. As a shorthand, the numbers in the $i$th column are reduced mod 7, but they represent the face labels $7(i-1) + 1$ through $7i$. The notation $x/y$ means that the particular label is chosen from between those two values according to $T$ as described above.
Die 1: 1 2/3 4/5 6/7 6/7 4/5 2/3
-------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Die 2: 2/3 1 2/3 4/5 6/7 6/7 4/5
Die 3: 4/5 2/3 1 2/3 4/5 6/7 6/7
Die 4: 6/7 4/5 2/3 1 2/3 4/5 6/7
Die 5: 6/7 6/7 4/5 2/3 1 2/3 4/5
Die 6: 4/5 6/7 6/7 4/5 2/3 1 2/3
Die 7: 2/3 4/5 6/7 6/7 4/5 2/3 1
By construction, each die gets at least $\binom{n}{2}$ wins over each other die, since the $i$th face of any die will always beat the $k$th face of any die when $k < i$. Also, by the properties of the constructed partitions, a die $w$ is guaranteed an extra $\frac{n-3}{2}$ wins over each other die $x$ from the $\frac{n-3}{2}$ values of $i$ where $w_{i} > x_{i}$ (as defined in Lemma \[lemma:lemma\]), since that guarantees that Die $w$ will have a higher number in the corresponding column of this table. Also, Die $w$ is guaranteed to beat Die $x$ in column $x$, since Die $x$ has a 1 there. This is a total of $\frac{n^{2}-1}{2}$ wins for each die against each other die. Then if $\{w,x\} = Y_{ij}$, then the overall matchup between Die $w$ and Die $x$ is determined by which die has the higher number on the $i$th face. Since we chose that face to match $T$, this set of dice will realize $T$.
For example, consider the tournament on 7 vertices where die $X_{i}$ beats die $X_{j}$ whenever $i<j$, except that $X_{7}$ beats $X_{1}$. (This tournament is “almost transitive” - if $X_{1}$ beat $X_{7}$, it would be transitive.) Thus, in almost every column, for every pair of undetermined entries in the table in Figure \[pfex5\], the lower-numbered die gets the higher value, so that the lower-numbered die beats the higher-numbered one. The exception to this is the fourth column, where we choose 6 for row 1 and 7 for row 7, so that $X_{7}$ beats $X_{1}$. The resulting set of dice is shown in Figure $\ref{pfex6}$:
$X_{1}$: 1 10 19 27 35 40 45
---------- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
$X_{2}$: 3 8 17 26 34 42 47
$X_{3}$: 5 9 15 24 33 41 49
$X_{4}$: 7 12 16 22 31 39 48
$X_{5}$: 6 14 18 23 29 38 46
$X_{6}$: 4 13 21 25 30 36 44
$X_{7}$: 2 11 20 28 32 37 43
The remaining cases are slight variations on this procedure. If $n$ is divisible by 4, we make a new tournament $T'$ by adding a die which beats all other dice. Then we apply the above algorithm to construct a set of $n+1$ columned $n+1$-sided dice that realize $T'$. By deleting the added die from this set, we can construct a set of $n$ columned $n+1$-sided dice that realize $T$.
We could do the same if $n$ is even but not divisible by 4, but it is possible in this case to construct a set of dice with $n-1$ sides that realize $T$. To do so, we use the even case of the algorithm of Theorem \[thm:design\] to construct the sets $Y_{ij}$. As before, for $i$ from 1 to $n-1$, the $i$th face of each die will contain a number from $n(i-1)+1$ to $ni$. If $k \in Y_{ij}$, then the $i$th face of Die $k$ will contain either $n(i-1) + 2j-1$ or $n(i-1) + 2j$. Then as before, for each pair $Y_{ij}$, the $i$th face of the corresponding dice will have one of two numbers, and we give the higher number to the die designated to win the matchup by the corresponding edge in $T$.The result for $n=6$ is shown, in Figure \[pfex7\], using the same notation as Figure $\ref{pfex5}$.
Die 1: 3/4 1/2 5/6 5/6 1/2
-------- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Die 2: 1/2 3/4 1/2 5/6 5/6
Die 3: 5/6 1/2 3/4 1/2 5/6
Die 4: 5/6 5/6 1/2 3/4 1/2
Die 5: 1/2 5/6 5/6 1/2 3/4
Die 6: 3/4 3/4 3/4 3/4 3/4
Then by the exact same logic as before (using Lemma \[lemma:lemma\] again) we can count that every die is guaranteed $\frac{(n-1)^{2}-1}{2}$ wins against every other die, and the matchup between any two dice in a pair $Y_{ij}$ is determined by which die gets the higher number in column $j$, which we chose to match $T$. $\square$
Note also that the sets of dice constructed by this process are uniform in the sense that if $X_{i} \succeq X_{j}$, then the probability that die $X_{i}$ rolls higher than $X_{j}$ is exactly $\frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{2k^{2}}$, where $k$ is the number of sides on the dice. This is the probability closest to 1/2 that is achievable on $k$-sided dice, and every matchup is decided with this probability. (This is a slightly stronger condition than the notion of “balanced” introduced in [@SS]).
Conclusion
==========
There have been a number of general algorithms discovered that create a set of dice that realize a given tournament. The previous algorithm with the fewest guaranteed number of sides (see [@BB]) was inherently inductive, adding more and more dice until the desired tournament is achieved. Our algorithm has the advantages of being direct and slightly more efficient. There is also an algorithm described by Schaefer ([@S]) for starting with any set of dice, and adding faces to the dice to change the edges until the desired tournament is achieved. Naively, starting from a transitive tournament realized by 1-sided dice, it is always possible to realize any tournament on $n$ vertices with at most $2n-1$ sides on the dice using Schaefer’s algorithm. But it seems likely that for a given tournament, there are more intelligent ways to use the algorithm to achieve that tournament in fewer sides. (The general problem of finding how many edges must be changed to turn a given tournament into a transitive tournament is known as the *feedback arc set problem*, and is, in general, quite difficult.) Also, if the realization of Paley tournaments on $p$ in [@BB] using dice with $\frac{p-1}{2}$ sides is any indication, our upper bound of $n$ sides is probably rarely, if ever, the best possible. Thus the question of the smallest size of dice needed to realize a given tournament is ripe for further study.
[99]{}
Ian Anderson, *Combinatorial Designs and Tournaments*. Oxford Lecture Series in Mathematics and its Applications, 6. The Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, New York, 1997.
Deszö Bednay and Sándor Bozóki, “Constructions for Nontransitive Dice Sets”, in *Proceedings of the 8th Japanese-Hungarian Symposium on Discrete Mathematics and its Applications*, Veszprém, Hungary, 2013, pp. 15–23.
Sándor Bozóki, “Nontransitive dice sets realizing Paley tournaments for solving Schtte’s tournament problem”, Miskolc Mathematical Notes, 15 (2014), pp. 39-50.
Conrey, B. et al., “Intransitive Dice”, Mathematics Magazine, v. 89, No. 2 (2016), pp.133-143.
Martin Gardner, “The Paradox of the Nontransitive Dice and the Elusive Principle of Indifference”, Scientific American (1970), 223(6) pp. 110–114.
Alex Schaefer, “Balanced non-transitive dice”, II. In preparation.
Alex Schaefer and Jay Schweig, “Balanced non-transitive dice”, Pre-print, available at arxiv.org/abs/1602.00969.
Hugo Steinhaus and Stanisław Trybuła, “On a paradox in applied probabilities”, Bull. Acad. Polon. Sci. 7 (1959) 67–69.
Stanisław Trybuła, “On the paradox of three random variables”, Zastos. Mat. 5 (1960/61), 321-332.
[^1]: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Natural conditions sufficient for weak continuity of transition probabilities in belief MDPs (Markov decision processes) were established in our paper published in Mathematics of Operations Research in 2016. In particular, the transition probability in the belief MDP is weakly continuous if in the original MDP the transition probability is weakly continuous and the observation probability is continuous in total variation. These results imply sufficient conditions for the existence of optimal policies in POMDPs (partially observable MDPs) and provide computational methods for finding them. Recently Kara, Saldi, and Yüksel proved weak continuity of the transition probability for the belief MDP if the transition probability for the original MDP is continuous in total variation and the observation probability does not depend on controls. In this paper we show that the following two conditions imply weak continuity of transition probabilities for belief MDPs when observation probabilities depend on controls: (i) transition probabilities for the original MDP are continuous in total variation, and (ii) observation probabilities are measurable, and their dependence on controls is continuous in total variation.'
author:
- 'Eugene A. Feinberg, Pavlo O. Kasyanov and Michael Z. Zgurovsky[^1][^2] [^3]'
title: '**On Continuity of Transition Probabilities in Belief MDPs with General State and Action Spaces** '
---
Introduction
============
In this paper deals with infinite-state POMDPs (partially observable Markov decision processes) with either discounted or nonnegative costs. Action sets may not be compact. It is well-known that POMDPs can be reduced to the belief MDPs; [@Bert1; @DY; @HLerma; @Rh; @Yu]). Feinberg et al. [@FKZ2014] presented general results on the existence of optimal policies and convergence of value iterations for belief MDPs and therefore for POMDPs with Borel state, observation, and action spaces. These results rely on mild continuity assumptions on transition probabilities and one-step cost functions. Among other results, it was shown in Feinberg et al. [@FKZ2014] that weak continuity of the transition probability for the original MDP and continuity of the observation probability in total variation imply weak continuity of the transition probability for the belief MDP. Some additional results can be found in Feinberg, Kasyanov, Zgurovsky [@FKZMIAN]. Kara et al. [@Saldi] provided a different proof of the above mention result from [@FKZ2014] and proved weak continuity of the transition probability for the belief MDP if the transition probability for the original MDP is continuous in total variation and the observation probability does not depend on controls. In this paper we show that the following two conditions imply weak continuity of the transition probability for the belief MDP with observation probability depending on controls: (i) the transition probability for the original MDP is continuous in total variation, and (ii) the observation probability is continuous in total variation as the function of the control parameter.
Model Description
=================
For a metric space $\S$, let ${\mathcal B}(\S)$ be its Borel $\sigma$-field, that is, the $\sigma$-field generated by all open sets of the metric space $\S$. For a Borel subset $E\subset \S$, we denote by ${\mathcal B}(E)$ the $\sigma$-field whose elements are intersections of $E$ with elements of ${\mathcal B}(\S)$. Observe that $E\in\B(\S)$ is a metric space with the same metric as on $\S$, and ${\mathcal B}(E)=\{B\subset E: B\in \B(\S) \}$ is its Borel $\sigma$-field. If $\S$ is a Polish (complete separable metric) space, then $E$ is a Standard Borel space. On $E$ consider the induced metrizable topology. For a metric space $\S$, we denote by $\P(\S)$ the *set of probability measures* on $(\S,{\mathcal B}(\S)).$ A sequence of probability measures $\{\mu_n\}$ from $\P(\S)$ *converges weakly (setwise)* to $\mu\in\P(\S)$ if for any bounded continuous (bounded Borel-measurable) function $f$ on $\S$ $$\int_\S f(s)\mu_n(ds)\to \int_\S f(s)\mu(ds) \qquad {\rm as \quad
}n\to\infty.$$ Let $d_\S$ be a metric on $\S$ and $S^{\varepsilon} := \{ s \in \S \,:\, \exists s' \in S, \ d_\S(s, s') < \varepsilon \}$ be the $\varepsilon$-neighborhood of $S\subset \S.$ We recall that the standard *Lévy-Prokhorov metric* on $\P(\S)$: $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{LP}(\mu,\nu):=\inf \{ \varepsilon > 0 \,:\,& \mu(S) \leq \nu (S^{\varepsilon}) + \varepsilon
\\ & \text{and} \ \nu (S) \leq \mu (S^{\varepsilon}) + \varepsilon \\ & \quad\text{for all} \ S \in \mathcal{B}(\S) \},\ \mu,\nu\in\P(\S),
\end{aligned}$$ metricizes the weak convergence topology for probability measures on $\S.$ Note that $\P(\S)$ is separable metric space if $\S$ is separable; Parthasarathy [@Part Chapter II].
We also consider *the Radon metric* (it is sometimes called “*the distance in total variation*”): $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{TV}(\mu,\nu):=\sup_{f\in C_{B}(\S),\|f\|_\infty\le 1}&\left\{\int_\S
f(s)\mu(ds)\right. \\ &-\left. \int_\S
f(s)\nu(ds)\right\},
\end{aligned}$$ $\mu,\nu \in \P(\S).$ A sequence of probability measures $\{\mu_n\}$ from $\P(\S)$ *converges in total variation* to $\mu\in\P(\S)$ if $$\lim_{n\to\infty} \rho_{TV}(\mu_n,\mu)=0.$$ For Borel subsets $\S_1$ and $\S_2$ of metric spaces, a (Borel-measurable) *transition kernel* $R(ds_1|s_2)$ on $\S_1$ given $\S_2$ is a mapping $R(\,\cdot\,|\,\cdot\,):\B(\S_1)\times \S_2\mapsto [0,1]$, such that $R(\,\cdot\,|s_2)$ is a probability measure on $\S_1$ for any $s_2\in \S_2$, and $R(B|\,\cdot\,)$ is a Borel-measurable function on $\S_2$ for any Borel set $B\in\B(\S_1)$. A transition kernel $R(ds_1|s_2)$ on $\S_1$ given $\S_2$ defines a Borel measurable mapping $s_2\to R(\cdot|s_1)$ of $\S_2$ to the metric space $\P(\S_1)$ endowed with the topology of weak convergence. A transition kernel $R(ds_1|s_2)$ on $\S_1$ given $\S_2$ is called *weakly continuous (setwise continuous, continuous in total variation)*, if $R(\,\cdot\,|x_n)$ converges weakly (setwise, in total variation) to $R(\,\cdot\,|x)$ whenever $x_n$ converges to $x$ in $\S_2$.
Let $\X$, $\Y$, and $\A$ be Borel subsets of complete separable metric spaces, $P(dx'|x,a)$ is a transition kernel on $\X$ given $\X\times\A$, $Q(dy| a,x)$ is a transition kernel on $\Y$ given $\A\times\X$, $Q_0(dy|x)$ is a transition kernel on $\Y$ given $\X$, $p$ is a probability distribution on $\X$, $c:\X\times\A\mapsto
\R=\mathbb{R}\cup\{+\infty\}$ is a bounded from below Borel function on $\X\times\A$.
*Partially observable Markov decision process (POMDP)* is specified by $(\X,\Y,\A,P,Q,c)$, where $\X$ is the *state space*, $\Y$ is the *observation set*, and $\A$ is the *action* *set*, $P(dx'|x,a)$ is the *state transition law*, $Q(dy| a,x)$ is the *observation kernel*, $c:\X\times\A\to \R$ is the *one-step cost*.
The partially observable Markov decision process evolves as follows. At time $t=0$, the initial unobservable state $x_0$ has a given prior distribution $p.$ The initial observation $y_0$ is generated according to the initial observation kernel $Q_0(\,\cdot\,|x_0).$ At each time epoch $n=0,1,\ldots,$ if the state of the system is $x_n\in\X$ and the decision-maker chooses an action $a_n\in \A$, then the cost $c(x_n,a_n)$ is incurred and the system moves to state $x_{n+1}$ according to the transition law $P(\,\cdot\,|x_n,a_n).$ The observation $y_{n+1}\in\Y$ is generated by the observation kernels $Q(\,\cdot\,|a_n,x_{n+1})$, $n=0,1,\ldots,$ and $Q_0(\,\cdot\,|x_0).$
Define the *observable histories*: $h_0:=(p,y_0)\in\H_0$ and $h_n:=(p,y_0,a_0,\ldots,y_{n-1}, a_{n-1}, y_n)\in\H_n$ for all $n=1,2,\dots,$ where $\H_0:=\P(\X)\times \Y$ and $\H_n:=\H_{n-1}\times \A\times \Y$ if $n=1,2,\dots$. Then a *policy* for the POMDP is defined as a sequence $\pi=\{\pi_n\}$ such that, for each $n=0,1,\dots,$ $\pi_n$ is a transition kernel on $\A$ given $\H_n$. Moreover, $\pi$ is called *nonrandomized*, if each probability measure $\pi_n(\cdot|h_n)$ is concentrated at one point. A nonrandomized policy is called *Markov*, if all of the decisions depend on the current state and time only. A Markov policy is called *stationary*, if all the decisions depend on the current state only. The *set of all policies* is denoted by $\Pi$. The Ionescu Tulcea theorem (Bertsekas and Shreve [@Bert1 pp. 140-141] or Hernández-Lerma and Lassere [@HLerma1 p.178]) implies that a policy $\pi\in \Pi$ and an initial distribution $p\in \P(\X)$, together with the transition kernels $P$, $Q$ and $Q_0$ determine a unique probability measure $P_{p}^\pi$ on the set of all trajectories $\mathbb{H}_{\infty}=\P(\X)\times(\Y\times \mathbb{A})^{\infty}$ endowed with the product of $\sigma$-field defined by Borel $\sigma$-field of $\P(\X)$, $\Y$, and $\mathbb{A}$ respectively. The expectation with respect to this probability measure is denoted by $\E_{p}^\pi$.
Let us specify the performance criterion. For a finite horizon $N=0,1,\ldots,$ and for a policy $\pi\in\Pi$, let the *expected total discounted costs* be $$\label{eq1}
v_{N,\alpha}^{\pi}(p):=\mathbb{E}_p^{\pi}\sum\limits_{n=0}^{N-1}\alpha^nc(x_n,a_n),\
p\in \P(\X),$$ where $\alpha\ge 0$ is the discount factor, $v_{0,\alpha}^{\pi}(p)=0.$ When $N=\infty$, we always assume that at least one of the following two assumptions hold:0.9 ex **Assumption (D)** $c$ is bounded below on $\X\times\A$ and $\alpha\in[0,1)$.
**Assumption (P)** $c$ is nonnegative on $\X\times\A$ and $\alpha\in[0,1]$.0.9 ex In the both cases (\[eq1\]) defines an *infinite horizon expected total discounted cost*, and we denote it by $v_\alpha^\pi(p).$ By using notations ([**D**]{}) and ([**P**]{}), we follow Bertsekas and Shreve [@Bert1 p. 214]. However, our Assumption ([**D**]{}) is weaker than the corresponding assumption in [@Bert1] because $c$ was assumed to be bounded under Assumption ([**D**]{}) in [@Bert1].
Since the function $c$ is bounded below on $\X\times\A$, a discounted model can be converted into a positive model by shifting the cost function. In particular, let $c(x,a)\ge-K$ for all $(x,a)\in\X\times\A$. Consider a new cost function $\hat{c}(x,a):=c(x,a)+K$ for all $(x,a)\in\X\times\A$. Then the corresponding total discounted cost is equal to $$\hat{v}_{\alpha}^{\pi}(p):=v_{\alpha}^{\pi}(p)+\frac{K}{1-\alpha},\qquad\qquad
\pi\in\Pi,\,p\in \P(\X).$$ Thus, optimizing $v_{\alpha}^{\pi}$ and $\hat{v}_{\alpha}^{\pi}$ are equivalent problems, but $\hat{v}_{\alpha}^{\pi}$ is the objective function for the positive model (that is, the function $c$ takes nonnegative values). Though these two models are equivalent, it is slightly easier to work with positive models because $\hat{v}_{N,\alpha}^{\pi}\uparrow\hat{v}_{\alpha}^{\pi},$ as $N\to\infty.$ For any function $g^{\pi}(p)$, including $g^{\pi}(p)=v_{N,\alpha}^{\pi}(p)$ and $g^{\pi}(p)=v_{\alpha}^{\pi}(p)$ define the *optimal cost* $$g(p):=\inf\limits_{\pi\in \Pi}g^{\pi}(p), \qquad
\ p\in\P(\X),$$ where $\Pi$ is *the set of all policies*. A policy $\pi$ is called *optimal* for the respective criterion, if $g^{\pi}(p)=g(p)$ for all $p\in \P(\X).$ For $g^\pi=v_{n,\alpha}^\pi$, the optimal policy is called *$n$-horizon discount-optimal*; for $g^\pi=v_{\alpha}^\pi$, it is called *discount-optimal*.
We recall that a function $c$ defined on $\X\times\A$ is inf-compact (or lower semi-compact) if the set $\{(x,a)\in
\X\times\A:\, c(x,a)\le \lambda\}$ is compact for any finite number $\lambda.$ A function $c$ defined on $\X\times \A$ is called ${{\mathbb{K}}}$-inf-compact on $\X\times\A$, if for any compact subset $K$ of $\X$, the function $c$ is inf-compact on $K\times\A$; Feinberg, Kasyanov, and Zadoianchuk [@JMAA Definition 11]. ${{\mathbb{K}}}$-inf-compactness is a mild assumption that is weaker than inf-compactness. Essentially, ${{\mathbb{K}}}$-inf-compactness of the cost function $c$ is almost equivalent to lower semi-continuity of $c$ in the state variable $x$ and lower semi-continuity in the action variable $a$. However, if $c$ is a ${{\mathbb{K}}}$-inf-compact function, then the function $v(x):=\inf_{a\in \A} c(x,a)$ is lower semi-continuous, and this is not true if $c$ is lower semi-continuous and inf-compact in $a;$ Luque-Vasques and Hernández-Lerma [@LVHL]. ${{\mathbb{K}}}$-inf-compactness property holds for many applications including inventory control and various problems with least square criteria. According to Feinberg, Kasyanov, and Zadoianchuk [@JMAA Lemma 2.5], a bounded below function $c$ is ${{\mathbb{K}}}$-inf-compact on the product of metric spaces $\X$ and $\A$ if and only if it satisfies the following two conditions:
\(a) $c$ is lower semi-continuous;
\(b) if a sequence $\{x_n \}_{n=1,2,\ldots}$ with values in $\X$ converges and its limit $x$ belongs to $\X$ then any sequence $\{a_n
\}_{n=1,2,\ldots}$ with $a_n\in \A$, $n=1,2,\ldots,$ satisfying the condition that the sequence $\{c(x_n,a_n) \}_{n=1,2,\ldots}$ is bounded above, has a limit point $a\in\A.$
Reduction of POMDPs to Belief MDPs
==================================
First, we formulate the well-known reduction of a POMDP to the belief MDP, also called a completely observable MDP ([@Bert1; @DY; @HLerma; @Rh; @Yu]). To simplify notations, we sometimes drop the time parameter. Given a posterior distribution $z$ of the state $x$ at time epoch $n=0,1,\ldots$ and given an action $a$ selected at epoch $n$, denote by $R(B\times C|z,a) $ the joint probability that the state at time $(n+1)$ belongs to the set $B\in {\mathcal B}(\X)$ and the observation at time $n$ belongs to the set $C\in {\mathcal
B}(\Y)$, $$\label{3.3}
R(B\times
C|z,a):=\int_{\X}\int_{B}Q(C|a,x')P(dx'|x,a)z(dx),$$ where $R$ is a transition kernel on $\X\times\Y$ given ${\P}(\X)\times \A$; see Bertsekas and Shreve [@Bert1]; or Dynkin and Yushkevich [@DY]; or Hernández-Lerma [@HLerma]; or Yushkevich [@Yu] for details. Therefore, the probability $R'( C|z,a) $ that the observation $y$ at time $n$ belongs to the set $C\in \mathcal{B}(\Y)$ is $$\label{3.5}
R'(C|z,a)=\int_{\X}\int_{\X}Q(C|a,x')P(dx'|x,a)z(dx),$$where $R'$ is a transition kernel on $\Y$ given ${\P}(\X)\times \A.$ By Bertsekas and Shreve [@Bert1 Proposition 7.27], there exist a transition kernel $H$ on $\X$ given ${\P}(\X)\times \A\times\Y$ such that $$\label{3.4}
R(B\times C|z,a)=\int_{C}H(B|z,a,y)R'(dy|z,a),$$ $B\in
\mathcal{B}(\X),\ C\in \mathcal{B}(\Y),\ z\in\P(\X),\ a\in \A.$
The transition kernel $H(\,\cdot\,|z,a,y)$ defines a measurable mapping $H:\,\P(\X)\times \A\times \Y \mapsto\P(\X)$, where $H(z,a,y)[\,\cdot\,]=H(\,\cdot\,|z,a,y).$ For each pair $(z,a)\in \P(\X)\times\A$, the mapping $H(z,a,\cdot):\Y\mapsto\P(\Y)$ is defined $R'(\,\cdot\,|z,a)$-a.s. uniquely in $y$; Dynkin and Yushkevich [@DY p. 309]. It is known that for a posterior distribution $z_n\in \P(\X)$, action $a_n\in A(x)$, and an observation $y_{n+1}\in\Y,$ the posterior distribution $z_{n+1}\in\P(\X)$ is $$\label{3.1}
z_{n+1}=H(z_n,a_n,y_{n+1}).$$ However, the observation $y_{n+1}$ is not available in the belief MDP, and therefore $y_{n+1}$ is a random variable with the distribution $R'(\,\cdot\,|z_n,a_n)$, and (\[3.1\]) is a stochastic equation that maps $(z_n,a_n)\in \P(\X)\times\A$ to $\P(\P(\X)).$ The stochastic kernel that defines the distribution of $z_{n+1}$ on $\P(\X)$ given $\P(\X)\times\X$ is defined uniquely as $$\label{3.7}
q(D|z,a):=\int_{\Y}\h_D[H(z,a,y)]R'(dy|z,a),$$ where for $D\in \mathcal{B}(\P(\X))$ $$\h_D[u]=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1,&u\in D,\\
0,&u\notin D;
\end{array}
\right.$$ Hernández-Lerma [@HLerma1 p. 87]. The measurable particular choice of stochastic kernel $H$ from (\[3.4\]) does not effect on the definition of $q$ from (\[3.7\]), since for each pair $(z,a)\in \P(\X)\times\A$, the mapping $H(z,a,\cdot):\Y\mapsto\P(\Y)$ is defined $R'(\,\cdot\,|z,a)$-a.s. uniquely in $y$; Dynkin and Yushkevich [@DY p. 309].
The belief MDP is defined as an MDP with parameters ($\P(\X)$,$\A$,$q$,$\c$), where
- $\P(\X)$ is the state space;
- $\A$ is the action set available at all state $z\in\P(\X)$;
- the one-step cost function $\c:\P(\X)\times\A\mapsto\R$, defined as $$\label{eq:c}
\c(z,a):=\int_{\X}c(x,a)z(dx), \quad z\in\P(\X),\, a\in\A;$$
- transition probabilities $q$ on $\P(\X)$ given $\P(\X)\times \A$ defined in (\[3.7\]).
see Bertsekas and Shreve [@Bert1 Corollary 7.27.1, p. 139] or Dynkin and Yushkevich [@DY p. 215], or Hernández-Lerma [@HLerma] for details. We note that an MDP ($\P(\X)$,$\A$,$q$,$\c$) can be viewed as a particular POMDP $(\P(\X),\Y,\A,q,Q,\c)$ with $\Y=\P(\X)$ and $Q(Z|a,z)=Q(Z|z)={\bf I}\{z\in Z\}$ for all $z\in\P(\X),$ $a\in A$, and $Z\in{\mathcal B}(\P(\X)).$
If a stationary or Markov optimal policy for the belief MDP exists and found, it allows the decision maker to compute an optimal policy for the POMDP. The details on how to do this can be found in Bertsekas and Shreve [@Bert1] or Dynkin and Yushkevich [@DY], or Hernández-Lerma [@HLerma]. Therefore, a POMDP can be reduced to a belief MDP.
This reduction holds for measurable transition kernels $P$, $Q$, $Q_0$. The measurability of these kernels and cost function $c$ lead to the measurability of transition probabilities for the corresponding belief MDP.
However, it is well known that, except for the case of finite action sets, measurability of transition probabilities is not sufficient for the existence of optimal policies in belief MDPs, and certain properties hold if belief MDP satisfies certain continuity conditions. These properties provide the validity of optimality equations $$v_{\alpha}(z)=\min\limits_{a\in
\A}\left\{\c(z,a)+\alpha\int_{\P(\X)}
v_{\alpha}(s)q(ds|z,a)\right\},$$ where $z\in \P(\X) $, and the property that $v_{\alpha}$ is a minimal solution of this equation. In addition if the function $\c$ is bounded on $\P(\X)\times \A$, and $\alpha\in[0,1)$, $v_{\alpha}$ is the unique bounded solution of the optimality equation and can be found by value iterations. However, under continuity conditions value iterations converge to $v_\alpha,$ which is not unique; Feinberg et al [@FKZConf]. This convergence is monotone if the cost function $c$ takes only nonnegative values. For belief MDPs there are sufficient conditions for the existence of stationary optimal policies. If the equivalent belief MDP satisfies these conditions, then the optimal policy exists, the value function can be computed by value iterations, the infimum can be substituted with minimum in the optimality equations, and the optimal policy can be derived from the optimality equations. If POMDP satisfies these conditions, then the belief MDP also satisfies the conditions ensuring the existence of optimal policies and convergence of value iterations; see Feinberg et al. [@FKZConf; @FKZ2014].
Main Results
============
For belief MDPs, Feinberg et al [@FKZ; @FKZ2014] described the following general general conditions for the existence of optimal policies, validity of optimality equations, and convergence of value iterations.
**Assumption (${\rm \bf W^*}$)** (cf. Feinberg et [@FKZ2014 Theorem 3.1]).
(i) $\bar{c}$is${{\mathbb{K}}}$-inf-compactandboundedfrombelowon$\P(\X)\times\A;$
\(ii) the transition probability $q(\,\cdot\,|z,a)$ is weakly continuous in $(z,a)\in \P(\X)\times\A.$
Feinberg et [@FKZ2014 Theorem 3.3] implies that if $c$ is ${{\mathbb{K}}}$-inf-compact on $\X\times\A$ and bounded from below, then Assumption (${\rm \bf W^*}$)(i) holds.
Hernández-Lerma [@HLerma Section 4.4] provided the following sufficient conditions for Assumption (${\rm \bf W^*}$)(ii) : (a) the transition probability $P(\,\cdot\,|x,a)$ and the observation kernel $Q(\,\cdot\,|a,x)$ are weakly continuous transition kernels; and (b) there exists a weakly continuous $H:\P(\X)\times\A\times\Y\mapsto\P(\X)$ satisfying (\[3.4\]). The following relaxed version of (b) was introduced in [@FKZ2014].
**Assumption (H)**. There exists a stochastic kernel $H$ on $\X$ given $\P(\X)\times\A\times\Y$ satisfying (\[3.4\]) such that: if a sequence $\{z^{(n)}\}_{n=1,2,\ldots}\subset\P(\X)$ converges weakly to $z\in\P(\X)$, and a sequence $\{a^{(n)}\}_{n=1,2,\ldots}\subset\A$ converges to $a\in\A$ as $n\to\infty$, then there exists a subsequence $\{(z^{(n_k)},a^{(n_k)})\}_{k=1,2,\ldots}\subset
\{(z^{(n)},a^{(n)})\}_{n=1,2,\ldots}$ and a measurable subset $C$ of $\Y$ such that $R'(C|z,a)=1$ and for all $y\in C$ $$\label{eq:ASSNH}
H(z^{(n_k)},a^{(n_k)},y)\mbox{ converges weakly to }H(z,a,y).$$ In other words, holds $R'(\,\cdot\,|z,a)$-almost surely.
The following theorem is a part of [@FKZ2014 Theorem 3.2].
\[th:1\] Let the stochastic kernel $R'(dy|z,a)$ on $\Y$ given $\P(\X)\times\A$ is setwise continuous and Assumption [**([**H**]{})**]{} holds. Then the stochastic kernel $q(dz'|z,a)$ on $\P(\X)$ given $\P(\X)\times\A$ is weakly continuous.
In order to formulate Theorem \[th:2\], we need to introduce several auxiliary facts. Let $\S$ be a metric space and $\F(\S)$ be the space of all real-valued functions defined on $\S$. A subset $\mathcal{A}_0\subset \F(\S)$ is said to be *equicontinuous at a point $s\in\S$*, if $
\sup\limits_{f\in\mathcal{A}_0}|f(s')-f(s)|\to 0$ as $s'\to s. $ A subset $\mathcal{A}_0\subset \F(\S)$ is said to be *uniformly bounded*, if there exists a constant $M<+\infty $ such that $ |f(s)|\le M,$ for all $s\in\S$ and for all $f\in\mathcal{A}_0. $ Obviously, if a subset $\mathcal{A}_0\subset \F(\S)$ is equicontinuous at all the points $s\in\S$ and uniformly bounded, then $\mathcal{A}_0\subset
C_B(\S).$
For a set $B\in\B(\X)$, let $\mathcal{R}_B$ be the following family of functions defined on $\P(\X)\times \A$: $$\label{R-def} \mathcal{R}_B=\left\{(z,a)\mapsto R( B\times C|z,a)\,:\, C\in\B(\Y)\right\}.$$
\[th:2\] If the topology on $\X$ has a countable base $\tau_b=\{\oo^{(j)}\}_{j=1,2,\ldots}$ such that, for each finite intersection $\oo=\cap_{i=1}^ N
{\oo}^{(j_i)}$ of its elements $\oo^{(j_i)}\in\tau_b,$ $i=1,2,\ldots,N$, the family of functions $\mathcal{R}_{\oo}$ defined in is equicontinuous at all the points $(z,a) \in \P(\X) \times \A$, then the assumptions and, therefore, the conclusion of Theorem \[th:1\] holds.
As explained in [@FKZMIAN Remark 4.5], the intersection assumption in Theorem \[th:2\] is equivalent to the similar assumption for finite unions. Note that, under assumptions of Theorem \[th:2\], Feinberg et [@FKZ2014 Lemma 5.3, Corollary 5.1 and Theorem 3.4] imply that the stochastic kernel $q(dz'|z,a)$ on $\P(\X)$ given $\P(\X)\times\A$ is weakly continuous.
[(Feinberg et al. [@FKZ2014 Theorem 3.6])]{}\[cor:1\] Let the stochastic kernel $P(dx'|x,a)$ on $\X$ given $\X\times\A$ be weakly continuous and the stochastic kernel $Q(dy|a,x)$ on $\Y$ given $\A\times\X$ be continuous in total variation. Then the assumptions and, therefore, the conclusion of Theorem \[th:2\] hold.
When the kernel kernel $P(dx'|x,a)$ is continuous in $\X\times\A,$ the observation kernel $Q(dy|a,x)$ does not depend on $a,$ and $\X,\Y,\A$ are Borel subsets of Euclidian spaces, Kara et [@Saldi Theorems 2] proved weak continuity of the kernel $q(dz'|z,a).$ The following theorem extends this result to the observation kernel $Q(dy|a,x)$ depending on $a.$
\[cor:2\] Let the stochastic kernel $P(dx'|x,a)$ on $\X$ given $\X\times\A$ be continuous in total variation and the observation kernel $Q(dy|a,x)$ on $\Y$ given $\A\times\X$ be continuous in $a$ in total variation, that is, for each $x\in\X$ $$\label{eq:Kara1}
\begin{aligned}
\rho_{TV}(Q(\,\cdot\,|a',x),Q(\,\cdot\,|a,x))\to 0\ {\rm as} \ a'\to a.
\end{aligned}$$ Then the assumptions and, therefore, the conclusion of Theorem \[th:2\] hold.
Proofs {#sec:proofs}
======
This section consists of the proofs of Theorems \[th:2\] and \[cor:2\].
*Proof of Theorem \[th:2\]*: Feinberg et al. [@FKZ2014 Corollary 5.1] implies that the stochastic kernel $R'(dy|z,a)$ on $\Y$ given $\P(\X)\times\A$ is continuous in total variation, which is stronger than setwise continuity. Assumption [**([**H**]{})**]{} follows from Feinberg et al. [@FKZ2014 Lemma 5.3]. Therefore, the assumptions and, therefore, the statement of Theorem \[th:1\] hold. $\blacksquare$
*Proof of Theorem \[cor:2\]*: Let us prove that for each $B\in \B(\X)$ the family of functions $\mathcal{R}_{B}$ defined in is equicontinuous at all the points $(z,a) \in \P(\X) \times \A.$ On the contrary, let there exist $B\in \B(\X),$ $\varepsilon^*>0,$ $(z,a)\in \P(\X)\times\A,$ $\{(z^{(n)},a^{(n)})\}_{n=1,2,\ldots}\subset \P(\X)\times\A,$ and $\{C^{(n)}\}_{n=1,2,\ldots}\subset\B(\Y)$ such that $z^{(n)}\to z$ weakly, $a^{(n)}\to a $ as $n\to\infty,$ and for each $n=1,2,\ldots$ $$\label{eq:Kara2}
|R(B\times C^{(n)}|z^{(n)},a^{(n)})-R(B\times C^{(n)}|z,a)|\ge \varepsilon^*.$$
On the other hand, for each $n=1,2,\ldots$ $$\label{eq:Kara2a}
\begin{aligned}
&|R(B\times C^{(n)}|z^{(n)},a^{(n)})-R(B\times C^{(n)}|z,a)|\\
&\le I^{(n)}:=I_1^{(n)}+I_2^{(n)}+I_3^{(n)},
\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
I_1^{(n)}:=&\left|\int_{\X}\int_{B}Q(C^{(n)}|a^{(n)},x')P(dx'|x,a^{(n)})z^{(n)}(dx)\right.\\
&-\left.\int_{\X}\int_{B}Q(C^{(n)}|a^{(n)},x')P(dx'|x,a)z^{(n)}(dx)\right|,
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
I_2^{(n)}:=&\left|\int_{\X}\int_{B}Q(C^{(n)}|a^{(n)},x')P(dx'|x,a)z^{(n)}(dx)\right.\\
&-\left.\int_{\X}\int_{B}Q(C^{(n)}|a,x')P(dx'|x,a)z^{(n)}(dx)\right|,
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
I_3^{(n)}:=&\left|\int_{\X}\int_{B}Q(C^{(n)}|a,x')P(dx'|x,a)z^{(n)}(dx)\right.\\
&-\left.\int_{\X}\int_{B}Q(C^{(n)}|a,x')P(dx'|x,a)z(dx)\right|.
\end{aligned}$$ If for each $j=1,2,3$ $$\label{eq:Kara2b}
I_j^{(n)}\to 0\mbox{ as }n\to\infty,$$ then contradicts . Therefore, to complete the proof of Theorem \[cor:2\], we need to verify for $j=1,2,3.$
We prove first that holds for $j=1.$ Since $\|Q(C^{(n)}|a^{(n)},\,\cdot\,)\|_\infty\le1$ for each $n=1,2,\ldots, $ $$\label{eq:Kara3}
I_1^{(n)}\le \int_\X \rho_{TV} (P(\,\cdot\,|x,a^{(n)}),P(\,\cdot\,|x,a))z^{(n)}(dx).$$ The continuity in total variation of the stochastic kernel $P(dx'|x,a)$ on $\X$ given $\X\times\A$ implies that $$\int_\X {\mathop{\rm lim\,sup}}_{n\to\infty,\,x'\to x} \rho_{TV} (P(\,\cdot\,|x',a^{(n)}),P(\,\cdot\,|x',a))z(dx)=0.$$ Thus, according to Feinberg et al. [@TVP Theorem 1.1], applied to $\mu^{(n)}:=z^{(n)},$ $\mu:=z,$ and $f^{(n)}(s):=2-\rho_{TV} (P(\,\cdot\,|s,a^{(n)}),P(\,\cdot\,|s,a))\ge0,$ $s\in\X,$ $n=1,2,\ldots,$ we have $$\label{eq:Kara4}
\exists\lim_{n\to\infty} \int_\X \rho_{TV} (P(\,\cdot\,|x,a^{(n)}),P(\,\cdot\,|x,a))z^{(n)}(dx)=0.$$ Therefore, for $j=1$ formula follows from and .
Second, let us verify for $j=2.$ The definition of $\rho_{TV}$ implies $$\label{eq:Kara5}
I_2^{(n)}\le \int_\X \rho_{TV} (Q(\,\cdot\,|a^{(n)},s),Q(\,\cdot\,|a,s))\mu^{(n)}(ds),$$ where $\mu^{(n)}(B):=\int_\X P(B|x,a)z^{(n)}(dx)$ for each $n=1,2,\ldots$ and $B\in\B(\X).$ Since the stochastic kernel $P(dx'|x,a)$ on $\X$ given $\X\times\A$ is continuous in total variation, $P(B|x',a)\to P(B|x,a)$ as $x'\to x$ for each $B\in\B(\X)$ and $x\in\X.$ Therefore, according to Feinberg et [@TVP Theorem 1.1], applied to $\{\mu^{(n)},\mu\}_{n=1,2,\ldots}$ and $f^{(n)}(s):=\frac12 \pm(\frac12-P(B|s,a))\ge 0,$ $s\in\X,$ $n=1,2,\ldots,$ we have that $\{\mu^{(n)}\}_{n=1,2,\ldots}$ converges setwise to $\mu$ as $n\to\infty,$ that is, $\mu^{(n)}(B)\to\mu(B)$ as $n\to\infty$ for each $B\in\B(\X).$ Then, and Feinberg et [@TVP Theorem 4.1], applied to $\{\mu^{(n)},\mu\}_{n=1,2,\ldots},$ $f^{(n)}(s):=2-\rho_{TV} (P(\,\cdot\,|s,a^{(n)}),P(\,\cdot\,|s,a))\ge 0,$ and $g^{(n)}(s):=2,$ $s\in\X,$ $n=1,2,\ldots,$ imply that $$\begin{aligned}
&{\mathop{\rm lim\,sup}}_{n\to\infty} \int_\X \rho_{TV} (Q(\,\cdot\,|a^{(n)},s),Q(\,\cdot\,|a,s))\mu^{(n)}(ds)\le 0,
\end{aligned}$$ Thus, inequality implies for $j=2.$
Third, let us prove for $j=3.$ On the contrary, if does not hold for $j=3,$ there exist a subsequence $\{I_3^{(n_k)}\}_{k=1,2,\ldots}\subset\{I_3^{(n)}\}_{n=1,2,\ldots}$ and $\delta^*>0$ such that $$\label{eq:Kara6}
I_3^{(n_k)}\ge 3\delta^*$$ for each $k=1,2,\ldots.$ On the other hand, since $z^{(n)}\to z$ weakly, Parthasarathy [@Part Theorem 6.7] implies that the sequence of measures $\{z^{(n_k)}\}_{k=1,2,\ldots}$ is uniformly tight, that is, for each $\delta>0$ there exists a compact set $K_\delta\subset \X$ such that $$z^{(n)}(\X\setminus K_\delta)<\delta,$$ for each $k=1,2,\ldots.$ Therefore, if we set $\delta:=\delta^*,$ then implies $$\label{eq:Kara7}
\begin{aligned}
\delta^*\le &\left|\int_{K_{\delta^*}}\int_{B}Q(C^{(n_k)}|a,x')P(dx'|x,a)z^{(n_k)}(dx)\right.\\
&-\left.\int_{K_{\delta^*}}\int_{B}Q(C^{(n_k)}|a,x')P(dx'|x,a)z(dx)\right|
\end{aligned}$$ for each $k=1,2,\ldots.$ Since the stochastic kernel $P(dx'|x,a)$ on $\X$ given $\X\times\A$ is continuous in total variation, the family of bounded functions $\{x\mapsto \int_{B}Q(C^{(n_k)}|a,x')P(dx'|x,a)\}_{k=1,2,\ldots}$ is equicontinuous at all the points $x\in\X.$ Arzelà-Ascoli theorem implies the existence of a strictly increasing subsequence $\{k_l\}_{l=1,2,\ldots}\subset \{n_k\}_{k=1,2,\ldots}$ and a continuous function $\Phi:{K_{\delta^*}}\mapsto \mathbb{R}$: $$\lim_{l\to\infty}\max_{x\in {K_{\delta^*}}} |\int_{B}Q(C^{(k_l)}|a,x')P(dx'|x,a)-\Phi(x)|=0.$$ Thus, according to Lebesgue’s dominated convergence theorem, $$\label{eq:Kara8}
\begin{aligned}
&\lim_{l\to\infty}\left|\int_{K_{\delta^*}}\Phi(x)z(dx) \right.\\
&\left. -\int_{K_{\delta^*}}\int_{B} Q(C^{(k_l)}|a,x')P(dx'|x,a)z(dx)\right|=0.
\end{aligned}$$ Feinberg et [@TVP Theorem 1.1], applied to $\mu^{(l)}:=z^{(k_l)},$ $\mu:=z,$ and $f^{(l)}(s):=2\pm(\int_{B}Q(C^{(k_l)}|a,x')P(dx'|s,a)-\Phi(s))\ge0,$ $s\in\X,$ $l=1,2,\ldots,$ imply $$\label{eq:Kara9}
\begin{aligned}
&\lim_{l\to\infty}\left|\int_{K_{\delta^*}}\Phi(x)z(dx) \right.\\
&\left. -\int_{K_{\delta^*}}\int_{B} Q(C^{(k_l)}|a,x')P(dx'|x,a)z^{(k_l)}(dx)\right|=0.
\end{aligned}$$ Thus, and contradict , that is, holds for $j=3.$ Since holds for $j=1,2,3,$ Theorem \[cor:2\] is proved. $\blacksquare$
Example: Filtration and Identification {#sec:exa}
======================================
Let $M,$ $N,$ $L,$ $S,$ and $T$ be natural numbers, and let $\{\xi_t\}_{t=0,1,\ldots}$ be a sequence of identically distributed finite random vectors with values in $\mathbb{R}^S$ and with the distribution $\mu.$ Let $\{\eta_t\}_{t=0,1,\ldots}$ be a sequence of random vectors with values in $\mathbb{R}^T$ whose components $\{\eta_t^k\}_{t=0,1,\ldots}^{k=1,2,\ldots,T}$ are independent and uniformly distributed on $(0,1).$ An initial state $x_0$ is a random vector with values in $\mathbb{R}^N.$ It is assumed that the random vectors $x_0,\xi_0,
\eta_0,\xi_1,\eta_1,\ldots$ are defined on the same probability space and mutually independent.
Consider a stochastic partially observable control system $$\label{eqe1}
x_{t+1}=F(x_{t},a_{t},\xi_{t}),\,\, t=0,1,\dots,$$ $$\label{eqe2}
y_{t+1}=G(a_{t},x_{t+1},\eta_{t+1}),\,\, t=0,1,\dots,$$ where $F$ and $G$ are given measurable functions from $\mathbb{R}^N\times\mathbb{R}^M\times \mathbb{R}^S$ to $\mathbb{R}^N$ and from $\mathbb{R}^M\times\mathbb{R}^N\times (0,1)^T$ to $\mathbb{R}^L$ respectively. The initial observation is $y_0=G_0(x_0,\eta_0),$ where $G_0$ is a measurable function from $\mathbb{R}^N\times (0,1)^T$ to $\mathbb{R}^L$. The states $x_t$ are not observable, while the states $y_t$ are observable. The goal is to minimize the expected total discounted costs.
We describe the above problem as a POMDP with the state space $\X=\mathbb{R}^N$, observation space $\Y=\mathbb{R}^L$, and action space $\A=\mathbb{R}^M$. The transition law is $$\label{ex1dp}
P(B|x,a)=\int_{\mathbb{R}^S} \h\{F(x,a,s)\in B\}\mu(ds),$$ where $B\in
\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}^N),$ $x\in\mathbb{R}^N,$ and $a\in\mathbb{R}^M.$ The observation kernel is $$Q(C|a,x)=\int_{(0,1)^T} \h\{G(a,x,s)\in C\}ds$$ where $C\in \mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}^L),$ $ a\in\mathbb{R}^M, $ $
x\in\mathbb{R}^N,$ and $s\in(0,1)^T.$ The initial state distribution $p$ is the distribution of the random vector $x_0$, and the initial observation kernel $Q_0(C|x)=\int_{(0,1)^T}{\bf I}\{G_0(x,s)\in
C\}ds$ for all $C\in\B(\mathbb{R}^L)$ and for each $x\in\X.$
Assume that $(x,a)\mapsto F(x,a,s)$ is a continuous mapping on $\mathbb{R}^N\times\mathbb{R}^M$ for $\mu$-a.e. $s\in \mathbb{R}^S$. Then the stochastic kernel $P(dx'|x,a)$ on $\mathbb{R}^N$ given $\mathbb{R}^N\times\mathbb{R}^M$ is weakly continuous; Hernández-Lerma [@HLerma p. 92].
Assume that: (i) $G$ is a continuous mapping on $\mathbb{R}^M\times\mathbb{R}^N\times (0,1)^T$, (ii) the partial Jacobian derivative $g(a,x,s)=\frac{\partial G(a,x,s)}{\partial s}$ exists everywhere and it is continuous, and (iii) there exists a constant $\beta>0$ such that $|\det g(a,x,s)|\ge \beta$ for all $a\in\mathbb{R}^M$, $x\in\mathbb{R}^N$, and $s\in (0,1)^T.$ Denote by $\g$ the inverse function for $G$ with respect the last variable. Assume that $\g$ is continuous. Then the assumptions of Theorem \[cor:1\] are satisfied. We remark that the Kalman filter in discrete time satisfies the assumptions of Theorem \[cor:2\]. In this case, $x_{t+1}=F(x_t,a_t,\xi_t)=A^*x_t+B^*a_t+\xi_t$ and $y_{t+1}=C^*x_{t+1}+v_{t+1},$ where $A^*,B^*,C^*$ are real matrices of the respective dimensions and $v_t$ is the observation noise which is assumed to be zero mean Gaussian white noise with covariance $R:$ $v_t \sim \mathcal{N}(0,R).$ It is assumed that the random vectors $x_0,\xi_0,
v_1,\xi_1,v_1,\ldots$ are defined on the same probability space and mutually independent.
Acknowledgements
================
Research of the first author was partially supported by NSF Grant CMMI-1636193. The authors thank Serdar Yülsel, Ali Dervan Kara, and Naci Saldi for their valuable comments and for finding an error in the previous version of this paper.
[99]{}
D. P. Bertsekas, S. E. Shreve. 1978. *Stochastic Optimal Control: The Discrete-Time Case.* Academic Press, New York (reprinted by Athena Scientific, Belmont, MA, 1996). E. B. Dynkin, A. A. Yushkevich. 1979. *Controlled Markov Processes*. Springer-Verlag, New York.
E. A. Feinberg, P. O. Kasyanov, and N. V. Zadoianchuk. 2012. *Average-cost Markov decision processes with weakly continuous transition probabilities*, [Math. Oper. Res.]{}, 37(4), 591–607.
E. A. Feinberg, P. O. Kasyanov, N. V. Zadoianchuk. 2013. *Berge’s theorem for noncompact image sets*, J. Math. Anal. Appl., 397(1), 255–259.
E.A. Feinberg, P.O. Kasyanov, and N.V. Zadoianchuk. 2014. *Fatou’s lemma for weakly converging probabilities*, Theory Probab. Appl., 58(4), 683–689.
E. A. Feinberg, P. O. Kasyanov, and M. Z. Zgurovsky. 2014. *Convergence of probability measures and Markov decision models with incomplete information*, [Proceedings of the Steklov Institute of Mathematics]{}, 287(1), 96–117.
E. A. Feinberg, P. O. Kasyanov, and M. Z. Zgurovsky. 2014. *Convergence of value iterations for total-cost mdps and pomdps with general state and action sets*, [2014 IEEE Symposium on Adaptive Dynamic Programming and Reinforcement Learning (ADPRL)]{}, 1–8.
E. A. Feinberg, P. O. Kasyanov, and M. Z. Zgurovsky. 2016. *Partially observable total-cost Markov decision processes with weakly continuous transition probabilities*, [Math. Oper. Res.]{}, 41(2), 656–681.
O. Hernández-Lerma. 1989. *Adaptive Markov Control Processes*. Springer-Verlag, New York.
O. Hernández-Lerma, J. B. Lassere. 1996. *Discrete-Time Markov Control Processes: Basic Optimality Criteria*. Springer, New York.
A. D. Kara, N. Saldi, S. Yüksel. 2018. *Weak Feller Property of Non-linear Filters.* arXiv:1812.05509
F. Luque-Vasques and O. Hernández-Lerma. 1995. *A counterexample on the semicontinuity lemma*, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. [123]{}(10), 3175–3176.
K.R. Parthasarathy. 1967. *Probability measures on metric spaces*. Academic Press, New York.
D. Rhenius. 1974. *Incomplete information in Markovian decision models*. Ann. Statist. 2, 1327-1334.
R. Smallwood, Sondik, E. 1973. *The optimal control of partially observable Markov processes over a finite horizon*. Operations Research, 21(5), 1071–-1088.
E.J. Sondik, 1978. *The optimal control of partially observable Markov processes over the infinite horizon: Discounted costs.* Operations Research, 26, 282-–304.
A.A. Yushkevich. 1976. *[Reduction of a controlled Markov model with incomplete data to a problem with complete information in the case of Borel state and control spaces]{}*. Theory Probab. Appl. 21, 153–158.
[^1]: E.A. Feinberg, Department of Applied Mathematics and Statistics Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794–3600 [[email protected]]{}
[^2]: P.O. Kasyanov, Institute for Applied System Analysis, National Technical University of Ukraine “Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute” Kyiv, 03056, Ukraine [[email protected]]{}
[^3]: M.Z. Zgurovsky, National Technical University of Ukraine “Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute” Kyiv, 03056, Ukraine [[email protected]]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The response speed of a network impacts the efficacy of its actions to external stimuli. However, for a given bound on the update rate, the network-response speed is limited by the need to maintain stability. This work increases the network-response speed without having to increase the update rate by using delayed self-reinforcement (DSR), where each agent uses its already available information from the network to strengthen its individual update law. Example simulation results are presented that show more than an order of magnitude improvement in the response speed (quantified using the settling time) with the proposed DSR approach.'
author:
- 'Santosh Devasia[^1]'
title: '**Faster Response in Bounded-Update-Rate, Discrete-time Networks using Delayed Self-Reinforcement** '
---
Introduction
============
Networks are being proposed for control in variety of applications ranging from fleets of self-driving vehicles, distributed sensors, swarms of robots and other unmanned aerial and submersible systems. Discrete-time models have been studied to capture the response of such natural and engineered networks, e.g., [@Vicsek_95; @Huth_92; @Vicsek_95; @Jadbabaie_03; @Ren_Beard_05; @Olfati_Saber_06] and transportation systems [@Karafyllis_15]. The performance of these networks is affected by the response speed. For example, a fast network can allow rapid propagation of information acquired by one of the agents across the entire network, and impact the cohesion of responses to external stimuli, e.g., as seen in biological flocking, [@Attanasi_14]. However, the overall network’s response speed (i.e., convergence to consensus) depends on the update rate at which each individual agent obtains information from other agents connected through the network and changes its own state. The bound on the update-rate can arise due to the time needed for each individual agent to sense, e.g., the time needed for an ultrasound sensor to ping and measure distance to a neighbor, process information, e.g., time needed for communication and computation, and to react, e.g., due to actuator bandwidth limitations (e.g., computational costs as well as time needed for sufficient averaging in noisy environments), and communicate with other agents. For a given bound on the update rate (i.e., the smallest time between updates), the network-response speed is limited by the need to maintain stability. Under such update-rate-bounded scenarios, the main contributions of this work are (i) to use delayed self-reinforcement (DSR), where each agent uses its current and previously available information to strengthen its update, and (ii) to show that such self reinforcement can increase the network speed without the need to increase the individual agent’s update rate. Similar use of prior update has been used to improve the convergence of gradient-based learning algorithms, and is referred to as the Nesterov’s gradient or accelerated gradient method, e.g., [@Rumelhart_86; @QIAN1999145]. Moreover, example simulations are used in this article to show that, without the proposed DSR, an order-of-magnitude decrease in the settling time requires at-least a corresponding order-of-magnitude increase in the update rate. In contrast, the proposed DSR approach achieves more than an order of magnitude improvement in the response speed without the need to change the update rate or change the network structure. The impact of this increased response speed, on the ability to maintain relative positions in a formation (without additional control actions) is also illustrated with the simulation results.
The convergence of discrete-time networks has been well studied. Briefly, it depends on the eigenvalues of the Perron matrix $P$, which maps the current state $I(k)$ to the updated state $ I(k+1) = P I(k)$. A variety of methods are available to select the Perron matrix $P$ including the use of neural network methods as in [@Chen_Weisheng_14] and approaches to ensure robust stability, e.g., in [@van_Horssen_16]. For example, one choice is to chose the Perron matrix $P$ based on the Laplacian $K$ associated with the underlying graph as $$I(k+1) = P I(k) ~ =
\left[ {\textbf{I}} -\gamma K \right] I(k),
\label{system_non_source}$$ where $\gamma$ is the update gain. If the underlying graph is undirected and connected, then convergence to consensus can be achieved provided the update gain $\gamma$ is sufficiently small, e.g., [@Olfati_Murray_07]. Robust selection of the distributed controllers for interconnected discrete-time systems has been studied in [@van_Horssen_16]. and neural networks have been proposed to select the network [@Chen_Weisheng_14] The gain $\gamma$ for a given network Laplacian $K$ can be selected to maximize the convergence rate, i.e., the number of updates $N_{T_s}$ needed to achieve convergence to a specified level. Note that the network response time $T_s $ is a product of the number of updates $N_{T_s}$ needed and the update time $\delta_t$. Alternatively, the scaled Laplacian $\gamma K$ could be optimized for fast convergence, as in [@Carli_08; @Boyd_2004]. Nevertheless, convergence can be slow if the number of agent inter-connections is small compared to the number of agents, e.g., [@Carli_08]. Therefore, there is interest in increasing the convergence rate. Previous work has shown that time-varying connections such as randomized interconnections can lead to faster convergence, e.g., [@Carli_08]. Another approach is to sequence the update of the agents to improve convergence, e.g., [@Fanti_15]. When such time-variations in the graph structure or selection of the graph Laplacian $K$ are not feasible, the need to maintain stability limits the range of acceptable update gain $\gamma$, and therefore, limits the rate of convergence. This convergence-rate limitation motivates the proposed effort to develop a new approach to improve the network performance.
The current investigation on convergence under constraints on the update rate is different from studies that seek to ensure convergence under say communication delays [@Olfati_Murray_07; @Zhao_Bo_17], or communication channel effects [@Xu_Liang_16; @Meskin_09], which do not necessarily place bounds on the update rate, but needs to be considered when investigating stability. Previous works have also investigated the minimal data rate to ensure stability in terms of the quantization of information transferred during each update [@You_Xie_11]. Although, such information communication rates are not considered in this article, such criteria needs to be be met within the minimum time between updates.
The article begins with the problem formulation in Section \[Problem\_formulation\], that briefly reviews the selection of the update gain $\gamma$ to ensure convergence and then states the problem of reducing the overall settling time. The solution approach using DSR is presented in Section \[section\_solution\], which also develops stability conditions to identify the range of acceptable DSR parameters. Simulations are presented in Section \[Results\_and\_Discussion\] to comparatively evaluate the performance improvement with and without DSR.
and the impact on maintaining a formation. This is followed by the conclusions in Section V.
Problem formulation {#Problem_formulation}
===================
Agents are assumed to be connected through a network. As in current approaches, the state $I_i$ of each agent $i$ is updated using information from other agents connected to agent $i$ through a network, e.g., [@Olfati_Murray_07]. This section develops properties of this network-based agent update to illustrate the limits on the system-response speed (quantified in terms of its settling time $T_s$) when the update rate cannot be arbitrarily increased. This stability-related limit on the system-response speed leads to the research problem of reducing the settling time $T_s$, stated at the end of this section.
Network definition
------------------
The network is modeled using a graph representation. Let the connectivity of the agents be represented by a directed graph (digraph) ${\cal{G}} = \left({\cal{V}}, {\cal{E}}\right)$, e.g., as defined in [@Olfati_Murray_07], with agents represented by nodes $ {\cal{V}}= \left\{ 1, 2, \ldots, {n\!+\!1} \right\}$, $n>1$ and edges $ {\cal{E}} \subseteq {\cal{V}} \times {\cal{V}} $, where each agent $j$ the set of neighbors $N_i \subseteq {\cal{V}} $ of the agent $i$ satisfies $ j \ne i$ and $(j,i) \in {\cal{E}} $. The terms $l_{ij}$ of the $(n+1)\times(n+1)$ Laplacian $L$ of the graph ${\cal{G}}$ are real and given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_laplacian_defn}
l_{ij} & = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
-w_{ij} < 0, & {\mbox{if}} ~ j \in N_i \\
\sum_{m=1}^{n+1} w_{im}, & {\mbox{if}} ~ j = i, \\
0 & {\mbox{otherwise.}}
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$
Without loss of generality, the source agent is assumed, to be the last node, $n+1$. Moreover, all agents in the network should have access to the source agent’s state $I_s = I_{n+1}$ through the network, as formalized below.
\[assum\_digraph\_properties\] In the following, the digraph ${\cal{G}}$ is assumed to have a directed path from the source node ${n+1}$ to any node $ i \in {\cal{V}} \setminus \!{(n+1)}$.
Some properties of the Laplacian (L1-L3), used later, are listed below.
[**[\[L1]{}**]{} The $n \times n$ matrix $K$ (the pinned Laplacian), obtained by removing the row and column associated with the source node $n+1$, the following partitioning of the Laplacian $L$ is invertible, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_K_eigenvector}
L & =
\left[
\begin{array}{c|c}
K & -B \\
\hline
\star_{1 \times n} & \star_{1 \times 1}
\end{array}
\right] ~\quad {\mbox{with}} ~~
\det{(K)} \ne 0, \end{aligned}$$ and $B$ is an $n \times 1$ matrix $$\label{eq_B_def}
\begin{array}{rl}
B & = [ w_{1,s}, w_{2,s}, \ldots, w_{n,s}]^T
\\ &
~= [ B_{1}, B_{2}, \ldots, B_{n}]^T ,
\end{array}$$ where, under Assumption \[assum\_digraph\_properties\], the invertibility of the pinned Laplacian $K$ expressed in Eq. follows from the Matrix-Tree Theorem in [@tuttle_graph].
[**[\[L2\]]{}**]{} Tthe eigenvalues of $K$ have have strictly-positive, real parts. In particular, from the Gershgorin theorem all the eigenvalues of the pinned Laplacian $K$ must lie in one of circles centered at $l_{ii} >0$ with radius $ l_{ii}-w_{is} \in [0, l_{ii}] $ from definition of $l_{ii}$ in Eq. and since $w_{is}\ge 0$. Moreover, given the invertibility of pinned Laplacian $K$, the eigenvalues of the pinned Laplacian $K$ cannot be at the origin. Therefore, the eigenvalues must have strictly-positive, real parts (from the Gershgorin theorem of being inside the circles which are on the right hand side of the complex place except for the origin), which implies that the eigenvalues $ \lambda_{K,i}$, $1 \le i \le n$, (some of which may be repeated) $$\lambda_{K,i} ~ = m_{K,i} e^{j \phi_{K,i}}
\label{eq_lambda_K}$$ of the pinned Laplacian $K$ in Eq. , where $j = \sqrt{-1}$ and the magnitudes are ordered as $$0 < m_{K,1} ~ \le m_{K,2} ~~ \le ~ \ldots ~ \le m_{K,n},
\label{eq_positive_mag_ordering_lambda_K}$$ have positive real parts, i.e., the phase $ \phi_{K,i} $ satisfies $$| \phi_{K,i} | < \frac{\pi}{2}.
\label{eq_positive_real_parts_lambda_K}$$
[**[\[L3\]]{}**]{} Since each row of the Laplacian $L$ adds to zero, from Eq. , the $(n+1) \times 1$ vector of ones ${\textbf{1}}_{n+1}= [1, \ldots, 1]^T$ is a right eigenvector of the Laplacian $L$ with eigenvalue $0$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_first_lambda_eigenvector}
L{\textbf{1}}_{n+1} & = 0 {\textbf{1}}_{n+1} .\end{aligned}$$ From Eq. , the partitioning in Eq. , and invertibility of $K$, the product of the inverse of the pinned Laplacian $K$ with $B$ leads to a $n \times 1$ vector of ones, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_KinvtimesB}
K ^{-1} B & = {\textbf{1}}_n.\end{aligned}$$
System description and properties
---------------------------------
Let the network dynamics, for the non-source agents $I$ represented by the remaining graph ${\cal{G}}\!\setminus\!s$, be given by $$\begin{array}{rl}
I(k+1) & = I(k) -\gamma_t \delta_t K I (k) + {\gamma}_t \delta_t B I_s (k)
\\
& = I(k) -{\gamma} K I (k) + {\gamma} B I_s (k) \\
& = P I(k) + \gamma B I_s(k)
\label{system_non_source}
\end{array}$$ where $\delta_t$ is the update rate and $k$ represents the time instants $t_k = k \delta_t$. The update time $\delta_t$ is considered to be fixed at the fastest possible rate at which each agent can sense, process information and react. The overall update gain $${\gamma} = \gamma_t \delta_t
\label{eq_relations_gain_update_rate}$$ needs to be selected to be sufficiently small for stability, i.e., all eigenvalues $\lambda_{P,i}$ of the Perron matrix $P$ $$\begin{aligned}
P & ~ = {\textbf{I}}_{n\times n}-\gamma K,
\label{eq_P_def}\end{aligned}$$ where $ {\textbf{1}}_{n\times n}$ is the $n\times n$ identity matrix, must lie inside the unit circle. From the definition of the Perron matrix in Eq. , If $\lambda_{K,i}$ is an eigenvalue of the pinned Laplacian $K$ with a corresponding eigenvector $V_{K,i}$, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
K V_{K,i} ~ & = \lambda_{K,i}V_{K,i},
\label{eq_stability_condition_lem_Stability_and_Update_gain_pr_1}\end{aligned}$$ then $ \lambda_{P,i} = 1- \gamma \lambda_{K,i }$ is an eigenvalue of the Perron matrix $P$ for the same eigenvector $V_{K,i}$, since $$\begin{aligned}
P V_{K,i} ~ = \left[ {\textbf{I}}_{n\times n}-\gamma K \right] V_{K,i}
&
= (1 - \gamma \lambda_{K,i}) V_{K,i}.
\label{eq_stability_condition_lem_Stability_and_Update_gain_pr_2}\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the eigenvalues $\lambda_{P,i}$ of the Perron matrix $P$ in Eq. are, for $1 \le i \le n$, $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_{P,i} ~ & = 1 - \gamma_t \delta_t \lambda_{K,i} ~ = 1 - \gamma \lambda_{K,i} .
\label{Eq_limits_lambdaP_1}\end{aligned}$$
A sufficiently small selection of the update gain $\gamma$ will stabilize the system in Eq. , e.g., see [@Olfati_Murray_07]. For a given pinned Laplacian $K$, the range of the acceptable update gain $\gamma$ is clarified in the lemma below.
\[lem\_Stability\_and\_Update\_gain\] Under Assumption \[assum\_digraph\_properties\], the network dynamics in Eq. , is stable if and only if the update gain $\gamma$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
0 ~ < \gamma ~ & < \min_{1\le i \le n} 2 \frac{ \cos{(\phi_{K,i})} }{m_{K,i}} = \overline\gamma ~ < ~ \infty .
\label{eq_stability_condition_lem_Stability_and_Update_gain}\end{aligned}$$
For stability, the eigenvalues $\lambda_{P,i}$ of the Perron matrix $P$ need to less than one in magnitude, i.e., for all $1\le i \le n$, $$\begin{aligned}
| \lambda_{P,i}| = |1- \gamma \lambda_{K,i } | ~~ & < 1.
\label{eq_upper_lower_bound_lambda_P_I}\end{aligned}$$ Taking squares on both sides results in [[ $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{-0.05in}
|1- \gamma \lambda_{K,i } |^2 & = \left|1- \gamma m_{K,i } \cos{(\phi_{K,i})} - j \gamma m_{K,i } \sin{(\phi_{K,i})} \right|^2 \nonumber \\[0.2em]
& =
1- 2 \gamma m_{K,i } \cos{(\phi_{K,i})} + \gamma^2 m_{K,i }^2 < 1 \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ ]{}]{}
$$\begin{aligned}
{\mbox{or}}~~~
- 2 \gamma m_{K,i } \cos{(\phi_{K,i})} + \gamma^2 m_{K,i }^2 ~~ & < 0
\label{condition_proof_lessthanzero}\end{aligned}$$ leading to the following condition if the update gain satisfies $\gamma > 0 $ $$\begin{aligned}
0 ~<~ \gamma ~~ & < 2 \frac{ \cos{(\phi_{K,i})} }{m_{K,i }} .
\label{condition_proof_lessthanzero_2}\end{aligned}$$ Note that the condition in Eq. is not satisfied if $\gamma=0$. Also, if $\gamma < 0 $ then, from Eq. , $\gamma$ needs to satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma ~~ & > 2 \frac{ \cos{(\phi_{K,i})} }{m_{K,i }} , \end{aligned}$$ which is not possible for any negative $\gamma$ since the right hand side is positive for any $i$ from Eqs. and . Therefore, the update gain $\gamma$ needs to satisfy the condition in Eq. . Note that the upper bound $\overline\gamma$ in Eq. is finite because the magnitude $m_{K,i}$ is nonzero for any $1 \le i \le n$. ${\hfill\mbox{\rule[0pt]{1.3ex}{1.3ex}}}$
A geometric interpretation of the result in Lemma \[lem\_Stability\_and\_Update\_gain\] is illustrated in Fig. \[fig\_1\_geometry\_proof\]. The angle $\phi_{K,i}$ is equal to angles $\angle{ocb} $ and $\angle{oab} $. Hence, length $d(b,c) = d(a,b) = \cos{(\lambda_{K,i})} $ where $ d(o,c) =1$. As a result, for stability, the update gain $\gamma$ should be chosen such the product of the update gain $\gamma$ and the magnitude $ m_{K,i}$ of the eigenvector $\lambda_{K,i}$ should be smaller than length $d(a,c)= 2 \cos{(\phi_{K,i})} $, as in Eq. . Moreover, the smallest magnitude of the eigenvalue $\lambda_{P,i}$ over different values of the update gain $\gamma$ is the perpendicular distance $d(o,b)$ from the origin $o$ to the ray $1-\gamma \lambda_{K_i}$, as illustrated in Fig. \[fig\_1\_geometry\_proof\]. This occurs when the product $\gamma m_{K,i}$ matches the length $d(b,c)= \cos{(\lambda_{K,i})} $ and is given by $d(o,b)= \sqrt{1 - [\cos{(\phi_{K,i})]^2 } }$.
![A geometric interpretation of the result in Lemma \[lem\_Stability\_and\_Update\_gain\]. For stability, the eigenvalue $ \lambda_{P_i} = 1- \gamma \lambda_{K_i}$ of the Perron matrix P must be inside the unit circle, i.e., the product $\gamma \lambda_{K_i}$ must be smaller than the length $d(a,c)= 2 \cos{(\phi_{K,i})} $, as in Eq. . []{data-label="fig_1_geometry_proof"}](fig_1_geometry_proof.pdf){width=".75\columnwidth"}
\[cor\_Stability\_and\_Update\_gain\_topological\_ordering\] Under Assumption \[assum\_digraph\_properties\], let the eigenvalues $ \lambda_{K,i}$, $1 \le i \le n$, of the pinned Laplacian $K$ in Eq. be real and be ordered as $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_{K,1} ~ \le \lambda_{K,2} ~~ \le ~ \ldots ~ \le \lambda_{K,n} .
\label{eq_positive_ordering_lambda_K}\end{aligned}$$
1. Then, the eigenvalues of the pinned Laplacian are positive, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
0 < \lambda_{K,1},
\label{eq_positive_ordering_lambda_K_1}\end{aligned}$$
2. and the network dynamics in Eq. , is stable if and only if the update gain $\gamma = \gamma_t \delta_t$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
0 ~ < \gamma ~ & < \frac{ 2 }{\lambda_{K,n}} < \infty.
\label{eq_stability_condition_cor_Update_gain}\end{aligned}$$
3. Moreover, if the network gain $\gamma$ satisfies Eq. then the eigenvalues $\lambda_{P,i}$ of the Perron matrix $P$ in Eq. satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
-1 < \lambda_{P,n} ~~ \le \lambda_{P,n-1} ~~\le \ldots ~ \le \lambda_{P,1} ~~ < 1 .
\label{eq_ordering_P}\end{aligned}$$
Statement 1 of the lemma follows since the phase angle $ \phi_{K,i} =0$ in Eq. and $m_{K,1}= \lambda_{K,1}$ in Eq. . The second statement of the lemma follows from Eq. in Lemma \[lem\_Stability\_and\_Update\_gain\]. The last statement of the lemma follows from Eqs. and , and the ordering in Eq. . ${\hfill\mbox{\rule[0pt]{1.3ex}{1.3ex}}}$
\[Rem\_Toplogically\_ordered\_graphs\] The pinned Laplacian $K$ will have real eigenvalues as in Lemma \[cor\_Stability\_and\_Update\_gain\_topological\_ordering\] if it is symmetric or if the associated graph ${\cal{G}}\!\setminus\!s$ is acyclic. In an acyclic graph there is a topological ordering of the vertices ${\cal{V}}$ and every graph edge ${\cal{E}}$ goes from a vertex that is earlier in the ordering to a vertex that is later in the ordering, i.e., all the neighbors $N_i$ of a vertex $i$ are earlier in the ordering. The resulting pinned Laplacian $K$ for an acyclic graph is real-valued and lower triangular, and hence, has real eigenvalues.
\[Rem\_Toplogically\_ordered\_subgraphs\] A more general case when the pinned Laplacian $K$ has real-valued eigenvalues is when the digraph ${\cal{G}}\!\setminus\!s$ can be partitioned into a set of topologically-ordered subgraphs ${\cal{G}}_i$. Here, the subgraphs ${\cal{G}}_i$ are distinct (i.e., without shared vertices) where each subgraph is either symmetric or acyclic (topologically ordered) with an additional topological ordering of the subgraphs ${\cal{G}}_i$ such that all graph edges in ${\cal{G}}\!\setminus\!s$ ends in one of the subgraphs, say ${\cal{G}}_i$ and starts: (a) either in the same ending subgraph ${\cal{G}}_i$; or (b) in a subgraph that is earlier than the ending subgraph ${\cal{G}}_i$ in the subgraph ordering. In such cases, the pinned Laplacian $K$, associated with the graph ${\cal{G}}\!\setminus\!s = \bigcup {\cal{G}}_i $ is lower block-triangular, where each block on the diagonal $K_i$ (associated with $ {\cal{G}}_i $) is real-valued and either symmetric or lower triangular. Therefore, the eigenvalues of each $K_i$, and therefore, the eigenvalues of $K$ are real.
An example network composed of topologically-ordered subgraphs is provided in Fig. \[fig\_2\_topological\_ordering\]. The associated pinned Laplacian $K$, where the weights $w_{ij}$ in Eq. are either $0$ or $1$, is $$\begin{aligned}
K & = \left[ \begin{array}{cccccc}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
-1 & 2 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
-1 & -1 & 2 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & -1 & 0 & 1 & 0 &0 \\
0 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 &-1 & -1 & -1 & -1 & 4
\end{array} \right]
\label{topological_ordering_example_K_2}\end{aligned}$$ with diagonal blocks $$\begin{aligned}
K_1 & = [1], ~ K_2 = \left[ \begin{array}{cc} 2 & -1 \\ -1 & 2 \end{array} \right], ~
K_3 = \left[ \begin{array}{ccc} 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \\ -1 & -1 & 4 \end{array} \right] ,
\label{topological_ordering_example_K_3}\end{aligned}$$ associated with the three subgraphs. The eigenvalues of $K$ are then the eigenvalue $1$ of $K_1$, eigenvalues $1, 3$ of $K_2$ and eigenvalues $1, 1, 4$ of $K_3$.
The applicability of the results to networks with topologically-ordered subgraphs is important since such ordering can occur line-of-sight based networks, e.g., in biological flocking, as well as engineered swarms.
An example where the graph ${\cal{G}}\!\setminus\!s$ is composed of an ordered set of subgraphs ${\cal{G}}_1 < {\cal{G}}_2 < {\cal{G}}_3$ is shown in Fig. \[fig\_2\_topological\_ordering\], where ${\cal{G}}_1$ and $ {\cal{G}}_2 $ are undirected subgraphs and $ {\cal{G}}_3$ is an ordered acyclic graph associated with vertex sets ${\cal{V}}_1 = \left\{ 1 \right\} , {\cal{V}}_2 = \left\{ 2, 3 \right\} $ and ordered set ${\cal{V}}_3= \left\{ 4 < 5 < 6 \right\} $, respectively.
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{topological_ordering_example_K_2}
K & =
\left[
\begin{array}{c|c|c}
\begin{matrix} 1 \end{matrix} &
\begin{matrix} 0 & 0 \end{matrix} &
\begin{matrix} 0 & 0 & 0 \end{matrix} \\
\hline
\begin{matrix} -1 \\ -1 \end{matrix} &
\begin{matrix} 2 & -1 \\ -1 & 2 \end{matrix} &
\begin{matrix} 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \end{matrix} \\
\hline
\begin{matrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{matrix} &
\begin{matrix} -1 & 0 \\ 0 & -1 \\ -1 & -1 \end{matrix} &
\begin{matrix} 1 & 0 &0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \\ -1 & -1 & 4\end{matrix}
\end{array}
\right] \\[.75em]
& =
\left[
\begin{array}{c|c|c}
K_1 &
\begin{matrix} 0 & 0 \end{matrix} &
\begin{matrix} 0 & 0 & 0 \end{matrix} \\
\hline
\begin{matrix} -1 \\ -1 \end{matrix} &
K_2 &
\begin{matrix} 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \end{matrix} \\
\hline
\begin{matrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{matrix} &
\begin{matrix} -1 & 0 \\ 0 & -1 \\ -1 & -1 \end{matrix} &
K_3
\end{array}
\right].\end{aligned}$$
![Example topologically-ordered subgraphs ${\cal{G}}_1 < {\cal{G}}_2 < {\cal{G}}_3$ of graph ${\cal{G}}\!\setminus\!s$ composed of undirected subgraphs ${\cal{G}}_1$, $ {\cal{G}}_2 $ and ordered acyclic graph $ {\cal{G}}_3$ associated with vertex sets ${\cal{V}}_1 = \left\{ 1 \right\} , {\cal{V}}_2 = \left\{ 2, 3 \right\} $ and ordered set ${\cal{V}}_3= \left\{ 4 < 5 < 6 \right\} $, respectively. All edges in graph ${\cal{G}}\!\setminus\!s$ ends in one of the subgraphs, say ${\cal{G}}_i$ and starts: (a) either in the same ending subgraph ${\cal{G}}_i$; or (b) in a subgraph that is earlier than the ending subgraph ${\cal{G}}_i$ in the subgraph ordering. []{data-label="fig_2_topological_ordering"}](fig_2_topological_ordering.pdf){width=".95\columnwidth"}
Convergence with changes in source
----------------------------------
From stability, the state $I$ of the network (of all non-source agents) converges to the new source value for a step change in the source information $I_s$, i.e., $I_s(k) = I_d$ for $k > 0$ and zero otherwise. Since the eigenvalues of $P$ are inside the unit circle, the solution to Eq. for the step input converges $$\begin{aligned}
\left[ I(k+1) - I(k) \right] & = P^{k} \left[ I(1) - I(0)\right] \rightarrow 0
\label{Eq_controlled_gen_soln}\end{aligned}$$ as $ k \rightarrow \infty$. Therefore, taking the limit as $k \rightarrow \infty$ in Eq. , and from invertibility of the pinned Laplacian $K $ from Eq. . $$\begin{aligned}
I(k) \rightarrow K^{-1} B I_d
\label{Eq_controlled_gen_soln_2}\end{aligned}$$ as $ k \rightarrow \infty$. Then, from Eq. , the information $I(k)$ at the non-source agents reaches the desired information $I_d$ as time step $k$ increases, i.e, $$\begin{aligned}
I (k) & \rightarrow {\textbf{1}}_n I_d ~~{\mbox{as}}~~ k \rightarrow \infty.
\label{system_non_source_stability}\end{aligned}$$
Limitation on fast settling
---------------------------
The model in Eq. can be rewritten as $$\begin{array}{rl}
\frac{I(k+1)- I(k)} {\delta_t} & = -\gamma_t K I (k) + {\gamma}_t B I_s (k)
\end{array}$$ and for a sufficiently-small update time $\delta_t$ it can considered as the discrete version of the continuous-time dynamics $$\begin{array}{rl}
\dot{I}(t) & = -\gamma_t K I (k) + \gamma_t B I_s (k).
\label{system_non_source_contnuous}
\end{array}$$ The eigenvalues of $ \gamma_t K$ increase proportionally with $\gamma_t$. Therefore, the settling time $T_s$ of the continuous time system decreases as the gain $\gamma_t$ increases. Consequently, provided the update time $\delta_t$ is sufficiently small, the discrete-time response of the system in Eq. will be similar to the continuous-time response of the system in Eq. and therefore its settling time should also decrease as the gain $\gamma_t$ increases. Nevertheless, with a fixed update rate $\delta_t$, the allowable increase in the gain $\gamma_t$ is bounded because the overall update gain $\gamma = \gamma_t \delta_t$ is bounded by the stability condition in Eq. of Lemma \[lem\_Stability\_and\_Update\_gain\]. Thus, the smallest possible update time $\delta_t$ limits the fastest possible settling time for a given network.
The settling-time improvement problem
-------------------------------------
The research problem addressed in this article is to reduce the settling time $T_s$ (from one consensus state to another) under step changes in the source value (i.e., improve convergence) where each agent can modify its update law by using already-available information through the network structure, i.e., through the pinned Laplacian $ K$ in the update law in Eq. .
Solution using DSR {#section_solution}
==================
In this section, the proposed delayed self-reinforcement (DSR) approach to address the settling-time-reduction problem is described, followed by the development of stability-based bounds on the acceptable range of the DSR parameter. The development of such bounds aid in reducing the search space when optimizing the DSR parameter to minimize the settling time $T_s$.
Proposed approach
-----------------
The proposed approach reinforces the update $ I_i(k+1) -I_i(k)$ of each non-source agent $i$ with a delayed and scaled version of the update $ \beta \left[ I_i(k) -I_i(k-1) \right]$. Then, the overall network state $I$ becomes $$\begin{array}{rl}
\left[ I(k+1) -I(k) \right] & = -\gamma K I(k) + \gamma B I_s(k) \\
& ~~~~~ + \beta \left[ I(k) - I(k-1) \right],
\label{system_with_source_DSR}
\end{array}$$ where $\beta$ is the DSR gain. Therefore, the network-update law in Eq. is modified to $$\begin{array}{rl}
I(k+1) & = I(k) -\gamma K I(k) + \gamma B I_s(k) \\
& ~~~~~ + \beta \left[ I(k) - I(k-1) \right],
\label{system_with_source_2}
\end{array}$$ which can be rewritten as $$\hat{I}(k+1) = \hat{P} \hat{I}(k) + \hat{B} I_s(k)
\label{system_with_source_2D}$$ where
\[Rem\_Toplogically\_ordered\_subgraphs\] The additional information needed to implement the DSR $ \beta [ I(k)-I(k-1)]$ is available already to each agent $i$, i.e., the state values $I_i(k) $and $I_i(k-1)$ at time instant $k$, where the subscript $i$ indicates the $i^{th}$ agent. DSR, however, requires each agent to store a delayed version $I_i(k-1)$ of its current state $I_i(k)$ and to have knowledge of the DSR gain $\beta$, as illustrated in Fig. \[fig\_1\_control\_implementation\].
![(Top) Dynamics of agent $i$ for original networked system without delayed self-reinforcement (DSR). (Bottom) Modified dynamics of agent $i$ with delayed self-reinforcement (DSR) using the same network information $K_i Z $ and $B_i z_s $, where the subscript $i$ indicates the $i^{th}$ row of the matrices $K, B$ corresponding to agent $i$ in the network. []{data-label="fig_1_control_implementation"}](fig_1_control_implementation.pdf){width=".65\columnwidth"}
The use of DSR can only improve the performance. If the origin $I=0$ of the dynamics without the DSR in Eq. is stable, then there is some open interval $(\underline{\beta}, \overline{\beta})$ that contains zero where the origin $I=0$ is stable with the proposed DSR approach because the eigenvalues of the modified Perron matrix $\hat{P}$ vary continuously with the DSR gain $\beta$. Hence the optimal DSR gain could decrease, but never increase, the settling time $T_s$ when compared to the case without DSR.
Stability conditions on the DSR gain $\beta$
--------------------------------------------
The DSR gain $\beta$ should be selected to reduce the settling time of the system. Since the DSR gain $\beta$ is a scalar parameter, numerical search methods could be used to optimally select it. Nevertheless, it is helpful to have a bounded search space. One approach is to restrict the search space to avoid regions where the modified network dynamics in Eq. is expected to be unstable. Therefore, the conditions on the DSR gain $\beta$ for network stability are investigated below.
\[Lemma\_DSR\_stability\] Let the origin of the system without DSR, i.e., $\beta=0$ be stable.
1. Then, the origin of the network dynamics with DSR in Eq. is unstable if the DSR gain $\beta$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
| \beta | ~~ > ~~1.
\label{Eq_bound_beta_stability_DSR}\end{aligned}$$
2. Moreover, if the eigenvalues of the pinned Laplacian are real and ordered as in Eq. , then the origin of the network dynamics with DSR in Eq. is stable if and only if the DSR gain $\beta$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
- \left[ 1 -\frac{1}{2} \gamma\lambda_{K,n} \right] ~~ < ~~\beta ~~ < ~~1.
\label{Eq_bound_beta_stability_DSR_real_eig}\end{aligned}$$
The eigenvalues $\lambda_{\hat{P}}$ and the associated eigenvectors $V_{\hat{P}}$ of the modified Perron matrix $\hat{P}$ satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_{\hat{P}} V_{\hat{P}}~ =
\lambda_{\hat{P}}
\left[ \begin{array}{c}
V_{\hat{P},t} \\
V_{\hat{P},b}
\end{array} \right]
& =
\hat{P}
\left[ \begin{array}{c}
V_{\hat{P},t} \\
V_{\hat{P},b}
\end{array} \right]
$$ or $$\begin{array}{rl}
\lambda_{\hat{P}}
V_{\hat{P},t}
& = V_{\hat{P},b} \\
\lambda_{\hat{P}}
V_{\hat{P},b}
& =
-\beta V_{\hat{P},t} + \left(\beta I + P \right) V_{\hat{P},b}
\end{array}$$ that can be combined as $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_{\hat{P}} ^2
V_{\hat{P},t}
& =
-\beta V_{\hat{P},t} + \lambda_{\hat{P}} \left(\beta I + P \right) V_{\hat{P},t}
$$ leading to $$\begin{array}{rl}
\left[ \lambda_{\hat{P}} ^2 + \beta - \beta \lambda_{\hat{P}} \right]
V_{\hat{P},t}
& =
\lambda_{\hat{P}} \left[ P \right] V_{\hat{P},t} \\
& =
\lambda_{\hat{P}} \left[ {\textbf{I}}_{n\times n}-\gamma K \right] V_{\hat{P},t} .
\end{array}
\label{eq_eig_value_diagonal_pf}$$ Let the pinned Laplacian $K$, be similar to the matrix $K_J$ in the real-valued Jordan form, where $$K_J = T_K^{-1} K T_K
\label{Jordan_K_eq}$$ where $T_K $ is invertible, e.g., [@Ortega]. Then, Eq. can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
\left[ \lambda_{\hat{P}} ^2 + \beta - \beta \lambda_{\hat{P}} \right]
V_{J,\hat{P},t}
& =
\lambda_{\hat{P}} \left[ {\textbf{I}}_{n\times n} -\gamma K_J \right] V_{J,\hat{P},t}
\label{eq_eig_value_diagonal_pf_3}\end{aligned}$$ where $V_{J,\hat{P},t} = T_K^{-1} V_{\hat{P},t} $. Then, due to the block-triangular form of the matrix $K_{J}$, the eigenvalues $\lambda_{\hat{P},i} $ of the modified Perron matrix $\hat{P}$ are related to the eigenvalues $\lambda_{K,i} = m_{K,i} e^{j \phi_{K,i}} $ in Eq. of the pinned Laplacian $K$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{-0.2in}
\det \left\{ \left[
\lambda_{\hat{P},i} ^2 + \beta - \beta \lambda_{\hat{P},i} -\lambda_{\hat{P},i}
\right] {\textbf{I}}_{n\times n} + \lambda_{\hat{P},i} \gamma K_{J,i}
\right\}= 0
\label{eq_det_eig_expression}\end{aligned}$$ where the diagonal block $K_{J,i}$ of the real-valued matrix $K_J$ is given by [[ $$\begin{aligned}
K_{J,i} & = \left[ \begin{array}{cc} m_{K,i} \cos(\phi_{K,i}) & m_{K,i} \sin(\phi_{K,i}) \\ - m_{K,i} \sin(\phi_{K,i}) & m_{K,i} \cos(\phi_{K,i}) \end{array} \right]
\\ & =
\left[ \begin{array}{cc} a_i & b_i \\ -b_i & a_i \end{array} \right] .\end{aligned}$$ ]{}]{} The eigenvalue Eq. can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{-0.2in} \left[\lambda_{\hat{P},i} ^2 + \beta - \beta \lambda_{\hat{P},i} -\lambda_{\hat{P},i} +a_i \lambda_{\hat{P},i} \gamma
\right]^2 + \lambda_{\hat{P},i}^2 \gamma^2 b_i^2 = 0
\label{eq_det_eig_expression_2}\end{aligned}$$ or $$\begin{aligned}
\left[ \sum_{k=0}^{4} a_{k,i} \lambda_{\hat{P},i} ^k \right]
& = 0
\label{eq_det_eig_expression_3}\end{aligned}$$ where $a_{4,i}=1$ and $a_{4,0}= \beta^2$, which leads to the necessary condition $ a_{4,i} > |a_{4,0}| $ for the eigenvalue to satisfy $|\lambda_{\hat{P},i}| < 1 $ from the Jury test. This results in the first statement of the lemma.
If the eigenvalues of the pinned Laplacian are real, then $ a_i = \lambda_{K,i}$ and $ b_i =0$ in Eq. , and the eigenvalues $\lambda_{\hat{P}}$ of the modified Perron matrix $\hat{P}$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{-0.2in}
{\cal{P}} \left( \lambda_{\hat{P},i} \right) ~ = \lambda_{\hat{P},i} ^2 ~+ \left(\gamma \lambda_{K,i} - \beta -1 \right) \lambda_{\hat{P},i} ~+ \beta .
~~= 0
\label{eq_det_eig_expression_4}\end{aligned}$$ Then, from the Jury test, for the eigenvalue to satisfy $|\lambda_{\hat{P},i}| < 1 $, $$\begin{array}{rl}
|{\cal{P}}(0)| < 1, \quad
{\cal{P}}(1) > 0 , \quad
{\cal{P}}(-1) > 0 ,
\label{eq_det_eig_expression_5}
\end{array}$$ which results in $$\begin{array}{rl}
| \beta | < 1 , \quad
\gamma \lambda_{K,i} > 0 , \quad
\beta > - \left[ 1 -\frac{1}{2} \gamma\lambda_{K,i} \right] .
\label{eq_det_eig_expression_5_22}
\end{array}$$ From Eq. , $\gamma \lambda_{K,i} > 0$ and $$\begin{array}{rl}
-1 < - \left[ 1 -\frac{1}{2} \gamma\lambda_{K,i} \right] & < 0,
\label{eq_det_eig_expression_5_23}
\end{array}$$ which along with the ordering in Eq. leads to the second statement of the lemma from Eq. .
Selection of DSR gain
---------------------
The optimal value $\beta^*$ for the smallest settling time can be found through a numerical search over the range where the network with DSR is stable as identified in Lemma \[Lemma\_DSR\_stability\]. An analytical approximation-based approach, based on the continuous-time approximation of the discrete dynamics, is described below to select the DSR gain for the case when the eigenvalues of the pinned Laplacian $K$ are real. Moreover, this approximation aids in understanding the potential settling-time improvements that can be anticipated with the proposed DSR method.
In this subsection, the eigenvalues of the pinned Laplacian are assumed to be real valued. With DSR, the discrete-time system can be rewritten as $$\begin{array}{rl}
\beta \left\{ \left[ I (k+1) - I(k) \right] - \left[ I (k) - I(k-1) \right] \right\} & \\
+
(1-\beta) \left[ I(k+1) - I(k) \right] & \\
= -\gamma_t \delta_t K I(k) + \gamma_t \delta_t B I_s(k) ,
\end{array}
\label{Eq_DSR_Rearrangement}$$ which can be approximated, when the update interval $\delta_t$ is small compared to the dominant network response, as $$\beta \delta_t^2 \ddot{I}(t) +(1-\beta) \delta_t \dot{I} (t) = -\gamma_t \delta_t K I(t) + \gamma_t \delta_t B I_s(t) ,
\label{Eq_approximation_DSR_continuous}$$ which matches the continuous-time system in Eq. if the DSR gain $\beta$ is zero.
The use of a non-zero DSR gain $\beta$ results in a mass-like term in the approximation in Eq. . Therefore the delayed reinforcement term $ \left [I_i (k) - I_i (k-1) \right]$ in Eq. is referred to as the momentum-term in gradient-based learning algorithms, e.g., [@QIAN1999145].
With DSR, i.e., a nonzero DSR gain $\beta$, the above equation can be rewritten as $$\ddot{I}(t) +\frac{(1-\beta)}{\beta \delta_t} \dot{I} (t) = -\frac{\gamma_t}{\beta \delta_t} K I(t) +\frac{\gamma_t}{\beta \delta_t} B I_s(t).
\label{Eq_approximation_DSR_continuous}$$
To consider the impact of the different modes, let the pinned Laplacian $K$ be similar to the matrix $K_J$ in the Jordan form, as in Eq. , where the diagonal terms of the real-valued matrix $K_J$ are the eigenvalues $\left\{ \lambda_{K,i} \right\}_{i=1}^{n}$ of matrix $K$ [@Ortega]. Note that the multiplicity of each eigenvalue $ \lambda_{K,i} $ can be more than one. With the transformation into modal coordinates, $$\begin{aligned}
I(k) & = T_K I_J (k)
\label{system_non_source_transformation_22}\end{aligned}$$ the network dynamics in Eq. can be rewritten as $$\ddot{I}_J(t) +\frac{(1-\beta)}{\beta \delta_t} \dot{I}_J (t) = -\frac{\gamma_t}{\beta \delta_t} K_J I_J(t) +\frac{\gamma_t}{\beta \delta_t} B_J I_s(t).
\label{Eq_approximation_DSR_continuous_modal}$$ where $B_J = T_K^{-1} B$. Therefore, for each pole $s_i$ of the approximate continuous-time dynamics in Eq. without DSR, i.e., $$\begin{array}{rl}
s_i + \gamma_t \lambda_{K,i} & = 0
\label{pole_system_non_source_continuous}
\end{array}$$ the corresponding poles of the approximate continuous-time dynamics in Eq. with DSR are given by the roots of $$\begin{array}{rl}
s^2 + \frac{(1-\beta)}{\beta \delta_t} s +\frac{\gamma_t \lambda_{K,i}}{\beta \delta_t} & = 0
\label{poles_approximation_DSR_continuous_modal}
\end{array}$$ or $$\begin{array}{rl}
s^2 + 2 \zeta_i \omega_i s + \omega_i^2 & = 0
\label{poles_approximation_DSR_continuous_modal_2}
\end{array}$$ where $$\begin{array}{rl}
\omega_i ~~ = \sqrt{ \frac{\gamma_t \lambda_{K,i} }{\beta \delta_t} }, & ~~\quad
2 \zeta_i \omega_i ~~ = \frac{(1-\beta)}{\beta \delta_t}.
\label{poles_approximation_DSR_continuous_modal_3}
\end{array}$$
Without DSR, let the settling time $T_{s,i}$ associated with eigenvalue $ \lambda_{K,i} $ be estimated from Eq. as a multiple of the time constant, the inverse of the distance of the eigenvalue from the imaginary axis in the complex plane, (and potential effects of eigenvalue multiplicity are neglected), i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
T_{s,i} & \approx \frac{4}{ | s_i | } = \frac{4}{ \gamma_t \lambda_{K,i} }.
\label{TSi_no_DSR}\end{aligned}$$ Critical damping for the corresponding eigenvalue with DSR (corresponding to eigenvalue $ \lambda_{K,i} $) occurs when damping $\zeta_i=1$, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\zeta_i = \frac{(1-\beta)}{2 \beta \delta_t}\sqrt{ \frac{\beta \delta_t} {\gamma_t \lambda_{K,i}} } = 1
\label{TSi_with_DSR_2}\end{aligned}$$ with solution $\beta^* < 1$ given by $$\begin{aligned}
\beta^* & = (1+2 \gamma_t \delta_t \lambda_{K,i}) -\sqrt{(1+2 \gamma_t \delta_t \lambda_{K,i})^2 -1} \\
& = \left(1+ \frac{8\delta_t}{T_{s,i} } \right) -\sqrt{ \left(1+\frac{8 \delta_t}{T_{s,i}} \right)^2 -1}.
\label{TSi_with_DSR_2_6}\end{aligned}$$ In this critically-damped case, the corresponding settling time $\hat{T}_{s,i}$ can be approximated, from Eqs. and , as (again, potential effects of eigenvalue multiplicity are neglected) $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{T}_{s,i} & \approx \frac{6}{\zeta_i \omega_i} ~ = \frac{6}{\omega_i} ~= 6 \sqrt{ \frac{\beta^* \delta_t} {\gamma_t \lambda_{K,i} } }
~ =
3 \sqrt{ {\beta^* \delta_t T_{s,i}} } .
\label{TSi_with_DSR_2_7}\end{aligned}$$
Let the pole $s_i$ of the approximate continuous-time dynamics in Eq. be the dominant dynamics (e.g., closest to the imaginary axis of the complex plane) without DSR. Then, the settling time $\hat{T}_{s,i}$ with DSR can be substantially smaller than the settling time $T_{s,i}$ without DSR, if the update time $\delta_t$ is small and if the settling time without DSR is large, i.e, $T_{s,i} \gg 1$, as seen from Eq. .
Results and discussion {#Results_and_Discussion}
======================
The step response of an example system, with and without DSR, are comparatively evaluated. Moreover, the impact of using DSR on the response of the networked system is illustrated when the networks state is the turn angle during turn maneuvers of a formation of agents.
Example networked system for simulation
---------------------------------------
The networked system used in simulation consists of $n=31$ non-source agents connected in a ring, with the leader (agent connected to the source) selected as $i^*=16$, which is connected to the source agent $i=n+1$. The neighbors of each non-source agent $i$ are given by $$\begin{array}{rll}
N_i = & \{i-1, i+1\} & \forall ~ 2 \le i \le n-1 ~ \& ~ i \ne i^* \\
= & \{n, 2\} & {\mbox{if}}~~ i =1 \\
= & \{n-1, 1\} & {\mbox{if}}~~ i =n \\
= & \{ i-1, i+1, n+1 \} & {\mbox{if}}~~ i =i^*
\end{array}$$ and weights $w_{ij}=1$ if agent $j$ is a neighbor of agent $i$, i.e., $ j \in N_i $ and zero otherwise. The eigenvalues $ \lambda_{K,i}$ of the pinned Laplacian $K$ in Eq. are real, positive and can be ordered as in Eq. with the smallest one $ \lambda_{K,1} = 0.0081$ and the largest one $\lambda_{K,n} = 4.2361$.
Selection of update gain
------------------------
From Lemma \[cor\_Stability\_and\_Update\_gain\_topological\_ordering\], the maximum value of the overall update gain $\gamma $ is given from Eq. as $$\begin{aligned}
0 ~ < \gamma ~ & < \frac{ 2 }{\lambda_{K,n}} = \overline{\gamma} ~\approx 0.47214.
\label{exp_stability_condition_cor_Update_gain}\end{aligned}$$ This is a tight bound on stability, as seen in Fig. \[fig\_3\_gamma\_effect\], the system becomes unstable at $\overline{\gamma}$ since the maximum magnitude of the eigenvalues $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_{P,max} ({\gamma})= \max_i |\lambda_{P,i} ({\gamma}) |
\end{aligned}$$ becomes one with $\gamma = \overline{\gamma} $, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_{P,max} (\overline{\gamma}) = |1 -\overline{\gamma} \lambda_{K,n} | = 1.
\end{aligned}$$ In the following, the overall update gain $\gamma$ is chosen to be $0.471$, which is close to the value where the maximum magnitude eigenvalue $\lambda_{P,max}(\gamma)$ is the smallest for fast settling as seen in Fig. \[fig\_3\_gamma\_effect\].
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![ (Top) Effect of overall update gain $\gamma $ on the maximum magnitude eigenvalue $\lambda_{P,max} = \max_i |\lambda_{P,i}|$ of the Perron matrix $P$, which is minimized at $\gamma = 0.47119$. (Bottom) Effect of DSR gain $\beta $ on the maximum magnitude eigenvalue $\lambda_{\hat{P},max} $ of the modified Perron matrix $\hat{P}$. []{data-label="fig_3_gamma_effect"}](effect_of_gamma.pdf "fig:"){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
![ (Top) Effect of overall update gain $\gamma $ on the maximum magnitude eigenvalue $\lambda_{P,max} = \max_i |\lambda_{P,i}|$ of the Perron matrix $P$, which is minimized at $\gamma = 0.47119$. (Bottom) Effect of DSR gain $\beta $ on the maximum magnitude eigenvalue $\lambda_{\hat{P},max} $ of the modified Perron matrix $\hat{P}$. []{data-label="fig_3_gamma_effect"}](effect_of_beta.pdf "fig:"){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Step response without DSR
-------------------------
With the update gain $\gamma = 0.471$, the response of the system with a step input of magnitude $\pi/2$ and update time $\delta_t=0.01$ s is shown in Fig. \[fig\_4\_step\_response\_con\_dis\]. The settling time $T_s$, defined as the time needed for the response to reach and stay within $2\%$ of the final value of $\pi/2$, is $T_s=12.04$ s, which matches the settling time $T_{s,c}=12.07$ s from the continuous-time network approximation in Eq. with the same optimal update gain $\gamma$. Note that these settling times are close to the predicted settling time of $T_{s,1} = 10.5$ s from Eq. of the approximated continuous-time dynamics Eq. using the smallest eigenvalue $ \lambda_{K,1} = 0.0081$ and $\gamma = 0.471$. The deviation in the predicted settling time with the continuous-time approximation is to be expected since several other eigenvalues are close to $ \lambda_{K,1}$. Without DSR, the above settling time of $T_s=12.04$ s is the fastest expected settling time for the linear discrete-time network with the fixed update time of $0.01$ s.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
![(Top) Response of discrete-time network with optimal update gain $\gamma$ to a step input $I_s$ of magnitude $\pi/2$ and update time of $\delta_t=0.01$ s. (Bottom) Similar step response of the approximate continuous-time network in Eq. with optimal update gain $\gamma$. The horizontal black lines represent $\pm2\%$ deviation from the final value of $\pi/2$. []{data-label="fig_4_step_response_con_dis"}](discrete_response.pdf "fig:"){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
![(Top) Response of discrete-time network with optimal update gain $\gamma$ to a step input $I_s$ of magnitude $\pi/2$ and update time of $\delta_t=0.01$ s. (Bottom) Similar step response of the approximate continuous-time network in Eq. with optimal update gain $\gamma$. The horizontal black lines represent $\pm2\%$ deviation from the final value of $\pi/2$. []{data-label="fig_4_step_response_con_dis"}](continuous_response.pdf "fig:"){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
Step response with DSR
----------------------
The settling time can be faster with the use of DSR. The network with DSR is expected to remain stable for DSR gain $\beta$ between $-0.0024$ and $1$ from Eq. in Lemma \[Lemma\_DSR\_stability\]. The variation of the maximum magnitude eigenvalue $\lambda_{\hat{P},max} = \max_i\{\lambda_{\hat{P},i} \} $ of the modified Perron matrix $\hat{P}$ with different DSR gain $\beta$ (at $0.01$ increments) is shown in Fig. \[fig\_3\_gamma\_effect\]. Note that the maximum magnitude eigenvalue $\lambda_{\hat{P},max} $ becomes one at the these boundary values $-0.0024,1 $ of the DSR gain $\beta$ indicating the tightness of the range estimate for stability in Eq. . The value of the DSR gain $\beta$ was selected to minimize the maximum magnitude of eigenvalues $\lambda_{\hat{P},max} $ of the modified Perron matrix $\hat{P}$ (over the computed $\beta$ values), since a larger maximum magnitude eigenvalue $\lambda_{\hat{P},max} $ tends to result in slower settling. The maximum magnitude of eigenvalues $\lambda_{\hat{P},max} $ was minimized at DSR gain $\beta = 0.8876$. This optimal DSR gain $\beta$ is close to the approximation-based prediction for critical damping of the eigenvalue associated with the smallest eigenvalue $\lambda_{K,1}$ of the pinned Laplacian $K$ from Eq. $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{-0.1in} \beta^* & = (1+2 \gamma \lambda_{K,1}) -\sqrt{(1+2 \gamma \lambda_{K,1})^2 -1} = 0.8840,
\label{TSi_with_DSR_example}\end{aligned}$$ that results in a predicted settling time, from Eq. , of $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{T}_{s,i} & \approx 6 \sqrt{ \frac{\beta^* \delta_t} {\gamma_t \lambda_{K,1} } } = 0.9149 s.
\label{TSi_with_DSR_2_7_example}\end{aligned}$$
The step response of the discrete-time system with and without DSR is compared in Fig. \[fig\_6\_step\_responses\]. The settling time with DSR is $0.90$ s, which is significantly small compared to the settling time of $12.04$ s without DSR. Moreover, the achieved settling time of $0.90$ s is close to that predicted with the approximation-based analysis of $0.9149$ s in Eq. . Thus, the proposed DSR approach enables faster settling time (more than an order-of-magnitude improvement) without the need to change the update rate ($\delta_t =0.01$ s) of the system.
The system without the DSR also would have a faster settling time of $T_s=0.90$ s if the update gain $\gamma_t$ was selected to be larger by the desired reduction in the settling time, i.e., $13.38 = 12.04/0.90$ and if the update time $\delta_t$ was smaller by the same factor $13.38$. This results in the same overall update gain $\gamma = \gamma_t \delta_t$, and requires the same number of discrete-time update steps (as in Fig. \[fig\_4\_step\_response\_con\_dis\]) for settling to within 2% of the final value, but the time interval between the updates is smaller by $13.38$.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![ Comparison of step response with and without DSR. The DSR gain was $\beta = 0.8876$. []{data-label="fig_6_step_responses"}](step_responses.pdf "fig:"){width="0.99\columnwidth"}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison with second-order discrete-event dynamics
----------------------------------------------------
Based on the approximate continuous-time analysis of the discrete-time system in Eq. , a faster response can be anticipated if each agent’s response is second-order. However, this can lead to instability when the update time $\delta_t$ is not changed because the effective stiffness of the system in Eq. is higher by $1/{\beta\delta_t}$ when compared to the original system approximation in Eq. .
To illustrate, based on Eq. , let the second-order discrete-time dynamics, with an update time of $\tilde{\delta}_t$, be given by $$\begin{array}{rl}
\tilde{I}(k+1) & = \tilde{I}(k) + \tilde{\delta}_t \tilde{K} \tilde{I}(k) + \tilde{\delta}_t \tilde{B} I_s(k) \\
& =\tilde{P} \tilde{I}(k) + \tilde{\delta}_t \tilde{B} I_s(k)
\end{array}
\label{system_with_source_2D_tilde}$$ where [[ $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{I}(k) & =
\left[ \begin{array}{c}
I(k) \\
\dot{I} (k)
\end{array} \right]
, \quad
\tilde{B} = \frac{\gamma_t}{\beta \delta_t}
\left[ \begin{array}{c}
0 \\
B
\end{array} \right] \\[0.5em]
\tilde{K} & =
\left[ \begin{array}{cc}
0 & {\textbf{I}}_{n\times n} \\
-\frac{\gamma_t}{\beta \delta_t} K ~~~ & -\frac{(1-\beta)}{\beta \delta_t} {\textbf{I}}_{n\times n}
\end{array} \right]
\\[0.5em]
\tilde{P} & =
\left[ \begin{array}{cc}
{\textbf{I}}_{n\times n} & \tilde{\delta}_t {\textbf{I}}_{n\times n} \\
-\frac{\gamma_t\tilde{\delta}_t}{\beta \delta_t} K ~~~ & \left(1-\frac{(1-\beta)\tilde{\delta}_t}{\beta \delta_t}\right) {\textbf{I}}_{n\times n}
\end{array} \right] .
\label{system_with_source_2D_defs_tilde}\end{aligned}$$ ]{}]{}
With the same update time $\tilde{\delta}_t = \delta_t = 1 \times 10^{-2}$ s, this system is unstable with a maximum magnitude of eigenvalues $\max_i{\lambda_{\tilde{P},i}} = 1.7667$. Reducing the update time by the scaling factor $ \delta_t \beta$ in Eq. , i.e., $\tilde{\delta}_t = \delta_t ( \delta_t \beta) = 8.8759 \times 10^{-5}$ s results in a stable second-order system dynamics with a maximum magnitude of eigenvalues $\max_i{\lambda_{\tilde{P},i}} = 0.9995$ and a settling time of $0.9399$ s for a similar response as that of the system with DSR as seen in Fig. \[fig\_8\_step\_responses\_2ndorder\]. Note that a larger update time of $\tilde{\delta}_t = \delta_t (10 \delta_t \beta) = 8.8759 \times 10^{-4}$ s leads to instability, with a maximum magnitude of eigenvalues $\max_i{\lambda_{\tilde{P},i}} = 1.0032$. Thus, the order-of-magnitude settling-time reduction with the second-order system also requires an at-least an order-of-magnitude smaller update time. In contrast, the proposed DSR approach enables the faster overall response without the need to use a smaller update time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![ Comparison of step response for (i) the system with DSR and update time $\delta_t= 1 \times 10^{-2}$ s and (ii) the second-order system in Eq. with a smaller update time $\tilde{\delta}_t= 8.8759 \times 10^{-5}$ s. []{data-label="fig_8_step_responses_2ndorder"}](step_responses_2ndorder.pdf "fig:"){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact on ability to maintain a formation
-----------------------------------------
The impact of the increased response speed with DSR, on the ability to maintain relative positions in a formation (without additional control actions) is also illustrated in the following. If the state $I$ is considered to be the orientation of agents on a plane, then a faster response will allow the agents to rapidly coordinating turns and better maintain formations. To illustrate, the $x-y$ position of each agent $i$ was computed with the state $I_i$ considered to be the orientation of the agent moving with unit speed, as $$\begin{array}{rl}
x_i(k+1) = x_i(k) + \delta_t \cos[I_i(k)] \\
y_i(k+1) = y_i(k) + \delta_t \sin[I_i(k)].
\end{array}
\label{eq_formation}$$ Initially, the agents are uniformly arranged in a unit circle in the $x-y$ plane centered at the origin. Deviations in the orientations $I$ lead to distortions of this initial formation. The resulting final formations are compared with and without DSR in Fig. \[fig\_7\_compare\_xy\].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![ Comparison of initial (black) and final $x-y$ formation from Eq. with DSR (blue) and without DSR (red). Initially, the agents are uniformly arranged on a unit circle centered at the origin shown in black. The final formation at time $t=12.04$ s is shown in red without DSR and blue with DSR. The spatial movement of the leader $i^*$ (solid line) and agent $i=n$ (dotted line) are compared with DSR (blue) and without DSR (red). []{data-label="fig_7_compare_xy"}](compare_xy.pdf "fig:"){width="0.995\columnwidth"}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that, without DSR, the movement of the leader $i^*$ (closest to the information source) is substantially different from that of agent $i=n$, which is further away from the information source, which leads to substantial distortion of the formation over time. In contrast, the use of DSR reduces the deviations between the agents as seen in Fig. \[fig\_6\_step\_responses\], which results in less distortion of the formation, without additional control effort to maintain the formation. Moreover, the smaller settling time implies that the maneuver from initial orientation of $I_i=0$ to the final orientation of $I_i = \pi/2$ requires less turn-space to accomplish. In this sense, the proposed DSR can lead to improved spatial and temporal response of networked agents, without having to decrease the update time.
Conclusions
===========
The delayed self-reinforcement (DSR) method was developed in this article to enable faster network response without the need to increase the individual agent’s update rate. Stability conditions were developed to facilitate the selection of the DSR-gain parameter. The approach was shown to approximate a higher second-order dynamics for modes corresponding to the smaller eigenvalues of the dynamics. However, the DSR approach does not require the increased update rate that would be required for stable operation of such higher second-order dynamics. Simulation results showed that the optimally selected DSR parameters were close to the approximation-based estimates of the DSR parameters. Simulation results also showed that the proposed DSR method can lead to more than an order of magnitude improvement in the settling time.
[10]{}
Tamás Vicsek, András Czirók, Eshel Ben-Jacob, Inon Cohen, and Ofer Shochet. Novel type of phase transition in a system of self-driven particles. , 75:1226–1229, Aug 1995.
A Huth and C Wissel. The simulation of the movement of fish schools. , 156(3):365–385, Jun 7 1992.
A. Jadbabaie, Jie Lin, and A. S. Morse. Coordination of groups of mobile autonomous agents using nearest neighbor rules. , 48(6):988–1001, June 2003.
Wei Ren and R. W. Beard. Consensus seeking in multiagent systems under dynamically changing interaction topologies. , 50(5):655–661, May 2005.
R. Olfati-Saber. Flocking for multi-agent dynamic systems: algorithms and theory. , 51(3):401–420, March 2006.
Iasson Karafyllis and Markos Papageorgiou. . , [2]{}([1]{}):[68–77]{}, [Mar]{} [2015]{}.
A. Attanasi, A. Cavagna, L Del Castello, I. Giardina, T.S. Grigera, A. Jelic, S. Melillo, L. Parisi, O. Pohl, E. Shen, and M. Viale. Information transfer and behavioural inertia in starling flocks. , 10(9):615–698, Sep 1 2014.
D. E. Rumelhart, G. E. Hinton, and R. J. Williams. . MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1986.
Ning Qian. On the momentum term in gradient descent learning algorithms. , 12(1):145 – 151, 1999.
Weisheng Chen, Shaoyong Hua, and Shuzhi Sam Ge. . , [50]{}([9]{}):[2254–2268]{}, [Sep]{} [2014]{}.
Eelco P. van Horssen and Siep Weiland. . , [3]{}([3]{}):[286–295]{}, [Sep]{} [2016]{}.
R. [Olfati-Saber]{}, J.A. Fax, and R.M. Murray. Consensus and cooperation in networked multi-agent systems. , 95(1):215–233, Jan 2007.
Ruggero Carli, Fabio Fagnani, Alberto Speranzon, and Sandro Zampieri. . , [44]{}([3]{}):[671–684]{}, Mar [2008]{}.
Stephen Boyd, Persi Diaconis, and Lin Xiao. Fastest mixing markov chain on a graph. , 46(4):667–689, April 2004.
Maria Pia Fanti, Agostino Marcello Mangini, Francesca Mazzia, and Walter Ukovich. . , [54]{}:[1–7]{}, [Apr]{} [2015]{}.
Bo Zhao, Feng Lin, Caisheng Wang, Xuesong Zhang, Michael P. Polis, and Le Yi Wang. . , [4]{}([2]{}):[146–158]{}, [Jun]{} [2017]{}.
Liang Xu, Nan Xiao, and Lihua Xie. . , [71]{}:[292–299]{}, [Sep]{} [2016]{}.
N. Meskin and K. Khorasani. . , [45]{}([9]{}):[2032–2040]{}, Sep [2009]{}.
Keyou You and Lihua Xie. . , [56]{}([10]{}):[2262–2275]{}, Oct [2011]{}.
W. T. Tuttle. . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2001.
J.M. Ortega. . Plenum Press, New York, 1987.
[^1]: S. Devasia is with Faculty of Mechanical Engineering Department, U. of Washington, Seattle, WA 08195-2600 USA [[email protected]]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We investigate the performance of algebraic multigrid methods for the solution of the linear system of equations arising from a Virtual Element discretization. We provide numerical experiments on very general polygonal meshes for a model elliptic problem with and without highly heterogeneous diffusion coefficients and we draw conclusions regarding the efficacy of the method.'
address:
- 'IMATI “E. Magenes”, CNR, Pavia (Italy)'
- 'IMATI “E. Magenes”, CNR, Pavia (Italy)'
author:
- Daniele Prada
- Micol Pennacchio
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
- 'biblioAMG.bib'
title: ' Algebraic Multigrid Methods for Virtual Element Discretizations: a numerical study '
---
[^1]
Methods {#sec:methods}
-------
As iterative solvers, we used the conjugate gradient method implemented in PETSc [@petsc-web-page] and its interfaces to different AMG preconditioners, with default settings. More precisely we considered:
- GAMG: native AMG preconditioner implemented in PETSc. We tested two different versions: a classical AMG method (c-GAMG) and a smoothed aggregation AMG method (a-GAMG) [@petsc-user-ref].
- BoomerAMG: a parallel algebraic multigrid solver and preconditioner, which is part of the *hypre* library [@falgout2006] (<http://www.llnl.gov/CASC/hypre/>).
- ML: Multi Level Preconditioning Package, a smoothed aggregation algebraic preconditioner developed at Sandia National Laboratories [@ml-guide] (<https://trilinos.org/packages/ml/>).
We also compared the performance of several direct solvers, which were called via the interfaces available in PETSc [@petsc-web-page]:
- SuperLU and SuperLU\_Dist: sparse LU codes developed by Jim Demmel, Xiaoye S. Li, and John Gilbert [@li05] ([http://crd-legacy.lbl.gov/˜xiaoye/SuperLU](http://crd-legacy.lbl.gov/˜xiaoye/SuperLU));
- UMFPACK: part of the SuiteSparse package developed by Timothy Davis [@davis2004-umfpack] (<http://www.cise.ufl.edu/research/sparse/>);
- MUMPS: MUltifrontal Massively Parallel sparse direct Solver, developed by Patrick Amestoy, Iain Duff, Jacko Koster, and Jean-Yves L’Excellent [@amestoy2001; @amestoy2006] (<http://www.enseeiht.fr/lima/apo/MUMPS/credits.html>);
- PaStiX: Parallel LU and Cholesky solvers [@henon2002] (<http://pastix.gforge.inria.fr/>).
SuperLU and UMFPACK are sequential solvers, whereas SuperLU\_Dist, MUMPS, and PaStiX can handle distributed memory systems. These last three solvers were run using $2$ processes.
All the experiments were run on a machine equipped with processor Intel$^\text{\textregistered}$ Core$^\text{\texttrademark}$ i7-7820HQ, operating system Ubuntu Linux 16.04 LTS, memory 64GB, 2400MHz DDR4 Non-ECC SDRAM.
Numerical tests {#sec:numerical}
===============
In this section we present results for the solution of linear systems arising from the discretization with the virtual element method of degree one of the following model problem: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:poisson}
-\nabla\cdot(\rho \nabla u) &= f\qquad \text{in }\Omega = (0,1)^2,\\
u &= 0\qquad \text{on }\partial\Omega,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ with $\rho$ diffusion coefficient. Boundary conditions and loading term are chosen so that $u = \frac{1}{2\pi^2}\sin(2\pi x)\sin(2\pi y)$ is the exact solution. Several different meshes and diffusion coefficients $\rho$ are considered. We start testing a constant-coefficient diffusion problem on a regular polygonal mesh, then we deal with irregular polygonal meshes, agglomeration of meshes and finally, highly heterogeneous coefficients $\rho$.
We analyze the performance of the Conjugate Gradient method (CG) preconditioned with different AMG preconditioners. All problems are run with different AMG codes but with fixed parameters.
Let $\Omega$ and $\Th$ be the computational domain and a polygonal tessellation, respectively. We define:
- $N_\textup{elt}$, number of polygons of $\Th$,
- $N_\textup{v}$, number of vertices of $\Th$.
- $\displaystyle h = \max_{K\in\Th} h_K$, where $h_K$ is the diameter of element $K\in \Th$.
- $\displaystyle h_\textup{min} = \min_{K\in\Th} h_{\textup{min},K}$, where $h_{\textup{min},K}$ is the minimum distance between any two vertices of $K$.
- $\displaystyle \gamma_0 = \max_{K\in\Th}\frac{h_K}{\rho_K}$, where $\rho_K$ is the radius of the largest ball that is contained inside $K$.
- $\displaystyle \gamma_1 = \max_{K\in\Th}\frac{h_K}{h_{\textup{min},K}}$.
We consider different meshes by varying the shape of each cell and we study if the performance of the methods is affected by the shape of the cell and/or the presence of very small/large edges. We deal with the following different polygonal meshes $\Th$:
1) regular hexagons meshes (Figure \[fig:hexa\]);
2) Voronoi meshes from uniformly random seed points (Figure \[fig:mesh-voro\]);
3) meshes of “horse” cell (Figure \[fig:mesh-horse\]); each horse is made up of 76 edges;
4) sequence of meshes obtained by embedding successive iterates of the Koch snowflake into a rectangle (Figure \[fig:mesh-koch\]).
We remark that Voronoi and hexagonal meshes are the ones more likely to be used, whereas all the other meshes are considered here only for stress testing of AMG preconditioners. In particular we observe that snowflake meshes are particularly complex and challenging, as they are characterized by very small edges on the boundary of the snowflake and greater edges on the boundary of the square. These meshes may be of interest in domains with periodic structures.
Moreover, in view of a possible use of AMG in an adaptive approach, we also deal with meshes obtained by agglomerating an underlying fine mesh. More precisely, we consider different Voronoi and horse meshes and build coarse grid elements by agglomerating fine grid elements, that is, we deal with:
5) aggregates of Voronoi cells (Figure \[fig:mesh-voro-agg\]),
6) aggregates of “horse” cells (Figure \[fig:mesh-horse-agg\]).
Let us now analyze the results. The first Tables \[tab:mesh-hexa\],\[tab:mesh-voro\],\[tab:mesh-horse\],\[tab:mesh-voro-agg\],\[tab:mesh-horse-agg\] list the values of the geometrical parameters defined above for each mesh considered; we recall that the number of unknowns coincides with the number of vertices $N_\textup{v}$. Then, in Tables \[tab:k1-hexa\],\[tab:k1-voro\],\[tab:k1-horse\],\[tab:k1-koch\] and \[tab:k1-voro-agg\],\[tab:k1-horse-agg\] (for the case of aggregates of cells), we report, for each mesh, the condition number $\kappa$ of the matrix $A$ in (\[system\]) with and without AMG preconditioning. The condition numbers are numerical approximations computed from the standard tridiagonal Lanczos matrix generated during the preconditioned CG iteration as the ratio between the maximum and the minimum eigenvalues, see e.g. [@GolubVanLoan_1996]. Since in the following we deal also with a performance comparison of different (iterative and direct) solvers available in PETSc, the stopping criterion fixed for CG is defined by the relative residual error obtained with the direct solver SuperLU\_DIST (see `atol` reported in each Table).
We start by presenting the behavior of the condition number and of the iteration count when hexagonal meshes are taken into account. In this case the scalability of all the AMG preconditioners considered is clearly shown in Table \[tab:k1-hexa\]: the iteration count to converge does not depend on the number of the mesh nodes. If we pass from hexagonal to Voronoi meshes (see Table \[tab:k1-voro\]), which are characterized by worse geometrical parameters, we notice only a slight increase in the number of iterations and in the condition number while the scalability is still preserved.
Instead, when dealing with horse or snowflake elements, we note an increase in the number of iterations (Tables \[tab:k1-horse\]-\[tab:k1-koch\]); scalability is not preserved by c-GAMG. The best results are obtained by using BoomerAMG for the horse meshes and ML for the snowflake meshes. In this last case, scalability is preserved also by BoomerAMG and a-GAMG, but with a higher number of iterations. Similar results can also be observed with meshes of agglomerates of Voronoi or horse cells (see Tables \[tab:k1-voro-agg\] and \[tab:k1-horse-agg\]). As before, BoomerAMG outperforms the other preconditioners, but, for the agglomerates of snowflakes cells, it still exhibits a high number of iterations, thereby worsening its computational performance, as we will see in the next sections.
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
We numerically investigated the performance of AMG preconditioners for the solution of a model elliptic problem on polygonal meshes employing the virtual element method. The tested meshes range from the most regular hexagonal to more complex and challenging grids that may mimic features of more realistic problems such as those based on periodic cellular structures. Our results show that CG accelerated multigrid (AMG/CG) is very effective when dealing with either regular (hexagonal) or Voronoi and aggregates of Voronoi meshes. Moreover, our tests showed that BoomerAMG is also robust if highly varying diffusion coefficients are considered for both set of meshes considered. Hinging on the results of the present paper, the adoption of AMG preconditioners (in particular BoomerAMG) seems to be a promising approach for solving large linear systems of equations associated with a VEM discretization, in terms of both scalability and reduction of the overall computational cost.
However, we also verified that, when more complex and challenging meshes are taken into account, such as meshes with many tiny (when compared to the diameter of the elements) edges, most of the considered AMG preconditioners do not preserve scalability, whilst those that retain it, like BoomerAMG or ML, lose most of their efficiency. Certainly, the linear system associated with the VEM discretization based on these meshes deserves further investigations that will be addressed in future works.
[^1]: [This paper has been realized in the framework of ERC Project CHANGE, which has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement No 694515). ]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Following Haken [@Ha] and Casson-Gordon [@CG], it was shown in [@Sc] that given a reducing sphere or ${\mbox{$\partial$}}$-reducing disk $S$ in a Heegaard split manifold $M$ in which every sphere separates, the Heegaard surface $T$ can be isotoped so that it intersects $S$ in a single circle. Here we show that when this is achieved by two different positionings of $T$, one can be moved to the other by a sequence of
- isotopies of $T$ rel $S$
- pushing a stabilizing pair of $T$ through $S$ and
- eyegelass twists of $T$.
This last move is inspired by one of Powell’s proposed generators for the Goeritz group [@Po].
address:
- |
- Microsoft Station Q\
University of California\
Santa Barbara, CA 93106-6105\
and\
Mathematics Department\
University of California\
Santa Barbara, CA 93106-3080 USA
- |
- Martin Scharlemann\
Mathematics Department\
University of California\
Santa Barbara, CA 93106-3080 USA
author:
- Michael Freedman
- Martin Scharlemann
title: 'Uniqueness in Haken’s Theorem'
---
It is a classic theorem of Haken [@Ha] that any Heegaard splitting $M = A \cup_T B$ of a closed orientable reducible $3$-manifold $M$ is reducible; that is, there is an essential sphere in the manifold that intersects $T$ in a single circle. Casson-Gordon [@CG Lemma 1.1] refined and generalized the theorem, showing that it applies also to essential disks, when $M$ has boundary and, more specifically, if $E$ is a disjoint union of essential disks and $2$-spheres in $M$ then there is a similar family $E^*$, obtained from $E$ by ambient $1$-surgery and isotopy, so that each component of $E^*$ intersects $T$ in a single circle. (We say $E^*$ is a $T$-reducing system in $M$.) It is now known [@Sc] that in fact we may take $E^* = E$ so long as every sphere in $M$ separates.
Here we consider a naturally related uniqueness question: Suppose $E_0$ and $E_1$ are each $T$-reducing systems in $M$, and the systems $E_0$, $E_1$ are isotopic rel ${\mbox{$\partial$}}$ in $M$. Is $E_0$ isotopic to $E_1$ [*via $T$-reducing systems*]{}?
Counterexamples spring to mind, even when $M$ is irreducible and each $E_i$ is simply a single disk.
[**Example:**]{} Suppose $E_0$ is a ${\mbox{$\partial$}}$-reducing disk for $M$ which intersects $T$ in a single circle, so it is a ${\mbox{$\partial$}}$-reducing disk for $T$. Suppose $T$ is stabilized, with stabilizing disks $D_A \subset A$, $D_B \subset B$ and both disks are disjoint from $E_0$. A regular neighborhood of $D_A \cup D_B$ is a ball ${\mbox{$\beta$}}$ which $T$ intersects in a standard genus $1$ summand. We call such a pair $({\mbox{$\beta$}}, T)$ a [*standard bubble*]{}. We can imagine ${\mbox{$\beta$}}$ as a small ball, the regular neighborhood of a point in the destabilized Heegaard surface $T'$. Now isotope ${\mbox{$\beta$}}$ along a path in $T'$ which passes once through $E_0$, and let $E_1$ be the result of pushing $E_0$ by the resulting ambient isotopy of $M$. Then $E_0$ and $E_1$ are isotopic, but they can’t be isotopic via ${\mbox{$\partial$}}$-reducing disks for $T$, since the circles $T \cap E_i, i = 0, 1$ are not isotopic in $T$.
[**Example:**]{} More subtly, suppose $D_A$, $D_B$ are disjoint essential disks in $A$ and $B$ respectively, and $\gamma$ is a path in $T$ connecting their boundaries. The complex $D_A \cup \gamma \cup D_B$ is called an [*eyeglass*]{} for $T$ ([@FS Definition 2.1]). Associated to such an eyeglass is an isotopy of $T$ in $M$ back to itself (with support near the eyeglass) called an [*eyeglass twist*]{}. It is illustrated in Figure \[fig:eyeglass1\]. Suppose $E_0$ is a reducing disk for $T$ and the circle $E_0 \cap T$ essentially intersects the bridge $\gamma$ of the eyeglass. Then the disk $E_1$ obtained by pushing $E_0$ along by the resulting ambient isotopy of $M$ cannot be isotopic via ${\mbox{$\partial$}}$-reducing disks, again since the circles $T \cap E_i, i = 0, 1$ are not isotopic in $T$.
$D_A$ at 110 130 $\gamma$ at 155 133 $D_B$ at 200 135 ![Eyeglass twist[]{data-label="fig:eyeglass1"}](eyeglass1 "fig:")
Our goal is to show that the two operations just described are essentially the only two obstacles to uniqueness in general, so long as every 2-spheres separates. The extra condition is needed only to invoke [@Sc].
Background and results
======================
Suppose $M = A \cup_T B$ is a Heegaard splitting of a compact orientable $3$-manifold.
\[defin:reducer\] A disjoint collection of reducing spheres and ${\mbox{$\partial$}}$-reducing disks for $M$ is an $M$-reducing system; each element is called an $M$-reducer.
For $M = A \cup_T B$ a Heegaard splitting, say an $M$-reducing system (resp $M$-reducer) is a $T$-reducing system (resp $T$-reducer) if each component intersects $T$ in a single circle. A disk $M$-reducer whose boundary lies in ${\mbox{$\partial$}}_- A$ (resp ${\mbox{$\partial$}}_- B$) is an $A$-disk (resp $B$-disk).
Given an $M$-reducing system $E$, a positioning of $T$ so that $E$ is a $T$-reducing system is called a [*solution*]{} to the $M$-reducing system.
Suppose $(E, {\mbox{$\partial$}}E) \subset (M, {\mbox{$\partial$}}M)$ is a $T$-reducing system in $M$.
Let $S \subset M$ be a reducing sphere for $T$ that is disjoint from $E$ and cuts off a genus $1$ stabilizing summand of $T$ inside a ball. Let $\gamma$ be an arc in $T$ with one end at a component ${\mbox{$\overline{E}$}}$ of $E$, the other end at $S \cap T$, and $\gamma$ is otherwise disjoint from both $E$ and $S$. Alter ${\mbox{$\overline{E}$}}$ by tube summing it to $S$ along a neighborhood of $\gamma$ and call the result ${\mbox{$\overline{E}$}}'$. Replace ${\mbox{$\overline{E}$}}$ by ${\mbox{$\overline{E}$}}'$ in $E$ and call the result $E'$. $E'$ is obtained by a [*bubble move*]{} on $E$ along $\gamma$ with bubble $S$.
We can think of $S$ as a ‘bubble’ that passes through $E$ to create $E'$. Note that $E$ and $E'$ are properly isotopic in $M$.
Let $(D_A, {\mbox{$\partial$}}D_A) \subset (A, {\mbox{$\partial$}}A)$ and $(D_B, {\mbox{$\partial$}}D_B) \subset (B, {\mbox{$\partial$}}B)$ be disjoint essential disks that are also disjoint from $E$. Let $\gamma$ be an arc in $T$ transverse to $E$, with one end at ${\mbox{$\partial$}}D_A$, other end at ${\mbox{$\partial$}}D_B$, and otherwise disjoint from $D_A \cup D_B$. Perform an eyeglass twist on $T$ using the eyeglass $D_A \cup \gamma \cup D_B$. The eyeglass twist returns $T$ to itself, but may alter $E$. The image $E'$ of $E$ is said to be obtained from $E$ by an eyeglass twist.
Note that if $E$ is disjoint from the eyeglass then $E = E'$; in any case $E$ and $E'$ are properly isotopic in $M$.
Suppose $E_0$ and $E_1$ are each a $T$-reducing system in $M$. An isotopy $E_s, 0 \leq s \leq 1$ from $E_0$ to $E_1$ in $M$ is an equivalence (and $E_0, E_1$ are equivalent) if $E_s$ is a $T$-reducing system for all $s$.
$E_0$ and $E_1$ are [*congruent*]{} if a sequence of equivalences, bubble moves and eyeglass twists carries $E_0$ to $E_1$.
We intend to show:
\[thm:main\] Suppose every $2$-sphere in $M$ separates. If $E_0, E_1$ are $T$-reducing systems that are properly isotopic in $M$, then $E_0$ and $ E_1$ are congruent.
In conjunction with [@Sc], this means that, when $M$ contains no $S^1 \times S^2$ summand, any $M$-reducing system is isotopic in $M$ to a $T$-reducing system that is unique up to congruence.
For the purposes of the proof we will assume that ${\mbox{$\partial$}}M$ contains no sphere components; these add a small amount of complexity, which we leave for the reader to resolve.
[**Example:**]{} Theorem \[thm:main\] is obvious for reducing spheres $E_0, E_1$ that intersect $T$ in disjoint circles: Then each component of $E_0 \cap E_1$ is a circle lying in either $A$ or $B$. An innermost one in $E_0 \cap A$, say, cuts off also a subdisk of $E_1 \cap A$. Since $A$ is irreducible, the latter disk can be isotoped to the former in $A$. Eventually such isotopies make $E_0$ and $E_1$ disjoint, so they are parallel in $M$. The splitting that $T$ induces inside of the collar between them is simply a sum of stabilizing pairs, per Waldhausen ([@Wa], [@R]), which can be passed through $E_0$ bubble by bubble until the spheres are equivalent. A similar argument applies if $E_0, E_1$ are ${\mbox{$\partial$}}$-reducing disks. So the interest focuses on cases in which $E_0 \cap E_1 \cap T \neq \emptyset$.
Sweepouts, spines, and labels for the graphic
=============================================
Here we briefly review the classical sweep-out technology on $M = A \cup_T B$. $A$ (and also $B$) is a compression-body, which can be viewed (dually to the original definition in [@Bo]) as a compact connected orientable $3$-manifold obtained from a (possibly disconnected) surface $\times I$ by attaching $1$-handles to surface $\times \{1\}$. The boundary of $A$ is the disjoint union of ${\mbox{$\partial$}}_- A =$ surface $\times \{0\}$ and a connected surface denoted ${\mbox{$\partial$}}_+ A$. From its construction we see that $A$ deformation retracts to the union of ${\mbox{$\partial$}}_- A$ and the cores of the $1$-handles, where the latter are extended down through ${\mbox{$\partial$}}_- A \times I$ via the product structure.
More generally, a [*spine*]{} ${\mbox{$\Sigma$}}$ of $A$ is the union of ${\mbox{$\partial$}}_- A$ and a certain type of graph in $A$: all valence $1$ vertices in the graph lie on ${\mbox{$\partial$}}_- A$, and $A$ deformation retracts to ${\mbox{$\Sigma$}}$; indeed $A - {\mbox{$\Sigma$}}\cong {\mbox{$\partial$}}_+ A \times (0, 1]$. (Sometimes we will not distinguish between ${\mbox{$\Sigma$}}$ and a thin regular neighborhood of ${\mbox{$\Sigma$}}$.) $A$ has many spines, but in an argument that goes back to Whitehead [@Wh] (who was concerned with spheres, not disks) one can change one spine to any other by a sequence of “edge-slides”, in which one edge is slid over others and along ${\mbox{$\partial$}}_- A$ [@ST Section 1].
A properly embedded annulus in $A$ is [*spanning*]{} if its two boundary components lie, one each, in ${\mbox{$\partial$}}_+ A$ and ${\mbox{$\partial$}}_- A$. Let $E_A \subset A$ be a properly embedded disjoint collection of spanning annuli and disks that compress ${\mbox{$\partial$}}_+A$ in $A$. Essentially the same argument as in [@ST Section 1] shows that there is a spine ${\mbox{$\Sigma$}}$ for $A$ with the properties:
- Each disk in $E_A$ intersects ${\mbox{$\Sigma$}}$ in a single meridian of an edge.
- Each annulus in $E_A$ intersects ${\mbox{$\Sigma$}}$ only in ${\mbox{$\partial$}}_- A$.
Moreover, given $E_A$, one can choose the parameterization $A - {\mbox{$\Sigma$}}\cong {\mbox{$\partial$}}_+ A \times (0, 1]$ so that the half-open annuli $E_A - {\mbox{$\Sigma$}}$ are parameterized as $(E_A \cap {\mbox{$\partial$}}_+ A) \times (0, 1]$. We will say that such a spine and parameterization [*comports with $E_A$*]{}. Note that, via Hatcher’s work [@Ha1] ,[@Ha2], the exact parameterization involves no choice, in the sense that its space of parameters is contractible.
Combining these ideas, if $E'_A \subset A$ is another such collection, then one can move from a spine (and associated parameterization) that comports with $E_A$ to one that comports with $E'_A$ via a sequence of edge slides.
Now we export all these ideas to the setting at hand: a Heegaard split $M = A \cup_T B$ and two $T$-reducing systems $E_0$ and $E_1$ that are isotopic in $M$. Each $E_i$ intersects each compression-body $A$ (resp $B$) in a collection of spanning annuli and essential disks $E_{i, A} = E_i \cap A$ (resp $E_{i, B} = E_i \cap B$). Choose spines ${\mbox{$\Sigma$}}_{i, A} \subset A$ (resp $ {\mbox{$\Sigma$}}_{i, B}\subset B$) so that each comports with $E_{i, A}$ (resp $E_{i, B}$). For each $i = 0, 1$ combine the comporting parameterizations in each compression-body, to parameterize the entire complement of the spines in $M$ as $T \times (0, 1)$, picking the convention that the spine of $A$ is the limit of $T \times \{t\}$ as $t \to 0$. Then the complement of the spines in $M$ is swept-out by copies of $T$ in such a way that each copy of $T$ intersects each component of $E_i$ in a single circle. Denote the copy $T \times \{t\}$ in such a sweepout by $T_t$.
The core argument will mirror that of [@FS Section 4], with the isotopy $E_s, 0 \leq s \leq 1$ from $E_0$ to $E_1$ replacing what was there a sweepout of $S^3$ by level $2$-spheres. In addition we use $s$ to simultaneously parameterize a movie of the sequence of edge slides on the spines that take ${\mbox{$\Sigma$}}_{0, A} \cup {\mbox{$\Sigma$}}_{0, B}$ to ${\mbox{$\Sigma$}}_{1, A} \cup {\mbox{$\Sigma$}}_{1, B}$. Together, this sweep-out and the isotopy $E_s$ (together with edge slides on the spines) produce a “graphic" ${\mbox{$\Gamma$}}$ in the $(t, s)$-square $I \times I$.
The graphic consists of open regions $R_i$ where $E_s$ and $T_t$ intersect transversely, edges or “walls" where the two have a tangency, and cusp points where two types of tangencies cancel. As argued in [@RS] only domain walls corresponding to saddle tangencies need to be tracked. Cusps and tangencies of index 2 or 0 can be erased as they amount only to births/deaths of inessential simple closed curves of intersection in $E_s \cap T_t$. The most interesting event which occurs are transverse crossings of saddle walls; at this point two independent saddle tangencies occur.
Label a region of the graphic as follows:
- Ignore circles in $T_t \cap E_s$ that are inessential in $T_t$,
- Label the region $A$ if there is a circle $a$ of $T_t \cap E_s$ so that either
- $a$ is innermost in $E_s$ among essential circles in $T_t \cap E_s$, and the disk in $E_s$ that it bounds lies in $A$ or
- $a$ is parallel in $E_s$ to a boundary component, and the collar between them lies in $A$
- Label a region $B$ if there are [*no*]{} such circles $a$ as above, but there is [*at least one circle*]{} $T_t \cap E_s$ that is innermost in $E_s$ among essential circles in $T_t \cap E_s$ and the disk in $E_s$ that it bounds lies in $B$.
Note that the definition of the labeling breaks symmetry: A collar of ${\mbox{$\partial$}}A$ is counted as if it were an innermost disk but a collar of ${\mbox{$\partial$}}B$ is not; and a region in which there are essential disks in both $A$ and $B$ is labeled $A$.
In the figures illustrating our argument we will distinguish between the compression-bodies $A$ and $B$ by color: pinkish (nominally red) will denote $A$, while azure (nominally blue) will denote $B$. This distinction will color regions of $E$ cut out by $T$ alternately red and blue.
For example, consider Figure \[fig:hidden\]. The bi-colored horizontal plane shows part of a component of $E$. Two parts of $T$ are shown
- a large-diameter vertical annulus, separating the visible part of $E$ into a blue unbounded region and a red ‘pair of pants’; and
- an inverted-U-shaped annulus that separates a blue $1$-handle of $B$ (the ‘blue tube’) from the part of $A$ that contains the red pair of pants.
Figure \[fig:hidden\] shows the blue tube bounded by part of $T$ being lowered through the reducer $E$. In so doing the $(s, t)$ parameter designating the two surfaces passes from one region of the graphic to another. An astute viewer will notice a gray area at the top of the blue tube reflecting ambiguity on what might lie there: Is the top of the tube just a disk, or does a chimney filled with blue ascend through it? This could be an important question, as we will discuss shortly.
We will also use the red-blue coloring scheme on the graphic: Regions that are labeled $A$ will be colored red; those labeled $B$ will be colored blue. Skip ahead to Figure \[fig:graphicsketch\] to see how the coloring scheme might then appear in $I \times I$ containing the graphic. The idea of the proof of Theorem \[thm:main\] can already be discerned in this figure: Ultimately we will walk around the outside boundary of the big red region and observe that every step corresponds to some combination of an isotopy, a bubble move or an eyeglass twist.
Return now to the ongoing argument: The first labeling rule above – ignore circles of intersection that are inessential in $T_t$ – raises a [*caveat*]{}:
When we say that an essential circle $a$ bounds a disk in $A$ (similarly for $B$), what is technically meant is that there is a planar surface $P \subset A$ whose boundary consists of $a$ and, possibly, a collection of circles that are inessential in $T$.
$E$ at 30 120 $T$ at 195 150 $T$ at 185 100 ![Label change or not?[]{data-label="fig:hidden"}](hidden "fig:")
As a consequence, crossing from one region of the graphic to another may change the label from $B$ to $A$ in surprising ways, as shown in Figure \[fig:hidden\]. As the saddle point in $T$ passes down through $E$, the label will change from $B$ to $A$ if the grey disk at the top is inessential in $T$. If the grey disk is essential in $T$, so $T$ ascends beyond it, the label remains $B$. The difference between the two situations cannot be determined just by examining the behavior of $E \cap T$.
Labels around the boundary of the graphic
=========================================
In thinking about the labeling scheme, consider first the situation near $s = 0, 1$. Since the parameterization $T \times (0, 1)$ in each case comports with $E$, any component of $ E_i$ is swept out by a single circle. One side of the circle is a disk or annulus lying entirely in $A$. Thus all regions near $s = 0, 1$ are labeled $A$. Also, near $t = 0$, $T_t$ is near a spine of $A$, which must intersect each component of $E_s$, since $B$ is incompressible and ${\mbox{$\partial$}}_- B$ does not compress in $B$. Such an intersection point with the spine (or possibly a component of ${\mbox{$\partial$}}E_s$ in ${\mbox{$\partial$}}_- A$) means that near $t=0$, $S_s \cap T_t$ will cut out from $E_s$ a small disk in $A$ (or a thin annulus near a component of ${\mbox{$\partial$}}E_s$ at ${\mbox{$\partial$}}_- A$). Thus the regions adjacent to $t=0$ are again all labeled $A$.
The labeling of regions near $t=1$ is more subtle and contains a warm-up for the general case. Because $T$ is near a spine of $B$, each circle of intersection with $E_s$ either bounds a disk in $B$ or is parallel in $B$ to a boundary component, as we have just noted. Consider first the three simple cases that can arise when $E = E_s$ is a single component:
- Suppose $E$ is a reducing sphere for $M$. Since each component of $E \cap T$ bounds a small disk in $B$, a region will be labeled $A$ if and only if there is a single circle of intersection, in other words, if and only if $E$ is a reducing sphere for $T$.
- If $E$ is a ${\mbox{$\partial$}}$-reducing disk whose boundary lies in ${\mbox{$\partial$}}_- B$ then $T$ intersects $E$ in at least a circle parallel to ${\mbox{$\partial$}}E$ and the collar lies in $B$. But if there is any other circle of intersection, the small disk it bounds lies in $B$, so there are no disks in $A$. Again, a region will be labeled $A$ if and only if $E$ is a ${\mbox{$\partial$}}$-reducing disk for $T$.
- Suppose $E$ is a ${\mbox{$\partial$}}$-reducing disk for $M$ whose boundary lies on ${\mbox{$\partial$}}_- A$. Since ${\mbox{$\partial$}}_- A$ is incompressible in $A$, not all of $E$ can lie in $A$ so there is at least one circle of intersection. There is exactly one circle if and only if that circle is ${\mbox{$\partial$}}$-parallel in $A$ and so labels the region $A$. So, once again, the region is labeled $A$ if and only if $E$ is a ${\mbox{$\partial$}}$-reducing disk for $T$.
Hence we have (see Figure \[fig:graphicsketch\]):
Suppose $E$ has a single component and the regions adjacent to the side $t = 1$ are all labeled $A$. Then $E_0$ and $E_1$ are equivalent $T$-reducers.
When $E$ has many components, the argument is more complicated, since our labeling scheme assigns the label $A$ if just one component of $E_s$ is a $T$-reducer. So at this point we make a crucial inductive assumption:
\[ass:induct\] Theorem \[thm:main\] is true in all cases for which the genus of the splitting surface is less than the genus of $T$.
Note that Theorem \[thm:main\] is more or less obvious when $genus(T) = 1$.
Suppose in a region of the graphic a component of $E = E_s$ is a $T$-reducer $\overline{E}$. Then there is a natural way of isotoping $T$ rel $\overline{E}$ to a solution for all of $E$: Reduce or ${\mbox{$\partial$}}$-reduce $(M, T)$ along $\overline{E}$ to obtain a new Heegaard split manifold $M' = A' \cup_{T'} B'$ (disconnected if $E$ is separating). Each component of $T'$ has genus less than $genus(T)$. By [@Sc], $T'$ can be isotoped in $M'$ so that the family $E - \overline{E}$ in $M'$ is $T'$-reducing, and by Assumption \[ass:induct\] this solution for $(M', T')$ is well-defined up to congruence. This solution, together with ${\mbox{$\overline{E}$}}$, constitutes a natural solution to $(M, T)$. Call it the [*solution generated by $\overline{E}$*]{}.
\[lemma:generate\] Suppose $\overline{E}'$ is another $T$-reducer in $E$. Then the solution generated by $\overline{E}'$ is congruent to that generated by $\overline{E}$.
If $E$ is a $T$-reducing system, then it is the solution generated by any of its members.
The solution obtained by compressing (or ${\mbox{$\partial$}}$-compressing) along both $\overline{E}'$ and $\overline{E}$ is congruent to that generated by either, per Assumption \[ass:induct\].
In view of Lemma \[lemma:generate\] we can simply call such a solution in the region [*internally generated*]{} without naming the component of $E$ that generates it.
\[lemma:pairgenerate\] Suppose two regions of the graphic, adjacent along an edge of each, have internally generated solutions. Then these solutions are congruent.
Let $\overline{E}$ and $\overline{E}'$ be generators in adjacent regions $R, R'$ respectively. If $\overline{E} = \overline{E}'$ congruence follows by definition, so we assume $\overline{E} \neq \overline{E}'$. The edge between regions $R$ and $R'$ represents $E$ passing through a single saddle tangency with $T$, a point that may lie on $\overline{E}$ or $ \overline{E}'$ but not both. Thus at least one of the two is a generator in both regions, from which congruence of solutions follows by Lemma \[lemma:generate\].
Return now to the setting for Theorem \[thm:main\] and we have:
\[prop:side1\] Suppose the regions adjacent to the side $t = 1$ are all labeled $A$. Then $E_0$ and $E_1$ are congruent.
The label $A$ implies that each region adjacent to the side $t=1$ has a self-generated solution. Lemma \[lemma:pairgenerate\] ensures that the congruence class of the solution doesn’t change as we move along the side $t=1$ from $E_0$ to $E_1$.
A forbidden labeling around a vertex {#sect:forbidden}
====================================
Focus now how labels behave around a vertex in the interior of the graphic $\Gamma$. Such a vertex corresponds to a position of $T = T_t$ in which it has two simultaneous tangency points with $E = E_s$. The non-trivial cases arise when both points of tangency lie on a single component ${\mbox{$\overline{E}$}}\subset E$. If ${\mbox{$\overline{E}$}}$ is a disk, a simple combinatorial argument shows that there are 15 possible configurations of these tangency points, shown in Figure \[fig:vertexresolved\]. The same diagram can be used when ${\mbox{$\overline{E}$}}$ is a sphere, but far fewer panels are needed because of the extra symmetry this introduces. For example, panels 10, 11 and 12 are the same in a sphere, as are 13 and 14. We will proceed assuming ${\mbox{$\overline{E}$}}$ is a disk; if it is a sphere, just delete an open disk near a point in $A$, converting it to an $A$-disk, and apply the arguments there.
There are typically many more circles in ${\mbox{$\overline{E}$}}\cap T$ than are shown in the panels of Figure \[fig:vertexresolved\]; these only show the components containing tangency points. The two tangency points will be denoted $\rho = \rho_{\pm}$; the 4 quadrants near it correspond to the 4 ways of resolving the tangencies, each by perturbing $T$ slightly near $\rho$.
$1$ at 85 195 $2$ at 160 195 $3$ at 235 195 $4$ at 305 195 $5$ at 380 195 $6$ at 85 105 $7$ at 160 105 $8$ at 235 105 $9$ at 305 105 $10$ at 380 105 $11$ at 85 15 $12$ at 160 15 $13$ at 230 15 $14$ at 305 15 $15$ at 385 15 ![At a vertex in the graphic $\Gamma$ []{data-label="fig:vertexresolved"}](vertexresolved "fig:")
The picture in $T$ can be more complicated than these panels suggest. For example, panel 15 might look like Figure \[fig:resolved\] in $T$.
(0.75, -1.5) – (4.75,-1.5); (2.75, -3.5) – (2.75,0.5); (1,-2.4) ellipse (0.08 and 0.25); (2.3,-2.65) arc (-90:90:0.08 and 0.25); (2.3,-2.15) arc (90:270:0.08 and 0.25); (1,-2.15) to \[out=25,in=155\] (2.3,-2.15); (1,-2.65) to \[out=-25,in=205\] (2.3,-2.65); (1.3,-2.05) arc (90:-90:0.1 and 0.35); (1.3,-2.05) arc (90:270:0.1 and 0.35); (1.85,-2.4) arc (0:-180:0.2 and 0.1); (1.8,-2.46) arc (0:180:0.15 and 0.07); (3.2,-0.6) ellipse (0.08 and 0.25); (3.2,-0.35) to \[out=25,in=155\] (4.5,-0.35); (4.5,-0.35) arc (90:-90:0.08 and 0.25); (4.5,-0.35) arc (90:270:0.08 and 0.25); (3.2,-0.85) to \[out=-25,in=205\] (4.5,-0.85); (4.06,-0.6) arc (0:-180:0.2 and 0.1); (4.01,-0.66) arc (0:180:0.15 and 0.07); (4.22,-0.25) arc (90:-90:0.1 and 0.35); (4.22,-0.25) arc (90:270:0.1 and 0.35); (3.2,-2.4) ellipse (0.08 and 0.25); (3.2,-2.15) to \[out=25,in=155\] (4.5, -2.15); (4.5,-2.15) arc (90:-90:0.08 and 0.25); (4.5,-2.15) arc (90:270:0.08 and 0.25); (3.2,-2.65) to \[out=-25,in=205\] (4.5,-2.65); (4.06,-2.4) arc (0:-180:0.2 and 0.1); (4.01,-2.46) arc (0:180:0.15 and 0.07); (3.85, -2) arc (90:-90:0.07 and 0.195); (3.85, -2) arc (90:270:0.07 and 0.195); (3.85, -2.5) arc (90:-90:0.05 and 0.155); (3.85, -2.5) arc (90:270:0.05 and 0.155); (1,-0.6) ellipse (0.08 and 0.25); (1,-0.35) to \[out=25,in=155\] (2.3,-0.35); (2.3,-0.35) arc (90:-90:0.08 and 0.25); (2.3,-0.35) arc (90:270:0.08 and 0.25); (1,-0.85) to \[out=-25,in=205\] (2.3,-0.85); (1.86,-0.6) arc (0:-180:0.2 and 0.1); (1.81,-0.66) arc (0:180:0.15 and 0.07); (1.66,-0.63) ellipse (0.3 and 0.2); (1.26, -0.25) arc (90:270:0.1 and 0.35); (1.26, -0.25) .. controls (2.35,-0.3) and (2.35,-0.95) .. (1.26, -0.95);
\[prop:diagonals\] No vertex in the graphic is surrounded by labeling pattern $\arraycolsep = 2.0pt
\begin{array}{c|c}
A & B \\
\hline
B & A
\end{array}$.
The simply connected components of ${\mbox{$\overline{E}$}}- T$ that are shown in Figure \[fig:vertexresolved\] will each become a disk in some resolution of the tangency points; if such a disk contains no other essential circles of $T$ and is essential in $A$ we will call the component an $A$-leaf component and the disk it becomes an $A$-leaf. (The terminology is explained in the next section.) A component of ${\mbox{$\overline{E}$}}- T$ shown in the diagram is incident either to one of $\rho_{\pm}$ or to both.
\[lemma:1tangency\] If an $A$-leaf component is incident to only one of $\rho_{\pm}$, then the labeling around the vertex is not $\arraycolsep = 2.0pt
\begin{array}{c|c}
A & B \\
\hline
B & A
\end{array}$
Resolve the single tangent point so that the component becomes an $A$-leaf. Either resolution at the other tangent point (these corresponding to two adjacent quadrants in $\Gamma$) leaves the $A$-leaf intact, so these two adjacent quadrants both get labeled $A$.
\[lemma:2tangency\] At a vertex in $\Gamma$ with surrounding labels $\arraycolsep = 2.0pt
\begin{array}{c|c}
A & B \\
\hline
B & A
\end{array}$ the two $A$ labels cannot both come from $A$-leaf components.
Following Lemma \[lemma:1tangency\] each $A$-label must come from an $A$-leaf component that is incident to both $\rho_{\pm}$. This eliminates panels 1 through 9. Moreover, the two $A$-leaf components arise from different resolutions on each tangency point, since they are diagonally opposite. Only panels 11 and 15 have two $2$-vertex components, but in panel 11 they are adjacent and so they can’t both lie in $A$. In panel 15, a resolution of the tangencies that turns an $A$-leaf component into an $A$-leaf, when reversed, only gives disk components that contain points in $B$.
This would seem to prove Proposition \[prop:diagonals\], until we remember that $A$-labels may arise in another way, as shown in Figure \[fig:hidden\]. For example in panel 4, the annulus component of ${\mbox{$\overline{E}$}}- T$ that is shown might lie in $A$, and the interior pair of circles might bound parallel disks in $B$, but when the pair is resolved into a single circle, it is inesential in $T$. Call such a component of $E - T$ in a panel an $A$-annulus.
\[lemma:annulus\] At a vertex in $\Gamma$ with surrounding labels $\arraycolsep = 2.0pt
\begin{array}{c|c}
A & B \\
\hline
B & A
\end{array}$, neither $A$ label can come from an $A$-annulus.
Suppose one of the quadrants gets its $A$-label via an $A$-annulus, as described. Such a component could arise in panels 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. In order to have the given labeling the opposite resolution at both $\rho_{\pm}$ should again generate an $A$-label. The label can’t come from the same $A$-annulus since its inner boundary is no longer adjacent to an inessential disk. Thus the $A$-label must come from an $A$-leaf component and, by observation, each $A$-leaf component is incident to only one of $\rho_{\pm}$. This contradicts Lemma \[lemma:1tangency\]
A final way in which $A$-labels might arise is via ‘hidden components’. Remember that the panels only show components of $T \cap E$ that are incident to the tangency points. Imagine a circle $c$ of $E \cap T$ bounding a disk that contains the pair of components shown in panel 1. If both of $\rho_{\pm}$ resolve as in Figure \[fig:hidden\], the resulting disk bounded by $c$ could generate a label $A$. The hidden component here is the ‘pair of pants’ bounded by $c$ and the two components in the panel; it is hidden because $c$ does not appear in the panel. But it is easy to see that hidden pairs of pants (which could arise in panels 1, 2, and 3) can’t possibly give rise to the labeling $\arraycolsep = 2.0pt
\begin{array}{c|c}
A & B \\
\hline
B & A
\end{array}$.
Hidden annuli require more thought. Suppose a circle component $c$ of $E \cap T$ cobounds an annulus with a component $X$ from one of the panels. It may be possible to resolve the tangency points in $X$ so that the end of the annulus at $X$ bounds an inessential circle, so it might in this way be possible for $c$ to generate a label $A$. By the argument of Lemma \[lemma:1tangency\] such a hidden annulus can be part of a labeling $\begin{array}{c|c}
A & B \\
\hline
B & A
\end{array}$ only if the end at $X$ is incident to both tangency points $\rho_{\pm}$. This immediately rules out panels 1 through 9 as well as 11 and 14. The end at $X$ must also have the property that the opposite resolution at both $\rho_{\pm}$ will still give rise to an $A$-disk, and the new $A$-disk must be incident to both $\rho_{\pm}$, by Lemma \[lemma:1tangency\]. This eliminates panels 12 and 13. Panel 10 won’t work: each leaf component shown has points in $B$, since the hidden annulus lies in $A$. Finally, these requirements can be fulfilled in panel 15 only if the middle sector lies in $A$ and the two other sectors are inessential in $B$. But in that case, there could be no label $B$ in any quadrant.
A technical note: our labeling convention assigns the label $A$ also if one of the regions in ${\mbox{$\overline{E}$}}- T$ is a collar of the boundary in an $A$-disk. The argument in this case is identical to that given above for the case in which there is a hidden circle that completely surrounds the figure in each panel.
From weakly reducing to reducing {#sect:weakreduce}
================================
In [@CG] Casson-Gordon introduced the notion of a weakly reducible Heegaard splitting, rejuvenating Heegaard theory. They showed that if there are disjoint essential disks in $A$ and $B$, then simultaneous compression on a maximal family of such disjoint disks in $A$ and $B$ will produce either a reducing sphere for $T$ or an incompressible surface or both. In considering uniqueness, the choice of a ’maximal family’ is problematic, since such a family is far from unique. In this section we avoid this problem of choice, by deriving from the entire pattern of circles $T \cap E$ in $E$ a recipe to move from a weakly reducing system for $T$ to a full $T$-reducing system, in a series of steps that is well-defined up to congruence.
Suppose $E$ is an $M$-reducing system for $M = A \cup_T B$. $E$ will be called a [*weak solution*]{} if, among the components of $E - T$, there are ${\mbox{$\partial$}}$-reducing disks for both $A$ and $B$. Continuing under Assumption \[ass:induct\], we will describe a natural algorithm that transforms a weak solution $E$ into a $T$-reducing system, an algorithm that is well-defined up to congruence.
Denote by ${\mbox{$\mathcal {D}_A$}}$ (resp ${\mbox{$\mathcal{D}_B$}}$) the collection of all disk components of $E$ cut off by $T$ that lie in $A$ (resp $B$). Figure \[fig:Eview\] illustrates the idea in a $B$-disk component of $E$.
${\mbox{$\mathcal {D}_A$}}$ at 110 35 ${\mbox{$\mathcal{D}_B$}}$ at 175 150 ![The view in $E$[]{data-label="fig:Eview"}](Eview "fig:")
Consider the surface $T_c \subset M$ obtained by compressing $T$ along $\mathcal{D}_A \cup \mathcal{D}_B $. $T_c$ divides $M$ into two (possibly disconnected) 3-manifolds $M_A$ and $M_B$. Imagine thickening $T_c$ by expanding it into a bi-collar as shown in Figure \[fig:MAMB\]. This would induce Heegaard splitting surfaces $T_A \subset M_A$, obtained from the original $T$ by compressing only along $\mathcal{D}_A$ and then pushing towards the $A$-side of the bicollar. The symmetric construction gives a Heegaard splitting surface $T_B$ in $M_B$,
${\mbox{$\mathcal {D}_A$}}$ at 120 115 $T$ at 135 200 ${\mbox{$\mathcal{D}_B$}}$ at 70 140 $A$ at 30 115 $B$ at 150 115 $M_A$ at 200 140 $T_A$ at 200 215 $M_B$ at 285 110 $T_B$ at 285 200 $T_c$ at 245 200 ![The view in $M$, and a mental image[]{data-label="fig:MAMB"}](MAMB "fig:")
Both $T_A$ and $T_B$ have lower genus than $T$, so our inductive Assumption \[ass:induct\] applies. In particular, given any $M_A$-reducing system of disks and spheres, $T_A$ can be isotoped, uniquely up to congruence, so that the system becomes $T_A$ reducing (and similarly for $(M_B, T_B)$). Such an isotopy of $T_A$ can be described [@Sc] as a sequence of handle-slides of and over the handles whose cocores are the ${\mbox{$\mathcal {D}_A$}}$ disks. But these same handle-slides could have been done on and over the handles as they actually lie on $T_c$, avoiding (by general position) the attaching disks for the handles on the other side, those with cocores the disks ${\mbox{$\mathcal{D}_B$}}$. In thinking of this as an isotopy of the original Heegaard surface $T$, the exact trajectory which the handle-slides follow across $T_c$ in order to avoid the disks ${\mbox{$\mathcal{D}_B$}}$ is, for our purposes, unimportant: one choice can be moved to another by eyeglass twists of $T$. The symmetric argument applies to $M_A$. The upshot is:
\[prop:handleslide\] Suppose $E_A \subset M_A$ and $E_B \subset M_B$ are embedded collections of ${\mbox{$\partial$}}$-reducing disks whose boundaries lie on $T_c \subset M$. Then there is an isotopy of $T$, keeping $T_c$ setwise fixed, to a position in which the boundary of each disk remains unchanged in $T_c$ and the interior of each disk is disjoint from $T$. The isotopy is well-defined up to congruence.
Consider a component $P$ of $E - T$ which is next to innermost, i.e. all but one of its boundary component is an innermost circle in $E \cap T$, and so each bounds a disk in ${\mbox{$\mathcal {D}_A$}}$ (or each bounds a disk in ${\mbox{$\mathcal{D}_B$}}$). Then the exceptional boundary component ${\mbox{$\partial$}}_0 P$ lies in $T_c$ and bounds a disk $D_P$ in $M_B$ (or $M_A$), through which the $1$-handles dual to ${\mbox{$\mathcal {D}_A$}}$ or ${\mbox{$\mathcal{D}_B$}}$ may pass.
The algorithm is then:
1. Apply Proposition \[prop:handleslide\] to the collection of all such components $P$ of $E - T$, isotoping $T$ without changing $T_c$ so that afterwards the interior of each disk $D_P$ is disjoint from $T$.
2. Add each such disk $D_p$ to ${\mbox{$\mathcal{D}_B$}}$ or ${\mbox{$\mathcal {D}_A$}}$ as appropriate, compressing $T_c$ to $T'_c$
3. Repeat the process until at least one component $\overline{E}$ of $E$ is a $T$-reducer.
4. The output is the solution generated by $\overline{E}$.
It will be important for its application that the algorithm is robust: a minimal change in input information will result in the same output. To understand more fully how the algorithm operates, we can describe it schematically.
The pattern of circles $T \cap E$ in $E$ defines a tree in each component ${\mbox{$\overline{E}$}}$ of $E$, with a vertex for each component of $E - T$ and an edge connecting two components if there is a single circle of $E \cap T$ between them. The tree has a natural base or root when ${\mbox{$\overline{E}$}}$ is a disk, namely the component of ${\mbox{$\overline{E}$}}- T$ containing the boundary. Let $Y$ denote the forest that is the whole collection of trees. The innermost disks of $E - T$ can be thought of as leaves in the forest $Y$. One measure of the complexity of each tree is the diameter of the tree, when ${\mbox{$\overline{E}$}}$ is a sphere, or the height of the tree when ${\mbox{$\overline{E}$}}$ is a disk. (Tree height is the edge-distance from the root of the tree to the most distant leaf. See Figure \[fig:Tree1\]).
$0$ at 550 60 $4$ at 315 180 $2$ at 360 220 ![Tree height is 4[]{data-label="fig:Tree1"}](Tree1 "fig:")
The $B$-leaves of $Y$ correspond to $\mathcal{D}_B$, and $A$-leaves to $\mathcal{D}_A$. The [*branch-structure*]{} $Y_c$ of $Y$ is obtained from $Y$ by removing all leaves; alternatively, it is the forest determined by the circles $T_c \cap E$ in $E$.
$Y_c$ at 400 60 ![Branch structure from $T_c \cap E$[]{data-label="fig:Branch"}](Branch "fig:")
The leaves of the branch structure correspond to the “second-innermost" circles in the algorithm described above or, in terms of the original forest, they are the outermost forks. Applying the algorithm described above replaces the original leaves with new leaves, corresponding to what were originally outermost forks. Since we have no control over how the $1$-handles of $T_A \subset M_A$ and $T_B \subset M_B$ intersect the non-disk components of $E - T_c$, leaves may also sprout from every other vertex in $Y_c$. But one iteration of the algorithm described will decrease the height (or diameter) of each tree. This is shown schematically in Figure \[fig:Step2b\], where new leaves sprout in non-disk components of $E - T_c$.
at 350 80 at 350 60 at 350 40 ![De/refoliation of $B$-leaves; height is now 3[]{data-label="fig:Step2b"}](Step2b "fig:")
Since $genus(T_A) < genus (T)$, the inductive hypothesis says that the new $A$-leaves of $Y'$ (the ones contributed by what were previously outermost forks) are well-defined in $T_A$ up to congruence, so similarly well-defined in $T$. Add them to $\mathcal{D}_A$, compressing $T_c$ into $A$ and effectively ${\mbox{$\partial$}}$-reducing $T_A \subset M_A$. See Figure \[fig:MakeY2\], Call the augmented collection $\mathcal{D'}_A$.
${\mbox{$\mathcal {D}_A$}}$ at 120 115 $T$ at 135 200 ${\mbox{$\mathcal {D}_A$}}'$ at 360 120 $A$ at 30 115 $B$ at 150 115
![New $A$-leaves added to $\mathcal{D}_A$ []{data-label="fig:MakeY2"}](MakeY2)
A similar argument applies in $M_B$, resulting in new surfaces $T'_A, T'_B$ and $T'_c$, the latter dividing $M$ now into $M'_A, M'_B$.
Continue with the algorithm until the height or diameter in some component $\overline{E}$ is $1$. (We pause to note the last step). $T$ now divides $\overline{E}$ into a planar surface in $B$, say, (which is incident to ${\mbox{$\partial$}}\overline{E}$ if $\overline{E}$ is a disk) and a collection of disks in $A$, all of them lying in a submanifold of $M$ with a lower genus Heegaard splitting surface. Once again apply the Strong Haken Theorem [@Sc] together with the inductive hypothesis on this lower genus splitting to isotope $T$ so that $\overline{E}$ is a solution. This completes the algorithm.
Appendages and convergence
==========================
Section \[sect:weakreduce\] described an algorithm which proceeds by well-defined iteration from a weak solution of an $M$-reducing system $E$ into a $T$-reducing system for $M = A \cup_T B$, at each step augmenting the number of disjoint weakly reducing disks.
\[defin:converge\] Two weak solutions for $E$ [*converge*]{} if the algorithm results in congruent $T$-reducing systems.
The term is meant to convey that, after perhaps some iterations in the algorithm, the two weak solutions may become indistinguishable, even before they each become full $T$-reducing systems.
An important example of convergent weak solutions begins with this easy corollary of Theorem \[thm:main\]:
\[cor:appendage\] With hypotheses as in Theorem \[thm:main\], suppose that $\mathcal{D} \subset M$ is a collection of ${\mbox{$\partial$}}$-reducing disks for $T$ that is disjoint from the two systems $ E_i$. Then the sequence of eyeglass twists and bubble moves creating the congruence may be taken to be disjoint from $\mathcal{D}$.
The Corollary follows from Assumption \[ass:induct\], which allows us to apply Theorem \[thm:main\] to the lower-genus Heegaard split manifold $(M', T')$ obtained from $(M, T)$ by ${\mbox{$\partial$}}$-reducing along the disks $\mathcal{D}$.
Suppose $E$ is an $M$-reducing system whose intersection with $T$ is a weak solution, and ${\mbox{$\mathcal {D}_A$}}\subset M_A$ and ${\mbox{$\mathcal{D}_B$}}\subset M_B$ are the leaves, as described above.
\[prop:appendage\] Suppose $(D, {\mbox{$\partial$}}D) \subset (M_B, {\mbox{$\partial$}}M_B)$ (resp $(M_A, {\mbox{$\partial$}}M_A)$ is a properly embedded essential disk that is disjoint from $E$. Then the solution to $E$ given by the algorithm is unaffected by adding $D$ to ${\mbox{$\mathcal{D}_B$}}$ (resp ${\mbox{$\mathcal {D}_A$}}$) at the start.
We will show that in both $M_A$ and $M_B$ the algorithm is unaffected by the addition of $D$ to ${\mbox{$\mathcal{D}_B$}}$. (Of course if $D$ is parallel in $T$ to an element in ${\mbox{$\mathcal{D}_B$}}$ there is nothing to show.)
This follows from Corollary \[cor:appendage\] for $M_B$, since $D$ can be regarded as a ${\mbox{$\partial$}}$-reducing disk in $M_B$.
In $M_A$ the addition of $D$ changes the status of its dual $1$-handle from being part of the boundary of $M_A$ to being a $1$-handle in the splitting of $M_A$ by $T_A$. This is a profound change, but the original algorithm describes passing $1$-handles past ${\mbox{$\partial$}}D$, i. e. over the new $1$-handle, and this can still be done. Since $D$ is disjoint from $E$ the algorithm never requires the new $1$-handle to move. And so the algorithm can proceed step after step, never noticing the new $1$-handle, until a solution is achieved.
Because of its inactivity in the proof, a disk $D$ as in Proposition \[prop:appendage\] is called an [*appendage disk*]{}.
\[lemma:redundant\] Suppose there are multiple components in a weakly reducing system $E$, and the system $E'$ obtained by removing one of them remains weakly reducing. Then the solution provided by the algorithm is unaffected by the removal. (That is, the two weak solutions converge.)
The case is in which $E$ consists of only two components $E = {\mbox{$\overline{E}$}}_{\pm}$ is definitive; the general case is no harder. At the beginning of the algorithm on $E$, $M_A$ and $M_B$ are defined by compressing $T$ along the disk components of $E - T$. Now remove ${\mbox{$\overline{E}$}}_-$ and note that the algorithm applied to ${\mbox{$\overline{E}$}}_+$ would call for compressing only along the disk components of ${\mbox{$\overline{E}$}}_+ - T$. But the outcome of that algorithm is unaffected by further compressing by disk components on ${\mbox{$\overline{E}$}}_-$, by Proposition \[prop:appendage\]. So, at the initial stage, there is no difference between the eventual solutions. Just continue in this manner, using how the algorithm behaves on the ‘virtual’ componoent ${\mbox{$\overline{E}$}}_-$ to present extra disks to be included as appendages (under Proposition \[prop:appendage\]) as the algorithm is applied to ${\mbox{$\overline{E}$}}_+$ alone.
Eventually the parallel algorithms stop, when one of ${\mbox{$\overline{E}$}}_{\pm}$ becomes a $T$-reducer. If it stops because ${\mbox{$\overline{E}$}}_{+}$ is a $T$-reducer, then we have shown that the solutions on $E$ and ${\mbox{$\overline{E}$}}_+$ result in the same solution, as required. If it stops because ${\mbox{$\overline{E}$}}_{-}$ is a $T$-reducer, then the algorithm for $E$ declares that a solution consists of ${\mbox{$\overline{E}$}}_{-}$, together with [*any*]{} solution for ${\mbox{$\overline{E}$}}_{+}$ in the manifold obtained by reducing (or ${\mbox{$\partial$}}$-reducing) $(M, T)$ along ${\mbox{$\overline{E}$}}_{-}$. An example of such a solution is given by the output of the algorithm further played out on ${\mbox{$\overline{E}$}}_+$.
Suppose an edge in the graphic lies between a region labeled $A$ and a region labeled $B$. The edge indicates a saddle tangency of $E$ with $T$. Let $\overline{E}$ be the component of $E$ that contains the saddle tangency. Let ${\mbox{$\overline{E}$}}_A, {\mbox{$\overline{E}$}}_B$ be slight push-offs of ${\mbox{$\overline{E}$}}$ corresponding to the regions labeled $A$ and $B$ respectively.
The [*edge weak solution*]{} is the weak solution obtained by deleting ${\mbox{$\overline{E}$}}$ from $E$ and replacing with ${\mbox{$\overline{E}$}}_A \cup {\mbox{$\overline{E}$}}_B$.
\[prop:edgesoltn\] An edge weak solution converges with a weak solution (if any) determined by either adjacent region.
Suppose there is a weak solution for the adjacent region labeled $A$ (resp $B$). That weak solution is obtained from the edge weak solution by just deleting ${\mbox{$\overline{E}$}}_B$ (resp ${\mbox{$\overline{E}$}}_A$). The result then follows from Lemma \[lemma:redundant\].
Return to the graphic
=====================
Return now to the proof of Theorem \[thm:main\] by examining the graphic more closely, inspired by [@FS Subsection 4.5] and adopting similar conventions. An edge in the graphic that lies between a region labeled $A$ and a region labeled $B$ will be called a [*border edge*]{}. Following Section \[sect:forbidden\], any vertex in the graphic that is incident to a border edge is incident to exactly two border edges (or to the boundary of the graphic). Thus the collection of border edges constitute a properly embedded $1$-manifold in the graphic that separates $A$ regions from $B$ regions.
We have shown earlier that three sides of the graphic ($s = 0, 1$ and $t = 0$) are adjacent to $A$-regions. Since the union of the three sides is connected, there is a single component $\mathcal{A}$ of the complement of the border edges that contains all three sides in its boundary. $\mathcal{A}$ consists entirely of regions labeled $A$. See Figure \[fig:graphicsketch\].
We focus on the $1$-manifold component $C$ of ${\mbox{$\partial$}}\mathcal{A}$ that contains the three sides $s = 0, 1$ and $t = 0$. If $C$ contains the fourth side $t=1$ then per Proposition \[prop:side1\] we are done, so our interest will focus on the arc in $C$ whose ends are at the corners $s \in \{0, 1\}, t = 1$ of the graphic, or more specifically, the border arcs that $C$ contains. (See Figure \[fig:graphicsketch\]).
at 45 20 at 70 05 at 90 30 at 180 100 at 115 60 at 115 80 at 170 120 ![Graphic labels: red = A, blue = B[]{data-label="fig:graphicsketch"}](graphicsketch "fig:")
It follows from Proposition \[prop:edgesoltn\] that the lowest border edge (i. e. minimal $s$) on the lowest border arc in $C$ generates the solution $E_0$ and the highest border edge on the highest border arc of $C$ generates the solution $E_1$. If we can show that the weak solutions given by successive border edges in $C$ always generate congruent solutions, then we will have shown that the solutions $E_0$ and $E_1$ are congruent, as required. So we examine how passing through a vertex of the graphic that lies on a border arc affects the weak solutions given by the incident edges. We will show the following, from which Theorem \[thm:main\] then follows.
\[prop:vertex\] At any vertex in a border arc, the weak solutions given by the incident border edges converge.
There is an important feature distinguishing between the two diagonals in a labeling diagram around a vertex in $\Gamma$. Put $T$ in the position determined by the vertex of $\Gamma$, so that $E = E_s$ and $T = T_t$ are tangent at two points $\rho = \rho_{\pm}$. We assume that $\rho_{\pm}$ lie on the same component ${\mbox{$\overline{E}$}}$ of $E$; if they lie on different components of $E$ the proof is easier.
Let ${\mbox{$\overline{E}$}}_{\pm}$ be slight push-offs of ${\mbox{$\overline{E}$}}$ to each of its sides. Then the disks ${\mbox{$\overline{E}$}}_{\pm}$ correspond to positionings of ${\mbox{$\overline{E}$}}$ that lie in diagonally opposite quadrants of the graphic, since in moving from one to the other, the resolution of each of the tangencies at $\rho_{\pm}$ is changed. The curves of ${\mbox{$\overline{E}$}}_{+} \cap T$ and ${\mbox{$\overline{E}$}}_{-} \cap T$ are visibly disjoint in $T$, since the disks ${\mbox{$\overline{E}$}}_{\pm}$ are disjoint in $M$. Call this the [*aligned*]{} diagonal. (The other diagonal was called the [*dangerous diagonal*]{} in [@FS]. In Figure \[fig:resolved\] the antidiagonal is aligned and the main diagonal is dangerous.)
The argument will be symmetric in $A$ and $B$ and also indifferent to symmetries of the quadrants about the vertex, so, following Proposition \[prop:diagonals\], there are just two cases to consider, corresponding to the labelings: $\arraycolsep = 2.0pt
\begin{array}{c|c}
A & A \\
\hline
A & B
\end{array}$ and $\arraycolsep = 2.0pt
\begin{array}{c|c}
A & A \\
\hline
B & B
\end{array}$.
[**Case 1:**]{} The labelings around the vertex are $\arraycolsep = 2.0pt
\begin{array}{c|c}
A & A \\
\hline
A & B
\end{array}$; and the antidiagonal $\arraycolsep = 2.0pt
\begin{array}{c|c}
& \bullet \\
\hline
\bullet &
\end{array}$ is aligned.
In this case, replace the component ${\mbox{$\overline{E}$}}$ in $E$ by three parallel components, namely, the two components ${\mbox{$\overline{E}$}}_{\pm}$ representing the antidiagonal, and a component ${\mbox{$\overline{E}$}}_B$ representing the quadrant labeled $B$. Call the resulting system $E^+$.
Deleting exactly ${\mbox{$\overline{E}$}}_+$ from $E^+$ gives the weakly reducing system for one boundary edge and deleting exactly ${\mbox{$\overline{E}$}}_-$ gives the weakly reducing system for the other boundary edge. Now apply Lemma \[lemma:redundant\]: both of these converge with the system $E^+$.
[**Case 2:**]{} The labelings around the vertex are $\arraycolsep = 2.0pt
\begin{array}{c|c}
A & A \\
\hline
A & B
\end{array}$; and the main diagonal $\arraycolsep = 2.0pt
\begin{array}{c|c}
\bullet & \\
\hline
& \bullet
\end{array}$ is aligned. In a similar fashion, replace ${\mbox{$\overline{E}$}}$ in $E$ by three parallel components: ${\mbox{$\overline{E}$}}_+$ representing the upper left quadrant, ${\mbox{$\overline{E}$}}_-$ representing the lower right quadrant and a component ${\mbox{$\overline{E}$}}^{12}$ representing the upper right quadrant. Call the resulting system $E^{12}$.
Deleting exactly ${\mbox{$\overline{E}$}}_+$ from $E^{12}$ gives the weakly reducing system for the right boundary edge; deleting exactly ${\mbox{$\overline{E}$}}_{12}$ gives a weakly reducing system we call here the [*diagonal system*]{}. By Lemma \[lemma:redundant\] the two systems converge.
Now repeat the argument using the system $E^{21}$ obtained by replacing ${\mbox{$\overline{E}$}}^{12}$ with a component ${\mbox{$\overline{E}$}}^{21}$ representing the lower left quadrant. The argument shows that the diagonal system also converges to the weakly reducing system for the lower boundary edge. Therefore the weak solutions representing the two boundary edges converge to each other.
[**Case 3:**]{} The labelings around the vertex are $\arraycolsep = 2.0pt
\begin{array}{c|c}
A & A \\
\hline
B & B
\end{array}$. In this case we may as well assume the main diagonal is aligned. Then a minor variant of the argument for Case 2 suffices.
[5]{}
F. Bonahon, Cobordism of automorphisms of surfaces. [*Ann. Sci. École Norm. Sup.* ]{} [**16**]{} (1983) 237?270. A. Casson and C. McA. Gordon, [*Reducing Heegaard splittings*]{}, Topology and its applications, [**27**]{} (1987), 275-283.
M. Freedman and M. Scharlemann, [*Powell moves and the Goeritz group*]{}, arXiv:1804.05909.
W. Haken, [*Some results on surfaces in 3-manifolds*]{}, Studies in Modern Topology, Math. Assoc. Am., Prentice Hall, 1968, 34-98.
A. Hatcher, Homeomorphisms of sufficiently large $P^2$-irreducible $3$-manifolds, [*Topology*]{} [**11**]{} (1976) 343-347. A.. Hatcher, A proof of the Smale Conjecture, [*Annals of Mathematics*]{}, [**117**]{} (1983) 553–607. J. Powell, Homeomorphisms of $S^{3}$ leaving a Heegaard surface invariant, [*Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{} [**257**]{} (1980) 193–216. Y. Rieck, A proof of Waldhausen’s uniqueness of splittings of S3 (after Rubinstein and Scharlemann). Workshop on Heegaard Splittings, 277–284, Geom. Topol. Monogr., 12, Geom. Topol. Publ., Coventry, 2007. H. Rubinstein, Hyam and M. Scharlemann, Comparing Heegaard splittings of non-Haken 3-manifolds. [*Topology* ]{} [**35**]{} (1996), 1005–1026. M. Scharlemann, A Strong Haken Theorem, Arxiv 2003.08523.
M. Scharlemann and A. Thompson, [*Heegaard splittings of (surface) $\times$ I are standard*]{}, Math. Ann., [**295**]{} (1993), 549-564.
J. H. C. Whitehead, On equivalent sets of elements in a free group, [*Ann. of Math.*]{} [**37**]{} (1936), 782–800.
F. Waldhausen, Heegaard-Zerlegungen der 3-Sphäre. [*Topology*]{} [**7**]{} (1968) 195-203.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We show that quantum game theory offers solution to the famous Newcomb’s paradox (free will problem). Divine foreknowledge is not necessary for successful completion of the game because quantum theory offers a way to discern human intentions in such way that the human retain her/his free will but cannot profit from changing decision. Possible interpretation in terms of quantum market games is proposed.'
author:
- |
Edward W. Piotrowski\
Institute of Theoretical Physics, University of Białystok,\
Lipowa 41, Pl 15424 Białystok, Poland\
e-mail: <[email protected]>\
Jan Sładkowski\
Institute of Physics, University of Silesia,\
Uniwersytecka 4, Pl 40007 Katowice, Poland\
e-mail: <[email protected]>
title: 'Quantum solution to the Newcomb’s paradox'
---
PACS numbers: 02.50.Le, 03.67.-a, 03.65.Bz
Introduction
============
There is a common belief that the characteristic size of the brain’s integral parts is too big to allow for quantum effects being important [@1]. But recent experiments show that separated objects of the size of a golf ball can form quantum entangled states even in a room temperature [@2]. Physicists successfully apply quantum mechanics to describe a lot of complex system that may have in principle arbitrary size, including black holes or even the whole Universe. Are there any reasons for quantum modeling of phenomena related to brain activity, consciousness or social behaviour? One can give an answer to this question only after construction and thorough verification of respective models [@3]. Below we consider a problem easily susceptible of modeling as a quantum game that should shed some light on the solutions that quantum theory may offer.\
In 1960 William Newcomb, a physicist, intrigued the philosopher Robert Nozick with a claim that in an elementary game characterized by the matrix $M$ $$M:=\begin{pmatrix}\$ 1000& \$ 1\,001\,000\\
\phantom{\$ 100}0&\$ 1\,000\,000
\end{pmatrix}
\label{machnewcomb}$$ giving the pay-off of the player 1 in all possible situations, the player 1 is not able to chose his strategy without having any measure of occurring [*a posteriori*]{} of any of the four possible events. Rows correspond the player 1’s strategies: feminine $|\mathsf{0}\rangle_1$ and masculine $|\mathsf{1}\rangle_1$[^1] and columns to opponent’s strategies $|\mathsf{0}\rangle_2,
|\mathsf{1}\rangle_2$. It so happens even despite the fact that the feminine strategy dominates the masculine one (that is the pay-off is greater regardless of the opponents strategy). The choice of the masculine strategy $|\mathsf{1}\rangle_1$ is more profitable when the event corresponding to the off-diagonal elements of $M$ do not occur and the rest have almost equal probabilities. This might happen if the opponent is able to foresee the player 1 moves. Due to this paradoxical property the above game with indefinite (hidden) set of occurrences became for philosophers, economists and theologians a graceful theme of speculations about free will and its consequences [@4; @5]. The disputes, often referred to as newcombmania [@6], deserve a thorough analyzis from the quantum game theory point of view [@7]-[@11]. The development of the probability theory provide us with many intriguing examples where ambiguous specification of the appropriate probability measures resulted in contradiction (Bertrand [@13] and Banach-Tarski [@14] paradoxes are the most famous ones). One can still find people who regardless of this facts continue philosophical disputes while ignoring the necessity of precise definition of the probabilistic measures in their models. We would like to show that quantum theory may be of help in settling the ambiguities.
Quantum description of the game
===============================
Quantum game theory exploits the formalism of quantum mechanics in order to offer the players new classes of strategies. Interesting generalization of well known classical games have been put forward [@7; @8]. There are arguments that quantum strategies may offer extraordinary tools for biologists [@15]-[@17]. Economics being the theater of various games and conflicts should not despise these new ideas [@18; @12]. We will describe player’s strategies as vectors (often referred to as states) in Hilbert spaces $\mathcal{H}_{i}$ where the subscripts $i=1,2$ distinguish between the player 1 and 2. It is convenient to define the strategy density operator $\mathcal{W}$ $$\mathcal{W}=\sum_{r,s=1}^2W_{rs}
|\mathsf{r\negthinspace-\negthinspace1}\rangle_1\,|\mathsf{s\negthinspace-
\negthinspace1}\rangle_2\,{_1}\langle\mathsf{r\negthinspace-\negthinspace1}
|\,_2\langle\mathsf{s\negthinspace-\negthinspace1}|$$ where $(W_{rs})$ is a matrix with nonnegative entries such that $\sum_{r,s} W_{rs}=1$ and $|\mathsf{r}\rangle_1\,|\mathsf{s}\rangle_2\,{_1}\langle\mathsf{r}
|\,_2\langle\mathsf{s}| $, $r,s\negthinspace\in\negthinspace\negthinspace\{\mathsf{0},\mathsf{1}\}$ are projective operators on the states of the game, $|\mathsf{r}\rangle_1|\mathsf{s}\rangle_2\in\mathcal{H}_1\negthinspace
\otimes\mathcal{H}_2$. For our aims it will be sufficient to use two dimensional Hilbert spaces for the players’ strategies. The states of the classical setting (mixed strategies) are represented by a diagonal matrix $(W_{rs})$. Non-diagonal elements of $(W_{rs})$ describe situations (strategies) that are out of the reach for classical players. Following the classical terminology we will call the pay-off observable $\mathcal{M}$ a Hermitian operator corresponding to the matrix $(\ref{machnewcomb})$: $$\mathcal{M}:=\sum_{r,s=1}^2M_{rs}
|\mathsf{r\negthinspace-\negthinspace1}\rangle_1\,|
\mathsf{s\negthinspace-
\negthinspace1}\rangle_2\,{_1}\langle\mathsf{r\negthinspace-\negthinspace1}
|\,_2\langle\mathsf{s\negthinspace-\negthinspace1}|\,.$$ Therefore, according to the classical interpretation of the game, the player 1’s expected pay-off is equal to the sum of diagonal elements (trace) of the product of $M$ and the transpose of $W$: $$E(\mathcal{M}):=\text{Tr}\mathcal{MW}=\sum_{rs}M_{rs}W_{rs}=\text{Tr}
MW^T\,.$$
Newcomb’s paradox
=================
M. Gardner proposed the following fabulous description of a game with pay-off given by the matrix $(\ref{machnewcomb})$ [@4]. An alien Omega (or Alf?) being a omniscent representative of alien civilization (player 2) offers a human (player 1) a choice between two boxes. The player 1 can take the content of both boxes or only the content of the second one. The first one is transparent and contains \$1000. Omega declares to have put into the second box that is not transparent \$1000000 (strategy $|\mathsf{1}\rangle_2$) but only if he foresaw that the player 1 decided to take only the content of that box ($|\mathsf{1}\rangle_1$). A male player 1 thinks: [*If Omega knows what I am going to do then I have the choice between \$1000 and \$1000000. Therefore I take the \$1000000* ]{}(strategy $|\mathsf{1}\rangle_1$). A female player 1 thinks: [*Its obvious that I want to take the only the content of the second box therefore Omega foresaw it and put the \$1000000 into the box. So the one million dollar [**is**]{} in the second box. Why should I not take more – I take the content of both boxes*]{} (strategy $|\mathsf{0}\rangle_1$). The question is whose strategy, male’s or female’s, is better? One cannot give unambiguous answer to this question without precise definition of the measures of the events relevant for the pay-off.
Human’s and Omega’s strategies
==============================
Omega as representative of an advanced alien civilization is certainly aware of quantum properties of the Universe that are still obscure or mysterious to humans. The boxes containing pay-offs are probably coupled. One can suspect this because the human cannot take content of the transparent box only (\$1000). The female player is sceptical about the possibility of realization of the Omega’s scenario for the game. She thinks that the choice of the male strategy results in Omega putting the one million dollar in the second box, and after this being done no one can prevent from her taking the content of the both boxes in question (ie \$1001000). But Meyer proposed a quantum tactics [@7] that, if adopted by Omega, allows Omega to accomplish his scenario. Let us note that Omega may not be able to foresee the future [@4]. For it aims it is sufficient that it is able to discern human intentions regardless of their will or feelings on the matter. The obstacles to this implied by the no-cloning theorem can be overcome by means of teleportation [@19]: Omega has must be able to intercept and then return human’s strategies. The presented below manipulations leading to thwarting humans are feasible with contemporary technologies. The course of the game may look as follows. At the starting-point, the density operator $\mathcal{W}$ acting on $\mathcal{H}_1\negthinspace\negthinspace\otimes\negthinspace\mathcal{H}_2$ describes the human’s intended strategy and the Omega’s strategy based on its prediction of human’s intentions. The actual game must be carried on according to quantum rules that is players are allowed to change the state of the game by unitary action on $\mathcal{W}$ [@7; @8]. The human player can only act on her/his $q$-bit Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}_1$. Omega’s tactics must not depend on the actual move performed by the human player (it may not be aware of the human strategy): its moves are performed by automatic device that couples the boxes. The Meyer’s recipe leads to:
1. Just before the human’s move, Omega set the automatic devise according to its knowledge of human’s intention. The device executes the tactics $\mathcal{F}\negthinspace\otimes\mathcal{I}$, where $\mathcal{I}$ is the identity transform (Omega cannot change its decision) and $\mathcal{F}$ is the well known Hadamard transform frequently used in quantum algorithms: $F:=\tfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\begin{pmatrix}
1&\phantom{-}1\\1&-1\end{pmatrix}$.
2. The human player with the probability $w$ uses the female tactics $\mathcal{N}\negthinspace\otimes\mathcal{I}$, where $\mathcal{N}$ is the negation operator[^2] and with the probability $1\negthinspace-\negthinspace w$ the male tactics $\mathcal{I}\otimes\mathcal{I}$.
3. At the final step the boxes are being opened and the built-in coupling mechanism performs once more the transform $\mathcal{F}\otimes\mathcal{I}$ and the game is settled.
The course of the game and its result
=====================================
Let us analyze the evolution of the density operator $\mathcal{W}$. The players’ tactics, by definition, could have resulted in changes in the (sub-)space $\mathcal{H}_1$ only therefore it suffices to analyze the human’s strategies. In a general case the human can use a mixed strategy: the female one with the probability $v$ and the male one with the probability $1\negthinspace-\negthinspace v$. Let us begin with the extreme values of $v$ (pure strategies). If the human decided to use the female strategy ($v\negthinspace=\negthinspace1$) or the male one ($v\negthinspace=\negthinspace0$) then the matrices $\mathcal{W}_i$, $i=0,1$ corresponding to the density operators $$\mathcal{W}_0=\sum_{r,s=1}^2{W_0}_{rs}
|\mathsf{r\negthinspace-\negthinspace1}\rangle_1\,|\mathsf{0
}\rangle_2\,{_1}\langle\mathsf{s\negthinspace-\negthinspace1}
|\,_2\langle\mathsf{0}|\,$$ and $$\mathcal{W}_1=\sum_{r,s=1}^2{W_1}_{rs}
|\mathsf{r\negthinspace-\negthinspace1}\rangle_1\,|\mathsf{1
}\rangle_2\,{_1}\langle\mathsf{s\negthinspace-\negthinspace1}
|\,_2\langle\mathsf{1}|\,$$ are calculated as follows: $$\begin{split}
&\hspace{2em}\begin{pmatrix}
v&0\\
0&1-v
\end{pmatrix}
\longrightarrow \tfrac{1}{2}
\begin{pmatrix}
1&\phantom{-}1\\1&-1
\end{pmatrix}
\negthinspace
\begin{pmatrix}
v&0\\
0&1\negthinspace-\negthinspace v
\end{pmatrix}
\negthinspace
\begin{pmatrix}
1&\phantom{-}1\\1&-1
\end{pmatrix}=
\tfrac{1}{2}
\begin{pmatrix}
1&2v\negthinspace-\negthinspace 1\\2v\negthinspace
-\negthinspace1&1
\end{pmatrix}
\longrightarrow\\
& \tfrac{w}{2}\begin{pmatrix} 0&1\\1&0
\end{pmatrix}
\negthinspace
\begin{pmatrix}
1&2v\negthinspace-\negthinspace 1\\2v\negthinspace
-\negthinspace1&1
\end{pmatrix}
\negthinspace
\begin{pmatrix}
0&1\\1&0
\end{pmatrix}+
\tfrac{1-w}{2}
\begin{pmatrix}
1&2v\negthinspace-\negthinspace 1\\2v\negthinspace
-\negthinspace1&1
\end{pmatrix}=\tfrac{1}{2}
\begin{pmatrix}
1&2v\negthinspace-\negthinspace 1\\2v\negthinspace
-\negthinspace1&1
\end{pmatrix}
\longrightarrow\\
&\hspace{6em}
\tfrac{1}{4}
\begin{pmatrix}
1&\phantom{-}1\\1&-1
\end{pmatrix}
\negthinspace
\begin{pmatrix}
1&2v\negthinspace-\negthinspace 1\\2v\negthinspace
-\negthinspace1&1
\end{pmatrix}
\negthinspace
\begin{pmatrix}
1&\phantom{-}1\\1&-1
\end{pmatrix}=
\begin{pmatrix}
v&0\\
0&1-v
\end{pmatrix} .
\end{split}\vspace{1ex}$$ It is obvious that independently of the used tactics, human’s strategy takes the starting form. For the mixed strategy the course of the game is described by the density operator $$\mathcal{W}=v\,\mathcal{W}_0 +(1\negthinspace-\negthinspace
v)\,\mathcal{W}_1$$ which also has the same diagonal form at the beginning and at the end of the game: $$\mathcal{W}= v\, |\mathsf{0}\rangle_1\,|\mathsf{0
}\rangle_2\,{_1}\langle\mathsf{0} |\,_2\langle\mathsf{0}|+
(1\negthinspace-\negthinspace v)\,
|\mathsf{1}\rangle_1\,|\mathsf{1 }\rangle_2\,{_1}\langle\mathsf{1}
|\,_2\langle\mathsf{1}| \,.$$ Therefore the change of mind resulting from the female strategy cannot lead to any additional profits. If the human using the female tactics (that is changes his/her mind) begins the game with the female strategy then at the end the untransparent box will be empty and he/she will not get the content of the transparent box: the pay-off will be minimal (0). If the human acts just the opposite the transparent box must not be opened but nevertheless the pay-off will be maximal (\$100000). Only if the human begins with the female strategy and then applies the male tactics the content of the transparent box is accessible. If restricted to the classical game theory Omega would have to prevent humans from changing their minds. In the quantum domain the pay-off $M_{21}$ (female strategy and tactics) is possible (the phrase [*la donna mobile*]{} gets a quantum context): humans regain their free will but they have to remember that Omega has (quantum) means to prevent humans from profiting from altering their decisions. In that way quantum approach allows to remove the paradox from the rationally defined dilemma. One can also consider games with more alternatives for the human player. The respective larger pay-off matrices would offer even more sophisticated versions of the Newcomb’s observation. But even then there is a quantum protocol that guarantees that Omega keeps its promises (threats) [@21].
Market interpretation of the game
=================================
It is obvious that the above scenario cannot be realized if the actual conditions would differ from Omega’s promises. For example, Omega may not be able to predict humans intentions or its understanding of the rules of the game differs from that implied by their expression in human language (cultural differences). There may be much dispute over the question [*what Omega really has in mind?*]{} We would like to consider one of the variant that may be interesting in the context of quantum market games [@12; @20]. This may result from pondering over the meaning of the term [*Omega adopts the same strategy*]{}.\
Players in a quantum market game sometimes buy and sometimes sell. A demand representation of the player’s strategy is a Fourier transform of his strategy used while supplying the goods [@12; @11]. In a simplified model where player’s strategies span a finite dimensional Hilbert space we should apply discrete Fourier transform which transforms the demand representation of the strategy, being $m$-tuple of complex numbers $\langle
d|\psi\rangle$ to the supply representation given by $$\langle s|\psi\rangle=\tfrac{1}{\sqrt{m}}\sum\limits_{d=0}^{m-1}
\text{e}^{\frac{2\pi\text{i}}{m}sd} \langle d|\psi\rangle\,.$$
If $m\negthinspace=\negthinspace2$ then the discrete Fourier transform reduces to the Hadamard transform $\mathcal{F}$ which we have already met. In our case the Hadamrd transform switches maximally localized strategies with the the maximally indefinite strategies and vice versa, eg $\langle
d|\psi\rangle\negthinspace=\negthinspace[d\negthinspace=\negthinspace0]
\xrightarrow{\mathcal{F}}\langle
s|\psi\rangle\negthinspace=\negthinspace \tfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$ (the Iverson notation [@22] is used: $[expression]$ denotes the logical value (1 or 0) of the sentence $expression$).\
We introduce the nonhomogeneous complex coordinate $z\in\overline{\mathbb{C}}$ to parameterize player’s strategies $$\mathcal{H}\ni|\psi_z\rangle:=|\mathsf{0}\rangle+z|\mathsf{1}\rangle\,.$$ If the “buying human” decides to use the strategy $|\psi_z\rangle_1$ and the other side of the bargain (Omega) want to play in the same way and therefore uses the supply representation of human’s strategy setting its $q$-bit to $\mathcal{F}(|\mathsf{0}\rangle_2+z|\mathsf{1}\rangle_2)=
|\mathsf{0}\rangle_2+\tfrac{1-z}{1+z}|\mathsf{1}\rangle_2$ then the quantum state of the game takes the form[^3] $$\mathcal{W}_z=\tfrac{(1+z)(1+\overline{z})}{2(1+z\overline{z})^2}\,\bigl(
|\mathsf{0} \rangle_1+z\,|\mathsf{1}\rangle_1\bigr)
\bigl(\vphantom{i}_1\langle\mathsf{0}|+\overline{z}\,_1\langle\mathsf{1}|\bigr)
\bigl(|\mathsf{0}
\rangle_2+\tfrac{1-z}{1+z}\,|\mathsf{1}\rangle_2\bigr)
\bigl(\vphantom{i}_2\langle\mathsf{0}|+\tfrac{1-\overline{z}}{1+\overline{z}}\,_2
\langle\mathsf{1}|\bigr)\,.$$ Therefore, as in the previous discussion, the female strategy gives not higher a pay-off. The expectation value of the human’s pay-off, $\text{Tr}\mathcal{M}\mathcal{W}_z$, is maximal for a superposition of male and female strategies with phase shifted by $\pi$ (i.e for $z\negthinspace=-\negthinspace1$). In this case the human is better off than in the previous case but she or he must be cautious because the phase shift by $\pi$ ($z\negthinspace=\negthinspace1$) does not change the respective probabilities but result in the lowest expectation value of the pay-off (\$500). Classical human’s strategies correspond to $z\negthinspace=\negthinspace0$ (female) and $z\negthinspace=\pm\infty$ (male). The expectation values of the human pay-off with respect to the adopted strategy are presented in Figure 1.
![The average human pay-off $\text{Tr}\mathcal{M}\mathcal{W}_z$ in the market version of the Newcomb game.[]{data-label="hhhnnnew"}](hnewco1.ps){height="6.25cm" width="9cm"}
Enthusiasts for newcombmania will certainly find a lot of new quantum solutions to the Newcomb game.
[99]{}
A. Scott, [*Starway to the Mind,*]{} Springer Verlag, New York (1995). G. P. Collin, [*Trillions Entwined*]{}, Scientific American, [**285**]{}(6) (2001) 16. H. Stapp, [*Mind, Matter, and Quantum Mechanics*]{}, Springer-Verlag, New York (1993). M. Gardner, [*Aha! Gotcha. Paradoxes to puzzle and delight*]{}, Freeman & Co, San Francisco (1982). R. Nozik, [*Newcomb’s problem and two principles of choice*]{} in [*Essays in Honour of Carl Hempel*]{}, Eds.: N. Rescher et al., D. Reidel, Dordrecht (1969). I. Levi, [*A note on Newcombmania, J. Philosophy*]{} [**79**]{} (1982) 337. D. Meyer, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.* ]{}[**82**]{}, 1052 (1999). J. Eisert, M. Wilkens, and M. Lewenstein, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**83**]{} (1999) 3077. A. Iqbal and A. H. Toor, [*Entaglment and Dynamic Stability of Nash Equilibria in a Symmetric Game, Phys. Lett. A*]{}, [**286**]{} (2001) 245-250. E. W. Piotrowski and J. Sładkowski, [*Quantum-like approach to financial risk: quantum anthropic principle, Acta Phys. Pol.* ]{} [**B32**]{} (2001) 3873-3879; quant-ph/0110046. E. W. Piotrowski and J. Sładkowski, [*Quantum bargaining games*]{} [*Physica A*]{}, in press; quant-ph/0107140. E. W. Piotrowski and J. Sładkowski,[*Quantum market games,*]{} submitted to [*Physica A*]{}; quant-ph/0104006. M. G. Kendall and P. A. P. Moran, [*Geometric probability*]{}, Griffin, London (1963). S. Banach and A. Tarski,[*Fund. Math.*]{} [**6**]{} (1924) 244. A. Iqbal and A.H. Toor, [*Evolutionary stable strategies in quantum games, Phys. Lett. A*]{} [**280**]{} (2001) 249-256. A. Iqbal and A.H. Toor, [*Quantum Mechanics gives Stability to a Nash Equilibrium, Phys. Rev. A*]{} 65, 022306 (2002). A. Iqbal and A.H. Toor, [*Darwinism in quantum systems?, Phys. Lett.*]{} [**A**]{} in press (quant-ph/0103085). E. Klarreich, [*Playing by Quantum Rules*]{}, [*Nature*]{} [**414**]{} 244-245 (2001). G. J. Milburn, [*The Feynman Processor: Quantum Entaglement and the Computing Revolution*]{}, Perseus Book Group, New York (1999). E. W. Piotrowski and J. Sładkowski, [*Trading by Quantum Rules – Quantum Anthropic Principle*]{}, submitted to [*Economics Letters*]{}; quant-ph/0201045. X.-B. Wang, L. C. Kwek, and C. H. Oh, [*Quantum roulette: an extended quantum strategy, Phys. Lett.*]{} [**A**]{} 278 (2000) 44. R. L. Graham, D. E. Knuth, and O. Patashnik, [*Concrete Mathematics*]{}, Addison-Wesley, Reading, (1994).
[^1]: The use of the adjectives feminine and masculine to underline the character of the strategies will be explained later, see also the Gardner book
[^2]: $\mathcal{N}|\mathsf{0}\rangle=|\mathsf{1}\rangle$, $\mathcal{N}|\mathsf{1}\rangle=|\mathsf{0}\rangle$
[^3]: Cases when the player may in fact play also “against himself” often happen in market description: demand or supply result from self-consistent strategy of all players. For example in a stock exchange one big bid or transaction can influence the whole market
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
---
tempcntc citex\[\#1\]\#2[@fileswauxout tempcnta@tempcntb@neciteacite[forciteb:=\#2citeo]{}[\#1]{}]{} citeo[tempcnta>tempcntbciteacitea[,]{} tempcnta=tempcntbtempcnta]{}
Muon pair production in the process $e^+e^-\to e^+e^-\mu^+\mu^-$ is studied using the data taken at LEP1 ($\sqrt{s}\simeq m_Z$) with the DELPHI detector during the years 1992-1995. The corresponding integrated luminosity is 138.5 pb$^{-1}$. The QED predictions have been tested over the whole $Q^2$ range accessible at LEP1 (from several GeV$^2/c^4$ to several hundred GeV$^2/c^4$) by comparing experimental distributions with distributions resulting from Monte Carlo simulations using various generators. Selected events are used to extract the leptonic photon structure function $F_2^\gamma$. Azimuthal correlations are used to obtain information on additional structure functions, $F_A^\gamma$ and $F_B^\gamma$, which originate from interference terms of the scattering amplitudes. The measured ratios $F_A^\gamma/F_2^\gamma$ and $F_B^\gamma/F_2^\gamma$ are significantly different from zero and consistent with QED predictions.
\
10.0pt 30.0pt
Introduction
============
The study of the process $e^+e^-\to e^+e^-\mu^+\mu^-$ provides a good way to test QED up to the fourth order of $\alpha$. The photon structure can be studied by measuring photon structure functions which can be extracted in the so-called “single tagged” mode (Fig. 1), where one of the scattered electrons is detected (“tagged”) in an electromagnetic calorimeter while the other scattered electron goes undetected (“untagged”). This process can also be used as a reference one for studies of the hadronic structure function of the photon, providing a basis for a better understanding of the detector performance and for checking the analysis procedure.\
Previous measurements of muon pair production in both the single tagged mode and the double tagged mode (where the scattered electron and positron are both detected) have shown good agreement with QED predictions [@CELLO; @TPC; @PLUTO; @JADE; @MARKJ; @CELLO1; @MARKII; @HRS; @AMY; @OP1; @Poz; @OP2; @L3; @OP3], with one exception [@AMY] where an excess of data events was observed in the double tag mode.
This study, based on the data collected by the DELPHI collaboration at LEP1 at centre-of-mass energies from 89.4 to 93 GeV, complements those results. It improves on previous DELPHI measurements of the leptonic photon structure function $F_2^\gamma$ [@Poz] by including all the LEP1 statistics and increasing the $Q^2$ coverage by an order of magnitude. This paper also presents results of studies of the azimuthal correlations, which are used to extract the ratios of the structure functions $F_A^\gamma/F_2^\gamma$ and $F_B^\gamma/F_2^\gamma$.\
Event kinematics
================
In the single tagged mode, where the tagged and untagged electrons are scattered with polar angles $\theta_{tag}$ and $\theta_{untag}$ and energies $E_{tag}$ and $E_{untag}$ respectively, and the probe and target photons have four-momenta $q=(x_{tag}E_{beam},\vec{q})$ and $p=(x_{untag}E_{beam},\vec{p})$, the cross section of the reaction $e^+e^-\to e^+e^-X$ is given by [@Budnev]: $$\frac{d^3\sigma}{dxdQ^2dx_{untag}} = \frac{dn(x_{untag})}{dx_{untag}} \times
\frac{d^2\sigma(e\gamma\to eX)}{dxdQ^2}.$$ These two factors, the flux of target photons and the $e\gamma$ cross section respectively, are given by: $$\frac{dn(x_{untag})}{dx_{untag}} = \frac{\alpha}{\pi x_{untag}}
\left\{ \left(1+(1-x_{untag})^2\right) \ln\left(\frac{2E_{beam}(1-x_{untag})}
{m_ex_{untag}}\sin\frac{\theta_{untag}^{max}}{2}\right)-1+x_{untag} \right\},$$ $$\frac{d^2\sigma(e\gamma\to eX)}{dxdQ^2} = \frac{2\pi\alpha^2}{xQ^4}
\left\{ \left(1+(1-y)^2\right) F_2^\gamma(x,Q^2,P^2)-y^2F_L^\gamma(x,Q^2,P^2)
\right\}.$$ Here $F_2^\gamma$ and $F_L^\gamma$ are structure functions of the photon, $\alpha$ is the QED coupling constant, $Q^2 = -q^2 \simeq 4E_{tag}E_{beam}\sin^2(\theta_{tag}/2)$ is the squared 4-momentum transfer, $P^2=-p^2$ is the virtuality of the target photon, and $x$ and $y$ are the Bjorken variables $$x = \frac{Q^2}{2q\cdot p} = \frac{Q^2}{W_{\gamma\gamma}^2+Q^2+P^2},
~~~~~~~~y = \frac{p\cdot q}{p\cdot k} \simeq \frac{Q^2}{sxx_{untag}} =
1 - \frac{E_{tag}}{E_{beam}}\cos^2\frac{\theta_{tag}}{2}$$ where $W_{\gamma\gamma}^2=(q+p)^2$ is the invariant mass of the $\gamma\gamma$ (or $\mu^+\mu^-$) system, $k$ is the initial four-vector of the tagged electron, and $s=4E_{beam}^2$.
The structure function $F_2^\gamma$ can be extracted from the dependence of the cross section on $x$ and $Q^2$. But $F_L^\gamma$ is small and is weighted by the small factor $y^2$, making its direct measurement impractical.
However, additional structure functions can be studied by looking at azimuthal correlations of the final state particles. The differential cross section of the process can be written as [@LEP2] $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d^4\sigma(e\gamma\to e\mu^+\mu^-)}{dxdyd\cos\theta^*d\chi/4\pi} & = &
\frac{2\pi\alpha^2}{Q^2}\cdot\frac{1+(1-y)^2}{xy} \times \nonumber\\
& & \left\{ (2x\tilde F_T+
\epsilon(y)\tilde F_L)-\rho(y)\tilde F_A\cos\chi+\frac{1}{2}
\epsilon(y)\tilde F_B\cos2\chi \right\}, \end{aligned}$$ where $\chi$ is the azimuthal angle, defined in the $\gamma\gamma^*$ centre-of-mass frame as the angle between the planes formed by the photon axis and the muon and the scattered electron respectively (Fig. 2), and $\theta^*$ is the angle between the muon and the photon axis. The functions $\rho(y)$ and $\epsilon(y)$ are given by $\rho(y)=(2-y)\sqrt{1-y}/
(1+(1-y)^2)$ and $\epsilon(y)=2(1-y)/(1+(1-y)^2)$ [@Zerwas] and can be taken equal to 1 in the accessible kinematical region. The differential structure functions $\tilde F_T$, $\tilde F_L$, $\tilde F_A$, and $\tilde F_B$ give the corresponding standard structure functions $F_T$, $F_L$, $F_A$, and $F_B$ after integrating appropriately over $\cos\theta^*$ (see section 7.2) taking into account that $F_A$ is antisymmetric in $\cos\theta^*$ [@AZIM]. The cross section can then be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d^3\sigma(e\gamma\to e\mu^+\mu^-)}{dxdyd\chi/2\pi} & \simeq &
\frac{2\pi\alpha^2}{Q^2}\cdot\frac{1+(1-y)^2}{xy} \times \nonumber \\
& & F_2^\gamma\left( 1-(F_A^\gamma/F_2^\gamma)\cos\chi+
\frac{1}{2}(F_B^\gamma/F_2^\gamma)\cos2\chi \right). \end{aligned}$$ The structure functions $F_i^\gamma$ are combinations of transition amplitudes for the different helicity states of the photons. The structure function $F_B^\gamma$ is related to the interference term between the two transverse helicity states of the photons. It is identical to $F_L^\gamma$, which is related to the longitudinal polarization of the virtual photon, in leading order and for massless muons.\
DELPHI detector
===============
The DELPHI detector has been described in detail elsewhere [@DELPHI; @PERF]. In this analysis, the scattered electron was tagged using
- the Small Angle Tagger (SAT), the main luminosity monitor during 1991-93, covering polar angles from 2.5$^\circ$ to 8$^\circ$ (172$^\circ$ to 177.5$^\circ$); it was made of alternating layers of lead sheets (0.9 mm thick) and plastic scintillator fibres (1 mm in diameter), aligned parallel to the beam;
- the Small angle TIle Calorimeter (STIC), the main luminosity monitor since 1994, covering polar angles from 1.7$^\circ$ to 10.3$^\circ$ (169.7$^\circ$ to 178.3$^\circ$); the STIC is a sampling calorimeter with 49 sandwiches of 3.4 mm steel-laminated lead plates and 3 mm thick scintillator tiles giving a total thickness of $\sim$27 radiation lengths;
- the Forward ElectroMagnetic Calorimeter (FEMC) covering from 10$^\circ$ to 36.5$^\circ$ (143.5$^\circ$ to 170$^\circ$) in polar angle, consisting of two 5 m diameter disks containing a total of 9064 lead glass blocks.
The energy resolution of the tagging calorimeters was around 5% in SAT and FEMC and 3% in STIC for an incident electron energy of 45 GeV.\
For muon identification, DELPHI contained barrel and forward muon detectors, each consisting of at least 4 layers of drift chambers. The muon chambers covered 78% of the solid angle.\
Combining the information from the tracking detectors, the relative momentum resolution $\sigma_p/p$ varied from 0.001$\times p$ to 0.01$\times p$ ($p$ in GeV/$c$), depending on the polar angle of the charged particle.
Monte Carlo simulation
======================
Two event generators were used in order to simulate the signal process $e^+e^-\to e^+e^-\mu^+\mu^-$: BDKRC [@BDKRC] which includes only the multiperipheral diagram (Fig.1) together with QED radiative corrections, and DIAG36 [@DIAG36] which lacks the QED radiative corrections but includes also the bremsstrahlung, annihilation and conversion diagrams. DIAG36 was used to check the role of these additional diagrams.
Several generators were used to estimate the backgrounds to the process studied: BDKRC [@BDKRC] was used to simulate $e^+e^-\to e^+e^-\tau^+\tau^-$, TWOGAM [@TWOGAM] to simulate hadron production in two-photon collisions, DYMU3 [@DYMU3] for the $e^+e^-\to \mu^+\mu^-(\gamma)$ process, and KORALZ [@KORALZ] for $e^+e^-\to \tau^+\tau^-(\gamma)$.
The generated events were passed through the full simulation of the DELPHI detector and reconstructed using the same program as for the data.
Event selection and correction
==============================
Events were selected as single tagged dimuon candidates if the following requirements were met.
- There was a cluster in one of the electromagnetic calorimeters with an energy deposition greater than 0.6$\times E_{beam}$ (hereafter called the tagged electron). If the cluster lay within the polar angle range 20$^\circ$ - 160$^\circ$, it was linked to a detected charged particle.
- There were exactly two additional particles with opposite charges and polar angles between 20$^\circ$ and 160$^\circ$. The relative errors on their momenta were less than 1. Their impact parameters with respect to the average interaction point were below 4 cm in the transverse plane and 10 cm along the beam. Their track lengths seen in the tracking detectors were at least 30 cm. Their momenta were above 0.5 GeV/$c$ and 2.5 GeV/$c$ and the sum of their momenta was below 30 GeV/$c$.
- At least one of the additional particles with a momentum greater than 2.5 GeV/$c$ was identified as a muon by the DELPHI standard muon tagging algorithm [@PERF].
- The invariant mass of the two additional particles was above 1.7 GeV/$c^2$. This requirement reduced the contribution from diagrams other than the multiperipheral one to below 0.25% for the low $Q^2$ and 2% for the high $Q^2$ sample according to the DIAG36 generator, and avoided possible problems with the soft part of the spectrum due to trigger or muon tagging inefficiency.
- Finally, double-tagged events were rejected by requiring there to be no energy deposit exceeding 0.3$\times E_{beam}$ in the detector arm (defined as $\theta=0^\circ-90^\circ$ and $\theta=90^\circ-180^\circ$) opposite that containing the tagged electron.
Using the high redundancy of the trigger [@PERF], the trigger inefficiency was found to be negligible for these events.\
In order to improve the measurements of the tagged electron parameters (energy and angles), the following procedures were used.
1. To avoid edge effects, the tagged electron was required to lie in the polar angle range $3^\circ<\theta<7.6^\circ$ ($172.4^\circ<\theta<177^\circ$) for the SAT, $2.5^\circ<\theta<9^\circ$ ($171^\circ<\theta<177.5^\circ$) for the STIC, or $11^\circ<\theta<35^\circ$ ($145^\circ<\theta<169^\circ$) for the FEMC.
2. To improve the $\theta$ measurements in the SAT, which had a limited granularity, the radial position of the cluster was corrected using the function found from the comparison of the experimental radial distribution for Bhabha events with the theoretical one based on a $1/\theta^3$ cross section dependence (Fig. \[Radius\]). This improved the $Q^2$ resolution from 6.0% to 2.9%.
3. To improve the $\theta$ measurements in the SAT and STIC, their alignments were checked using Bhabha event samples. The detector on the electron side had a mask in front of it to better define the acceptance at low $\theta$. From the number of Bhabha events as a function of the electron azimuthal angle $\phi_1$, it was possible to find the displacement of the mask relative to the beam line. The alignment on the opposite side was checked by looking at the difference of the measured polar angles $\theta_{tag}-\theta_{untag}$ of the scattered electron and positron as a function of the positron azimuthal angle $\phi_2$ (Fig. \[Angle\]). The dependencies observed were used to correct the measured polar angles. The errors of the fitted parameters were taken as uncertainties of the procedure, contributing 0.5% uncertainty on low values of $Q^2$.
4. A more accurate value of the tagged electron energy $E_{tag}$ was calculated from the requirements of energy and longitudinal momentum conservation in the event: $$E_{tag} = \frac{P_{\mu\mu}\cos\theta_{\mu\mu}+(2E_{beam}-E_{\mu\mu})
\cos\theta_{untag}}{\cos\theta_{untag}-\cos\theta_{tag}},$$ where $P_{\mu\mu}$, $E_{\mu\mu}$ and $\theta_{\mu\mu}$ are the momentum, energy and polar angle of the muon system, and $\theta_{untag}$ is the polar angle of the untagged electron, assumed to be 0 or $\pi$. The improvement due to this method can be seen in Fig. \[Ecor\], obtained from simulation, where the difference between the reconstructed and true (generated) tag energy $E_{tag} - E_{tag}^{gen}$ is shown as a function of the tag angle $\theta_{tag}$ using both the direct measurement of $E_{tag}$ and this method.
Background
===========
The following sources of background to the $\mu^+\mu^-$ event samples were considered:
- $e^+e^-\to e^+e^-\tau^+\tau^-$ with a $\tau$ decay product identified as a muon. The background from this process was found to be (1.2$\pm$0.2)% for the SAT and STIC tagged samples and (5.7$\pm$1.1)% for the FEMC, where the errors quoted are statistical.
- $e^+e^-\to \tau^+\tau^-(\gamma)$ with a hard radiated photon or a $\tau$ decay product faking a tagged electron. This background was found to be negligible for the SAT and STIC samples, and (8.9$\pm$1.9)% for the FEMC, after taking into account the on-peak versus off-peak luminosity distribution of the data.
- $e^+e^-\to \mu^+\mu^-(\gamma)$ with the radiated photon faking a tagged electron. This was found to be negligible due to the 30 GeV cut on the sum of the muon momenta.
- $e^+e^-\to e^+e^-\pi^+\pi^-$ with a pion misidentified as a muon. The ratio of the cross sections for pion pair and muon pair production in two-photon interactions falls to (1-5)% if the invariant mass of the produced pair is above 2.0 GeV/$c^2$ [@pipi]. With the muon identification criteria described above, the probability to misidentify a pion as a muon was below 1.5% (depending on the pion momentum), so this background was also negligible for all samples.
- other $e^+e^-\to e^+e^-+hadrons$ processes. These were also found to be negligible for all event samples.
- untagged $e^+e^-\to e^+e^-\mu^+\mu^-$ in coincidence with an off-momentum electron faking a tagged electron. The off-momentum electrons are beam electrons that have scattered off residual gas molecules inside the beam pipe. Using a method similar to the one described in [@offmom], this background was estimated from Z$^0\to \mu\mu$ events in coincidence with a similar off-momentum electron, multiplying by the ratio of the dimuon production cross sections from untagged two-photon interactions and from Z$^0$ decays, and was also found to be negligible.\
Results
=======
The numbers of selected data events after background subtraction are compared with the predictions of the signal Monte Carlo simulations in Table 1. The $Q^2$ ranges shown are calculated given the angular coverage of the detectors and the cut on the tag energy, and the average values $<Q^2>$ are taken from the data. Figs. \[SAT\] – \[FEMC\] present the distributions of a standard set of observables for events tagged by the SAT, STIC and FEMC respectively.
[|c|c|c|c|]{}Tagging detector & SAT & STIC & FEMC\
$Q^2$ range (GeV$^2/c^4$) & 3.4$-$36.6 & 2.4$-$51.2 & 45.9$-$752.8\
$<Q^2>^{*)}$ (GeV$^2/c^4$) & 13.0 & 12.1 & 120.0$^{**)}$\
data & 1357$\pm$37 & 2875$\pm$54 & 239$\pm$18\
BDKRC simulation & 1362$\pm$14 & 2884$\pm$22 & 250$\pm$6\
DIAG36 simulation & 1298$\pm$25 & 2785$\pm$55 & 236$\pm$13\
\
\
Table 1 and Figs. \[SAT\] - \[FEMC\] show that the BDKRC and DIAG36 generators produce similar kinematical distributions, but DIAG36 gives somewhat lower numbers of selected events. In the kinematical region under study, the contribution of the additional diagrams in DIAG36 was found to be very small (see section 5). This difference (if real) should therefore be attributed to the effect of radiative corrections. The BDKRC generator was therefore used for the structure function studies below.
Extraction of $F_2^\gamma$
--------------------------
To extract $F_2^\gamma$, the experimental $x$ distribution was divided by the Monte Carlo distribution weighted by the factor $\alpha/F_2^\gamma(x,Q^2)$, where $F_2^\gamma(x,Q^2)$ can be obtained from a simulated event sample using either a generator producing events according to a given $F_2$ or the photon flux approach described, for example, in [@L3] and briefly outlined below.\
It follows from Eqs. (1-3) that, neglecting the small contribution from $y^2$ terms: $$F_2^\gamma(x,Q^2,P^2) = \frac{d^2\sigma}{dxdQ^2} /{\cal W}(x,Q^2),$$ where the weight ${\cal W}(x,Q^2)$ is given by $${\cal W}(x,Q^2) = \frac{4\pi\alpha^2}{xQ^4}
\int\limits_{x_{untag}^{min}}^{x_{untag}^{max}}\frac{dn(x_{untag})}{dx_{untag}}
(1-y)~dx_{untag}.$$ To calculate the integration limits, the fractional energy of the target photon is extracted from the expressions for $x$ and $W_{\gamma\gamma}$: $$x_{untag} = \frac{2Q^2/sx-2Q^2/s+\cos\Theta+\cos\theta_{untag}-x_{tag}(1+\cos\Theta)}
{\cos\Theta+\cos\theta_{untag}+x_{tag}(1-\cos\Theta)},$$ where $$\cos\Theta = \sin\theta_{tag}\sin\theta_{untag}\cos(\Delta\phi) -
\cos\theta_{tag}\cos\theta_{untag},$$ and $\Delta\phi$ is the azimuthal angle between the scattered $e^+$ and $e^-$. In the single tag approximation, $\theta_{untag}\simeq 0$ so that (10) becomes: $$x_{untag} = \frac{2Q^2/sx-2Q^2/s-\cos\theta_{tag}+1-x_{tag}(1-\cos\theta_{tag})}
{-\cos\theta_{tag}+1+x_{tag}(1+\cos\theta_{tag})}.$$ The maximum and minimum $x_{untag}$ values correspond to the minimum and maximum $x_{tag}$ values, and these result from the tagging conditions: $$x_{tag}^{max} = \min\left\{1-\frac{E_{tag}^{min}}{E_{beam}},1-\frac{Q^2}{s\sin^2
(\theta_{tag}^{max}/2)}\right\},~~~~
x_{tag}^{min} = \max\left\{\frac{W_{\gamma\gamma}^2}{s},
1-\frac{Q^2}{s\sin^2(\theta_{tag}^{min}/2)}\right\}$$ where $E_{tag}^{min}$ is the lower cut on the tag energy and $\theta_{tag}^{min}
(\theta_{tag}^{max})$ is the lower (upper) angular acceptance of the tagging device. $E_{tag}^{min}$ was increased from $0.6\times E_{beam}$ to $0.75\times E_{beam}$ in order to keep the $y^2$ contribution small.\
Fig. \[F2gen\] shows the $F_2^\gamma(x)$ values obtained by both methods for a simulated event sample with STIC tagging conditions, demonstrating that they give similar results.
A fit to the QED prediction [@Budnev; @Berger] $$F_2^\gamma = \frac{\alpha}{\pi}x \left\{\left(x^2+(1-x)^2\right)
\ln\frac{W^2_{\gamma\gamma}}{m^2_\mu+P^2x(1-x)} - 1 +8x(1-x)
-\frac{P^2x(1-x)}{m^2_\mu+P^2x(1-x)} \right\},$$ where terms of order $m^2_\mu/Q^2$ are neglected gives values of the effective average target photon virtuality $P^2$ of 0.022$\pm$0.007 and 0.026$\pm$0.006 GeV$^2$ for the first and second methods respectively, the errors quoted being statistical. For the SAT tagged events the first method, which was chosen for the further analysis, gives $P^2$=0.032$\pm$0.007 GeV$^2$, demonstrating the need to take the target photon virtuality into account in studies of $F_2^\gamma$.\
The extracted structure function $<F_2^\gamma(x,Q^2)>$, transformed to $F_2^\gamma(x,<Q^2>)$ using the ratio $F_2^\gamma(x,<Q^2>)/<F_2^\gamma(x,Q^2)>$ predicted by QED, is shown in Table 2 and Fig. \[F2exp\], which present the weighted combination of the SAT and STIC results with $<Q^2>=12.5$ GeV$^2/c^4$ and the FEMC result with $<Q^2>=120$ GeV$^2/c^4$. The FEMC sample included only events with $\theta_{tag}$ below 25$^\circ$ (above 155$^\circ$) in order to exclude the region with large background contamination (Fig. \[FEMC\]b), and the contribution from diagrams other than the multiperipheral one predicted by the BDKRC generator was subtracted. The structure function values have been corrected to the centres of the $x$ bins by multiplying the measured average values of $F_2^\gamma$ for each $x$ bin by the ratio of the value of $F_2^\gamma$ in the centre of the bin to the its average value over the bin predicted by QED. Systematic errors due to the resolutions in $Q^2$ and $x$ have been evaluated in simulation by varying these variables according to their resolutions and checking the effect on $F_2^\gamma$. The role of the observed discrepancy between the data and simulation in some $\theta_{tag}$ intervals (Fig. \[Radius\]) was checked by weighting the contributions of events in those intervals according to their $\theta_{tag}$ values when producing the $x$ distribution. The largest contribution to the systematic error comes from the $Q^2$ resolution.\
Fits to the QED prediction (14) give $P^2=0.025\pm0.005$ and $0.073\pm0.056$ GeV$^2$ for the samples with low and high $Q^2$ respectively, in good agreement with the Monte Carlo prediction.\
$x$ $<$0.1 0.1-0.2 0.2-0.3 0.3-0.4 0.4-0.5 0.5-0.6 0.6-0.7 0.7-0.8 $>$0.8
--------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
$F_2^\gamma/\alpha$ 0.106 0.273 0.426 0.515 0.573 0.645 0.743 0.942 1.152
stat. error $\pm$0.008 $\pm$0.012 $\pm$0.017 $\pm$0.021 $\pm$0.024 $\pm$0.029 $\pm$0.038 $\pm$0.060 $\pm$0.112
syst. error $\pm$0.023 $\pm$0.012 $\pm$0.012 $\pm$0.012 $\pm$0.004 $\pm$0.003 $\pm$0.021 $\pm$0.053 $\pm$0.094
: The measured structure function $F_2^\gamma$ for $<Q^2>=12.5$ (upper table) and 120 GeV$^2/c^4$ (lower table).
$x$ $<$0.2 0.2-0.4 0.4-0.6 0.6-0.8 $>$0.8
--------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
$F_2^\gamma/\alpha$ 0.387 0.464 0.673 0.984 1.508
stat. error $\pm$0.214 $\pm$0.133 $\pm$0.138 $\pm$0.162 $\pm$0.231
syst. error $\pm$0.015 $\pm$0.051 $\pm$0.049 $\pm$0.026 $\pm$0.044
: The measured structure function $F_2^\gamma$ for $<Q^2>=12.5$ (upper table) and 120 GeV$^2/c^4$ (lower table).
Azimuthal correlations
----------------------
In order to increase the observed azimuthal correlations of the final state particles, only events with $20^\circ<\theta^*<160^\circ$ have been considered. Taking into account the antisymmetry of $F_A^\gamma$ in $\cos\theta^*$, events with $\cos\theta^*<$0 and $\cos\theta^*>$0 have been combined using the transformation $\chi\to\pi-\chi$.\
The selected samples have been corrected for detector acceptance and efficiency using either bin-by-bin corrections over a two-dimensional grid of $\chi$ and $\theta^*$, or a three-dimensional unfolding [@Agostini] in the space of the variables $\chi$, $\theta^*$ and $x$. The corrected distributions (Fig. \[cor\]) were fitted to the expression: $$dN/d\chi = C~(1+P_1\cos\chi + P_2\cos2\chi)$$ where $P_1$ and $P_2$ are closely related to $F_A^\gamma/F_2^\gamma$ and $F_B^\gamma/F_2^\gamma$, c.f. Eq. (6). The combined results were obtained by refitting the weighted sums of corrected distributions for the SAT and STIC samples (Fig. \[cor\_comb\]). The parameters determined from the fit are shown in Table 3.\
The systematic effects were estimated using simulated events, varying the variables $Q^2$, $W_{\gamma\gamma}$, $x$, $\theta^*$ and $\chi$ according to their resolution, and adding the resulting variations of the fitted parameters in quadrature. This gave errors on the fitted parameters of about 0.02. The difference between the results obtained with the two different correction methods gave an additional systematic error of 0.02$-$0.06.\
The results obtained were extrapolated to the full $\theta^*$ and $W_{\gamma\gamma}$ ranges using the theoretical correction factors $C_{P_1}$ and $C_{P_2}$ shown in Table 3, which were obtained as ratios of the QED predicted structure functions [@AZIM] calculated for event samples generated in the $Q^2$ range of 2.4-51.2 GeV$^2$ without and with the selection cuts. The results thus obtained for $F_A^\gamma/F_2^\gamma$ and ${1\over2}F_B^\gamma/F_2^\gamma$ are shown in Table 3 and Fig. \[corvsx\]. They are in agreement with the theoretical predictions [@AZIM] and with the results of other LEP experiments [@L3; @OP3] (note the factor -1/2 difference of $F_A^\gamma$ with [@L3] due to its different definition).
Conclusions
===========
Muon pair production in single-tagged $\gamma\gamma$ collisions has been studied at $\sqrt{s}\simeq$91 GeV using data collected by the DELPHI detector at LEP during the years 1992-95. Distributions of different event variables for $Q^2$ ranging from $\sim$2.5 to $\sim$750 GeV$^2/c^4$ are well reproduced by a Monte Carlo simulation based on QED.\
The leptonic structure function $F_2^\gamma$ has been measured for two regions of momentum transfer with average $Q^2$ values of 12.5 and 120 GeV$^2/c^4$.\
Azimuthal correlations of final state particles have also been studied, giving information on additional structure functions $F_A^\gamma$ and $F_B^\gamma$. The measured ratios $F_A^\gamma/F_2^\gamma$ and $F_B^\gamma/F_2^\gamma$ are significantly different from zero and consistent with QED expectations.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
3 mm We wish to thank V. Andreev and Ch. Carimalo for useful discussions.\
We are greatly indebted to our technical collaborators, to the members of the CERN-SL Division for the excellent performance of the LEP collider, and to the funding agencies for their support in building and operating the DELPHI detector.\
We acknowledge in particular the support of\
Austrian Federal Ministry of Science and Traffics, GZ 616.364/2-III/2a/98,\
FNRS–FWO, Belgium,\
FINEP, CNPq, CAPES, FUJB and FAPERJ, Brazil,\
Czech Ministry of Industry and Trade, GA CR 202/96/0450 and GA AVCR A1010521,\
Danish Natural Research Council,\
Commission of the European Communities (DG XII),\
Direction des Sciences de la Mati$\grave{\mbox{\rm e}}$re, CEA, France,\
Bundesministerium f$\ddot{\mbox{\rm u}}$r Bildung, Wissenschaft, Forschung und Technologie, Germany,\
General Secretariat for Research and Technology, Greece,\
National Science Foundation (NWO) and Foundation for Research on Matter (FOM), The Netherlands,\
Norwegian Research Council,\
State Committee for Scientific Research, Poland, 2P03B06015, 2P03B1116 and SPUB/P03/178/98,\
JNICT–Junta Nacional de Investigação Científica e Tecnol$\acute{\mbox{\rm o}}$gica, Portugal,\
Vedecka grantova agentura MS SR, Slovakia, Nr. 95/5195/134,\
Ministry of Science and Technology of the Republic of Slovenia,\
CICYT, Spain, AEN96–1661 and AEN96-1681,\
The Swedish Natural Science Research Council,\
Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council, UK,\
Department of Energy, USA, DE–FG02–94ER40817.\
[xxx]{} H.J. Behrend et al. (CELLO Collab.), Phys. Lett. [**B126**]{} (1983) 384. M.P. Cain et al. (TPC/2$\gamma$ Collab.), Phys. Lett. [**B147**]{} (1984) 232. Ch. Berger et al. (PLUTO Collab.), Z. Phys. [**C27**]{} (1985) 249. W. Bartel et al. (JADE Collab.), Z. Phys. [**C30**]{} (1986) 545. B. Adeva et al. (MARK J coolab.), Phys. Rev. [**D38**]{} (1988) 2665. H.J. Behrend et al. (CELLO Collab.), Z. Phys. [**C43**]{} (1989) 1. M. Petradza et al. (MARK II Collab.), Phys. Rev. [**D42**]{} (1990) 2171. M. Petradza et al. (HRS Collab.), Phys. Rev. [**D42**]{} (1990) 2180. Y.H. Ho et al. (AMY Collab.), Phys. Lett. [**B244**]{} (1990) 573. R. Akers et al. (OPAL Collab.), Z. Phys. [**C60**]{} (1993) 593. R. Abreu et al. (DELPHI Collab.), Z. Phys. [**C69**]{} (1996) 223. K. Ackerstaff et al. (OPAL Collab.), Z. Phys. [**C74**]{} (1997) 49. M. Acciarri et al. (L3 Collab.), Phys. Lett. [**B438**]{} (1998) 363. G. Abbiendi et al. (OPAL Collab.), Eur. Phys. J. [**C11**]{} (1999) 409. V.M. Budnev et al., Phys. Rep. [**15**]{} (1974) 181. P. Aurenche et al., ‘Physics at LEP2’, eds. G. Altarelli, T. Sjöstrand and F. Zwirner, CERN 96-01 (1996) Vol.1 p.291. C. Peterson, P.M. Zerwas and T.F. Walsh, Nucl. Phys. [**B229**]{} (1983) 301. S. Ong and P. Kessler, Mod. Phys. Lett. [**A2**]{} (1987) 683.\
Note that in the expression for the helicity terms $I_{++,++} + I_{++,--}$ a factor $\beta^2$ is missing in front of $(1-u^2)$ and in the expression for $I_{++,00}$ there should be the first degree power in the denominator. P. Aarnio et al. (DELPHI Collab.), Nucl. Inst. Meth. [**A303**]{} (1991) 233. P. Abreu et al. (DELPHI Collab.), Nucl. Inst. Meth. [**A378**]{} (1996) 57. F.A. Berends, P.H. Daverveldt, R. Kleiss, Comp. Phys. Comm. [**40**]{} (1986) 271. F.A. Berends, P.H. Daverveldt, R. Kleiss, Comp. Phys. Comm. [**40**]{} (1986) 285. S. Nova, A. Olshevski and T. Todorov, ‘Physics at LEP2’, CERN 96-01 (1996) Vol.2 p.224; updated version described in ‘Reports of the Working Groups on Precision Calculations for LEP2 Physics’, CERN 2000-009 (2000) 243. J.E. Campagne and R. Zitoun, Z. Phys. [**C43**]{} (1989) 469. S. Jadach et al., Comp. Phys. Comm. [**79**]{} (1994) 503. Ch. Berger et al. (PLUTO Collab.), Phys. Lett. [**B137**]{} (1984) 267. P. Abreu et al. (DELPHI Collab.), Phys. Lett. [**B342**]{} (1995) 402. C. Berger and W. Wagner, Phys. Rep. [**146**]{} (1987) 1. G. D’Agostini, Nucl. Inst. Meth. [**A362**]{} (1995) 487.
-------------- ----------------------- ----------------------- ---------------- -------
$x$-interval $C_{P_1}$
SAT STIC Combined
$x<0.2$ $0.19\pm0.14\pm0.03$ $0.28\pm0.08\pm0.04$ 0.25$\pm$0.08 0.541
$0.2<x<0.4$ $0.22\pm0.09\pm0.03$ $0.20\pm0.06\pm0.02$ 0.20$\pm$0.05 0.701
$0.4<x<0.6$ $0.13\pm0.09\pm0.05$ $0.02\pm0.07\pm0.05$ 0.06$\pm$0.07 0.625
$x>0.6$ -$0.41\pm0.10\pm0.07$ -$0.26\pm0.07\pm0.05$ -0.31$\pm$0.07 0.849
all $x$ -$0.03\pm0.05\pm0.03$ -$0.03\pm0.03\pm0.03$ -0.03$\pm$0.04 0.605
-------------- ----------------------- ----------------------- ---------------- -------
: Parameters $P_1$ and $P_2$ of the fit to the azimuthal angle distributions for the SAT-tagged, STIC-tagged, and combined event samples with $Q^2=2.4-51.2$ GeV$^2$. The first error is statistical and the second is systematic. $C_{P_1}$ and $C_{P_2}$ are the correction factors to extrapolate the parameters to the full $\theta^*$ range (see text). The values extracted for $F_A^\gamma/F_2^\gamma$ and ${1\over2} F_B^\gamma/F_2^\gamma$ are shown with statistical and systematic errors added in quadrature.
-------------- ---------------------- ----------------------- --------------- -------
$x$-interval $C_{P_2}$
SAT STIC Combined
$x<0.2$ $0.06\pm0.12\pm0.03$ -$0.01\pm0.08\pm0.03$ 0.01$\pm$0.07 0.391
$0.2<x<0.4$ $0.13\pm0.08\pm0.03$ $0.16\pm0.06\pm0.02$ 0.15$\pm$0.05 0.512
$0.4<x<0.6$ $0.15\pm0.08\pm0.04$ $0.19\pm0.06\pm0.03$ 0.17$\pm$0.06 0.581
$x>0.6$ $0.20\pm0.09\pm0.06$ $0.30\pm0.06\pm0.04$ 0.27$\pm$0.06 0.673
all $x$ $0.13\pm0.05\pm0.02$ $0.15\pm0.03\pm0.02$ 0.15$\pm$0.03 0.570
-------------- ---------------------- ----------------------- --------------- -------
: Parameters $P_1$ and $P_2$ of the fit to the azimuthal angle distributions for the SAT-tagged, STIC-tagged, and combined event samples with $Q^2=2.4-51.2$ GeV$^2$. The first error is statistical and the second is systematic. $C_{P_1}$ and $C_{P_2}$ are the correction factors to extrapolate the parameters to the full $\theta^*$ range (see text). The values extracted for $F_A^\gamma/F_2^\gamma$ and ${1\over2} F_B^\gamma/F_2^\gamma$ are shown with statistical and systematic errors added in quadrature.
$x$-interval $F_A^\gamma/F_2^\gamma$ ${1\over2} F_B^\gamma/F_2^\gamma$
-------------- ------------------------- -----------------------------------
$x<0.2$ $0.135\pm0.043$ $0.004\pm0.027$
$0.2<x<0.4$ $0.140\pm0.035$ $0.077\pm0.026$
$0.4<x<0.6$ $0.038\pm0.044$ $0.099\pm0.035$
$x>0.6$ -$0.263\pm0.059$ $0.182\pm0.040$
all $x$ -$0.018\pm0.024$ $0.086\pm0.017$
: Parameters $P_1$ and $P_2$ of the fit to the azimuthal angle distributions for the SAT-tagged, STIC-tagged, and combined event samples with $Q^2=2.4-51.2$ GeV$^2$. The first error is statistical and the second is systematic. $C_{P_1}$ and $C_{P_2}$ are the correction factors to extrapolate the parameters to the full $\theta^*$ range (see text). The values extracted for $F_A^\gamma/F_2^\gamma$ and ${1\over2} F_B^\gamma/F_2^\gamma$ are shown with statistical and systematic errors added in quadrature.
-- --
-- --
[DELPHI]{}
[DELPHI]{}
[DELPHI]{}
[DELPHI]{}
[DELPHI]{}
[DELPHI]{}
[DELPHI]{}\
[DELPHI]{}\
[DELPHI]{}
[DELPHI]{}
[DELPHI]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We prove that any one-ended, locally finite Cayley graph with non-torsion generators admits a decomposition into edge-disjoint Hamiltonian (i.e. spanning) double-rays. In particular, the $n$-dimensional grid $\mathbb{Z}^n$ admits a decomposition into $n$ edge-disjoint Hamiltonian double-rays for all $n \in {\mathbb{N}}$.'
address:
- 'University of Hamburg, Department of Mathematics, Bundesstra[ß]{}e 55 (Geomatikum), 20146 Hamburg, Germany'
- 'University of Warwick, Mathematics Institute, Zeeman Building, Coventry CV4 7AL, United Kingdom'
- 'University of Hamburg, Department of Mathematics, Bundesstra[ß]{}e 55 (Geomatikum), 20146 Hamburg, Germany'
author:
- Joshua Erde
- Florian Lehner
- Max Pitz
bibliography:
- 'Hamilton.bib'
title: 'Hamilton decompositions of one-ended Cayley graphs'
---
[^1]
[^2]
Introduction
============
A *Hamiltonian cycle* of a finite graph is a cycle which includes every vertex of the graph. A finite graph $G=(V,E)$ is said to have a *Hamilton decomposition* if its edge set can be partitioned into disjoint sets $E=E_1 \dot\cup E_2 \dot\cup \cdots \dot\cup E_r$ such that each $E_i$ is a Hamiltonian cycle in $G$.
The starting point for the theory of Hamilton decompositions is an old result by Walecki from 1890 according to which every finite complete graph of odd order has a Hamilton decomposition (see [@A08] for a description of his construction). Since then, this result has been extended in various different ways, and we refer the reader to the survey of Alspach, Bermond and Sotteau [@ABS90] for more information.
Hamiltonicity problems have also been considered for infinite graphs, see for example the survey by Gallian and Witte [@WG84]. While it is sometimes not obvious which objects should be considered the correct generalisations of a Hamiltonian cycle in the setting of infinite graphs, for one-ended graphs the undisputed solution is to consider *double-rays*, i.e. infinite, connected, 2-regular subgraphs. Thus, for us a *Hamiltonian double-ray* is then a double-ray which includes every vertex of the graph, and we say that an infinite graph $G=(V,E)$ has a *Hamilton decomposition* if we can partition its edge set into edge-disjoint Hamiltonian double-rays.
In this paper we will consider infinite variants of two long-standing conjectures on the existence of Hamilton decompositions for finite graphs. The first conjecture concerns Cayley graphs: Given a finitely generated abelian group $(\Gamma,+)$ and a finite generating set $S$ of $\Gamma$, the *Cayley graph* $G(\Gamma,S)$ is the multi-graph with vertex set $\Gamma$ and edge multi-set $$\{(x,x+g) \,: \, x \in \Gamma, g \in S \}.$$
\[c:ab\] If $\Gamma$ is an abelian group and $S$ generates $G$, then the simplification of $G(\Gamma,S)$ has a Hamilton decomposition, provided that it is $2k$-regular for some $k$.
Note that if $S \cap -S = \emptyset$, then $G(\Gamma,S)$ is automatically a $2|S|$-regular simple graph. If $G(\Gamma,S)$ is finite and $2$-regular, then the conjecture is trivially true. Bermond, Favaron and Maheo [@BFM89] showed that the conjecture holds in the case $k=2$. Liu [@L94] proved certain cases of the conjecture for finite $6$-regular Cayley graphs, and his result was further extended by Westlund [@W12].
Our main theorem in this paper is the following affirmative result towards the corresponding infinite analogue of Conjecture \[c:ab\]:
\[t:ZN\] Let $\Gamma$ be an infinite, finitely generated abelian group, and let $S$ be a generating set such that every element of $S$ has infinite order. If the Cayley graph $G=G(\Gamma,S)$ is one-ended, then it has a Hamilton decomposition.
We remark that under the assumption that elements of $S$ are non-torsion, the simplification of $G(\Gamma,S)$ is always isomorphic to a Cayley graph $G(\Gamma,S')$ with $S' \subseteq S$ and $S' \cap -S' = \emptyset$, and so our theorem implies the corresponding version of Conjecture \[c:ab\] for non-torsion generators, in particular for Cayley graphs of $\mathbb Z ^n$ with arbitrary generators.
In the case when $G=G(\Gamma,S)$ is two-ended, there are additional technical difficulties when trying to construct a decomposition into Hamiltonian double-rays. In particular, since each Hamiltonian double-ray must meet every edge cut an odd number of times, there can be parity reasons why no decomposition exists. One particular two-ended case, namely where $\Gamma \cong \mathbb{Z}$, has been considered by Bryant, Herke, Maenhaut and Webb [@BHMW17], who showed that when $G(\mathbb{Z},S)$ is $4$-regular, then $G$ has a Hamilton decomposition unless there is an odd cut separating the two ends.
The second conjecture about Hamiltonicity that we consider concerns Cartesian products of graphs: Given two graphs $G$ and $H$ the *Cartesian product* (or product) $G \square H$ is the graph with vertex set $V(G) \times V(H)$ in which two vertices $(g,h)$ and $(g',h')$ are adjacent if and only if either
- $g = g'$ and $h$ is adjacent to $h'$ in $H$, or
- $h = h'$ and $g$ is adjacent to $g'$ in $G$.
Kotzig [@K73] showed that the Cartesian product of two cycles has a Hamilton decomposition, and conjectured that this should be true for the product of three cycles. Bermond extended this conjecture to the following:
\[c:prod\] If $G_1$ and $G_2$ are finite graphs which both have Hamilton decompositions, then so does $G_1\square G_2$.
Alspach and Godsil [@AG85] showed that the product of any finite number of cycles has a Hamilton decomposition, and Stong [@S91] proved certain cases of Conjecture \[c:prod\] under additional assumptions on the number of Hamilton cycles in the decomposition of $G_1$ and $G_2$ respectively.
Applying techniques we developed to prove Theorem \[t:ZN\], we show as our second main result of this paper that Conjecture \[c:prod\] holds for countably infinite graphs.
[theorem]{}[main]{}\[t:prod\] If $G$ and $H$ are countable graphs which both have Hamilton decompositions, then so does their product $G \square H$.
The paper is structured as follows: In Section \[sec\_group\] we mention some group theoretic results and definitions we will need. In Section \[sec\_cov\] we state our main lemma, the *Covering Lemma*, and show that it implies Theorem \[t:ZN\]. The proof of the Covering Lemma will be the content of Section \[sec\_proof\]. In Section \[sec\_products\] we apply our techniques to prove Theorem \[t:prod\]. Finally, in Section \[sec\_open\] we list open problems and possible directions for further work.
Notation and preliminaries {#sec_group}
==========================
If $G=(V,E)$ is a graph, and $A,B \subseteq V$, we denote by $E(A,B)$ the set of edges between $A$ and $B$, i.e. $E(A,B) = \set{(x,y) \in E}:{x \in A, y \in B}$. For $A \subseteq V$ or $F \subseteq E$ we write $G[A]$ and $G[F]$ for the subgraph of $G$ induced by $A$ and $F$ respectively.
For $A,B \subseteq \Gamma$ subsets of an abelian group $\Gamma$ we write $-A := \set{-a}:{a \in A}$ and $A + B := \set{a+b}:{a \in A, b \in B} \subseteq \Gamma$. If $\Delta$ is a subgroup of $\Gamma$, and $A \subset \Gamma$ a subset, then $A^\Delta = \set{a + \Delta}:{a \in A}$ denotes the family of corresponding cosets. If $g \in \Gamma$ we say that the *order* of $g$ is the smallest $k \in {\mathbb{N}}$ such that $k\cdot g = 0$. If such a $k$ exists, then $g$ is a *torsion element*. Otherwise, we say the order of $g$ is infinite and $g$ is a *non-torsion* element. For $k \in {\mathbb{N}}$ we write $[k] = {{\left\lbrace {1,2,\ldots, k} \right\rbrace}}$.
The following terminology will be used throughout.
\[defn\_isubgraph\] Given a graph $G$, an edge-colouring $c \colon E(G) \rightarrow [s]$ and a colour $i \in [s]$, the *$i$-subgraph* is the subgraph of $G$ induced by the edge set $c^{-1}(i)$, and the *$i$-components* are the components of the $i$-subgraph.
\[defn\_colourings\] Let $\Gamma$ be an infinite abelian group, $S = {{\left\lbrace {g_1,g_2, \ldots , g_s} \right\rbrace}}$ a finite generating set for $\Gamma$ such that every $g_i \in S$ has infinite order, and let $G$ be the Cayley graph $G(\Gamma,S)$.
- The *standard colouring* of $G$ is the edge colouring $c_{\textnormal{std}} \colon E(G) \rightarrow [s]$ such that $c_{\textnormal{std}}\big((x,x + g_i)\big) = i$ for each $x \in \Gamma, g_i \in S$.
- Given a subset $X \subseteq V(G)$ we say that a colouring $c$ is *standard on $X$* if $c$ agrees with $c_{\textnormal{std}}$ on $G[X]$. Similarly if $F \subset E(G)$ we say that $c$ is *standard on $F$* if $c$ agrees with $c_{\textnormal{std}}$ on $F$.
- A colouring $c \colon E(G) \rightarrow [s]$ is *almost-standard* if the following are satisfied:
- there is a finite subset $F \subseteq E(G)$ such that $c$ is standard on $E(G) \setminus F$;
- for each $i \in [s]$ the $i$-subgraph is spanning, and each $i$-component is a double-ray.
Let $\Gamma$ and $S$ be as above. Given $x\in \Gamma$ and $g_i \neq g_j \in S$, we call $${\blacksquare{{{\left( {}} \right)}}{{x},{g_i},{g_j}} } := {{\left\lbrace {(x,x+g_i),(x,x+g_j),(x+g_i ,x + g_i + g_j),(x+g_j,x + g_i + g_j)} \right\rbrace}}$$ an *$(i,j)$-square with base point $x$*, and $${{\leftrightsquigarrow}{{{\left( {}} \right)}}{{x},{g_i}} } := \set{(x+n g_i,x+(n+1)g_i)}:{ n \in {\mathbb{Z}}}$$ an *$i$-double-ray with base point $x$*.
Moreover, given a colouring $c \colon E(G(\Gamma,S)) \rightarrow [s]$ we call ${\blacksquare{{{\left( {}} \right)}}{{x},{g_i},{g_j}} }$ and ${{\leftrightsquigarrow}{{{\left( {}} \right)}}{{x},{g_i}} }$ an *$(i,j)$-standard square* and *$i$-standard double-ray* if $c$ is standard on ${\blacksquare{{{\left( {}} \right)}}{{x},{g_i},{g_j}} }$ and ${{\leftrightsquigarrow}{{{\left( {}} \right)}}{{x},{g_i}} }$ respectively.
Since $\Gamma$ is an abelian group, every ${\blacksquare{{{\left( {}} \right)}}{{x},{g_i},{g_j}} }$ is a $4$-cycle in $G(\Gamma,S)$ (provided $g_i \neq -g_j$), and since $S$ contains no torsion elements of $\Gamma$, ${{\leftrightsquigarrow}{{{\left( {}} \right)}}{{x},{g_k}} }$ really is a double-ray in the Cayley graph $G(\Gamma,S)$.
Let $\Gamma$ be a finitely generated abelian group. By the Classification Theorem for finitely generated abelian groups (see e.g. [@F15]), there are integers $n,q_1,\ldots,q_r$ such that $\Gamma \cong \mathbb{Z}^n \oplus \bigoplus_{i=1}^r \mathbb{Z}_{q_i}$, where $\mathbb{Z}_{q}$ is the additive group of the integers modulo $q$. In particular, for each $\Gamma$ there is an integer $n$ and a finite abelian group $\Gamma_{\text{fin}}$ such that $\Gamma \cong \mathbb{Z}^n \oplus \Gamma_{\text{fin}}$.
The following structural theorem for the ends of finitely generated abelian groups is well-known:
\[thm:one\] For a finitely generated group $\Gamma \cong \mathbb{Z}^n \oplus \Gamma_{\text{fin}}$, the following are equivalent:
- $n \geq 2$,
- there exists a finite generating set $S$ such that $G(\Gamma,S)$ is one-ended, and
- for all finite generating sets $S$, the Cayley graph $G(\Gamma,S)$ is one-ended.
See e.g. [@scott1979topological Proposition 5.2] for the fact the number of ends of $G(\Gamma,S)$ is independent of the choice of the generating set $S$, and [@scott1979topological Theorem 5.12] for the equivalence with the first item.
A group $\Gamma$ satisfying one of the conditions from Theorem \[thm:one\] is called *one-ended*.
\[c:oneend\] Let $\Gamma$ be an abelian group, $S=\{g_1,\ldots, g_s\}$ be a finite generating set such that the Cayley graph $G(\Gamma,S)$ is one-ended. Then, for every $g_i \in S$ of infinite order, there is some $g_j \in S$ such that ${\langle {g_i,g_j} \rangle} \cong ({\mathbb{Z}}^2,+)$.
Suppose not. It follows that in $\Gamma / \langle g_i \rangle$ every element has finite order, and since it is also finitely generated, it is some finite group $\Gamma_f$ such that $\Gamma \cong {\mathbb{Z}}\oplus \Gamma_f$. Thus, by Theorem \[thm:one\], $G$ is not one-ended, a contradiction.
The covering lemma and a high-level proof of Theorem \[t:ZN\] {#sec_cov}
=============================================================
Every Cayley graph $G(\Gamma,S)$ comes with a natural edge colouring $c_{\textnormal{std}}$, where we colour an edge $(x,x+g_i)$ with $x \in \Gamma$ and $g_i \in S$ according to the index $i$ of the corresponding generating element $g_i$. If every element of $S$ has infinite order, then every $i$-subgraph of $G(\Gamma,S)$ consists of a spanning collection of edge-disjoint double-rays, see Definitions \[defn\_isubgraph\] and \[defn\_colourings\]. So, it is perhaps a natural strategy to try to build a Hamiltonian decomposition by combining each of these monochromatic collections of double-rays into a single monochromatic spanning double-ray.
Rather than trying to do this directly, we shall do it in a series of steps: given any colour $i \in [s] = |S|$ and any finite set $X \subset V(G)$, we will show that one can change the standard colouring at finitely many edges so that there is one particular double-ray in the colour $i$ which covers $X$. Moreover, we can ensure that the resulting colouring maintains enough of the structure of the standard colouring that we can repeat this process inductively: it should remain *almost standard*, i.e. all monochromatic components are still double-rays, see Definition \[defn\_colourings\]. By taking a sequence of sets $X_1 \subseteq X_2 \subseteq \cdots$ exhausting the vertex set of $G$, and varying which colour $i$ we consider, we ensure that in the limit, each colour class consists of a single spanning double-ray, giving us the desired Hamilton decomposition.
In this section, we formulate our key lemma, namely the Covering Lemma \[lem\_mainlemma\], which allows us to do each of these steps. We will then show how Theorem \[t:ZN\] follows from the Covering Lemma. The proof of the Covering Lemma is given in Section \[sec\_proof\].
\[lem\_mainlemma\] Let $\Gamma$ be an infinite, one-ended abelian group, $S = {{\left\lbrace {g_1,g_2, \ldots , g_s} \right\rbrace}}$ a finite generating set such that every $g_i \in S$ has infinite order, and $G=G(\Gamma,S)$ the corresponding Cayley graph.
Then for every almost-standard colouring $c$ of $G$, every colour $i$ and every finite subset $X \subseteq V(G)$, there exists an almost-standard colouring $\hat{c}$ of $G$ such that
- $\hat{c}=c$ on $E(G[X])$, and
- some $i$-component in $\hat{c}$ covers $X$.
Fix an enumeration $V(G)=\set{v_n}:{n \in {\mathbb{N}}}$. Let $X_0 = D'_0 = \{v_0\}$ and $c_0 = c_{\textnormal{std}}$. For each $n \geq 1$ we will recursively construct almost standard colourings $c_n \colon E(G) \to [s]$, finite subsets $X_n \subset V(G)$, ($n$ mod $s$)-components $D_n$ of $c_n$ and finite paths $D'_n \subseteq D_n$ such that for every $n \in {\mathbb{N}}$
1. $X_{n-1} \cup {{{\left\lbrace {}} \right\rbrace}}{v_n} \subseteq X_{n}$,
2. $V(D'_{n-1}) \subseteq X_n$,
3. $X_n \subseteq V(D'_n)$,
4. $D'_n$ properly extends the path $D'_{n - s}$ (the ‘previous’ path of colour $n$ mod $s$) in both endpoints of $D'_{n - s}$, and
5. $c_{n}$ agrees with $c_{n-1}$ on $E(G[X_{n}])$.
Suppose inductively for some $n \in {\mathbb{N}}$ that $c_n$, $X_n$, $D_n$ and $D'_n$ have already been defined. Choose some $X_{n +1} \supseteq X_n \cup {{{\left\lbrace {}} \right\rbrace}}{v_n}$ large enough such that (1) and (2) are satisfied. Applying Lemma \[lem\_mainlemma\] with input $c_n$ and $X_{n+1}$ provides us with a colouring $c_{n+1}$ such that (5) is satisfied and some ($n+1$ mod $s$)-component $D_{n+1}$ covers $X_{n+1}$. Since $c_{n+1}$ is almost standard, $D_{n+1}$ is a double-ray. Furthermore, since $c_{n+1}$ agrees with $c_n$ on $E(G[X_{n+1}])$, by the inductive hypothesis it agrees with $c_k$ on $E(G[X_{k+1}])$ for each $k \leq n$.
Therefore, since $D'_{n+1-s} \subset X_{n-s+2}$ is a path of colour ($n+1$ mod $s$) in $c_{n+1-s}$, it follows that $D'_{n+1-s} \subset D_{n+1}$ and so we can extend $D'_{n+1-s}$ to a sufficiently long finite path $D'_{n+1} \subset D_{n+1}$ such that (3) and (4) are satisfied at stage $n+1$.
Once the construction is complete, we define $T_1, \ldots, T_{s} \subset G$ by $$T_i = \bigcup_{n \equiv i \mod s } D'_n$$ and claim that they form a decomposition of $G$ into edge-disjoint Hamiltonian double-rays. Indeed, by (4), each $T_i$ is a double-ray. That they are edge-disjoint can be seen as follows: Suppose for a contradiction that $e \in E(T_i) \cap E(T_j)$. Choose $n(i)$ and $n(j)$ minimal such that $e \in E(D'_{n(i)}) \subset E(T_i)$ and $e \in E(D'_{n(j)}) \subset E(T_j)$. We may assume that $n(i) < n(j)$, and so $e \in E(G[X_{n(i)+1}])$ by (2). Furthermore, by $(5)$ it follows that $c_{n(j)}$ agrees with $c_{n(i)}$ on $E(G[X_{n(i)+1}])$. However by construction $c_{n(j)}(e) = j \neq i = c_{n(i)}(e)$ contradicting the previous line.
Finally, to see that each $T_i$ is spanning, consider some $v_n \in V(G)$. By (1), $v_n \in X_{n}$. Pick $n' \geq n$ with $n' \equiv i \mod s$. Then by (3), $D'_{n'} \subset T_i$ covers $X_{n'}$ which in turn contains $v_n$, as $v_n \in X_{n} \subseteq X_{n'}$ by (1).
Proof of the Covering Lemma {#sec_proof}
===========================
Blanket assumption.
-------------------
Throughout this section, let us now fix
- a one-ended infinite abelian group $\Gamma$ with finite generating set $S = {{\left\lbrace {g_1, \ldots, g_s} \right\rbrace}}$ such that every element of $S$ has infinite order,
- an almost-standard colouring $c$ of the Cayley graph $G=G(\Gamma,S)$,
- a finite subset $X \subseteq \Gamma$ such that $c$ is standard on $V(G) \setminus X$,
- a colour $i$, say $i = 1$, and corresponding generator $g_1 \in S$, for which we want to show Lemma \[lem\_mainlemma\], and finally
- a second generator in $S$, say $g_2$, such that $\Delta:={\langle {g_1,g_2} \rangle} \cong ({\mathbb{Z}}^2,+)$, see Corollary \[c:oneend\].
Overview of proof
-----------------
We want to show Lemma \[lem\_mainlemma\] for the Cayley graph $G$, colouring $c$, generator $g_1$ and finite set $X$. The cosets of ${\langle {g_1,g_2} \rangle}$ in $\Gamma$ cover $V(G)$, and in the standard colouring the edges of colour $1$ and $2$ form a grid on ${\langle {g_1,g_2} \rangle}$. So, since $c$ is almost-standard, on each of these cosets the edges of colour $1$ and $2$ will look like a grid, apart from on some finite set.
Our aim is to use the structure in these grids to change the colouring $c$ to one satisfying the conclusions of Lemma \[lem\_mainlemma\]. It will be more convenient to work with large finite grids, which we require, for technical reasons, to have an even number of rows. This is the reason for the slight asymmetry in the definition below.
Let $g_i,g_j \in \Gamma$. For $N,M \in {\mathbb{N}}$ we write $${{\langle {{g_i},{g_j}} \rangle}_{{N},{M}}} := \set{n g_i + m g_j}:{n,m \in {\mathbb{Z}}, \; -N \leq n \leq N, \; -M < m \leq M} \subseteq {\langle {g_i,g_j} \rangle} \subseteq \Gamma.$$
The structure of our proof can be summarised as follows. First, in Section \[subsec\_1\], we will show that there is some $N_0$ and some ‘nice’ finite set of $P$ of representatives of cosets of ${\langle {g_1,g_2} \rangle}$ such that $P + {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_0},{N_0}}}$ covers $X$. We will then, in Section \[subsec\_1.5\] pick sufficiently large numbers $N_0 < N_1 < N_2 < N_3$ and consider the grids $P + {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_3},{N_1}}}$. Using the structure of the grids we will make local changes to the colouring inside $P + ({{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_3},{N_1}}} \setminus {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_0},{N_0}}})$ to construct our new colouring $\hat{c}$. This new colouring $\hat{c}$ will then agree with $c$ on the subgraph induced by $P + {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_0},{N_0}}} \supseteq X$, and be standard on $V(G) \setminus \big(P + {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_3},{N_1}}} \big)$, and hence, as long as we ensure all the colour components are double-rays, almost-standard.
These local changes will happen in three steps. First, in Step \[step\_co\], we will make local changes inside $x_\ell + ({{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_3},{N_1}}} \setminus {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_2},{N_1}}})$ for each $x_\ell \in P$, in order to make every $i$-component meeting $P + {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_2},{N_1}}}$ a finite cycle.
Next, in Step \[step\_cc\], we will make local changes inside $x_\ell + ({{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_2},{N_1}}} \setminus {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_1},{N_1}}})$ for each $x_\ell \in P$, in order to combine the cycles meeting this translate of the grid into a single cycle.
Finally, in Step \[step\_mainlemma\_quant\], we will make local changes inside $P + ({{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_1},{N_1}}} \setminus {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_0},{N_0}}})$, in order to join the cycles for different $x_\ell$ into a single cycle covering $P + {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_0},{N_0}}}$. We then make one final local change to turn this finite cycle into a double-ray.
Identifying the relevant cosets {#subsec_1}
-------------------------------
\[lem\_coveringpath\] There exist $N_0 \in {\mathbb{N}}$ and a finite set $P = {{\left\lbrace {x_0, \ldots, x_t} \right\rbrace}} \subset \Gamma$ such that
- $P^\Delta = {{\left\lbrace {x_0 + \Delta, \ldots, x_t + \Delta} \right\rbrace}}$ is a path in $G(\Gamma / \Delta, {{{\left( {}} \right)}}{S \setminus {{\left\lbrace {g_1,g_2} \right\rbrace}}}^\Delta)$, and
- $X \subseteq P + {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_0},{N_0}}}$.
Since $X$ is finite, there is a finite set $Y = {{\left\lbrace {y_1, \ldots, y_k} \right\rbrace}} \subset \Gamma$ such that the cosets in $Y^\Delta={{\left\lbrace {y_1 + \Delta, \ldots, y_k + \Delta} \right\rbrace}}$ are all distinct and cover $X$. Moreover, since every $(y_\ell + \Delta ) \cap X$ is finite, there exists $N_0 \in {\mathbb{N}}$ such that $$(y_\ell + {\langle {g_1,g_2} \rangle}) \cap X = (y_\ell + {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_0},{N_0}}} ) \cap X$$ for all $1 \leq \ell \leq k$. Then $X \subseteq Y + {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_0},{N_0}}}$.
Next, by a result of Nash-Williams [@N59], every Cayley graph of a countably infinite abelian group has a Hamilton double-ray, and it is a folklore result (see [@WG84]) that every Cayley graph of a finite abelian group has a Hamilton cycle. So in particular, the Cayley graph of $(\Gamma / \Delta, {{{\left( {}} \right)}}{S \setminus {{\left\lbrace {g_1,g_2} \right\rbrace}}}^\Delta)$, has a Hamilton cycle / double-ray, say $H$. Let $P \supseteq Y$ be a finite set of representatives of the cosets of $\Delta$ which lie on the convex hull of $Y^\Delta$ on $H$. It is clear that $P$ is as required.
- For the rest of this section let us fix $N_0 \in \mathbb{N}$ and $P = {{\left\lbrace {x_0, \ldots, x_t} \right\rbrace}} \subset \Gamma$ to be as given by Lemma \[lem\_coveringpath\].
Picking sufficiently large grids {#subsec_1.5}
--------------------------------
In order to choose our grids large enough to be able to make all the necessary changes to our colouring, we will first need the following lemma, which guarantees that we can find, for each $k \neq 1,2$ and $x \in \Gamma$, many distinct standard $k$-double-rays which go between the cosets $x + \Delta$ and $(x + g_k) + \Delta$.
\[l\_enoughuntamperedrays\] For any $g_k \in S \setminus {{{\left\lbrace {}} \right\rbrace}}{g_1,g_2}$ and any pair of distinct cosets $x+\Delta$ and $(g_k+x)+\Delta$, there are infinitely many distinct standard $k$-double-rays $R$ for the colouring $c$ with $E(R) \cap E(x+\Delta,(g_k+x)+\Delta) \neq \emptyset$.
It clearly suffices to prove the assertion for $c = c_\textnormal{std}$. We claim that either $${\mathcal}{R}_1=\set{{{\leftrightsquigarrow}{{{\left( {}} \right)}}{{x+mg_1},{g_k}} }}:{m \in {\mathbb{Z}}} \; \text{ or } \; {\mathcal}{R}_2=\set{{{\leftrightsquigarrow}{{{\left( {}} \right)}}{{x+mg_2},{g_k}} }}:{m \in {\mathbb{Z}}}$$ is such a collection of disjoint standard $k$-double-rays.
Suppose that ${\mathcal}{R}_1$ is not a collection of disjoint double-rays. Then there are $m \neq m' \in {\mathbb{Z}}$ and $n,n' \in {\mathbb{Z}}$ such that $$m g_1 + n g_k = m' g_1 + n' g_k.$$ Since $g_k$ has infinite order, it follows that $n \neq n'$, too, and so we can conclude that there are $\ell, \ell' \in {\mathbb{Z}}\setminus {{{\left\lbrace {}} \right\rbrace}}{0}$ such that $\ell g_1 = \ell' g_k.$ Similarly, if ${\mathcal}{R}_2$ was not a collection of disjoint double-rays, then we can find $q, q' \in {\mathbb{Z}}\setminus {{{\left\lbrace {}} \right\rbrace}}{0}$ such that $q g_2 = q' g_k.$ However, it now follows that $$q'\ell g_1 = q'(\ell' g_k) = \ell' (q'g_k) = \ell' q g_2,$$ contradicting the fact that $\langle g_1, g_2 \rangle \cong ({\mathbb{Z}}^2,+)$. This establishes the claim.
Finally, observe that if say ${\mathcal}{R}_1$ is a disjoint collection, then for every $R_m = {{\leftrightsquigarrow}{{{\left( {}} \right)}}{{x+mg_1},{g_k}} } \in {\mathcal}{R}_1$ we have $(x + m g_1,x + m g_1 + g_k) \in E(R_m) \cap E(x+\Delta,(g_k+x)+\Delta)$ as desired.
We are now ready to define our numbers $N_0 < N_1 < N_2 < N_3$. Recall that $N_0$ and $P={{\left\lbrace {x_0, \ldots, x_t} \right\rbrace}}$ are given by Lemma \[lem\_coveringpath\]. For each $\ell \in [t]$, let $g_{n(\ell)}$ be some generator in $S \setminus {{\left\lbrace {g_1,g_2} \right\rbrace}}$ that induces the edge between $x_{\ell-1} + \Delta$ and $x_\ell+ \Delta$ on the path $P^\Delta$. Note that $n(\ell) \in [s] \setminus {{\left\lbrace {1,2} \right\rbrace}}$ for all $\ell$.
By Lemma \[l\_enoughuntamperedrays\], we may find $t^2$ many disjoint standard double-rays $${\mathcal}{R} = \set{R^k_\ell}:{1 \leq k,\ell \leq t}$$ such that for every $\ell$, the double-rays in $\set{R^k_\ell = {{\leftrightsquigarrow}{{{\left( {}} \right)}}{{y^k_\ell},{g_{n(\ell)}}} }}:{k \in [t]}$ are standard $n(\ell)$-double-rays containing an edge $$e^k_\ell=(y^k_\ell,y^k_\ell + g_{n(\ell)}) \in E(R^k_\ell) \cap E(x_{\ell-1}+\Delta, x_\ell + \Delta)$$ so that all $T^k_\ell = {\blacksquare{{{\left( {}} \right)}}{{y^k_\ell},{g_i},{g_{n(\ell)}}} }$ are $(1,n(\ell))$-standard squares for $c$ which have empty intersection with ${{\left\lbrace {x_{\ell-1},x_\ell} \right\rbrace}} + {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_0},{N_0}}}$. Furthermore we may assume that these standard squares are all edge-disjoint. Then
- let $N_1 > N_0$ be sufficiently large such that the subgraph induced by $P + {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_1-3},{N_1-3}}}$ contains all standard squares $T^k_\ell$ mentioned above.
- Let $N_2$ be arbitrary with $N_2 \geq 5N_1$.
- Let $N_3$ be arbitrary with $N_3 \geq N_2 + 2N_1$.
The cap-off step {#subsec_2}
----------------
Our main tool for locally modifying our colouring is the following notion of ‘colour switchings’, which is also used in [@L94].
Given an edge colouring $c \colon E(G(\Gamma,S)) \to [s]$ and an $(i,j)$-standard square ${\blacksquare{{{\left( {}} \right)}}{{x},{g_i},{g_j}} }$, a *colour switching* on ${\blacksquare{{{\left( {}} \right)}}{{x},{g_i},{g_j}} }$ changes the colouring $c$ to the colouring $c'$ such that
- $c'=c$ on $E \setminus {\blacksquare{{{\left( {}} \right)}}{{x},{g_i},{g_j}} }$,
- $c'\big((x,x+g_i)\big) = c'\big((x + g_j,x+ g_i + g_j)\big) = j$,
- $c'\big((x,x+g_j)\big) = c'\big((x + g_i,x+ g_i + g_j)\big) = i$.
It would be convenient if colour switchings maintained the property that a colouring is almost-standard. Indeed, if $c$ is standard on $E(G) \setminus F$ then $c'$ is standard on $E(G) \setminus (F \cup {\blacksquare{{{\left( {}} \right)}}{{x},{g_i},{g_j}} })$. Also, it is a simple check that if the $i$ and $j$-subgraphs of $G$ for $c$ are $2$-regular and spanning, then the same is true for $c'$. However, some $i$ or $j$-components may change from double-rays to finite cycles, and vice versa.
\[step\_co\] There is a colouring $c'$ obtained from $c$ by colour switchings of finitely many $(1,2)$-standard squares such that
- $c'=c$ on $E(G[X])$;
- every $1$-component in $c'$ meeting $P + {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_2},{N_1}}}$ is a finite cycle intersecting both $P + ({{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_3},{N_1}}} \setminus {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_2},{N_1}}})$ and $P + {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_1},{N_1}}}$;
- every other $1$-component, and all other components of all other colour classes of $c'$ are double-rays;
- $c'$ is standard outside of $P + {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_3},{N_1}}}$ and inside of $P + ({{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_2},{N_1}}} \setminus {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_0},{N_0}}})$;
- for each $x_\ell \in P$, the sets of vertices $${{\left\lbrace {{x_l + n g_1 + mg_2}\colon{ N_1 \leq |n| \leq N_2 , m \in \{ N_1, N_1 -1\}}} \right\rbrace}}$$ are each contained in a single $1$-component of $c'$.
For $\ell \in [t]$ and $q \in [N_1]$ let $R^\ell_q ={\blacksquare{{{\left( {}} \right)}}{{v^\ell_q},{g_1},{g_2}} }$ and $L^\ell_q ={\blacksquare{{{\left( {}} \right)}}{{w^\ell_q},{g_1},{g_2}} }$ be the $(1,2)$-squares with base point $v^\ell_q = x_\ell + (N_3 + 1 -2q) \cdot g_1 + (N_1 + 1 - 2q) \cdot g_2$ and $w^\ell_q = x_\ell - (N_3 + 2 -2q) \cdot g_1 + (N_1 + 1 - 2q) \cdot g_2$ respectively. The square $L^\ell_q$ is the mirror image of $R^\ell_q$ with respect to the $y$-axis of the grid $x_\ell + {\langle {g_1,g_2} \rangle}$, however the base points are not mirror images, accounting for the slight asymmetry in the definitions.
Since $N_3 \geq N_2 + 2N_1$, it follows that $$R^\ell_q \cup L^\ell_q \subseteq E(x_\ell + ({{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_3},{N_1}}} \setminus {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_2},{N_1}}}))$$ for all $q \in [N_1]$, and so by assumption on $c$, all $R^\ell_q$ and $L^\ell_q$ are indeed standard $(1,2)$-squares. We perform colour switchings on $R^\ell_q$ and $L^\ell_q$ for all $\ell \in [t]$ and $q \in [N_1]$, and call the resulting edge colouring $c'$. It is clear that $c'=c$ on $E(G[X])$ and that $c'$ is standard outside of $P + {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_3},{N_1}}}$ and inside of $P + ({{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_2},{N_1}}} \setminus {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_0},{N_0}}})$.
in [1,...,]{} [ (--.5,) – (+.5,); ]{}
in [-,...,]{} [ (,-+.5) – (,+.5); ]{}
(+.3,-) – (--.3,-); at (,--1) [${{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_1},{N_1}}}$]{};
(-+.3,--2) – (-+-.3,--2); at (--1,--3) [${{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_2},{N_1}}}$]{};
(+.3,--4) – (--.3,--4); at (-2,--5) [${{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_3},{N_1}}}$]{};
(--.3,-+.7) rectangle (+.3,+.3); at (0,-+1.5) ; (xl) at (0,0) ; at (1,0) ;
in [1,...,]{}
at (+.5,+.5) [$\textnormal{\tiny{x}}$]{}; (,) – (+1,); (,) – (,-.5); (+1,) – (+1,-.5);
(,+1) – (+1,+1); (,+1) – (,+1.5); (+1,+1) – (+1,+1.5);
(,) – (,+1); (,) – (-.5,); (,+1) – (-.5,+1);
(+1,) – (+1,+1); (+1,) – (+1.5,); (+1,+1) – (+1.5,+1);
in [1,...,]{}
at (+.5,+.5) [$\textnormal{\tiny{x}}$]{}; (,) – (+1,); (,) – (,-.5); (+1,) – (+1,-.5);
(,+1) – (+1,+1); (,+1) – (,+1.5); (+1,+1) – (+1,+1.5);
(,) – (,+1); (,) – (-.5,); (,+1) – (-.5,+1);
(+1,) – (+1,+1); (+1,) – (+1.5,); (+1,+1) – (+1.5,+1);
Let $C \subset G$ denote the region consisting of all vertices that lie in $x_\ell + ({{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_3},{N_1}}}$ for some $\ell$ between a pair $L^\ell_q$ and $R^\ell_q$ for some $q$, i.e. $$C = \bigcup_{\ell=1}^{t}\bigcup_{q=1}^{N_1} \bigcup_{m=1}^2 \set{x_\ell + n g_1 + (N_1 + m- 2q) g_2}:{|n| \leq N_3 + 1 -2q}.$$ Then $P + {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_2},{N_1}}} \subseteq C$. By construction, there are no edges of colour $1$ in $c'$ leaving $C$, that is, $E(C,V(G) \setminus C) \cap c'^{-1}(1) = \emptyset$. In particular, since the $1$-subgraph of $G$ under $c'$ remains $2$-regular and spanning, as remarked above, all $1$-components under $c'$ inside $C$ are finite cycles, whose union covers $C$.
Also, since each $1$-component of $c$ is a double-ray, it must leave the finite set $P + {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_3},{N_1}}}$ and hence meets some $R_q^\ell$ or $L_q^\ell$. Therefore, by construction each $1$-component of $c'$ inside $C$ meets some $R_q^\ell$ or $L_q^\ell$ and so, since $c'$ is standard outside of $P + {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_0},{N_0}}}$ except at the squares $R_q^\ell$ or $L_q^\ell$, each such $1$-component meets both $P + ({{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_3},{N_1}}} \setminus {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_2},{N_1}}})$ and $P + {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_1},{N_1}}}$.
Moreover, all other colour components remain double-rays. This is clear for all $k$-components of $G$ if $k \neq 1,2$ (as the colours switchings of $(1,2)$-standard squares did not affect these other colours). However, it is also clear for the $1$-coloured double-rays outside of $C$ and also for all $2$-coloured components, as we chose our standard squares $R_q^\ell$ and $L_q^\ell$ ‘staggered’, so as not to create any finite monochromatic cycles, see Figure \[fig\_capoff\] (recall that every $x_\ell + \Delta$ is isomorphic to the grid).
Finally, since $N_1 > N_0$, the edge set $$\begin{aligned}
\{(x_\ell & + n g_1 + N_1 g_2, x_\ell + (n+1) g_1 + N_1 g_2)\colon -N_3 \leq |n| < N_3-1\} \\
& \cup {{\left\lbrace {(v^\ell_1,v^\ell_1 + g_2),((w^\ell_1+g_1,w^\ell_1 + g_1 + g_2))} \right\rbrace}} \\
& \cup {{\left\lbrace {(x_\ell + n g_1 + (N_1-1) g_2, x_\ell + (n+1) g_1 + (N_1-1) g_2)} \right\rbrace}}:{-N_3 \leq n < -N_1} \\
& \cup {{\left\lbrace {(x_\ell + n g_1 + (N_1-1) g_2, x_\ell + (n+1) g_1 + (N_1-1) g_2)} \right\rbrace}}:{N_1 \leq n < N_3}\end{aligned}$$ meets only $R^\ell_1$ and $L^\ell_1$ and therefore is easily seen to be part of the same $1$-component of $c'$. In Figure \[fig\_capoff\], these edges correspond to the red line at the top, and the two lines below it on either side of $x_\ell + {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_1},{N_1}}}$.
Combining cycles inside each coset of $\Delta$ {#subsec_3}
----------------------------------------------
In the previous step we chose the $(1,2)$-standard squares at which we performed colour switchings in a staggered manner in the grids $x_l + {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_3},{N_1}}}$, so that we could guarantee that all the $2$-components were still double-rays afterwards. In later steps we will no longer be able to be as explicit about which standard squares we perform colour switchings at, and so we will require the following definitions to be able to say when it is ‘safe’ to perform a colour switching at a standard square.
Suppose $R = \set{ (v_i,v_{i+1})}:{i \in \mathbb{Z}}$ is a double-ray and $e_1 = (v_{j_1},v_{j_2})$ and $e_2 = (v_{k_1},v_{k_2})$ are edges with $j_1 < j_2$ and $k_1 < k_2$. We say that $e_1$ and $e_2$ *cross* on $R$ if either $j_1 < k_1 < j_2 < k_2$ or $k_1<j_1<k_2<j_2$.
\[l:crossingwithstandard\] For an edge-colouring $c \colon E(G(\Gamma,S)) \rightarrow [s]$, suppose that ${\blacksquare{{{\left( {}} \right)}}{{x},{g_i},{g_k}} }$ is an $(i,k)$-standard square with $g_i \neq g_k$, and further that the two $k$-coloured edges $(x,x+g_k)$ and $(x+g_i,x+g_i+g_k)$ of ${\blacksquare{{{\left( {}} \right)}}{{x},{g_i},{g_k}} }$ lie on the same *standard $k$-double-ray* $R = {{\leftrightsquigarrow}{{{\left( {}} \right)}}{{x},{g_k}} }$. Then the two $i$-coloured edges of ${\blacksquare{{{\left( {}} \right)}}{{x},{g_i},{g_k}} }$ cross on $R$.
Write $e_1 = (x,x+g_i)$ and $e_2 = (x+g_k,x+g_k+g_i)$ for the two $i$-coloured edges of ${\blacksquare{{{\left( {}} \right)}}{{x},{g_i},{g_k}} }$. The assumption that $(x,x+g_k)$ and $(x+g_i,x+g_i+g_k)$ both lie on ${{\leftrightsquigarrow}{{{\left( {}} \right)}}{{x},{g_k}} }$ implies that $g_i = rg_k$ for some $r \in {\mathbb{Z}}\setminus {{{\left\lbrace {}} \right\rbrace}}{-1,0,1}$. If $r > 1$, we have $x < x + g_k < x+g_i < x+g_k+g_i$ (where $<$ denotes the natural linear order on the vertex set of the double-ray), and if $r < -1$, we have $x + g_i < x + g_k + g_i < x < x+g_k$, and so the edges $e_1$ and $e_2$ indeed cross on $R$.
Given an edge colouring $c \colon E(G(\Gamma,S)) \to [s]$ we say an $(i,k)$-standard square ${\blacksquare{{{\left( {}} \right)}}{{x},{g_i},{g_k}} }$ is *safe* if $g_i \neq -g_k$ and either
- the $k$-components for $c$ meeting $T$ are distinct double-rays, or
- there is a unique $k$-component for $c$ meeting $T$, which is a double-ray on which $(x,x+g_i)$ and $(x+g_k,x+g_i+g_k)$ cross.
The following lemma tells us, amongst other things, that if we perform a colour switching at a safe $(1,k)$-standard square then the $k$-components in the resulting colouring meeting that square will still be double-rays.
\[l:easyflip2\] Let $c \colon E(G(\Gamma,S)) \to [s]$ be an edge colouring, T = ${\blacksquare{{{\left( {}} \right)}}{{x},{g_i},{g_k}} }$ be an $(i,k)$-standard square with $g_i \neq -g_k$, and $c'$ be the colouring obtained by performing a colour switching on $T$. Suppose that the $i$ and $k$-components for $c$ meeting $T$ are all $2$-regular, and that there are two distinct $i$-components $C_1$ and $C_2$ meeting $T$, at least one of which is a finite cycle. Then the following statements are true:
- There is a single $i$-component for $c'$ meeting $T$ which covers $V(C_1) \cup V(C_2)$;
- If the $k$-components for $c$ meeting $T$ are distinct double-rays then the $k$-components for $c'$ meeting $T$ are distinct double-rays;
- If there is a unique $k$-component for $c$ meeting $T$, which is a double-ray on which $(x,x+g_i)$ and $(x+g_k,x+g_i+g_k)$ cross, then there is unique $k$-component for $c'$ meeting $T$, which is a double-ray.
(-2,0) – (3,0) – (3,-1) – (-2,-1) – (-2,0); (3,1) – (-2,1);
at (.5,-.3) ; at (.5,1.4) ; at (-.4,.5) ; at (1.4,.5) ;
(0,-4) – (0,4); (1,4) – (1,-4);
at (4,0) [$\mapsto$]{};
(-2,0) – (3,0) – (3,-1) – (-2,-1) – (-2,0); (3,1) – (-2,1);
(0,-4) – (0,4); (1,4) – (1,-4); (0,0)–(1,0); (0,1)–(1,1); (0,0)–(0,1); (1,0)–(1,1);
(0,-4) – (0,4);
at (.4,1.5) ; at (.4,-1.5) ;
at (-1.2,1) ; at (-1.2,-1) ;
(0,-2)–(1,-2) (0,-1)–(1,-1) (0,1)–(1,1) (0,2)–(1,2) ; at (1.5,-2) [$\ldots$]{}; at (1.5,-1) [$\ldots$]{}; at (1.5,1) [$\ldots$]{}; at (1.5,2) [$\ldots$]{};
(0,-2) to\[out=180,in=180\] (0,1); (0,-1) to\[out=180,in=180\] (0,2);
at ( 3,0) [$\mapsto$]{};
(0,-4) – (0,4);
(0,-2)–(1,-2) (0,-1)–(1,-1) (0,1)–(1,1) (0,2)–(1,2) ; at (1.5,-2) [$\ldots$]{}; at (1.5,-1) [$\ldots$]{}; at (1.5,1) [$\ldots$]{}; at (1.5,2) [$\ldots$]{};
(0,-2)–(0,-1) (0,1)–(0,2);
(0,-2) to\[out=180,in=180\] (0,1); (0,-1) to\[out=180,in=180\] (0,2);
Let us write $e_i=(x,x+g_i)$, $e_k=(x,x+g_k)$, $e'_i=(x+g_k,x + g_i + g_k)$ and $e'_k=(x+g_i,x + g_i + g_k)$, so that ${\blacksquare{{{\left( {}} \right)}}{{x},{g_i},{g_j}} } = {{\left\lbrace {e_i,e_k,e'_i,e'_k} \right\rbrace}}$.
For the first item, let the $i$-components for $c$ be $e_i \in C_1$ and $e'_i\in C_2$, where without loss of generality $C_2$ is a finite cycle. Then $C_2 - e'_i$ is a finite path, and $C_1 - e_i$ has at most $2$ components, one containing $x$ and one containing $x + g_i$. Hence, the $i$-component for $c'$ meeting $T$, $(C_1 \cup C_2) - {{\left\lbrace {e_i,e'_i} \right\rbrace}} + {{\left\lbrace {e_k,e'_k} \right\rbrace}}$, is connected and covers $V(C_1) \cup V(C_2)$.
For the second item, let the $k$-components for $c$ be $e_k \in D_1$ and $e'_k\in D_2$. Then $D_1 - e_k$ has two components, a ray starting at $x$ and a ray starting at $x+g_k$. Similarly, $D_2 - e'_k$ has two components, a ray starting at $x+g_i$ and a ray starting at $x + g_i + g_k$. Hence, the $k$-components for $c'$ meeting $T$, which are the components of $(D_1 \cup D_2) - {{\left\lbrace {e_k,e'_k} \right\rbrace}} + {{\left\lbrace {e_i,e'_i} \right\rbrace}} $, are distinct double-rays.
Finally, if there is a single $k$-component $D$ for $c$ meeting $T$ such that $D$ is a double-ray, then $D - {{\left\lbrace {e_k,e'_k} \right\rbrace}}$ consist of three components. Since $e_i$ and $e'_i$ cross on $D$ there are two cases as to what these components are. Either the components consist of two rays, starting at $x$ and $x + g_i + g_k$ and a finite path from $x+g_k$ to $x+g_i$, or the components consist of two rays, starting at $x+g_i$ and $x+g_k$, and a finite path from $x+g_i+g_k$ to $x$. In either case, the $k$-component for $c'$ meeting $T$, namely $D - {{\left\lbrace {e_k,e'_k} \right\rbrace}} + {{\left\lbrace {e_i,e'_i} \right\rbrace}} $, is a double-ray.
Lemma \[l:easyflip2\] is also useful as the first item allows us to use $(1,k)$ colour switchings to combine two $1$-components into a single $1$-component which covers the same vertex set.
\[step\_cc\] We can change $c'$ from Step \[step\_co\] via colour switchings of finitely many $(1,2)$-standard squares to a colouring $c''$ satisfying
- $c''=c'=c$ on $E(G[X])$;
- every $1$-component in $c''$ meeting $P + {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_2},{N_1}}}$ is a finite cycle intersecting both $P + ({{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_3},{N_1}}} \setminus {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_2},{N_1}}})$ and $P + {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_1},{N_1}}}$;
- every other $1$-component, and all other components of all other colour classes of $c''$ are double-rays;
- every $1$-component in $c''$ meeting some $x_k + ({{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_2},{N_1}}} \setminus {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_0},{N_0}}}) $ covers $x_k + ({{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_2},{N_1}}} \setminus {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_0},{N_0}}})$;
- $c''$ is standard outside of $P + {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_3},{N_1}}}$ and inside of $P + ({{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_1},{N_1}}} \setminus {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_0},{N_0}}})$.
Our plan will be to go through the ‘grids’ $x_k + {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_2},{N_1}}}$ in order, from $k=0$ to $t$, and use colour switchings to combine all the $1$-components which meet $x_k + ({{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_2},{N_1}}} \setminus {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_0},{N_0}}}) $ into a single $1$-component. We note that, since $c'$ is not standard on $X$, it may be the case that these $1$-components also meet $x_{k'} + {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_2},{N_1}}}$ for $k' \neq k$.
We claim inductively that there exists a sequence of colourings $c' = c_0,c_1, \ldots, c_t = c''$ such that for each $0 \leq \ell \leq t$:
- $c_\ell=c'=c$ on $E(G[X])$;
- every $1$-component in $c_\ell$ meeting $P + {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_2},{N_1}}}$ is a finite cycle intersecting both $P + ({{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_3},{N_1}}} \setminus {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_2},{N_1}}})$ and $P + {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_1},{N_1}}}$;
- for every $k \leq \ell$, every $1$-component in $c_\ell$ meeting $x_k + ({{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_2},{N_1}}} \setminus {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_0},{N_0}}})$ covers $x_k + ({{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_2},{N_1}}} \setminus {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_0},{N_0}}})$;
- for every $k > \ell$, $c_\ell=c'$ on $x_k +{{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_2},{N_1}}}$
- every other $1$-component, and all other components of all other colour classes of $c_\ell$ are double-rays;
- $c_\ell$ is standard outside of $P + {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_3},{N_1}}}$ and inside of $P + ({{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_1},{N_1}}} \setminus {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_0},{N_0}}})$.
In Step \[step\_co\] we constructed $c_0=c'$ such that this holds. Suppose that $0 < \ell \leq t$, and that we have already constructed $c_k$ for $k < \ell$.
For $q \in [4N_1 - 2]$ we define $T_q = {\blacksquare{{{\left( {}} \right)}}{{v_q},{g_1},{g_2}} }$ to be the $(1,2)$-square with base point $$v_q = \begin{cases} x_\ell + (N_2 +2 - 2q)g_1 + (N_1 - q)g_2 & \text{ if } \; q \leq 2N_1 - 1, \; \text{ and} \\
x_\ell - (N_2 + 3- 2q')g_1 + (N_1 - q')g_2 & \text{ if } \; q'= q-(2N_1-1) \geq 1.
\end{cases}$$ With these definitions, $T_{2N_1-1+q}$ is the mirror image of $T_q$ for all $q \in [2N_1-1]$ along the $y$-axis. Moreover, since $N_2 \geq 5N_1$, each $T_q$ is contained within $x_k + ({{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_2},{N_1}}} \setminus {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_1},{N_1}}})$.
We will combine the $1$-components in $c_{\ell-1}$ which meet $x_\ell + ({{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_2},{N_1}}} \setminus {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_0},{N_0}}}) $ into a single component by performing colour switchings at some of the $(1,2)$-squares $T_q$. Let us show first that most of the induction hypotheses are maintained regardless of the subset of the $T_q$ we make switchings at.
in [1,...,]{} [ (--.5,) – (+.5,); ]{}
in [-,...,]{} [ (,-+.5) – (,+.5); ]{}
(+.3,-) – (--.3,-); at (,--1) [${{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_1},{N_1}}}$]{};
(+.3,--2) – (--.3,--2); at (-2,--3) [${{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_2},{N_1}}}$]{};
(--.3,-+.7) rectangle (+.3,+.3); at (0,-+1.5) ; (xl) at (0,0) ; at (1,0) ;
in [1,...,]{} [ (--.5, 7 - 2\*) to\[out=180,in=180\] (--.5,6 - 2\*); (+.5, 7 - 2\*) to\[out=0,in=0\] (+.5,6 - 2\*); ]{} in [-,...,]{} [ at (+.5,+.5) [$\textnormal{\tiny{x}}$]{}; ]{} in [-,...,]{} [ at (+.5,+.5) [$\textnormal{\tiny{x}}$]{}; ]{}
(,-1) – (-1,-1); (,-1) – (,-0.5); (-1,-1) – (-1,-0.5);
(,-2) – (-1,-2); (,-2) – (,-2.5); (-1,-2) – (-1,-2.5);
(,-1) – (,-2); (,-1) – (+.5,-1); (,-2) – (+.5,-2);
(-1,-1) – (-1,-2); (-1,-1) – (-1.5,-1); (-1,-2) – (-1.5,-2);
We note that, since $c_{\ell-1}$ is standard inside of $x_\ell + ({{\langle {{g_1},{g_1}} \rangle}_{{N_2},{N_1}}} \setminus {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_0},{N_0}}})$ and outside of $P + {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_3},{N_1}}}$, and $g_1 \neq -g_2$, each $T_q$ is a safe $(1,2)$-standard square for $c_{\ell-1}$. Furthermore, by construction, even if we perform colour switchings at any subset of the $T_q$, the remaining squares remain standard and safe.
Hence, by Lemma \[l:easyflip2\] and the induction assumption, after performing colour switchings at any subset of the standard squares $T_q$ all $2$-components of the resulting colouring will be double-rays. Secondly, these colour switching will not change the colouring outside of $P + {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_2},{N_1}}}$ and inside of $P + {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_1},{N_1}}}$, or in any $x_k + {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_2},{N_1}}}$ with $k \neq \ell$. In particular, every $1$-component not meeting $P + {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_2},{N_1}}}$ will still be a double-ray. Finally, again by Lemma \[l:easyflip2\], every $1$-component of the resulting colouring meeting $P + {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_2},{N_1}}}$ will be a finite cycle which covers the vertex set of some union of $1$-components in $c_{\ell-1}$, and hence will intersect both $P + ({{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_3},{N_1}}} \setminus {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_2},{N_1}}})$ and $P + {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_1},{N_1}}}$.
Let us write $e_q = (v_q,v_q + g_1)$ for each $q \in [4N_1-2]$. Since $c_{\ell-1} = c'$ on $x_\ell +{{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_2},{N_1}}}$, and by Step \[step\_co\] $c'$ is standard on $x_\ell + ({{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_2},{N_1}}} \setminus {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_0},{N_0}}})$, each $1$-component of $c_{\ell-1}$ that meets $x_\ell + ({{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_2},{N_1}}} \setminus {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_0},{N_0}}})$ contains at least one $e_q$. Also, $e_1$ and $e_{2N_1}$ belong to the same $1$-component by the last claim in Step \[step\_co\]. Let us write ${\mathcal}{C}$ for the collection of such cycles, and consider the map $$\alpha \colon {\mathcal}{C} \to {{\left\lbrace {1, \ldots, 4N_1-1} \right\rbrace}}, \; C \mapsto \min \set{q}:{e_q \in E(C)},$$ which maps each cycle to the first $e_q$ that it contains. Since ${\mathcal}{C}$ is a disjoint collection of cycles, the map $\alpha$ is injective. Now let $c_\ell$ be the colouring obtained from $c_{\ell-1}$ by switching all standard squares in $${\mathcal}{T}=\set{T_q}:{q \in \operatorname{ran}(\alpha)} \setminus \{T_1\}.$$
We claim that $c_\ell$ satisfies our induction hypothesis for $\ell$. By the previous comments it will be sufficient to show
Every $1$-component in $c_\ell$ meeting $x_\ell + ({{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_2},{N_1}}} \setminus {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_0},{N_0}}})$ covers $x_\ell + ({{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_2},{N_1}}} \setminus {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_0},{N_0}}}) $.
To see this, we index ${\mathcal}{C} = {{\left\lbrace {C_1, \ldots, C_r} \right\rbrace}}$ such that $u< v$ implies $\alpha(C_u) < \alpha(C_v)$, and consider the sequence of colourings $\set{c^z}:{ z\in [r]}$ where $c^1 = c_\ell$ and each $c^z$ is obtained from $c^{z-1}$ by switching the standard square $T_{\alpha(C_z)}$.
Let us show by induction that for every $z \in [r]$ there is an $1$-component of $c^z$ which covers $\bigcup_{y \leq z} C_y$. For $z=1$ the claim is clearly true. So, suppose $z > 1$. Since $\alpha(C_z)$ is minimal in $\{ \alpha(C_y) \colon y \geq z \}$ it follows that $e_q \in \bigcup_{y < z} C_y$ for every $q < \alpha(C_z)$. Note that, since $c_{\ell-1} = c'$ on $x_\ell + {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_2},{N_1}}}$, it follows from the final claim in the Cap-off step that $C_1$ contains both $e_1$ and $e_{2N_1}$, and so $\alpha(C_z) \neq 2N_1$.
Consider the standard square $T_{\alpha(C_z)}$. Since $c_{\ell-1} = c'$ on $x_\ell + {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_2},{N_1}}}$, by construction the edge ‘opposite’ to $e_{\alpha(C_z)}$ in $T_{\alpha(C_z)}$, that is, $e_{\alpha(C_z)} + g_j$, is in the same $1$-component in $c_{\ell-1}$ as $e_{\alpha(C_z) - 1}$, and hence is contained in $\bigcup_{y < z} C_y$.
Therefore, by Lemma \[l:easyflip2\], after performing an $(1,2)$-colour switching at $T_{\alpha(C_z)}$, the $1$-component in $c^z$ contains $\bigcup_{y \leq z} C_y$.
Hence, there is an $1$-component of $c_\ell = c^r$ which covers $\bigcup_{y \leq r} C_y$, and so there is a unique $1$-component of $c_\ell$ meeting $x_\ell + ({{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_2},{N_1}}} \setminus {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_0},{N_0}}}) $ which covers it, establishing the claim.
Combining cycles across different cosets of $\Delta$ {#subsec_4}
----------------------------------------------------
In the third and final step we join the finite cycles covering each $x_\ell + ({{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_1},{N_1}}} \setminus {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_0},{N_0}}})$ into a single finite cycle, and then make one final switch to absorb this cycle into a double-ray. The resulting colouring will then satisfy the conditions of Lemma \[lem\_mainlemma\].
\[step\_mainlemma\_quant\] We can change $c''$ from the previous lemma to an almost-standard colouring $\hat{c}$ such that
- $\hat{c}=c''=c'=c$ on $E(G[X])$;
- Some component in colour $1$ covers $P + {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_1},{N_1}}}$.
Recall that $P = {{\left\lbrace {x_0, \ldots, x_t} \right\rbrace}}$ is such that $P^\Delta = {{\left\lbrace {x_0 + \Delta, \ldots, x_t + \Delta} \right\rbrace}}$ is a finite, graph-theoretic path in the Cayley graph of the quotient $\Gamma / \Delta$ with generating set $S \setminus \{g_1,g_2\}$. Moreover, recall from Section \[subsec\_1.5\] that $N_1 > N_0$ was chosen so that for the initial colouring $c$ there were $t^2$ many disjoint standard double-rays $${\mathcal}{R} = \set{R^k_\ell}:{1 \leq k,\ell \leq t}$$ such that for every $\ell$, the double-rays in $\set{R^k_\ell = {{\leftrightsquigarrow}{{{\left( {}} \right)}}{{y^k_\ell},{g_{n(\ell)}}} }}:{k \in [t]}$ are standard $n(\ell)$-double-rays containing an edge $$e^k_\ell=(y^k_\ell,y^k_\ell + g_{n(\ell)}) \in E(R^k_\ell) \cap E(x_{\ell-1}+\Delta, x_\ell + \Delta)$$ so that all $T^k_\ell = {\blacksquare{{{\left( {}} \right)}}{{y^k_\ell},{g_1},{g_{n(\ell)}}} }$ are edge-disjoint $(1,n(\ell))$-standard squares for the colouring $c$ contained in the subgraph induced by $P + {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_1-3},{N_1-3}}}$ which have empty intersection with ${{\left\lbrace {x_{\ell-1},x_\ell} \right\rbrace}} + {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_0},{N_0}}}$. However, since we only altered the $(1,2)$-subgraphs of $G$ in Step \[step\_co\] and \[step\_cc\], it is clear that all these standard double-rays and standard squares for $c$ remain standard also for the colourings $c'$ and in particular $c''$.
in [1,...,]{} [ (--.5,) – (+.5,); ]{}
in [-,...,]{} [ (,-+.5) – (,+.5); ]{}
(+.3,-) – (--.3,-); at (0,--2) [$ x_0 + {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_1},{N_1}}}$]{};w
(--.3,-+.7) – (+.3,-+.7) – (+.3,+.3) – (--.3,+.3); at (0,-+1.5) ; (xl) at (0,0) ; at (0,1) ;
at (-1,-1) (gn1start) ; at (-2,-1) (gn1start2) ;
in [1,...,]{} [ (--.5,) – (+.5,); ]{}
in [-,...,]{} [ (,-+.5) – (,+.5); ]{}
(+.3,-) – (--.3,-); at (0,--2) [$x_1 + {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_1},{N_1}}}$]{};
(--.3,-+.7) – (+.3,-+.7) – (+.3,+.3) – (--.3,+.3); at (0,-+1.5) ; (xl) at (0,0) ; at (0,1) ;
at (-1,-1) (gn1end) ; at (-2,-1) (gn1end2) ;
at (-1,-5) (gn2start) ; at (-2,-5) (gn2start2) ;
in [1,...,]{} [ (--.5,) – (+.5,); ]{}
in [-,...,]{} [ (,-+.5) – (,+.5); ]{}
(+.3,-) – (--.3,-); at (0,--2) [$x_2 + {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_1},{N_1}}}$]{};
(--.3,-+.7) – (+.3,-+.7) – (+.3,+.3) – (--.3,+.3); at (0,-+1.5) ; (xl) at (0,0) ; at (0,1) ;
at (-1,-5) (gn2end) ; at (-2,-5) (gn2end2) ;
(gn1start) to\[out=80,in=100\] (gn1end); (gn1start2) to\[out=90,in=90\] (gn1end2); at (+11,9) ;
(gn2start) to\[out=80,in=100\] (gn2end); (gn2start2) to\[out=90,in=90\] (gn2end2); at (+26,17) ;
at (53,0) [$\ldots$]{};
We claim that there exists a function $k \colon [t] \to [t] \cup {{\left\lbrace {\bot} \right\rbrace}}$ such that iteratively switching $T^{k(\ell)}_\ell$ (or not doing anything at all if $k(\ell) = \bot$) results in a sequence of colourings $c'' = c_0,c_1, \ldots, c_t$ such that for each $0 \leq \ell \leq t$,
1. \[it1\] a single finite $1$-component in $c_\ell$ covers ${{\left\lbrace {x_0, \ldots, x_\ell} \right\rbrace}} + ({{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_1},{N_1}}} \setminus {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_0},{N_0}}})$,
2. \[it2\] for every $k$, every $1$-component in $c_\ell$ meeting $x_k + ({{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_1},{N_1}}} \setminus {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_0},{N_0}}})$ is a finite cycle covering $x_k + ({{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_1},{N_1}}} \setminus {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_0},{N_0}}})$, and
3. \[it3\] every other $1$-component, and all other components of all other colour classes in $c_\ell$ are double-rays.
In Step \[step\_cc\] we constructed a colouring $c_0=c''$ for which properties (1)–(3) are satisfied. Now suppose that $\ell \geq 1$, and that the colouring $c_{\ell-1}$ obtained by switching the standard squares $\set{T^{k(\ell')}_{\ell'}}:{\ell' \in [\ell-1]}$ satisfies (1)–(3). By construction, each such standard square $T^{k(\ell')}_{\ell'}$ is incident with the ray $R^{k(\ell')}_{\ell'}$ and potentially one further $n(\ell')$-component. But since we had reserved more that $\ell-1$ different rays $R^1_\ell, \ldots, R^t_\ell$, it follows that some ray $R^{k(\ell)}_\ell$ remains a standard $n(\ell)$-coloured component for $c_{\ell-1}$.
Both edges $(y^{k(\ell)}_\ell,y^{k(\ell)}_\ell +g_i)$ and $(y^{k(\ell)}_\ell+g_{n(\ell)},y^{k(\ell)}_\ell+g_{n(\ell)}+g_i)$ of $T^{k(\ell)}_\ell$ are contained in ${{\left\lbrace {x_{\ell-1},x_\ell} \right\rbrace}} + ({{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_1},{N_1}}} \setminus {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_0},{N_0}}})$, and hence are, by assumption (\[it2\]), covered by finite $1$-cycles in $c_{\ell-1}$. If both edges lie in the same finite $1$-cycle, there is nothing to do (and we redefine $k(\ell) := \bot$, and let $c_\ell= c_{\ell-1}$). However, if they lie on different finite cycles, we perform a colour switching on the standard square $T^{k(\ell)}_\ell$ and claim that the resulting $c_\ell$ is as required. By Lemma \[l:easyflip2\], the two finite $1$-components merge into a single finite cycle, and so (\[it1\]) and (\[it2\]) are certainly satisfied for $c_\ell$.
To see (\[it3\]), we need to verify that $T^{k(\ell)}_\ell$ is, when we perform the switching, safe. However, $T^{k(\ell)}_\ell$ was chosen so that the edge $(y^{k(\ell)}_\ell,y^{k(\ell)}_\ell + g_{n(\ell)})\in T^{k(\ell)}_\ell$ lies on a standard double-ray $R=R^{k(\ell)}_\ell$ of $c_{\ell-1}$. Also, by the inductive assumption (\[it3\]), the second $n(\ell)$-coloured edge $(y^{k(\ell)}_\ell +g_i,y^{k(\ell)}_\ell+g_i+g_{n(\ell)}) \in T^{k(\ell)}_\ell$ lies on an $n(l)$-coloured double-ray $R'$ in $c_{\ell-1}$. If $R$ and $R'$ are distinct, then $T^{k(\ell)}_\ell$ is safe, and if $R=R'$ then, since $R$ is a standard $n(\ell)$-double-ray, Lemma \[l:crossingwithstandard\] implies that $T^{k(\ell)}_\ell$ is safe. Hence $c_\ell$ satisfies (\[it3\]). This completes the induction step.
Thus, by (\[it1\]) and (\[it3\]), we obtain an edge-colouring $c_t$ for $G$ such that a single finite $1$-component covers $P + ({{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_1},{N_1}}}\setminus {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_0},{N_0}}})$, and all other $1$-components and all other components of other colour classes in $c_t$ are double-rays. Furthermore, since every $1$-component which meets $P+{{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_0},{N_0}}}$ must meet $P + ({{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_1},{N_1}}}\setminus {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_0},{N_0}}})$, it follows that the $1$-component in fact covers $P+{{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_0},{N_0}}}$. Moreover, since $T^{k(\ell)}_\ell \subset P + {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_1-3},{N_1-3}}}$ for all $\ell \in [t]$, it follows that $c_t$ is standard on $x_0 + {{{\left( {}} \right)}}{{{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_1},{\infty}}} \setminus {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_1-3},{N_1-3}}}}$, and that it is standard outside of $P + {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_3},{N_1}}}$. Hence, the square ${\blacksquare{{{\left( {}} \right)}}{{x},{g_1},{g_2}} }$ with base point $x = x_0 + (N_1-2)g_1 + N_1 g_2$ is a standard $(1,2)$-square such that
- the edge $(x,x+g_1)$ lies on the finite $1$-cycle of $c_t$,
- the edge $(x+g_2,x+g_2+g_1)$ lies on standard $1$-double-ray ${{\leftrightsquigarrow}{{{\left( {}} \right)}}{{x+g_2},{g_1}} }$ (lying completely outside of $P + {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_3},{N_1}}}$) of $c_t$, and
- the edges $(x,x+g_2)$ and $(x+g_1,x+g_2+g_1)$ lie on distinct standard $2$-double-rays ${{\leftrightsquigarrow}{{{\left( {}} \right)}}{{x},{g_2}} }$ and ${{\leftrightsquigarrow}{{{\left( {}} \right)}}{{x+g_1},{g_2}} } \subseteq x_0 + {{{\left( {}} \right)}}{{{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_1},{\infty}}} \setminus {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_1-3},{N_1-3}}}}$.
Therefore, we may perform a colour switching on ${\blacksquare{{{\left( {}} \right)}}{{x},{g_1},{g_2}} }$, which results, by Lemma \[l:easyflip2\], in an almost standard colouring of $G$ such that a single $1$-component covers $P + {{\langle {{g_1},{g_2}} \rangle}_{{N_1},{N_1}}}$, and hence $X$.
Hamiltonian decompositions of products {#sec_products}
======================================
The techniques from the previous section can also be applied to give us the following general result about Hamiltonian decompositions of products of graphs.
Suppose that ${{\left\lbrace {{R_i}\colon{i \in I}} \right\rbrace}}$ and ${{\left\lbrace {{S_j}\colon{j \in J}} \right\rbrace}}$ form decompositions of $G$ and $H$ into edge-disjoint Hamiltonian double-rays, where $I,J$ may be finite or countably infinite. Note that, for each $i \in I, j \in J$, $R_i \square S_j$ is a spanning subgraph of $G \square H$, and is isomorphic to the Cayley graph of $({\mathbb{Z}}^2,+)$ with the standard generating set.
Let $\pi_G \colon G \square H \to G$ and $\pi_H \colon G \square H \to H$ the projection maps from $G \square H$ onto the respective coordinates. As our *standard colouring* for $G \square H$ we take the map $$c \colon E(G \square H) \to I \dot\cup J, \; e \mapsto \begin{cases}
i & \text{ if } e \in \pi_G^{-1}(E(R_i)), \\
j & \text{ if } e \in \pi_H^{-1}(E(S_j)).
\end{cases}$$ Then each $R_i \square S_j$ is $2$-coloured (with colours $i$ and $j$), and this colouring agrees with the standard colouring of $C_{{\mathbb{Z}}^2} = G(({\mathbb{Z}}^2,+), \{(1,0),(0,1)\})$ from Section \[sec\_cov\].
We may suppose that $V(G) = {\mathbb{N}}= V(H)$. Fix a surjection $f \colon {\mathbb{N}}\to I \cup J$ such that every colour appears infinitely often.
By starting with $c_0 = c$ and applying Lemma \[lem\_mainlemma\] recursively inside the spanning subgraphs $R_{f(k)} \square S_1$, if $f(k) \in I$, or inside $R_1 \square S_{f(k)}$, for $f(k) \in J$, we find a sequence of edge-colourings $c_k \colon G \square H \to I \cup J$ and natural numbers $M_k \leq N_k < M_{k+1}$ such that
- $c_{k+1}$ agrees with $c_k$ on the subgraph of $G \square H$ induced by $[0,M_{k+1}]^2$,
- there is a finite path $D_k$ of colour $f(k)$ in $c_k$ covering $[0,N_k]^2$, and
- $M_{k+1}$ is large enough such that $D_k \subset [0,M_{k+1}]^2$.
To be precise, suppose we already have a finite path $D_k$ of colour $f(k)$ in $c_k$ covering $[0,N_k]^2$, and at stage $k+1$ we have say $f(k+1) \in I$, and so we are considering $R_{f(k+1)} \square S_1 \cong C_{{\mathbb{Z}}^2}$. We choose
- $M_{k+1} > N_k$ large enough such that $D_k \subset [0,M_{k+1}]^2 \subset G\square H$, and
- $N_{k+1} > M_{k+1}$ large enough such that $Q_1=[0,N_{k+1}]^2 \subset G\square H$ contains all edges where $c_k$ differs from the standard colouring $c$.
Next, consider an isomorphism $h\colon R_{f(k+1)} \square S_1 \cong C_{{\mathbb{Z}}^2}$. Pick a ‘square’ $Q_2 \subset R_{f(k+1)} \square S_1$ with $Q_1 \subset Q_2$, i.e. a set $Q_2$ such that $h$ restricted to $Q_2$ is an isomorphism to the subgraph of $C_{{\mathbb{Z}}^2}$ induced by $[-\tilde{N}_{k+1},\tilde{N}_{k+1}]^2 \subseteq {\mathbb{Z}}^2$ for some $\tilde{N}_{k+1} \in {\mathbb{N}}$, and then apply Lemma \[lem\_mainlemma\] to $R_{f(k+1)} \square S_1$ and $Q_2$ to obtain a finite path $D_{k+1}$ of colour $f(k+1)$ in $c_{k+1}$ covering $Q_2$.
It follows that the double-rays ${{\left\lbrace {{T_i}\colon{i\in I}} \right\rbrace}} \cup {{\left\lbrace {{T_j}\colon{j\in J}} \right\rbrace}}$ with $T_\ell = \bigcup_{k \in f^{-1}(\ell) } D_k$ give the desired decomposition of $G \square H$.
Open Problems {#sec_open}
=============
As mentioned in Section \[sec\_group\], the finitely generated abelian groups can be classified as the groups $\mathbb{Z}^n \oplus \bigoplus_{i=1}^r \mathbb{Z}_{q_i}$, where $n,r,q_1,\ldots,q_r \in {\mathbb{Z}}$. Theorem \[t:ZN\] shows that Alspach’s conjecture holds for every such group with $n \geq 2$, as long as each generator has infinite order. The question however remains as to what can be said about Cayley graphs $G(\Gamma,S)$ when $S$ contains elements of finite order.
Let $\Gamma$ be an infinite, finitely-generated, one-ended abelian group and $S$ be a generating set for $\Gamma$ which contains elements of finite order. Show that $G(\Gamma,S)$ has a Hamilton decomposition.
Alspach’s conjecture has also been shown to hold when $n=1$, $r=0$, and the generating set $S$ has size $2$, by Bryant, Herke, Maenhaut and Webb [@BHMW17]. In a paper in preparation [@EL], the first two authors consider the general case when $n=1$ and the underlying Cayley graph is $4$-regular. Since the Cayley graph is $2$-ended, it can happen for parity reasons that no Hamilton decomposition exists. However, this is the only obstruction, and in all other cases the Cayley graphs have a Hamilton decomposition. Together with the result of Bermond, Favaron and Maheo [@BFM89] for finite abelian groups, and the case $\Gamma \cong ({\mathbb{Z}}^2,+)$ of Theorem \[t:ZN\], this fully characterises the $4$-regular connected Cayley graphs of finite abelian groups which have Hamilton decompositions. A natural next step would be to consider the case of $6$-regular Cayley graphs.
Let $\Gamma$ be a finitely generated abelian group and let $S$ be a generating set of $\Gamma$ such that $C(\Gamma,S)$ is $6$-regular. Characterise the pairs $(\Gamma,S)$ such that $G(\Gamma,S)$ has a decomposition into spanning double-rays.
[^1]: Joshua Erde was supported by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.
[^2]: Florian Lehner was supported by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) Grant no. J 3850-N32
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider $\mathsf{N}$-complexes as functors over an appropriate linear category in order to show first that the Krull-Schmidt Theorem holds, then to prove that amplitude cohomology (called generalized cohomology by M. Dubois-Violette) only vanishes on injective functors providing a well defined functor on the stable category. For left truncated $\mathsf{N}$-complexes, we show that amplitude cohomology discriminates the isomorphism class up to a projective functor summand. Moreover amplitude cohomology of positive $\mathsf{N}$-complexes is proved to be isomorphic to an $\Ext$ functor of an indecomposable $\mathsf{N}$-complex inside the abelian functor category. Finally we show that for the monoidal structure of $\mathsf{N}$-complexes a Clebsch-Gordan formula holds, in other words the fusion rules for $\mathsf{N}$-complexes can be determined.'
author:
- 'Claude Cibils, Andrea Solotar and Robert Wisbauer [^1]'
title: '$\mathsf{N}$-complexes as functors, amplitude cohomology and fusion rules'
---
2000 Mathematics Subject Classification : 16E05, 16W50, 18E10, 16S40, 16D90.
Keywords : quiver, Hopf algebra, $k$-category, cohomology, $\mathsf{N}$-complex, Clebsch-Gordan.
Introduction
============
Let $\mathsf{N}$ be a positive integer and let $k$ be a field. In this paper we will consider $\mathsf{N}$-complexes of vector spaces as linear functors (or modules) over a $k$-category, see the definitions at the beginning of Section \[categories\].
Recall first that a usual $k$-algebra is deduced from any finite object $k$-category through the direct sum of its vector spaces of morphisms. Modules over this algebra are precisely $k$-functors from the starting category, with values in the category of $k$-vector spaces. Consequently if the starting category has an infinite number of objects, linear functors with values in vector spaces are called modules over the category, as much as modules over an algebra are appropriate algebra morphisms.
An $\mathsf{N}$-complex as considered by M. Kapranov in [@ka] is a ${{\mathbb{Z}}}$-graded vector space equipped with linear maps $d$ of degree $1$ verifying $d^\mathsf{N}=0$. The amplitude (or generalized) cohomology are the vector spaces $\Ker d^a/\Im d^{\mathsf{N}-a}$ for each amplitude $a$ between $1$ and $\mathsf{N}-1$. Note that we use the terminology *amplitude cohomology* in order to give a graphic idea of this theory and in order to clearly distinguish it from classical cohomology theories.
M. Dubois-Violette has shown in [@du] a key result, namely that for $\mathsf{N}$-complexes arising from cosimplicial modules through the choice of an element $q\in k$ such that $1+q+\cdots+q^{\mathsf{N}-1}=0$, amplitude cohomology can be computed using the classical cohomology provided the truncated sums $1+q+\cdots+q^{n}$ are invertible for $1\leq n\leq \mathsf{N}-1$. As a consequence he obtains in a unified way that Hochschild cohomology at roots of unity or in non-zero characteristic is zero or isomorphic to classical Hochschild cohomology (see also [@kawa]) and the result proven in 1947 by Spanier [@sp], namely that Mayer [@ma] amplitude cohomology can be computed by means of classical simplicial cohomology.
Note that $\mathsf{N}$-complexes are useful for different approaches, as Yang-Mills algebras [@codu], Young symmetry of tensor fields [@duhe; @duhe2] as well as for studying homogeneous algebras and Koszul properties, see [@beduwa; @bema; @dupo; @masa; @masa2] or for analysing cyclic homology at roots of unity [@wa]. A comprehensive description of the use of $\mathsf{N}$-complexes in this various settings is given in the course by M. Dubois-Violette at the Institut Henri Poincaré, [@du.ihp].
We first make clear an obvious fact, namely that an $\mathsf{N}$-complex is a module over a specific $k$-category presented as a free $k$-category modulo the $\mathsf{N}$-truncation ideal. This way we obtain a Krull-Schmidt theorem for $\mathsf{N}$-complexes. The list of indecomposables is well-known, in particular projective and injective $\mathsf{N}$-complexes coincide. This fact enables us to enlarge Kapranov’s aciclicity Theorem in terms of injectives. More precisely, for each amplitude $a$ verifying $1\le a \le \mathsf{N}-1$ a classic $2$-complex is associated to each $\mathsf{N}$-complex. We prove first in this paper that an $\mathsf{N}$-complex is acyclic for a given amplitude if and only if the $\mathsf{N}$-complex is projective (injective), which in turn is equivalent to aciclicity for any amplitude.
In [@duke; @du] a basic result is obtained for amplitude cohomology for $\mathsf{N}\geq 3$ which has no counterpart in the classical situation $\mathsf{N}=2$, namely hexagons raising from amplitude cohomologies are exact. This gap between the classical and the new theory is confirmed by a result we obtain in this paper: amplitude cohomology does not discriminate arbitrary $\mathsf{N}$-complexes without projective summands for $\mathsf{N}
\ge 3$, despite the fact that for $\mathsf{N}=2$ it is well known that usual cohomology is a complete invariant up to a projective direct summand. Nevertheless we prove that left truncated $\mathsf{N}$-complexes sharing the same amplitude cohomology are isomorphic up to a projective (or equivalently injective) direct summand.
We also prove that amplitude cohomology for *positive* $\mathsf{N}$-complexes coincides with an $\Ext$ functor in the category of $\mathsf{N}$-complexes. In other words, for each given amplitude there exists an indecomposable module such that the amplitude cohomologies of a positive $\mathsf{N}$-complex are actually extensions of a particular degree between the indecomposable and the given positive $\mathsf{N}$-complex. We use the characterisation of $\Ext$ functors and the description of injective positive $\mathsf{N}$-complexes. In this process the fact that for positive $\mathsf N$-complexes, projectives no longer coincide with injectives requires special care.
We underline the fact that various indecomposable modules are used in order to show that amplitude cohomology of positive $\mathsf{N}$-complexes is an $\Ext$ functor. This variability makes the result compatible with the non classical exact hexagons [@duke; @du] of amplitude cohomologies quoted above.
M. Dubois-Violette has studied in [@du.bariloche] (see Appendix A) the monoidal structure of $\mathsf{N}$-complexes in terms of the coproduct of the Taft algebra, see also [@du.ihp]. J. Bichon in [@bi] has studied the monoidal structure of $\mathsf{N}$-complexes, considering them as comodules, see also the work by R. Boltje [@bo] and A. Tikaradze [@ti]. We recall in this paper that the $k$-category we consider is the universal cover of the Taft Hopf algebra $\U^+_q(sl_2)$. As such, there exists a tensor product of modules (i.e. $\mathsf{N}$-complexes) for each non-trivial $\mathsf N^{\mathsf{th}}$-root of unity (see also [@bo; @ci]). Using Gunnlaugsdottir’s axiomatisation of Clebsch-Gordan’s formula [@gu] and amplitude cohomology we show that this formula is valid for $\mathsf{N}$-complexes, determining this way the corresponding fusion rules.
$\mathsf{N}$-complexes and categories {#categories}
=====================================
Let $\C$ be a small category over a field $k$. The set of objects is denoted $\C_{0}$. Given $x,y$ in $\C_0$, the $k$-vector space of morphisms from $x$ to $y$ in $\C$ is denoted ${}_{y}\C_{x}$ . Recall that composition of morphisms is $k$-bilinear. In this way, each ${}_{x}\C_{x}$ is a $k$-algebra and each ${}_{y}\C_{x}$ is a ${}_{y}\C_{y}$-${}_{x}\C_{x}$ – bimodule.
For instance let $\Lambda$ be a $k$-algebra and let $E$ be a complete finite system of orthogonal idempotents in $\Lambda$, that is $\sum_{e\in E} e =1$, $ef=fe=0$ if $f\neq e$ and $e^2=e$, for all $e,f \in E$. The associated category $\C_{\Lambda,E}$ has set of objects $E$ and morphisms ${}_{f}\left(\C_{\Lambda,E}\right)_{e}=f\Lambda e$. Conversely any finite object set category $\C$ provides an associative algebra $\Lambda$ through the matrix construction. Both procedures are mutually inverse.
In this context linear functors $F: \C_{\Lambda,E} \to Mod_k$ coincide with left $\Lambda$-modules. Consequently for any arbitrary linear category $\C$, left modules are defined as $k$-functors $F:
\C \to Mod_k$. In other words, a left $\C$-module is a set of $k$-vector spaces $\{{}_xM\}_{x\in \C_0}$ equipped with “left oriented” actions that is, linear maps $${}_y\C_x \otimes_k {}_xM \to {}_yM$$ verifying the usual associativity constraint.
Notice that right modules are similar, they are given by a collection of $k$-vector spaces $\{M_x\}_{x\in \C_0}$ and “right oriented”’ actions. From now on a module will mean a left module.
Free $k$-categories are defined as follows: let $E$ be an arbitrary set and let $V=
\{{}_yV_x\}_{x,y \in E} $ be a set of $k$-vector spaces. The free category $\F_E(V)$ has set of objects $E$ and set of morphisms from $x$ to $y$ the direct sum of tensor products of vector spaces relying $x$ to $y$:
$${}_y(\F_E(V))_x =
\bigoplus_{n\ge 0}\ \ \bigoplus_{x_1,\dots,x_n \in E}({}_yV_{x_n}\otimes \dots \otimes
{}_{x_2}V_{x_1}\otimes {}_{x_1}V_x )$$
For instance, let $E={{\mathbb{Z}}}$ and let ${}_{i+1}V_i =k$ while ${}_jV_i=0$ otherwise. This data can be presented by the double infinite quiver having ${{\mathbb{Z}}}$ as set of vertices and an arrow from $i$ to $i+1$ for each $i\in {{\mathbb{Z}}}$. The corresponding free category $\L$ has one dimensional vector space morphisms from $i$ to $j$ if and only if $i\le j$, namely $${}_j\L_i= {}_jV_{j-1}\otimes \dots \otimes {}_{i+2}V_{i+1}\otimes {}_{i+1}V_i .$$
Otherwise ${}_j\L_i=0$.
A module over $\L$ is precisely a graded vector space $\{{}_iM\}_{i\in {{\mathbb{Z}}}}$ together with linear maps $d_i:{}_iM \to {}_{i+1}M$. This fact makes use of the evident universal property characterizing free linear categories.
On the other hand we recall from [@ka] the definition of an $\mathsf{N}$-complex: it consists of a graded vector space $\{{}_iM\}_{i\in {{\mathbb{Z}}}}$ and linear maps $d_i:{}_iM \to
{}_{i+1}M$ verifying that $d_{i+\mathsf{N}}\circ \dots \circ d_i=0$ for each $i\in {{\mathbb{Z}}}$.
In order to view an $\mathsf{N}$-complex as a module over a $k$-linear category we have to consider a quotient of $\L$. Recall that an ideal $I$ of a $k$-category $\C$ is a collection of sub-vector spaces ${}_yI_x$ of each morphism space ${}_y\C_x$, such that the image of the composition map ${}_z\C_y \otimes {}_yI_x$ is contained in ${}_zI_x$ and ${}_yI_x \otimes {}_x\C_u$ is contained in ${}_yI_u$ for each choice of objects. Quotient $k$-categories exist in the same way that algebra quotients exist.
Returning to the free category $\L$, consider the truncation ideal $I_\mathsf{N}$ given by the entire ${}_j\L_i$ in case $j\ge i+\mathsf{N}$ and $0$ otherwise. Then $\L_\mathsf{N}:=\L/I_\mathsf{N}$ has one dimensional morphisms from $i$ to $j$ if and only if $i\le j \le i+\mathsf{N}-1$.
Clearly $\mathsf{N}$-complexes coincide with $\L_\mathsf{N}$-modules. We have obtained the following
The categories of $\mathsf{N}$-complexes and of $\L_\mathsf{N}$-modules are isomorphic.
An important point is that $\L_\mathsf{N}$ is a locally bounded category, which means that the direct sum of morphism spaces starting (or ending) at each given object is finite dimensional. More precisely:
$$\forall x_0, y_0 \in (\L_\mathsf{N})_0, \ \ dim_k \left[\bigoplus_{y \in {{\mathbb{Z}}}}{}_y(\L_\mathsf{N})_{x_0}\right]
= \mathsf{N}= dim_k \left[\bigoplus_{x \in
{{\mathbb{Z}}}}{}_{y_0}(\L_\mathsf{N})_{x}\right].$$
It is known that for locally bounded categories Krull-Schmidt theorem holds, for instance see the work by C. Sáenz [@sa]. We infer that each $\mathsf{N}$-complex of finite dimensional vector spaces is isomorphic to a direct sum of indecomposable ones in an essentially unique way, meaning that given two decompositions, the multiplicities of isomorphic indecomposable $\mathsf{N}$-complexes coincide.
Moreover, indecomposable $\mathsf{N}$-complexes are well known, they correspond to “short segments” in the quiver: the complete list of indecomposable modules is given by $\{M_i^l\}_{i \in {{\mathbb{Z}}}, 0\le l \le \mathsf{N}-1}$ where $i$ denotes the beginning of the module, $i+l$ its end and $l$ its length. More precisely, ${}_i(M_i^l)={}_{i+1}(M_i^l)=
\dots = {}_{i+l}(M_i^l)=k$ while ${}_j(M_i^l)= 0$ for other indices $j$. The action of $d_i, d_{i+1}, \dots , d_{i+l-1}$ is the identity and $d_j$ acts as zero if the index $j$ is different. The corresponding $\mathsf{N}$-complex is concentrated in the segment $[i,i+l]$.
Note that the simple $\mathsf{N}$-complexes are $\{M_i^0\}_{i \in {{\mathbb{Z}}}}$ and that each $M_i^l$ is uniserial, which means that $M_i^l$ has a unique filtration $$0\subset M_{i+l}^0 \subset \dots \subset M_{i+2}^{l-2} \subset M_{i+1}^{l-1}
\subset M_i^l$$ such that each submodule is maximal in the following one.
Summarizing the preceding discussion, we have the following
Let $M$ be an $\mathsf{N}$-complex of finite dimensional vector spaces. Then $$M \simeq \ \ \bigoplus_{i \in {{\mathbb{Z}}}, \ 0\le l\le \mathsf{N}-1}n_i^lM_i^l$$ for a unique finite set of positive integers $n_i^l$.
Indecomposable projective and injective $\L_\mathsf{N}$-modules are also well known, we now recall them briefly. Note from [@fre] that projective functors are direct sums of representable functors. Clearly ${}_{-}(\L_\mathsf{N})_i=M_i^{\mathsf{N}-1}$.
In order to study injectives notice first that for a locally bounded $k$-category, right and left modules are in duality: the dual of a left module is a right module which has the dual vector spaces at each object, the right actions are obtained by dualising the left actions. Projectives and injectives correspond under this duality. Right projective modules are direct sums of ${}_{i}(\L_\mathsf{N})_-$ as above, clearly $({}_{i}(\L_\mathsf{N})_-)^* \simeq M_i^{\mathsf{N}-1}$.
This way we have provided the main steps of the proof of the following
Let $M_i^l$ be an indecomposable $\mathsf{N}$-complex, $i\in {{\mathbb{Z}}}$ and $l\le
\mathsf{N}-1$. Then $M_i^l$ is projective if and only if $l=\mathsf{N}-1$, which in turn is equivalent for $M_i^l$ to be injective.
Let $M= \bigoplus_{i \in {{\mathbb{Z}}}, 0\le l\le \mathsf{N}-1}n_i^lM_i^l$ be an $\mathsf{N}$-complex. Then $M$ is projective if and only if $n_i^l=0$ for $l\le
\mathsf{N}-2$, which in turn is equivalent for $M$ to be injective.
Amplitude cohomology
====================
Let $M$ be an $\mathsf{N}$-complex. For each amplitude $a$ between $1$ and $\mathsf{N}-1$, at each object $i$ we have $\Im d^{\mathsf{N}-a}\subseteq \Ker d^a$. More precisely we define as in [@ka] $$(AH)_a^i(M):= \Ker (d_{i+a-1}\circ \dots \circ d_i)/\Im(
d_{i-1}\circ \dots \circ d_{i-\mathsf{N}+a})$$ and we call this bi-graded vector space the amplitude cohomology of the $\mathsf{N}$-complex. As remarked in the Introduction, M. Dubois-Violette in [@du] has shown the depth of this theory, he calls it generalised cohomology.
As a fundamental example we compute amplitude cohomology for indecomposable $\mathsf{N}$-complexes $M_i^l$. In the following picture the amplitude is to be read vertically while the degree of the cohomology is to be read horizontally. A black dot means one dimensional cohomology, while an empty dot stands for zero cohomology.
{width="100.00000%" height="0.6\textheight"} From this easy computation we notice that for a non-projective (equivalently non-injective) indecomposable module $M_i^l$ ($0\le
l\le \mathsf{N}-2$) and any amplitude $a$ there exists a degree $j$ such that $(AH)^j_a(M_i^l) \neq 0$. Concerning projective or injective indecomposable modules $M_i^{\mathsf{N}-1}$ we notice that $(AH)^j_a(M_i^{\mathsf{N}-1})=0$ for any degree $j$ and any amplitude $a$. These facts are summarized as follows:
Let $M$ be an indecomposable $\mathsf{N}$-complex. Then $M$ is projective (or equivalently injective) in the category of $\mathsf{N}$-complexes if and only if its amplitude cohomology vanishes at some amplitude $a$ which in turn is equivalent to its vanishing at any amplitude.
From the very definition of amplitude cohomology one can check that for a fixed amplitude $a$ we obtain a linear functor $(AH)_a^*$ from $\mod\L_\mathsf{N}$ to the category of graded vector spaces.
Moreover $(AH)_a^*$ is additive, in particular: $$(AH)_a^*(M\oplus M') = (AH)_a^*(M) \oplus (AH)_a^*(M')$$
This leads to the following result, which provides a larger frame to the aciclicity result of M. Kapranov [@ka]. See also the short proof of Kapranov’s aciclicity result by M. Dubois-Violette in Lemma 3 of [@du] obtained as a direct consequence of a key result of this paper, namely the exactitude of amplitude cohomology hexagons.
Let $M$ be an $\mathsf{N}$-complex of finite dimensional vector spaces. Then $(AH)_a^*(M)=0$ for some $a$ if and only if $M$ is projective (or equivalently injective). Moreover, in this case $(AH)_a^*(M)=0$ for any amplitude $a\in [1, N-1]$.
In order to understand the preceding result in a more conceptual framework we will consider the stable category of $\mathsf{N}$-complexes, $\underline{\mod\L_\mathsf{N}}$. More precisely, let $I$ be the ideal of $\mod\L_\mathsf{N}$ consisting of morphisms which factor through a projective $\mathsf{N}$-complex. The quotient category $\mod\L_\mathsf{N}/I$ is denoted $\underline{\mod\L_\mathsf{N}}$. Clearly all projectives become isomorphic to zero in $\underline{\mod\L_\mathsf{N}}$. Of course this construction is well known and applies for any module category. We have in fact proven the following
For any amplitude $a$ there is a well-defined functor $$(AH)_a^*: \underline{\mod\L_\mathsf{N}} \to gr(k)$$ where $gr(k)$ is the category of graded $k$-vector spaces.
Our next purpose is to investigate how far amplitude cohomology distinguishes $\mathsf{N}$-complexes. First we recall that in the classical case ($\mathsf{N}=2$), cohomology is a complete invariant of the stable category.
Let $M$ and $M'$ be $2$-complexes of finite dimensional vector spaces without projective direct summands. If $H^*(M) \simeq H^*(M')$, then $M \simeq M'$.
**Proof.** Indecomposable $2$-complexes are either simple or projective. We assume that $M$ has no projective direct summands, this is equivalent for $M$ to be semisimple, in other words $M$ is a graded vector space with zero differentials. Consequently $H^i(M)={}_iM$ for all $i$.
The following example shows that the favorable situation for $\mathsf{N}=2$ is no longer valid for $\mathsf{N}\ge 3$.
Consider $M$ the $3$-complex which is the direct sum of all simple modules, in other words, ${}_iM=k$ and $d_i=0$. Then for any degree $i$ we have $$(AH)_1^i(M)=k \hbox{ and }(AH)_2^i(M)=k.$$ Let $M'$ be the direct sum of all the length one indecomposable $3$-complexes, $$M'=\bigoplus_{i\in {{\mathbb{Z}}}} M^1_i$$ Recall that the amplitude cohomology of $M_i^1$ is given by $$(AH)_2^i(M_i^1)=k \hbox{ and }(AH)_1^{i+1}(M_i^1)=k$$ while all other amplitude cohomologies vanish. Summing up provides $(AH)_2^i(M')=k $ and $(AH)_1^i(M')=k $, for all $i$. However it is clear that $M$ and $M'$ are not isomorphic. Notice that both $M$ and $M'$ are free of projective direct summands.
As quoted in the introduction the preceding example confirms that amplitude cohomology is a theory with different behaviour than the classical one. This fact has been previously noticed by M. Dubois-Violette in [@du], for instance when dealing with non classical exact hexagons of amplitude cohomologies.
At the opposite, we will obtain in the following that for either left or right truncated $\mathsf{N}$-complexes amplitude cohomology is a complete invariant up to projectives. More precisely, let $M$ be an $\mathsf{N}$-complex which is zero at small enough objects, namely ${}_iM=0$ for $i\le b$, for some $b$ which may depend on $M$. Of course this is equivalent to the fact that for the Krull-Schmidt decomposition $$M=\bigoplus_{i\in {{\mathbb{Z}}}}\bigoplus_{l=0}^{\mathsf{N}-1}n_i^lM_i^l$$ there exists a minimal $i_0$, in the sense that $n_i^l=0$ if $i< i_0$ and $n_{i_0}^l
\neq 0$ for some $l$.
Let $M$ be a non-projective $\mathsf{N}$-complex which is zero at small enough objects. Let $l_0$ be the smallest length of an indecomposable factor of $M$ starting at the minimal starting object $i_0$. Then $(AH)_a^{i}(M)=0$ for all $i\le i_0-1$ and $(AH)_a^{i_0}(M)=0$ for $a\le l_0$. Moreover $dim_k(AH)_{l_0+1}^{i_0}(M)=n_{i_0}^{l_0}$.
**Proof.** The fundamental computation we made of amplitude cohomology for indecomposable $\mathsf{N}$-complexes shows the following: the smallest degree affording non vanishing amplitude cohomology provides the starting vertex of an indecomposable non projective module. Moreover, at this degree the smallest value of the amplitude affording non zero cohomology is $l+1$, where $l$ is the length of the indecomposable.
In other words amplitude cohomology determines the multiplicity of the *smallest* indecomposable direct summand of a left-truncated $\mathsf{N}$-complex. Of course *smallest* concerns the lexicographical order between indecomposables, namely $M_i^l
\le M_j^r$ in case $i<j$ or in case $i=j$ and $l\le r$.
\[algo\] Let $M$ be an $\mathsf{N}$-complex which is zero at small enough objects and which does not have projective direct summands. The dimensions of its amplitude cohomology determine the multiplicities of each indecomposable direct summand.
**Proof.** The Proposition above shows that the multiplicity of the smallest indecomposable direct summand is determined by the amplitude cohomology (essentially this multiplicity is provided by the smallest non-zero amplitude cohomology, where amplitude cohomology is also ordered by lexicographical order).
We factor out this smallest direct summand $X$ from $M$ and we notice that the multiplicities of other indecomposable factors remain unchanged. Moreover, factoring out the amplitude cohomology of $X$ provides the amplitude cohomology of the new module. It’s smallest indecomposable summand comes strictly after $X$ in the lexicographical order. Through this inductive procedure, multiplicities of indecomposable summands can be determined completely. In other words: if two left-truncated $\mathsf{N}$-complexes of finite dimensional vector spaces share the same amplitude cohomology, then the multiplicities of their indecomposable direct factors coincide for each couple $(i,n)$.
Clearly the above Theorem is also true for $\mathsf{N}$-complexes which are zero for large enough objects, that is right-truncated $\mathsf{N}$-complexes.
Amplitude cohomology is $\Ext$
===============================
An $\mathsf{N}$-complex $M$ is called positive in case ${}_iM=0$ for $i\le -1$. In this section we will prove that amplitude cohomology of positive $\mathsf{N}$-complexes of finite dimensional vector spaces coincides with an $\Ext$ functor in this category.
First we provide a description of injective positive $\mathsf{N}$-complexes as modules. Notice that positive $\mathsf{N}$-complexes are functors on the full subcategory $\L_\mathsf{N}^{\geqslant 0}$ of $\L_\mathsf{N}$ provided by the positive integer objects. Alternatively, $\L_\mathsf{N}^{\geqslant 0}$ is the quotient of the free $k$-category generated by the quiver having positive integer vertices and an arrow from $i$ to $i+1$ for each object, by the truncation ideal given by morphisms of length greater than $\mathsf{N}$.
The complete list up to isomorphism of injective positive indecomposable $\mathsf{N}$-complexes is $$\{M_0^l\}_{l=0,\dots,\mathsf{N}-1} \sqcup \{M_i^{\mathsf{N}-1}\}_{i\ge 1}$$
**Proof.** As we stated before, injective modules are duals of projective right modules. The indecomposable ones are representable functors ${}_{i_0}(\L_\mathsf{N}^{\geqslant 0})_{-}$, for $i_0\ge 0$.
Clearly for each $i_0$ we have $({}_{i_0}{\L_\mathsf{N}^{\geqslant 0}}_{-})^* =
M_0^{i_0}$ if $i_0\le \mathsf{N}-1$ while $({}_{i_0}{\L_\mathsf{N}^{\geqslant 0}}_{-})^*
= M_{i_0-(\mathsf{N}-1)}^{\mathsf{N}-1}$ otherwise.
In order to show that amplitude cohomology is an instance of an $\Ext$, we need to have functors sending short exact sequences of positive $\mathsf{N}$-complexes into long exact sequences: this will enable to use the axiomatic characterization of $\Ext$. For this purpose we recall the following standard consideration about $\mathsf{N}$-complexes which provides several classical $2$-complexes associated to a given $\mathsf N$-complex, by contraction. More precisely fix an integer $e$ as an initial condition and an amplitude of contraction $a$ (which provides also a coamplitude of contraction $b=\mathsf{N}-a$).
The contraction $C_{e,a}M$ of an $\mathsf{N}$-complex is the following $2$-complex, which has ${}_eM$ in degree $0$ and alternating $a$-th and $b$-th composition differentials:
$$\dots \rightarrow {}_{e-b}M \stackrel{d^{b}}{\rightarrow}
{}_eM{} \stackrel{d^{a}}{\rightarrow} {}_{e+a}M \stackrel{d^{b}}{\rightarrow}
{}_{e+\mathsf{N}}M \stackrel{d^{a}}{\rightarrow} \dots$$
Of course usual cohomology of this complex provides amplitude cohomology:
In the above situation, $$H^{2i}(C_{e,a}M) = (AH)_a^{e+iN}(M) \mbox{
\ and\ \ } H^{2i+1}(C_{e,a}M) = (AH)_b^{e+iN+a}(M).$$
Notice that in order to avoid repetitions and in order to set $H^0$ as the first positive degree amplitude cohomology, we must restrict the range of the initial condition. More precisely, for a given amplitude contraction $a$ the initial condition $e$ verifies $0\le e
< b$, where $b$ is the coamplitude verifying $a+b=\mathsf{N}$. Indeed, if $e\ge b$, set $e'=e-b$ and $a'=b$. Then $b'=a$ and $0\le
e' < b'$.
An exact sequence of $\mathsf{N}$-complexes provides an exact sequence of contracted complexes at any initial condition $e$ and any amplitude $a$.
We focus now on the functor $H^*(C_{e,a}-)$, which for simplicity we shall denote $H^*_{e,a}$ from now on. We already know that $H^*_{e,a}$ sends a short exact sequence of $\mathsf{N}$-complexes into a long exact sequence, since $H^*_{e,a}$ is usual cohomology. Our next purpose is two-fold. First we assert that $H^*_{e,a}$ vanishes in positive degrees when evaluated on injectives of the category of positive $\mathsf{N}$-complexes. Then we will show that it is representable in degree 0.
In positive degrees we have: $$H^*_{e,a}(M_0^l)=0 \mbox{ for } l\le
\mathsf{N}-1,\ \mbox{ and } \ H^*_{e,a}(M_i^{\mathsf{N}-1})=0
\hbox{ for } i\ge 1.$$
**Proof.** Concerning indecomposable modules of length $\mathsf{N}-1$, they are already injective in the entire category of $\mathsf{N}$-complexes. We have noticed that all their amplitude cohomologies vanish.
Consider now $M_0^l$, with $l\le \mathsf{N}-1$. In non-zero even degree $2i$ the amplitude cohomology to be considered is in degree $e+iN$, which is larger than $l$ since $i\neq 0$ and $\mathsf{N}> l$. Hence $H^{2i}_{e,a}(M_0^l)=0 $.
In odd degree $2i+1$ the amplitude cohomology to be considered is in degree $e+iN+a$. As before, in case $i\neq 0$ this degree is larger than $l$, then $H^{2i+1}_{e,a}(M_0^l)=0 $ for $i\neq 0$. It remains to consider the case $i=0$, namely $H^{1}_{e,a}(M_0^l)=
(AH)_{\mathsf{N}-a}^{e+a}(M_0^l)$. From the picture we have drawn for amplitude cohomology in the previous section, we infer that in degree $e+a$ the cohomology is not zero only for amplitudes inside the closed interval $[l+1-(e+a),\ \ \mathsf{N}-1-(e+a)]$. We are concerned by the amplitude $\mathsf{N}-a$ which is larger than $\mathsf{N}-a-e-1$, hence $H^{1}_{e,a}(M_0^l)= 0$.
Let $a \in [1,\mathsf{N}-1]$ be an amplitude and let $e \in [0,\mathsf{N}-1-a]$ be an initial condition. Then $H^{0}_{e,a}(-)= (AH)_a^e(-)$ is a representable functor given by the indecomposable $\mathsf{\mathsf{N}}$-complex $M_e^{a-1}$. More precisely,
$$(AH)_a^e(X) = \Hom_{\L_\mathsf{N}^{\geqslant 0}}(M_e^{a-1}, X).$$
**Proof.** We will verify this formula for an arbitrary indecomposable positive $\mathsf{N}$-complex $X=M_i^l$. The morphism spaces between indecomposable $\mathsf{N}$-complexes are easy to determine using diagrams through the defining quiver of $\L_\mathsf{N}^{\geqslant 0}$. Non-zero morphisms from an indecomposable $M$ to an indecomposable $M'$ exist if and only if $M$ starts during $M'$ and $M$ ends together with or after $M'$. Then we have:
$$\Hom_{\L_\mathsf{N}^{\geqslant 0}}(M^{a-1}_{e}, M_i^l) = \begin{cases}
k & \text{if $e \in [i,i+l]$ and $e+a-1\ge i+l$ }
\\
0 & \text{otherwise}
\end{cases}$$
Considering amplitude cohomology and the fundamental computation we have made, we first notice that $(AH)_a^e(M_i^l)$ has a chance to be non-zero only when the degree $e$ belongs to the indecomposable, namely $e \in [i,i+l]$. This situation already coincides with the first condition for non-vanishing of $\Hom$. Next, for a given $e$ as before, the precise conditions that the amplitude $a$ must verify in order to obtain $k$ as amplitude cohomology is $$(l+1)-(e-i) \le a \le (\mathsf{N}-1)-(e-i).$$
The second inequality holds since the initial condition $e$ belongs to $[0,\mathsf{N}-1-a]$ and $i\ge0$. The first inequality is precisely $ e+a-1 \ge i+l$.
As we wrote before it is well known (see for instance [@macl]) that a functor sending naturally short exact sequences into long exact sequences, vanishing on injectives and being representable in degree $0$ is isomorphic to the corresponding $\Ext$ functor. Then we have the following:
Let $\L_\mathsf{N}^{\geqslant 0}$ be the category of positive $\mathsf{N}$-complexes of finite dimensional vector spaces and let $AH_a^j(M)$ be the amplitude cohomology of an $\mathsf{N}$-module $M$ with amplitude $a$ in degree $j$. Let $b=\mathsf{N}-a$ be the coamplitude.
Let $j=q\mathsf{N}+e$ be the euclidean division with $0\le e \le \mathsf{N}-1$.
Then for $e < b$ we have:
$$AH_a^j(M)= \Ext_{\L_\mathsf{N}^{\geqslant 0}}^{2q}(M_{e}^{a-1}, M).$$
and for $e\ge b$ we have:
$$AH_a^j(M)= \Ext_{\L_\mathsf{N}^{\geqslant 0}}^{2q+1}(M_{e-b}^{b-1}, M).$$
Monoidal structure and Clebsch-Gordan formula
=============================================
The $k$-category $\L_\mathsf{N}$ is the universal cover of the associative algebra $\U_q^+(sl_2)$ where $q$ is a non-trivial $\mathsf{N}$-th root of unity, see [@ci] and also [@ciro]. More precisely, let $C=<t>$ be the infinite cyclic group and let $C$ act on $(\L_\mathsf{N})_0= {{\mathbb{Z}}}$ by $t.i=i+N$. This is a free action on the objects while the action on morphisms is obtained by translation: namely the action of $t$ on the generator of ${}_{i+1}V_{i}$ is the generator of ${}_{i+1+N}V_{i+\mathsf{N}}$.
Since the action of $C$ is free on the objects, the categorical quotient exists, see for instance [@cire]. The category $\L_\mathsf{N}/C$ has set of objects ${{\mathbb{Z}}}/\mathsf{N}$. This category $\L_\mathsf{N}/C$ has a finite number of objects, hence we may consider its matrix algebra $a(\L_\mathsf{\mathsf{N}}/C)$ obtained as the direct sum of all its morphism spaces equipped with matrix multiplication. In other words, $a(\L_\mathsf{N}/C)$ is the path algebra of the crown quiver having ${{\mathbb{Z}}}/\mathsf{N}$ as set of vertices and an arrow form $\bar i$ to $\bar i+1$ for each $\bar i \in
{{\mathbb{Z}}}/\mathsf{N}$, truncated by the two-sided ideal of paths of length greater or equal to $\mathsf{N}$.
As described in [@ci] this truncated path algebra bears a comultiplication, an antipode and a counit providing a Hopf algebra isomorphic to the Taft algebra, also known as the positive part $\U_q^+(sl_2)$ of the quantum group $\U_q(sl_2)$. The monoidal structure obtained for the $\U_q^+(sl_2)$-modules can be lifted to $\L_\mathsf{N}$-modules providing the monoidal structure on $\mathsf{N}$-complexes introduced by M. Kapranov [@ka] and studied by J. Bichon [@bi] and A. Tikaradze [@ti].
We recall the formula: let $M$ and $M'$ be $\mathsf{N}$-complexes. Then $M\otimes M'$ is the $\mathsf{N}$-complex given by
$${}_i(M\otimes M') = \bigoplus_{j+r=i}({}_jM\otimes {}_rM')$$
and
$$d_i(m_j \otimes m'_r) = m_j \otimes d_rm'_r + q^rd_jm_j\otimes m'_r.$$
Notice that in general ${}_i(M\otimes M')$ is not finite dimensional.
Let $M$ and $M'$ be $\mathsf{N}$-complexes of finite dimensional vector spaces. Then $M\otimes M'$ is a direct sum of indecomposable $\mathsf{N}$-complexes of finite dimensional vector spaces, each indecomposable appearing a finite number of times.
**Proof.** Using Krull-Schmidt Theorem we have
$$M= \bigoplus_{i \in {{\mathbb{Z}}},\ 0\le l\le \mathsf{N}-1}n_i^lM_i^l \hbox{\hspace{0.1in} and \hspace{0.1in} }
M'= \bigoplus_{i \in {{\mathbb{Z}}},\ 0\le l\le \mathsf{N}-1}n'^l_i M_i^l .$$
The tensor product $M_i^l\otimes M_j^r$ consists of a finite number of non-zero vector spaces which are finite dimensional. It follows from the Clebsch-Gordan formula that we prove below that for a given indecomposable $\mathsf{N}$-complex $M_l^u$, there is only a finite number of couples of indecomposable modules sharing $M_l^u$ as an indecomposable factor. Then each indecomposable appears a finite number of times in $M\otimes M'$.
The following result is a Clebsch-Gordan formula for indecomposable $\mathsf{N}$-complexes, see also the work by R. Boltje, chap. III [@bo]. The fusion rules, *i.e.* the positive coefficients arising from the decomposition of the tensor product of two indecomposables, can be determined as follows.
Let $q$ be a non-trivial $\mathsf{N}^{th}$ root of unity and $M_i^u$ and let $M_j^v$ be indecomposable $\mathsf{N}$-complexes. Then,\
if $u+v\le \mathsf{N}-1$ we have $$M_i^u\otimes M_j^v = \bigoplus_{l=0}^{min(u,v)}M_{i+j+l}^{u+v-2l},$$ if $u+v= e+\mathsf{N}-1$ with $e\ge 0$ we have $$M_i^u\otimes M_j^v = \bigoplus_{l=0}^{e}M_{i+j+l}^{\mathsf{N}-1}
\oplus \bigoplus_{l=e+1}^{min(u,v)}M_{i+j+l}^{u+v-2l}.$$
**Proof.** Using Gunnlaugsdottir’s axiomatization [@gu] p.188, it is enough to prove the following:
$$M_i^0\otimes M_j^0 = M_{i+j}^0$$
$$M_0^1\otimes M_j^u = M_{j}^{u+1} \oplus M_{j+1}^{u-1} \hbox{ for }u < \mathsf{N}-1$$
$$M_0^1\otimes M_j^{\mathsf{N}-1} = M_{j}^{\mathsf{N}-1} \oplus M_{j+1}^{\mathsf{N}-1} .$$
The first fact is trivial. The second can be worked out using amplitude cohomology, which characterizes truncated $\mathsf{N}$-complexes. Indeed the algorithm we have described in \[algo\] enables us first to determine the fusion rule for $M_0^1\otimes M_j^u $ ($u<\mathsf{N}-1$), that is to determine the non-projective indecomposable direct summands. More precisely, since $u < \mathsf{N}-1$, the smallest non vanishing amplitude cohomology degree is $j$, with smallest amplitude $u+2$, providing $M_j^{u+1}$ as a direct factor. The remaining amplitude cohomology corresponds to $M_{j+1}^{u-1}$. A dimension computation shows that in this case there are no remaining projective summands.
On the converse, the third case is an example of vanishing cohomology. In fact, since $M_j^{\mathsf{N}-1}$ is projective, it is known at the Hopf algebra level that $X \otimes
M_j^{\mathsf{N}-1}$ is projective. A direct dimension computation between projectives shows that the formula holds.
[99]{}
Berger, R.; Dubois-Violette, M.; Wambst, M. Homogeneous algebras. J. Algebra **261** (2003), no. 1, 172–185.
Berger, R.; Marconnet N. Koszul and Gorenstein Properties for Homogeneous Algebras. Algebras and Representation Theory [**9**]{}, (2006), 67–97.
Bichon, J. [$\mathsf{N}$-complexes et algèbres de Hopf]{}. C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Paris [**337**]{}, (2003), 441–444.
Boltje, R., Kategorien von verallgemeinerten Komplexen und ihre Beschreibung durch Hopf Algebren, Diplomarbeit, Universität München (1985).
Cibils, C. [A quiver quantum group ]{}. Comm. Math. Phys. [**157**]{}, (1993), 459–477.
Cibils, C.; Redondo M. J. [Cartan-Leray spectral sequence for Galois coverings of categories]{}. J. Algebra [**284**]{}, (2005), 310–325.
Cibils, C.; Rosso, M. Hopf quivers. J. Algebra **254** (2002), 241–251.
Connes, A.; Dubois-Violette, M. Yang-Mills algebra. Lett. Math. Phys. **61** (2002), 149–158.
Dubois-Violette, M. [$d^\mathsf{N}=0$: generalized homology]{}. $K$-Theory [**14**]{}, (1998), 371–404.
Dubois-Violette, M. Generalized homologies for $d\sp \mathsf{N}=0$ and graded $q$-differential algebras. Secondary calculus and cohomological physics (Moscow, 1997), 69–79, Contemp. Math., **219**, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1998.
Dubois-Violette, M. Lectures on differentials, generalized differentials and on some examples related to theoretical physics. Quantum symmetries in theoretical physics and mathematics (Bariloche, 2000), 59–94, Contemp. Math., **294**, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2002.
Dubois-Violette, M. Résumé et transparents du cours “$\mathsf{N}$-COMPLEXES”, for the semester “K-theory and noncommutative geometry”, Institut Henri Poincaré, Paris, mars 2004.\
http://qcd.th.u-psud.fr/page\_perso/MDV/articles/COURS\_IHP.pdf
Dubois-Violette, M.; Henneaux, M. Generalized cohomology for irreducible tensor fields of mixed Young symmetry type. Lett. Math. Phys. **49** (1999), 245–252.
Dubois-Violette, M.; Henneaux, M. Tensor fields of mixed Young symmetry type and $\mathsf{N}$-complexes. Comm. Math. Phys. **226** (2002), 393–418.
Dubois-Violette, M.; Kerner, R.: Universal q-differential calculus and q-analog of homological algebra, Acta Math. Univ. Comenian. **65** (1996), 175–188.
Dubois-Violette, M.; Popov, T. Homogeneous algebras, statistics and combinatorics. Lett. Math. Phys. **61** (2002), 159–170.
Freyd, P. *Abelian categories*. Harper and Row, New York, 1964.\
`http://www.tac.mta.ca/tac/reprints/articles/3/tr3.pdf`
Gunnlaugsdottir, E. [Monoidal structure of the category of $u\sp +\sb q$-modules]{}. Linear Algebra Appl. [**365**]{}, (2003), 183–199.
Kapranov, M. On the q-analog of homological algebra. Preprint, Cornell University, 1991; q-alg/9611005
Kassel, C.; Wambst, M. [ Algèbre homologique des $\mathsf{N}$-complexes et homologie de Hochschild aux racines de l’unité ]{}. Publ. Res. Inst. Math. Sci. [**34**]{}, (1998), 91–114.
Mac Lane, S. *Homology*, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1963.
Mayer, W. A new homology theory. I, II. Ann. of Math. [**43**]{}, (1942). 370–380, 594–605.
Martínez-Villa, R.; Saorín, M. Koszul duality for $\mathsf N$-Koszul algebras. Colloq. Math. **103** (2005), 155–168.
Martínez-Villa, R.; Saorín, A duality theorem for generalized Koszul algebras\
math.RA/0511157
Sáenz, C. *Descomposición en inescindibles para módulos sobre anillos y categorías asociadas*. Tesis para obtener el título de matemático, UNAM, Mexico, 1988.
Spanier, E.H. The Mayer homology theory, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 55 (1949), 102–- 112.
Tikaradze, A. Homological constructions on $\mathsf{N}$-complexes. J. Pure Appl. Algebra **176** (2002), 213–222.
Wambst, M. Homologie cyclique et homologie simpliciale aux racines de l’unité. $K$-Theory **23** (2001), 377–397.
C.C.:\
Institut de Mathématiques et de Modélisation de Montpellier I3M,\
UMR 5149\
Université de Montpellier 2,\
F-34095 Montpellier cedex 5, France.\
[[email protected]]{}
A.S.:\
Departamento de Matemática, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales,\
Universidad de Buenos Aires\
Ciudad Universitaria, Pabellón 1\
1428, Buenos Aires, Argentina.\
[[email protected]]{}
R.W.:\
Mathematical Institute, Heinrich-Heine-University\
Universitaetsstrasse 1\
D-40225 Duesseldorf, Germany\
[[email protected]]{}
[^1]: This work has been supported by the projects PICT 08280 (ANPCyT), UBACYTX169, PIP-CONICET 5099 and the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD). The second author is a research member of CONICET (Argentina) and a Regular Associate of ICTP Associate Scheme.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Several polytopes arise from finite graphs. For edge and symmetric edge polytopes, in particular, exhaustive computation of the Ehrhart polynomials not merely supports the conjecture of Beck [*et al.*]{} that all roots $\a$ of Ehrhart polynomials of polytopes of dimension $D$ satisfy $-D \le {{\operatorname{Re}}(\a)} \le D - 1$, but also reveals some interesting phenomena for each type of polytope. Here we present two new conjectures: (1) the roots of the Ehrhart polynomial of an edge polytope for a complete multipartite graph of order $d$ lie in the circle $|z+\tfrac{d}{4}| \le \tfrac{d}{4}$ or are negative integers, and (2) a Gorenstein Fano polytope of dimension $D$ has the roots of its Ehrhart polynomial in the narrower strip $-\tfrac{D}{2} \leq {{\operatorname{Re}}(\a)} \leq \tfrac{D}{2}-1$. Some rigorous results to support them are obtained as well as for the original conjecture. The root distribution of Ehrhart polynomials of each type of polytope is plotted in figures.'
address:
- |
Tetsushi Matsui, Department of Pure and Applied Mathematics, Graduate School of Information Science and Technology, Osaka University, Toyonaka, Osaka 560-0043, Japan. / JST CREST.\
(Currently the author is at National Institute for Informatics, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 101-8430, Japan.)
- 'Akihiro Higashitani, Department of Pure and Applied Mathematics, Graduate School of Information Science and Technology, Osaka University, Toyonaka, Osaka 560-0043, Japan'
- 'Yuuki Nagazawa, Department of Pure and Applied Mathematics, Graduate School of Information Science and Technology, Osaka University, Toyonaka, Osaka 560-0043, Japan'
- 'Hidefumi Ohsugi, Department of Mathematics, College of Science, Rikkyo University, Toshima-ku, Tokyo 171-8501, Japan. / JST CREST.'
- 'Takayuki Hibi, Department of Pure and Applied Mathematics, Graduate School of Information Science and Technology, Osaka University, Toyonaka, Osaka 560-0043, Japan. / JST CREST.'
author:
- 'Tetsushi Matsui, Akihiro Higashitani, Yuuki Nagazawa, Hidefumi Ohsugi and Takayuki Hibi'
bibliography:
- 'ehrhart.bib'
- 'graph.bib'
- 'softwares.bib'
title: Roots of Ehrhart polynomials arising from graphs
---
[^1]
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
The root distribution of Ehrhart polynomials is one of the current topics on computational commutative algebra. It is well-known that the coefficients of an Ehrhart polynomial reflect combinatorial and geometric properties such as the volume of the polytope in the leading coefficient, gathered information about its faces in the second coefficient, etc. The roots of an Ehrhart polynomial should also reflect properties of a polytope that are hard to elicit just from the coefficients. Among the many papers on the topic, including [@BHW2007], [@Bra2008], [@BD2006], [@HSW2005] and [@Pfe2010], Beck [*et al.*]{} [@BDDPS2005] conjecture that:
\[conj:dstrip\] All roots $\a$ of Ehrhart polynomials of lattice $D$-polytopes satisfy $-D \le {{\operatorname{Re}}(\a)} \le D - 1$.
Compared with the norm bound, which is $O(D^2)$ in general [@Bra2008], the strip in the conjecture puts a tight restriction on the distribution of roots for any Ehrhart polynomial.
This paper investigates the roots of Ehrhart polynomials of polytopes arising from graphs, namely, edge polytopes and symmetric edge polytopes. The results obtained not merely support Conjecture \[conj:dstrip\], but also reveal some interesting phenomena. Regarding the scope of the paper, note that both kinds of polytopes are “small” in a sense: That is, each edge polytope from a graph without loops is contained in a unit hypercube, and one from a graph with loops, in twice a unit hypercube; whereas each symmetric edge polytope is contained in twice a unit hypercube.
In Section \[sec:simple\], the distribution of roots of Ehrhart polynomials of edge polytopes is computed, and as a special case, that of complete multipartite graphs is studied. We observed from exhaustive computation that all roots have a negative real part and they are in the range of Conjecture \[conj:dstrip\]. Moreover, for complete multipartite graphs of order $d$, the roots lie in the circle $|z+\tfrac{d}{4}|\le\tfrac{d}{4}$ or are negative integers greater than $-(d-1)$. And we conjecture its validity beyond the computed range of $d$ (Conjecture \[conj:circle\]).
Simple edge polytopes constructed from graphs with possible loops are studied in Section \[sec:loops\]. Roots of the Ehrhart polynomials are determined in some cases. Let $G$ be a graph of order $d$ with loops and $G'$ its subgraph of order $p$ induced by vertices without a loop attached. Then, Theorem \[root1\] proves that the real roots are in the interval $[-(d-2),0)$, especially all integers in $\{-(d-p),\ldots,-1\}$ are roots of the polynomial; Theorem \[root2\] determines that if $d -2p +2 \geq 0$, there are $p-1$ real non-integer roots each of which is unique in one of ranges $(-k, -k+1)$ for $k=1,\ldots,p-1$; and Theorem \[root3\] proves that if $d > p \geq 2$, all the integers $-{\left\lfloor\frac{d-1}{2}\right\rfloor},\ldots,-1$ are roots of the polynomial. We observed that all roots have a negative real part and are in the range of Conjecture \[conj:dstrip\].
The symmetric edge polytopes in Section \[sec:symmetric\] are Gorenstein Fano polytopes. A unimodular equivalence condition for two symmetric edge polytopes is also described in the language of graphs (Theorem \[nonequivalent\]). The polytopes have Ehrhart polynomials with an interesting root distribution: the roots are distributed symmetrically with respect to the vertical line ${{\operatorname{Re}}(z)}=-\tfrac{1}{2}$. We not only observe that all roots are in the range of Conjecture \[conj:dstrip\], but also conjecture that all roots in $-\tfrac{D}{2} \leq {{\operatorname{Re}}(\a)} \leq \tfrac{D}{2}-1$ for Gorenstein Fano polytopes of dimension $D$ (Conjecture \[conj:narrowstrip\]).
Before starting the discussion, let us summarize the definitions of edge polytopes, symmetric edge polytopes, etc.
Throughout this paper, graphs are always finite, and so we usually omit the adjective “finite.” Let $G$ be a graph having no multiple edges on the vertex set $V(G) = \{ 1, \ldots, d \}$ and the edge set $E(G) = \{ e_1, \ldots, e_n \} \subset {V(G)}^2$. Graphs may have loops in their edge sets unless explicitly excluded; in which case the graphs are called [*simple*]{} graphs. A [*walk*]{} of $G$ of length $q$ is a sequence $(e_{i_1}, e_{i_2}, \ldots, e_{i_q})$ of the edges of $G$, where $e_{i_k} = \{ u_k, u_{k+1} \}$ for $k = 1, \ldots, q$. If, moreover, $u_{q+1} = u_{1}$ holds, then the walk is a [*closed*]{} walk. Such a closed walk is called a [*cycle*]{} of length $q$ if $u_k \neq u_{k'}$ for all $1 \leq k < k' \leq q$. In particular, a loop is a cycle of length 1. Another notation, $(u_1,u_2,\ldots,u_q)$, will be also used for the same cycle with $(\{u_1,u_2\},\{u_2,u_3\},\ldots,\{u_q,u_1\})$. Two vertices $u$ and $v$ of $G$ are [*connected*]{} if $u=v$ or there exists a walk $(e_{i_1}, e_{i_2}, \ldots, e_{i_q})$ of $G$ such that $e_{i_1} = \{u, v_1\}$ and $e_{i_q} = \{u_q, v\}$. The connectedness is an equivalence relation and the equivalence classes are called the [*components*]{} of $G$. If $G$ itself is the only component, then $G$ is a [*connected graph*]{}. For further information on graph theory, we refer the reader to e.g. [@Harary], [@Wilson]
If $e = \{ i, j \}$ is an edge of $G$ between $i \in V(G)$ and $j \in V(G)$, then we define $\rho(e) = \eb_i + \eb_j$. Here, $\eb_i$ is the $i$unit coordinate vector of $\RR^d$. In particular, for a loop $e = \{ i, i \}$ at $i \in V(G)$, one has $\rho(e) = 2 \eb_i$. The [*edge polytope*]{} of $G$ is the convex polytope $\Pc_G$ $(\subset \RR^d)$, which is the convex hull of the finite set $\{ \rho(e_1), \ldots, \rho(e_n) \}$. The dimension of $\Pc_G$ equals to $d-2$ if the graph $G$ is a connected bipartite graph, or $d-1$, other connected graphs [@OH1998]. The edge polytopes of complete multipartite graphs are studied in [@OH2000]. Note that if the graph $G$ is a complete graph, the edge polytope $\Pc_G$ is also called the second hypersimplex in [@Sturmfels1995 Section 9].
Similarly, we define $\sigma(e) = \eb_i - \eb_j$ for an edge $e=\{ i, j \}$ of a simple graph $G$. Then, the [*symmetric edge polytope*]{} of $G$ is the convex polytope $\Pc^{\pm}_G$ $(\subset \RR^d)$, which is the convex hull of the finite set $\{ \pm\sigma(e_1), \ldots, \pm\sigma(e_n) \}$. Note that if $G$ is the complete graph $K_d$, the symmetric edge polytope $\Pc^{\pm}_{K_d}$ coincides with the root polytope of the lattice $A_d$ defined in [@ABHPS2008].
If $\Pc \subset \RR^N$ is an integral convex polytope, then we define $i(\Pc, m)$ by $$i(\Pc,m) = {\left|m \Pc \cap \ZZ^N\right|}
.$$ We call $i(\Pc,m)$ the [*Ehrhart polynomial*]{} of $\Pc$ after Ehrhart, who succeeded in proving that $i(\Pc, m)$ is a polynomial in $m$ of degree $\dim \Pc$ with $i(\Pc, 0) = 1$. If $\operatorname{vol}(\Pc)$ is the normalized volume of $\Pc$, then the leading coefficient of $i(\Pc,m)$ is $\tfrac{\operatorname{vol}(\Pc)}{(\dim \Pc)!}$.
An Ehrhart polynomial $i(\Pc, m)$ of $\Pc$ is related to a sequence of integers called the [*$\d$-vector*]{}, $\d(\Pc) = (\d_0, \d_1, \ldots, \d_D)$, of $\Pc$ by $$\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}i(\Pc, m)t^m = \frac{\sum_{j=0}^D\d_j t^j}{{(1-t)}^{D+1}}$$ where $D$ is the degree of $i(\Pc, m)$. We call the polynomial in the numerator on the right-hand side of the equation above $\d_{\Pc}(t)$, the [*$\d$-polynomial*]{} of $\Pc$. Note that the $\d$-vectors and $\d$-polynomials are referred to by other names in the literature: e.g., in [@Stanley1986], [@Sta1993], $h^*$-vector or $i$-Eulerian numbers are synonyms of $\d$-vector, and $h^*$-polynomial or $i$-Eulerian polynomial, of $\d$-polynomial. It follows from the definition that $\d_0 = 1$, $\d_1 = {\left|\Pc \cap \ZZ^N\right|} - (D + 1)$, etc. It is known that each $\d_i$ is nonnegative [@Sta1980]. If $\d_D \neq 0$, then $\d_1 \leq \d_i$ for every $1 \leq i < D$ [@Hib1994]. Though the roots of the polynomial are the focus of this paper, the $\d$-vector is also a very important research subject. For the detailed discussion on Ehrhart polynomials of convex polytopes, we refer the reader to [@Hibi1992].
[^1]: [**2010 Mathematics Subject Classification:**]{} Primary 52C07; Secondary 52B20, 12D10.\
[**Keywords:**]{} Ehrhart polynomial, edge polytope, Fano polytope, smooth polytope.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We discuss the technique of Wide-field imaging as it applies to Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI). In the past VLBI data sets were usually averaged so severely that the field-of-view was typically restricted to regions extending a few hundred milliarcseconds from the phase centre of the field. Recent advances in data analysis techniques, together with increasing data storage capabilities, and enhanced computer processing power, now permit VLBI images to be made whose angular size represents a significant fraction of an individual antenna’s primary beam. This technique has recently been successfully applied to several large separation gravitational lens systems, compact Supernova Remnants in the starburst galaxy M82, and two faint radio sources located within the same VLA FIRST field. It seems likely that other VLBI observing programmes might benefit from this wide-field approach to VLBI data analysis.
With the raw sensitivity of global VLBI set to improve by a factor 4-5 over the coming few years, the number of sources that can be detected in a given field will rise considerably. In addition, a continued progression in VLBI’s ability to image relatively faint and extended low brightness temperature features (such as hot-spots in large-scale astrophysical jets) is also to be expected. As VLBI sensitivity approaches the $\mu$Jy level, a wide-field approach to data analysis becomes inevitable.
address:
- 'Joint Institute for VLBI in Europe, Postbus 2, 7990 AA Dwingeloo, The Netherlands'
- 'Max-Planck-Institut für Radioastronomie, Auf dem Hügel 69, Bonn 53121, Germany'
- 'NRAL, Jodrell Bank, Macclesfield, Cheshire, SK11 9DL, UK'
author:
- 'M.A. Garrett'
- 'R.W. Porcas'
- 'A. Pedlar'
- 'T.W.B. Muxlow'
- 'S.T. Garrington'
title: 'Wide-field VLBI Imaging'
---
techniques: interferometric, image processing, ,methods: data analysis
95.75.-z ,95.75.Mn ,98.58.Mj
Introduction {#intro}
============
The undistorted field of view of a given VLBI data set is usually limited by two main effects: bandwidth smearing and time-average smearing [@Bridle89]. The narrower the individual frequency channels and the smaller the integration time, the larger the unaberrated field of view. Data generated by VLBI correlators are comprised of a set of measurements of the complex visibility as a function of frequency (or delay) and time. Most continuum VLBI data sets are delivered to the astronomer with relatively narrow frequency channels ($\sim 0.5$ MHz) and short integration times ($\sim 2$ secs). For example, a typical $\lambda 18$ cm EVN data set, in its original form, boasts a field-of-view, $\theta_{fov}$, in excess of $\sim
\frac{1}{2}$ arcminute. The same EVN data set, having for example being averaged in frequency over $\sim 64$ MHz, has a field-of-view of $
\sim 300$ milliarcseconds (mas). This reduction in the field-of-view by a factor in excess of two orders of magnitude is often considered to be unimportant. The aim of this paper is to show, by illustration, that this presumption may no longer be valid.
![A wide-field image of the gravitational lens system 0957+561. In addition, to the previously known compact features (A,B, G$^{\prime}$) we also detect compact structure in the arcsec-scale jet (previously labelled in VLA maps of the source as features “jet” and “C”.[]{data-label="fig1"}](magfig1.ps)
New Developments in Wide-Field VLBI Imaging {#new_world}
===========================================
In the early 1980s, the off-line computer resources available to most astronomers were ill-equipped to deal with extremely large and cumbersome VLBI data sets. Not surprisingly, one of the major goals of VLBI [*data reduction*]{} was to severely average continuum data at the earliest possible stage in the analysis process (as soon as fringe-fitting corrections had been applied). Today, the processing power and data storage volumes enjoyed by the vast majority of VLBI astronomers is $\sim 2$ orders of magnitude greater than the shared systems used previously. Nevertheless, the custom of excessive data averaging continues. This practice severely limits the natural field of view of VLBI images, and is often inappropriate - especially in the era of high sensitivity observations.
Detection of hot-spots in Large-scale Jets {#WF_HS}
-------------------------------------------
In Fig. \[fig1\] we present a $\lambda = 18$ cm EVN-only map of the gravitational lens, 0957+561 A,B. The data were calibrated in the usual manner. To avoid bandwidth smearing, the data were held in the form of 28 independent but contiguous 2 MHz channels. The data were averaged in time in a baseline dependent manner with integration times ranging from 2.5 seconds (on the longest projected baselines) to 30 seconds (on the shortest projected baselines). Fig. \[fig1\] clearly shows the two main, compact components, 0957+561 A,B and a very faint compact source known as G$^{\prime}$, lying about 1 arcsec to the north of B. All three components have been detected by previous VLBI campaigns. However, the real excitement relates to the fact that we have detected and imaged two low brightness temperature features ($T_{b} \sim
10^{6}-10^{7}$ K), that are associated with compact regions or hot-spots in the singly imaged arc-second scale jet that dominates VLA maps of this source. There must be many more cases where similar low surface brightness emission goes undetected, simply because a wide-field approach to the data analysis is not pursued. VLBI observations of such emission could improve our understanding of large-scale jet physics, distinguishing between various hot-spot models and allowing a comparison between the properties of the jet (e.g. flow velocity) and the intergalactic medium on pc and kpc scales.
Imaging Faint SNR in the Starburst Galaxy M82 {#WF_M82}
---------------------------------------------
A wide-field approach has also been applied by @Pedlar99 to $\lambda 18$ cm EVN observations of the starburst galaxy M82. Previous VLBI observations had focussed on the brightest SNR (41.95+575), but by following a wide-field approach to the data analysis @Pedlar99 have been able to generate exquisite images of 4 other compact SNR in the field, of which the faintest has a peak flux of $\sim
0.4$ mJy/beam. A sub-section of the entire 1 arcminute field is shown in Fig. \[fig2\]. @Pedlar99 have also re-analysed “vintage” EVN data of M82 from epoch 1986. By employing a wide-field approach to the re-analysis they have been able to measure expansion rates for one of the SNR and place upper-limits on two others. This work is a superb example of the type of information “gain” one can easily acquire through the general application of wide-field techniques to VLBI data.
Going Deeper into a Crowded Sky {#features}
-------------------------------
The advances in VLBI hardware described elsewhere in this volume suggest that for a Global VLBI array r.m.s. noise levels of $\sim
10\,\,\mu$Jy/beam will be attainable by the end of the millennium. Looking further ahead (10-15 years) there is every reason to believe that $\sim 1\,\,\mu$Jy/beam noise levels will be achievable. At this level of sensitivity, the radio sky becomes a very crowded place. At the $\mu$Jy level one may expect to encounter 1 source every few arcseconds (see @Muxlow99). We can expect to reach these levels of sensitivity within the next 10-20 years, by which time wide-field VLBI imaging may have evolved into a standard VLBI processing route in order to avoid source confusion. Even at the level of a few mJy a wide-field approach may pay dividends. @Garrington99 have embarked on a survey of faint mJy sources located within a few degrees of a bright, compact radio source, 1156+295. Two of the faint sources surveyed are separated by only a few arcminutes on the sky. Even although the observations had not been set up with wide-field imaging specifically in mind, it was still possible to produce tapered images of both sources simultaneously from a single $\lambda 6$ cm global VLBI data set (see Fig. \[fig3\]). We note that this wide-field approach permits a very [*direct*]{} measurement of the relative astrometric positions of radio sources in the same undistorted field of view.
Current Limitations {#limits}
===================
Currently the main limits on wide-field imaging are set by the maximum data rate that can be generated by VLBI correlators. In other words, the limitation is exactly the reverse of the situation in the early 1980’s, where the bottleneck was associated with off-line data processing facilities. Another restriction is the size of the primary beam of the larger VLBI antennas, especially phased arrays (e.g. WSRT & VLA$_{27}$). In this case at least, “small is beautiful”. This latter point should be borne in mind when the next generation of large telescope arrays are being designed (e.g. SKA), especially with regard to their possible incorporation within existing VLBI networks.
[999]{}
Bridle, A.H. & Schwab, F.R., 1989, in: Perley, R.A., Schwab, F.R., & Bridle, A.H. (eds), Synthesis Imaging in Astronomy, A.S.P. Conference Series, 6, p 247.
Garrington, S.T., Garrett, M.A., & Polatidis, A., 1999, NewAR, XX, pp. These proceedings.
Muxlow, T.W.B., Wilkinson, P.N., Richards, A.M.S., Kellerman, K.I, Richards, E.A., & Garrett, M.A., 1999, NewAR, XX, pp. These proceedings.
Pedlar, A., Muxlow, T.W.B., Garrett, M.A., Diamond, P., Wills, K.A., Wilkinson, P.N., & Alef, W., 1999, NewAR, XX, pp. These proceedings.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
bibliography:
- 'auto\_generated.bib'
title: 'Constraints on anomalous Higgs boson couplings using production and decay information in the four-lepton final state'
---
=1
$Revision: 399995 $ $HeadURL: svn+ssh://svn.cern.ch/reps/tdr2/papers/HIG-17-011/trunk/HIG-17-011.tex $ $Id: HIG-17-011.tex 399995 2017-04-20 17:55:45Z hroskes $
Introduction
============
The observation of a boson with a mass of about 125by the ATLAS and CMS Collaborations [@Aad:2012tfa; @Chatrchyan:2012xdj; @Chatrchyan:2013lba] is consistent with the prediction of the standard model (SM) Higgs ($\PH$) boson [@StandardModel67_1; @Englert:1964et; @Higgs:1964ia; @Higgs:1964pj; @Guralnik:1964eu; @StandardModel67_2; @StandardModel67_3]. It has been established that the spin-parity quantum numbers of the $\PH$ boson are consistent with $J^{PC}=0^{++}$ [@Chatrchyan:2012jja; @Chatrchyan:2013mxa; @Khachatryan:2014kca; @Khachatryan:2016tnr; @Khachatryan:2015mma; @Aad:2013xqa; @Aad:2015mxa; @Aad:2016nal]. However, the data still leave room for anomalous interactions or $C\!P$ violation in the interactions of the $\PH$ boson. The kinematics of leptons ($\ell=\mu^\pm$ and $\Pe^\pm$) from $\PH\to \Z\Z / \Z\gamma^* / \gamma^*\gamma^* \to 4\ell$ decays (through virtual photons or bosons), of quark jets produced in association with the $\PH$ boson in vector boson fusion (VBF), and of the decays of $\Z$ or $\PW$ bosons produced in association with $\PH$ (${\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}\PH$) allow studies of anomalous interactions of the $\PH$ boson [@Nelson:1986ki; @Soni:1993jc; @Plehn:2001nj; @Choi:2002jk; @Buszello:2002uu; @Godbole:2007cn; @Hagiwara:2009wt; @Gao:2010qx; @DeRujula:2010ys; @Christensen:2010pf; @Bolognesi:2012mm; @Ellis:2012xd; @Chen:2012jy; @Artoisenet:2013puc; @Anderson:2013afp; @Chen:2013waa; @Gonzalez-Alonso:2014eva; @Greljo:2015sla].
The CMS Collaboration analyzed the data collected at the CERN LHC at center-of-mass energies of 7 and 8(Run1), corresponding to integrated luminosities of ${5.1}$ and ${19.7\fbinv}$, measuring the spin-parity properties of the $\PH$ boson and searching for anomalous $\PH{\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}{\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}$ couplings using the $\PH$ boson’s decay modes to two electroweak gauge bosons [@Khachatryan:2014kca]. That study focused on testing for the presence of anomalous effects in $\PH\Z\Z$, $\PH\Z\gamma$, $\PH\gamma\gamma$, and $\PH\PW\PW$ interactions under spin-zero, -one, and -two hypotheses. The spin-one hypotheses were excluded at greater than 99.999% confidence level () in the $\Z\Z$ and $\PW\PW$ modes; they were also excluded via the Landau–Yang theorem [@Landau; @Yang] by the observation of the $\gamma\gamma$ decay mode with 5.7$\sigma$ significance. The spin-two boson hypothesis with gravity-like minimal couplings was excluded at 99.87% , and nine other possible hypotheses of spin-two tensor structure of $\PH{\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}{\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}$ interactions were excluded at 99% or higher. Given the exclusion of the spin-one and -two scenarios, constraints were set on the contribution of eleven anomalous couplings to the $\PH\Z\Z$, $\PH\Z\gamma$, $\PH\gamma\gamma$, and $\PH\PW\PW$ interactions under the hypothesis of a spin-zero state. Among others, these results constrained a $C\!P$-violation parameter $f_{a3}$, the fractional pseudoscalar cross section in the $\PH\to\Z\Z$ channel, which will be described in more detail in Section \[sec:Pheno\]. The pure pseudoscalar hypothesis was excluded at 99.98% , and the limit $f_{a3}<0.43$ was set at 95% . Similar results, for a smaller number of parameters and fewer exotic-spin models, were obtained by ATLAS [@Aad:2015mxa].
All the above studies considered the decay of an on-shell $\PH$ boson to two vector bosons. The accumulated data in Run1 were not sufficient for precision tests of anomalous interactions in associated production, in off-shell production, or with fermions. Nonetheless, both CMS [@Khachatryan:2016tnr] and ATLAS [@Aad:2016nal] performed analyses of anomalous $\PH{\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}{\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}$ interactions in ${\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}\PH$ and VBF production, respectively. Finally, the CMS experiment searched for anomalous $\PH{\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}{\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}$ interactions in off-shell production of the $\PH$ boson in $\Pp\Pp\to \PH\to \Z\Z$ with Run1 data [@Khachatryan:2015mma]. Further measurements probing the tensor structure of the $\PH{\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}{\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}$ and $\PH{\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{f}\overline{\cmsSymbolFace{f}}}\xspace}$ interactions can test $C\!P$ invariance and, more generally, any small anomalous contributions [@deFlorian:2016spz].
In this Letter, the analysis approach follows our previous Run1 publication [@Khachatryan:2014kca], expanded in two important ways. Information from the kinematic correlations of quark jets from VBF and ${\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}\PH$ production is used together with $\PH\to \Z\Z / \Z\gamma^* / \gamma^*\gamma^* \to 4\ell$ decay information for the first time, applying the relevant techniques discussed in Ref. [@Anderson:2013afp]. Moreover, data sets corresponding to integrated luminosities of ${2.7}$ and ${35.9\fbinv}$ collected at a center-of-mass energy of 13in Run2 of the LHC during 2015 and 2016, respectively, are combined with the Run1 data, increasing the data sample of $\PH\to4\ell$ events by approximately a factor of four.
In what follows, the phenomenology of anomalous $\PH{\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}{\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}$ interactions is discussed in Section \[sec:Pheno\]. The CMS detector, reconstruction techniques, and Monte Carlo (MC) simulation are introduced in Section \[sec:CMS\]. Details of the analysis are discussed in Section \[sec:AnalysisStrategyIntro\], and results are presented in Section \[sec:results\]. We summarize in Section \[sec:Summary\].
Phenomenology of anomalous H boson interactions {#sec:Pheno}
===============================================
We assume that the $\PH$ boson couples to two gauge bosons ${\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}{\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}$, such as $\Z\Z$, $\Z \gamma$, $\gamma\gamma$, $\PW\PW$, or $\Pg\Pg$, which in turn couple to quarks or leptons [@Nelson:1986ki; @Soni:1993jc; @Plehn:2001nj; @Choi:2002jk; @Buszello:2002uu; @Godbole:2007cn; @Hagiwara:2009wt; @Gao:2010qx; @DeRujula:2010ys; @Christensen:2010pf; @Bolognesi:2012mm; @Ellis:2012xd; @Chen:2012jy; @Artoisenet:2013puc; @Anderson:2013afp; @Chen:2013waa]. Three general tensor structures that are allowed by Lorentz symmetry are tested. Each term includes a form factor $F_i(q_1^2,q_2^2)$, where $q_1$ and $q_2$ are the four-momenta of the two difermion states, such as $\Pep\Pem$ and $\PGmp\PGmm$ in the $\PH\to \Pep\Pem\PGmp\PGmm$ decay. The $\PH$ boson coupling to fermions is assumed not to be mediated by a new heavy state ${\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}^\prime$, generating the so-called contact terms [@Gonzalez-Alonso:2014eva; @Greljo:2015sla]. We therefore study the process $\PH\to{\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}{\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}\to4\mathrm{f}$ and the equivalent processes in production, rather than $\PH\to{\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}{\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}^\prime\to4\mathrm{f}$ or equivalent processes. Nonetheless, those contact terms are equivalent to the anomalous $\PH{\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}{\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}$ couplings already tested using the $f_{\Lambda1}$ and $f_{\Lambda1}^{\Z\gamma}$ parameters, defined below. It is assumed that all lepton and quark couplings to vector bosons follow the SM predictions. Relaxing this requirement would be equivalent to allowing the contact terms to vary with flavor, which would result in too many unconstrained parameters to be tested with the present amount of data. Only the lowest order operators, or lowest order terms in the $(q_j^2/\Lambda^2)$ form-factor expansion, are tested, where $\Lambda$ is an energy scale of new physics.
Anomalous interactions of a spin-zero $\PH$ boson with two spin-one gauge bosons ${\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}{\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}$, such as $\Z\Z$, $\Z \gamma$, $\gamma\gamma$, $\PW\PW$, and $\Pg\Pg$, are parameterized with a scattering amplitude that includes three tensor structures with expansion of coefficients up to $(q^2/\Lambda^2)$: where $q_{i}$, $\epsilon_{{{\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}}i}$, and $m_{{\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}1}$ are the four-momentum, polarization vector, and pole mass of a gauge boson, $f^{(i){\mu \nu}} = \epsilon_{{{\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}}i}^{\mu}q_{i}^{\nu} - \epsilon_{{{\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}}i}^\nu q_{i}^{\mu}$, ${\tilde f}^{(i)}_{\mu \nu} = \frac{1}{2} \epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} f^{(i),\rho\sigma}$ [@Khachatryan:2014kca; @Anderson:2013afp], and $a_i^{{\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}{\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}}$ and $\kappa_i^{{\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}{\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}}/\left(\Lambda_1^{{\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}{\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}}\right)^2$ are parameters to be determined from data.
In Eq. (\[eq:formfact-fullampl-spin0\]), the only leading tree-level contributions are $a_{1}^{\Z\Z}\ne 0$ and $a_{1}^{\PW\PW} \ne 0$, and we assume custodial symmetry, so that $a_{1}^{\Z\Z}=a_{1}^{\PW\PW}$. The rest of the couplings are considered anomalous contributions. Tiny anomalous terms arise in the SM due to loop effects, and new, beyond standard model (BSM) contributions could make them larger. The SM values of those couplings are not yet accessible experimentally. Considerations of gauge invariance and symmetry between two identical bosons require $\kappa_1^{\Z\Z}=\kappa_2^{\Z\Z}=-\exp({i\phi^{\Z\Z}_{\Lambda{1}}})$, $\kappa_{1,2}^{\gamma\gamma}=\kappa_{1,2}^{\Pg\Pg}=\kappa_1^{\Z\gamma}=0$, and $\kappa_2^{\Z\gamma}=-\exp({i\phi^{\Z\gamma}_{\Lambda{1}}})$, where $\phi^{{\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}{\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}}_{\Lambda1}$ is the phase of the corresponding coupling. The $a^{\Z\gamma}_{2,3}$ and $a^{\gamma\gamma}_{2,3}$ terms were tested in the Run1 analysis [@Khachatryan:2014kca], but have tighter constraints from on-shell photon measurements in $\PH\to \Z\gamma$ and $\gamma\gamma$. We therefore do not repeat those measurements. The $\PH\PW\PW$ couplings appear in VBF and $\PW\PH$ production. We relate those couplings to the $\PH\Z\Z$ measurements assuming $a_{i}^{\PW\PW}=a_{i}^{\Z\Z}$ and drop the $\Z\Z$ labels in what follows. Four anomalous couplings are left to be tested: $a_2$, $a_3$, $\kappa_2/\Lambda_1^2$, and $\kappa_2^{\Z\gamma}/\left(\Lambda_1^{\Z\gamma}\right)^2$. The generic notation $a_i$ refers to all four of these couplings, as well as the SM coupling $a_1$.
Equation (\[eq:formfact-fullampl-spin0\]) parameterizes both the $\PH\to{\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}{\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}$ decay and the production of the $\PH$ boson via either VBF or ${\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}\PH$. All three of these processes, which are illustrated in Fig. \[fig:kinematics\], are considered. While $q_{i}^2$ in the $\PH\to{\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}{\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}$ process does not exceed $\left(100\GeV\right)^2$ due to the kinematic bound, in associated production no such bound exists. In the present analysis it is assumed that the $q_{i}^2$ range is not restricted within the allowed phase space.
{width="32.00000%"} {width="32.00000%"} {width="32.00000%"}
The effective fractional cross sections $f_{ai}$ and phases $\phi_{ai}$ are defined as follows: $$f_{ai}= {\abs{a_i}^2 \sigma_{i}} \Big/\sum {\abs{a_j}^2 \sigma_{j}}, ~\text{and}~\phi_{ai} = \text{arg}\left({a_{i}}/{a_{1}}\right).
\label{eq:fai}$$
This definition of $f_{ai}$ is valid for both the SM coupling $a_1$ and the anomalous couplings, but there is no need for a separate measurement of $f_{a1}$ because $\sum {f_{ai}}=1$. The cross sections $\sigma_i$ in Eq. \[eq:fai\] are calculated for each corresponding coupling $a_i$. They are evaluated for the $\PH\to\Z\Z/ \Z\gamma^* /\gamma^*\gamma^*\to2\Pe2\mu$ process, where $a_i=1$ and all other $a_j=0$ in Eq. (\[eq:formfact-fullampl-spin0\]). The resulting ratios are $\sigma_{1}/\sigma_{3}= 6.53$, $\sigma_{1}/\sigma_{2}= 2.77$, $\sigma_{1}/{\sigma_{\Lambda1}}= 1.47\times 10^{4}\TeV^{-4}$, and $\sigma_{1}/{\sigma_{\Lambda1}^{\Z\gamma}}= 5.80\times 10^{3}\TeV^{-4}$. In the case of the $\PH\Z\gamma$ coupling the requirement $\sqrt{\smash[b]{\abs{q^2_i}}} \ge 4\GeV$ is introduced in the cross section calculations to avoid infrared divergence. Equation (\[eq:fai\]) can be inverted to recover the coupling ratio, $$\left|\frac{a_i}{a_1}\right|=\sqrt{\frac{f_{ai}}{f_{a1}}}\,\sqrt{\frac{\sigma_1}{\sigma_i}}.
\label{eq:fai-inverse}$$
It is convenient to measure the effective cross-section ratios ($f_{ai}$) rather than the anomalous couplings themselves ($a_i$). First of all, most systematic uncertainties cancel in the ratio. Moreover, the effective fractions are conveniently bounded by 0 and 1 and do not depend on the normalization convention in the definition of the couplings. Until the effects of interference become important, the statistical uncertainties in these measurements scale with the integrated luminosity as $1/\sqrt{\mathcal{L}}$, in the same way as cross section measurements. The $f_{ai}$ values have a simple interpretation as the fractional size of the BSM contribution for the $\PH\to\Z\Z / \Z\gamma^* /\gamma^*\gamma^* \to2\Pe2\mu$ decay. For example, $f_{ai}=0$ indicates a pure SM Higgs boson, $f_{ai}=1$ gives a pure BSM particle, and $f_{ai}=0.5$ means that the two couplings contribute equally to the $\PH\to\Z\Z/ \Z\gamma^* /\gamma^*\gamma^*\to2\Pe2\mu$ process. In particular, $f_{a3}$ is the fractional pseudoscalar cross section in the $\PH\to\Z\Z\to2\Pe2\mu$ channel. A value $0<f_{a3}<1$ would indicate $C\!P$ violation, with a possible mixture of scalar and pseudoscalar states, while $f_{a3}=1$ would indicate that the $\PH$ boson is a pure pseudoscalar resonance, which has been excluded at 99.98% [@Khachatryan:2014kca].
The above approach allows a general test of the kinematic distributions associated with the couplings of $\PH$ to 4 fermions, whether in the decay or in the associated production channels, as shown in Fig. \[fig:kinematics\]. If deviations from the SM are detected, a more detailed study of the $(q_j^2/\Lambda^2)$ form-factor expansion can be performed, eventually providing a measurement of the double-differential cross section for each tested tensor structure. Under the assumption that the couplings are constant and real (, $\phi_{ai}=0$ or $\pi$), the above formulation is equivalent to an effective Lagrangian [@Khachatryan:2014kca]. It is also equivalent to the formulation involving contact terms [@Gonzalez-Alonso:2014eva; @Greljo:2015sla] if the contact terms are assumed to satisfy lepton universality.
The CMS detector, simulation, and reconstruction {#sec:CMS}
================================================
The $\PH\to 4\ell$ decays are reconstructed in the CMS detector, which is composed of a silicon pixel and strip tracker, a lead tungstate crystal electromagnetic calorimeter (ECAL), and a brass and scintillator hadron calorimeter, each composed of a barrel and two endcap sections, all within a superconducting solenoid of 6 internal diameter, providing a magnetic field of 3.8. Outside the solenoid are the gas-ionization detectors for muon measurements, which are embedded in the steel flux-return yoke. Extensive forward calorimetry complements the coverage provided by the barrel and endcap detectors. Events of interest are selected using a two-tiered trigger system. A detailed description of the CMS detector, together with a definition of the coordinate system used and the relevant kinematic variables, can be found in Ref. [@Chatrchyan:2008zzk].
A dedicated MC program, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">JHUGen</span> 7.0.2 [@Gao:2010qx; @Bolognesi:2012mm; @Anderson:2013afp; @Gritsan:2016hjl], is used to simulate the effect of anomalous couplings in the production and decay $\PH\to \Z\Z$ / $\Z\gamma^*$ / $\gamma^*\gamma^*\to4\ell$. The gluon fusion production of an $\PH$ boson is simulated with the 2.0 [@Frixione:2007vw; @Bagnaschi:2011tu; @Nason:2009ai] event generator at next-to-leading order (NLO) in quantum chromodynamics (QCD). The associated gluon fusion production of an $\PH$ boson with two jets is affected by anomalous $\PH\Pg\Pg$ interactions. These effects are modeled with <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">JHUGen</span>. It is also found that the NLO QCD effects that are relevant for the analysis of a spin-zero state are well described by a combination of leading-order (LO) matrix elements and parton showering [@Anderson:2013afp]. For the SM case, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">JHUGen</span> simulations at LO in QCD and simulations at NLO in QCD, with parton showering applied in both cases, are explicitly compared, and no significant differences are found. Therefore, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">JHUGen</span> at LO in QCD is adopted for the simulation of VBF, ${\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}\PH$, and $\ttbar\PH$ production with anomalous couplings. The <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">MELA</span> package [@Chatrchyan:2012xdj; @Gao:2010qx; @Bolognesi:2012mm; @Anderson:2013afp; @Gritsan:2016hjl] contains a library of matrix elements from <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">JHUGen</span> for the $\PH$ boson signal and 7.0 [@MCFM; @Campbell:2011bn; @Campbell:2013una] for the SM background and is used to apply weights to events in any MC sample to model any other set of couplings.
The main background in this analysis, $\qqbar\to\Z\Z/\Z\gamma^*\to 4\ell$, is estimated from simulation with , with the next-to-NLO (NNLO) K-factor, which is approximately 1.1 at $\mllll=125\GeV$ [@CMS-HIG-16-041], applied to the NLO cross section. The $\Pg\Pg\to\Z\Z/\Z\gamma^*\to 4\ell$ background process is simulated with 7.0, where the Higgs boson production K-factor at NNLO in QCD, which is approximately 2.3 at $\mllll=125\GeV$, is applied to the LO cross section [@CMS-HIG-14-002]. The VBF and triple-gauge-boson (${\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}{\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}{\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}$) backgrounds are estimated at LO with <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">phantom</span> 1.2.8 [@Ballestrero:2007]. The parton distribution functions (PDFs) used for all of these samples are NNPDF3.0 [@Ball:2011uy]. All MC samples are interfaced with 8.212 [@Sjostrand2015159] tune CUETP8M1 [@Khachatryan:2015pea] for parton showering and further processed through a dedicated simulation of the CMS detector based on [@Agostinelli2003250].
The selection of the $\PH\to 4\ell$ events and associated particles closely follows the methods used in the analyses of Run1 [@Khachatryan:2014kca; @Chatrchyan:2013mxa] and Run2 [@CMS-HIG-16-041] data. The main triggers for this analysis select a pair of leptons passing loose identification and isolation requirements, with $\pt$ of the leading and subleading electron (muon) at least 23 (17) and 12 (8), respectively. To maximize the signal acceptance, triggers requiring three leptons with lower $\pt$ thresholds and no isolation requirement are also used, as are isolated single-electron and single-muon triggers with higher $\pt$ thresholds. Electrons (muons) are reconstructed within the geometrical acceptance defined by $\abs{\eta} < 2.5~(2.4)$ for transverse momentum $\pt > 7\,(5)\GeV$ with an algorithm that combines information from the ECAL (muon system) and the tracker. It is required that the ratio of each lepton track’s impact parameter in three dimensions, computed with respect to the chosen primary vertex position, to its uncertainty be less than 4. The primary vertex is defined as the vertex with the highest sum of $\pt^2$ of physics objects defined by a jet-finding algorithm. To discriminate prompt leptons from $\cPZ/\gamma^*$ boson decays from those arising from hadron decays within jets, an isolation requirement for leptons is imposed. An algorithm is used to collect the final-state radiation (FSR) of leptons. An FSR photon is associated to the closest selected lepton in the event if its angular separation from the lepton is below the required threshold, as discussed in Ref. [@CMS-HIG-16-041]. Three mutually exclusive channels are considered: $\PH\to4\Pe$, $4\Pgm$, and $2\Pe 2\Pgm$. At least two leptons are required to have $\pt > 10\GeV$, and at least one is required to have $\pt > 20\GeV$. All four pairs of oppositely charged leptons that can be built with the four leptons, irrespective of flavor, are required to satisfy $m_{\ell^{+}\ell'^{-}} > 4\GeV$. The $\cPZ/\gamma^*$ candidates are required to satisfy the condition $12\GeV < {m_{\ell\ell}}< 120\GeV$; the invariant mass of at least one of the $\cPZ/\gamma^*$ candidates must be larger than 40. The four-lepton invariant mass $\mllll$ must be between 105 and 140.
Jets are reconstructed using the particle-flow (PF) algorithm [@CMS-PRF-14-001], with PF candidates clustered by the anti-algorithm [@Cacciari:2008gp; @Cacciari:2011ma] with a distance parameter of 0.4, and with the constraint that the charged particles be compatible with the primary vertex. The jet momentum is determined as the vectorial sum of all PF candidate momenta in the jet. Jets must satisfy $\pt>30\GeV$ and $\abs{\eta}<4.7$ and be separated from all selected lepton candidates and any selected FSR photons by an angular distance $\Delta R(\ell/\cPgg,\text{jet})>0.4$, where the angular distance between two particles $i$ and $j$ is $\Delta R(i,j) = \sqrt{\smash[b]{(\eta^i-\eta^j)^{2} + (\phi^i-\phi^j)^{2}}}$.
Analysis techniques {#sec:AnalysisStrategyIntro}
===================
The full kinematic information from each event is extracted using the matrix element calculations in the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">mela</span> package. For either the $\PH$ boson decay or associated production with two jets, up to seven kinematic observables, five angles and two invariant masses, are defined, as shown in Fig. \[fig:kinematics\] [@Gao:2010qx; @Anderson:2013afp]. In the $2\to 6$ process of associated $\PH$ boson production via either VBF, $\Z\PH$, or $\PW\PH$ and its subsequent decay to a four-fermion final state, up to 13 independent observables $\vec\Omega$ remain. In the following, we use either the production kinematics, the decay kinematics, or both, as appropriate. The $\ptvec$ of the system of the $\PH$ boson and two jets, which would appear at NLO in QCD, is not included in the input observables in order to reduce associated QCD uncertainties. The <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">MELA</span> approach retains all relevant kinematic information in a minimal set of discriminants $\mathcal{D}$, computed from ratios of probabilities $\mathcal{P}$. We use two types of discriminants, $$\mathcal{D}_\text{alt}\left(\vec\Omega\right) = \frac{\mathcal{P}_\text{sig}\left(\vec\Omega\right) }{\mathcal{P}_\text{sig}\left(\vec\Omega\right) +\mathcal{P}_\text{alt}\left(\vec\Omega\right) }
\label{eq:melaD}$$ and $$\mathcal{D}_\text{int}\left(\vec\Omega\right) = \frac{\mathcal{P}_\text{int}\left(\vec\Omega\right) }{\mathcal{P}_\text{sig}\left(\vec\Omega\right) +\mathcal{P}_\text{alt}\left(\vec\Omega\right) },
\label{eq:melaDint}$$ where “sig” stands for the SM signal; “alt” denotes an alternative hypothesis [@Bolognesi:2012mm], which could be background (“bkg”), an alternative $\PH$ boson production mechanism (“2jet”), or an alternative $\PH$ boson coupling model (“$a_i$”); and “int” represents the contribution to the probability from the interference between “sig” and “alt” [@Anderson:2013afp]. By the Neyman-Pearson lemma [@Neyman289], the $\mathcal{D}_\text{alt}$ discriminant contains all the information available from the kinematics to separate the SM signal hypothesis from the alternative hypothesis. Because all intermediate hypotheses are a linear combination of the SM hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis, the combination of $\mathcal{D}_\text{alt}$ with $\mathcal{D}_\text{int}$ also contains all the information available to separate the interference component. The discriminants used in this analysis are summarized in Table \[table:categories\] and described in more detail below.
Category VBF-jet ${\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}\PH$-jet Untagged
-------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target $\PQq{\PQq}^\prime {\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}{\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}\to \PQq{\PQq}^\prime \PH\to (\cmsSymbolFace{j}\cmsSymbolFace{j})(4\ell)$ $\qqbar\to {\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}\PH\to (\cmsSymbolFace{j}\cmsSymbolFace{j})(4\ell)$ $\PH\to 4\ell$
Selection $ \mathcal{D}_\text{2jet}^\text{VBF}$ or $ \mathcal{D}_\text{2jet}^{\text{VBF}, \text{BSM}} >0.5$ $ \mathcal{D}_\text{2jet}^{\Z\PH}$ or $ \mathcal{D}_\text{2jet}^{\Z\PH, \text{BSM}}$ or not VBF-jet
\[-0.6ex\] $ \mathcal{D}_\text{2jet}^{\PW\PH}$ or $ \mathcal{D}_\text{2jet}^{\PW\PH, \text{BSM}} >0.5$ not ${\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}\PH$-jet
\[-0.6ex\] $f_{a3}$ obs. $\mathcal{D}_\text{bkg}$, $\mathcal{D}_{0-}^{\text{VBF}\!+\!\text{dec}}$, $\mathcal{D}_{C\!P}^\text{VBF}$ $\mathcal{D}_\text{bkg}$, $\mathcal{D}_{0-}^{{\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}\PH\!+\!\text{dec}}$, $\mathcal{D}_{C\!P}^{{\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}\PH}$ $\mathcal{D}_\text{bkg}$, $\mathcal{D}_{0-}^\text{dec}$, $\mathcal{D}_{C\!P}^\text{dec}$
$f_{a2}$ obs. $\mathcal{D}_\text{bkg}$, $\mathcal{D}_{0h+}^{\text{VBF}\!+\!\text{dec}}$, $\mathcal{D}_\text{int}^\text{VBF}$ $\mathcal{D}_\text{bkg}$, $\mathcal{D}_{0h+}^{{\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}\PH\!+\!\text{dec}}$, $\mathcal{D}_\text{int}^{{\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}\PH}$ $\mathcal{D}_\text{bkg}$, $\mathcal{D}_{0h+}^\text{dec}$, $\mathcal{D}_\text{int}^\text{dec}$
$f_{\Lambda1}$ obs. $\mathcal{D}_\text{bkg}$, $\mathcal{D}_{\Lambda1}^{\text{VBF}\!+\!\text{dec}}$, $\mathcal{D}_{0h+}^{\text{VBF}\!+\!\text{dec}}$ $\mathcal{D}_\text{bkg}$, $\mathcal{D}_{\Lambda1}^{{\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}\PH\!+\!\text{dec}}$, $\mathcal{D}_{0h+}^{{\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}\PH\!+\!\text{dec}}$ $\mathcal{D}_\text{bkg}$, $\mathcal{D}_{\Lambda1}^\text{dec}$, $\mathcal{D}_{0h+}^\text{dec}$
$f^{\Z\gamma}_{\Lambda1}$ obs. $\mathcal{D}_\text{bkg}$, $\mathcal{D}^{\Z\gamma,{\text{VBF}\!+\!\text{dec}}}_{\Lambda1}$, $\mathcal{D}_{0h+}^{\text{VBF}\!+\!\text{dec}}$ $\mathcal{D}_\text{bkg}$, $\mathcal{D}^{\Z\gamma,{{\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}\PH\!+\!\text{dec}}}_{\Lambda1}$, $\mathcal{D}_{0h+}^{{\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}\PH\!+\!\text{dec}}$ $\mathcal{D}_\text{bkg}$, $\mathcal{D}^{\Z\gamma,\text{dec}}_{\Lambda1}$, $\mathcal{D}_{0h+}^\text{dec}$
\[table:categories\]
The selected events in the 2016 data sample are split into three categories: VBF-jet, VH-jet, and untagged. The VBF-jet category requires exactly four leptons with either two or three jets of which at most one is $\cPqb$ quark flavor-tagged, or at least four jets and no $\cPqb$-tagged jets. The ${\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}\PH$-jet category requires exactly four leptons and two or more jets; if there are four or more jets, none of them should be $\cPqb$ tagged. The requirements on the number of $\cPqb$-tagged jets are applied to reduce cross-feed from $\ttbar\PH$ production. In order to separate the target production mode for each category from gluon fusion production, the requirement $\mathcal{D}_\text{2jet}>0.5$ is applied following Eq. (\[eq:melaD\]), where $\mathcal{P}_\text{sig}$ corresponds to the signal probability for the VBF ($\Z\PH$ or $\PW\PH$) production hypothesis in the VBF-jet (${\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}\PH$-jet) category, and $\mathcal{P}_\text{alt}$ corresponds to the gluon fusion production of the $\PH$ boson in association with two jets. In each of the four $f_{ai}$ analyses, the requirement $\mathcal{D}_\text{2jet}>0.5$ is tested with both the $f_{ai}=0$ and $f_{ai}=1$ signal hypotheses in $\mathcal{P}_\text{sig}$. Thus, this categorization differs slightly in the four analyses. The two highest $\pt$ jets are used in the calculation of the matrix elements. All events not assigned to the VBF-jet or ${\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}\PH$-jet categories are assigned to the untagged category. The above requirements are summarized in Table \[table:categories\]. Due to the small size of the 2015 data sample, those events were not categorized and were all treated as untagged, as was done in the analysis of 2011 and 2012 data [@Khachatryan:2014kca]. The expected and observed numbers of events are listed in Table \[table:category-yields-fa3\].
VBF-jets ${\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}\PH$-jets Untagged 2015
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- --------------------------------------------------- ------------- -----------
VBF signal 2.4 (1.6) 0.1 (0.1) 2.2 (0.3) 0.4 (0.2)
$\Z\PH$ signal 0.1 (0.2) 0.3 (0.5) 0.7 (1.0) 0.1 (0.1)
$\PW\PH$ signal 0.1 (0.3) 0.3 (1.0) 0.8 (2.2) 0.1 (0.3)
$\Pg\Pg\to\PH$ signal 3.2 (3.3) 1.9 (2.0) 49.6 (49.4) 4.6 (4.6)
$\ttbar\PH$ signal 0.1 (0.1) 0.0 (0.0) 0.5 (0.6) 0.1 (0.1)
$\qqbar\to4\ell$ bkg 0.9 1.1 56.3 5.4
$\Pg\Pg\to4\ell$ bkg 0.1 0.1 5.5 0.5
VBF/${\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}{\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}{\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}$ bkg 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.0
$\Z\!+\!{\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{X}}\xspace}$ bkg 3.6 2.0 29.1 1.7
Total expected 10.7 5.8 145.2 12.9
Total observed 11 2 145 11
\[table:category-yields-fa3\]
We perform an unbinned extended maximum likelihood fit to the events split into the categories according to the lepton flavor and production topology. An independent fit is performed for each parameter defined in Table \[tab:summary\_spin0\]. In each category of events, three observables $\vec{\mathcal{D}}=\{ \mathcal{D}_\text{bkg}, \mathcal{D}_{ai}, \mathcal{D}_\text{int} \}$ are defined following Eqs. (\[eq:melaD\]) and (\[eq:melaDint\]), as summarized in Table \[table:categories\].
The first observable, $\mathcal{D}_\text{bkg}$ (shown in Fig. \[fig:discriminants\] (a)), is common to all events and is designed to separate the signal from the dominant $\qqbar\to4\ell$ background, for which $\mathcal{P}_\text{bkg}$ is calculated. The signal and background probabilities include both the matrix element probability based on lepton kinematics and the $m_{4\ell}$ probability parameterization extracted from simulation of detector effects. The signal $m_{4\ell}$ parameterization assumes that $m_\PH=125$.
The second observable, $\mathcal{D}_{ai}$, separates the SM hypothesis $f_{ai}=0$ from the alternative hypothesis $f_{ai}=1$. It is defined following Eq. (\[eq:melaD\]), with $\mathcal{P}_\text{sig}$ calculated for $f_{ai}=0$ and $\mathcal{P}_\text{alt}$ for the alternative $\PH$ boson coupling hypothesis with $f_{ai}=1$. In the untagged category the probabilities are calculated using only the decay information, but in the VBF-jet and ${\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}\PH$-jet categories both the production and decay probabilities are used, with the matrix elements calculated for either $\text{VBF}\times\text{decay}$ or $(\Z\PH+\PW\PH)\times\text{decay}$, respectively. This observable is called $\mathcal{D}_\mathrm{0-}$ in the $f_{a3}$, $\mathcal{D}_\mathrm{0h+}$ in the $f_{a2}$, $\mathcal{D}_{\Lambda1}$ in the $f_{\Lambda1}$, and $\mathcal{D}_{\Lambda1}^{\Z\gamma}$ in the $f_{\Lambda1}^{\Z\gamma}$ analyses [@Khachatryan:2014kca]. Superscripts are added to the discriminant name to indicate the processes used to calculate the matrix elements: either dec, $\text{VBF}\!+\!\text{dec}$, or ${\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}\PH\!+\!\text{dec}$ to denote decay, $\text{VBF}\times\text{decay}$, or $(\Z\PH+\PW\PH)\times\text{decay}$, respectively. Distributions of $\mathcal{D}_\mathrm{0-}$ in the three categories are shown in Fig. \[fig:discriminants\] (e), (f), (g). Figure \[fig:discriminants\] (b), (c), (d) also shows the distributions of $\mathcal{D}_\mathrm{0h+}$, $\mathcal{D}_{\Lambda1}$, and $\mathcal{D}_{\Lambda1}^{\Z\gamma}$, respectively, for the untagged events.
The third observable, $\mathcal{D}_\text{int}$ from Eq. (\[eq:melaDint\]), separates the interference of the two amplitudes corresponding to the SM coupling and the alternative $\PH$ boson coupling model. In the case of the $f_{a3}$ analysis, this observable is called $\mathcal{D}_{C\!P}$ because if $C\!P$ is violated it would exhibit a distinctive forward-backward asymmetry between $\mathcal{D}_{C\!P}>0$ and $\mathcal{D}_{C\!P}<0$, as illustrated in Fig. \[fig:discriminants\] (h) for the untagged category of events. In the untagged category, decay information is used in the calculation of $\mathcal{D}_\text{int}$. In the VBF-jet and ${\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}\PH$-jet categories, production information is used. As in the case of $\mathcal{D}_{ai}$, superscripts indicate which processes were used to calculate the matrix elements. In the $f_{\Lambda1}$ and $f_{\Lambda1}^{\Z\gamma}$ analyses, the interference discriminant does not provide additional separation, and $\mathcal{D}_\mathrm{0h+}$ is used as the third observable.
{width="1.\textwidth"}
In the likelihood fit, the signal probability density function (pdf) is parameterized for each production mode and in each category as $$\begin{aligned}
P_\text{sig}\left(\vec{\mathcal{D}}; f_{ai},\phi_{ai} \right) \propto
\sum_n \left|\frac{a_i}{a_1}\right|^n \mathcal{T}_{n}\left(\vec{\mathcal{D}}\right) \cos^n(\phi_{ai})\,,
\label{eq:probability}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{T}_{n}$ is the three-dimensional template probability obtained from MC simulation, $|{a_i}/{a_1}|$ is calculated from $f_{ai}$ through Eq. (\[eq:fai-inverse\]), and $\cos(\phi_{ai})=\pm1$. The sum runs over five values $n=0,\ldots,4$ in the case of VBF and ${\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}\PH$, where the $\PH{\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}{\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}$ coupling appears on both the production and decay sides, and over three contributions $n=0,1,$ and 2 for the other signal modes. The background pdf is also parameterized with templates extracted from simulation, except for the reducible background, $\Z\!+\!{\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{X}}\xspace}$, which is dominated by the $\Z\!+\!\text{jets}$ process but also includes the $\ttbar\!+\!\text{jets}$, $\cPZ\gamma\!+\!\text{jets}$, $\PW\cPZ\!+\!\text{jets}$, and $\PW\PW\!+\!\text{jets}$ processes. The $\Z\!+\!{\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{X}}\xspace}$ background is estimated using independent control regions in data with loose identification requirements on two leptons.
The yields of signal events in 2016 data are expressed with two unconstrained parameters $\mu_V$ and $\mu_F$, which are the ratios of the observed yields to the expectation in the SM for the production mechanisms driven by the $\PH{\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}{\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}$ couplings (VBF and ${\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}\PH$) and for the other modes (gluon fusion and $\ttbar\PH$), respectively. The signal yield in 2015 data is expressed with a single parameter $\mu_{13\TeV}$, which is a linear combination of $\mu_V$ and $\mu_F$. The fit is also performed simultaneously with the 2011 and 2012 data from Ref. [@Khachatryan:2014kca], where the two signal strength parameters $\mu_{7\TeV}$ and $\mu_{8\TeV}$ are also linear combinations of $\mu_V$ and $\mu_F$ including the effects of the cross section scaling for each value of $f_{ai}$.
Most uncertainties in the signal yields cancel in this analysis because measurements of anomalous couplings are expressed as relative cross sections. Statistical uncertainties dominate over any systematic uncertainties in this analysis. In the decay-only observables the main effects come from lepton momentum uncertainties and are propagated into the template uncertainties as in the previous analyses [@Khachatryan:2014kca], where the main effect is on the $m_{4\ell}$ resolution affecting the $\mathcal{D}_\text{bkg}$ parameterization.
The primary new feature in this analysis, compared to Run1 [@Khachatryan:2014kca], is the categorization based on jets and the kinematic discriminants using jet information. Both the shapes and the yields are varied according to uncertainties obtained from the jet energy variations. In addition, uncertainties in renormalization and factorization scales, PDFs, and the modeling of hadronization and the underlying event in MC simulation are propagated to the template and relative yield uncertainties. As part of these studies, comparisons were made between QCD production at NLO and LO, with matched hadronization in each case, for the VBF, ${\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}\PH$, and $\ttbar\PH$ processes. In all cases, only small differences were observed. The uncertainties in the migration of signal and background events between categories amount to 3–13% for the signal and 4–25% for the background, depending on the category. Among the signal processes, the largest uncertainties arise from the prediction of the $\Pg\Pg\to \PH$ yield in the VBF-jet category. In $\ttbar\PH$ and gluon fusion production, anomalous couplings on the production side are not generally related to the $\PH{\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}{\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}$ anomalous couplings considered here. There is a negligible effect on the observed distributions with large variations in the couplings.
Backgrounds from the $\qqbar\to 4\ell$, $\Pg\Pg\to 4\ell$, VBF, and ${\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}\!+\!(4\ell)$ processes are estimated using MC simulation. Theoretical uncertainties in the background estimation include uncertainties from the renormalization and factorization scales, the PDFs, and the K-factors described above. An additional 10% uncertainty is assigned to the $\Pg\Pg\to 4\ell$ background K-factor to cover potential differences between signal and background.
Results and discussion {#sec:results}
======================
Four $f_{ai}$ parameters sensitive to anomalous $\PH$ boson interactions, as defined in Eqs. (\[eq:fai\]) and (\[eq:fai-inverse\]), are tested in the observed data using the pdf in Eq. (\[eq:probability\]). The results of the likelihood scans of the $f_{ai}$ parameters on 13data only and on the full, combined data set from collisions at 13, 8, and 7are shown in Fig. \[fig:resultsfan\]. The combined results are listed in Table \[tab:summary\_spin0\] and supersede our previous measurement in Ref. [@Khachatryan:2014kca].
{width=".4\textwidth"} {width=".4\textwidth"} {width=".4\textwidth"} {width=".4\textwidth"}
Parameter [Observed]{} [Expected]{}
----------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------
$f_{a3}\cos(\phi_{a3})$ $0.00^{+0.26}_{-0.09}$ $[-0.38,0.46]$ $0.000^{+0.010}_{-0.010}$ $[-0.25,0.25]$
$f_{a2}\cos(\phi_{a2})$ $0.01^{+0.12}_{-0.02}$ $[-0.04,0.43]$ $0.000^{+0.009}_{-0.008}$ $[-0.06,0.19]$
$f_{\Lambda1}\cos(\phi_{\Lambda1})$ $0.02^{+0.08}_{-0.06}$ $[-0.49,0.18]$ $0.000^{+0.003}_{-0.002}$ $[-0.60,0.12]$
$f_{\Lambda1}^{\Z\gamma}\cos(\phi_{\Lambda1}^{\Z\gamma})$ $0.26^{+0.30}_{-0.35}$ $[-0.40,0.79]$ $0.000^{+0.019}_{-0.022}$ $[-0.37,0.71]$
\[tab:summary\_spin0\]
The expected 68% constraints improve by nearly an order of magnitude compared to the Run1 analysis [@Khachatryan:2014kca], as is evident from the narrow minima at $f_{ai}=0$ in the expectations in Fig. \[fig:resultsfan\]. This effect comes from utilizing production information, because the cross section in VBF and ${\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}\PH$ production increases quickly with $f_{ai}$ due to larger $q^2$ values contributing in Eq. (\[eq:formfact-fullampl-spin0\]) [@Anderson:2013afp]. The narrow minima are shallower than expected, which may be understood by examining the best fitted $(\mu_V, \mu_F$) values in the four analyses under the assumption that $f_{ai}=0$: $(0.76^{+1.10}_{-0.76},1.08^{+0.21}_{-0.20})$ at $f_{a3}=0$, $(0.01^{+0.89}_{-0.01},1.24^{+0.20}_{-0.18})$ at $f_{a2}=0$, $(0.20^{+0.94}_{-0.20},1.20^{+0.21}_{-0.20})$ at $f_{\Lambda1}=0$, and $(0.24^{+0.84}_{-0.24},1.20^{+0.20}_{-0.19})$ at $f_{\Lambda1}^{\Z\gamma}=0$. The values obtained for the different analyses vary due to the different categorization and observables. The overall behavior with $\mu_V$ less than 1 is consistent with a downward statistical fluctuation in the small number of VBF and ${\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}\PH$ events, with the total observed number of untagged events similar to the expectation. Because fewer VBF and ${\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}\PH$ events are observed than expected, the narrow minima of $-2\ln(\mathcal{L})$ at $f_{ai}=0$, which come from the production information in these events, are observed to be less pronounced than expected. The minimum is most pronounced in the $f_{a3}$ analysis in Fig. \[fig:resultsfan\] (a) due to the largest observed $\mu_V$ value.
The improvement in the 95%CL constraints with respect to Run1 is mostly due to the increase in the number of events with $\PH\to4\ell$ decay information by about a factor of four. Another factor of four increase in the data sample size is expected by the end of 2018, under similar running conditions. At that time, the inclusion of production information is expected to result in improvements to the 95% CL constraints in line with the improvements already seen in the 68% CL constraints.
Other features in Fig. \[fig:resultsfan\] can be explained by examining the kinematic distributions in Fig. \[fig:discriminants\]. The $\mathcal{D}_{0-}^\text{dec}$ distribution in Fig. \[fig:discriminants\](e) favors a mixture of the $f_{a3}=0$ and $f_{a3}=1$ models, resulting in the best fit value of $f_{a3}=0.30\pm0.21$ in Run2. The $\mathcal{D}_{C\!P}^\text{dec}$ distribution in Fig. \[fig:discriminants\](h) has a small forward-backward asymmetry, with more events at $\mathcal{D}_{C\!P}^\text{dec}>0$ than $\mathcal{D}_{C\!P}^\text{dec}<0$, which gives preference to the $f_{a3}\cos(\phi_{a3})=+0.30$ value as opposed to $-0.30$. The narrow local minimum at $f_{a3}=0$ corresponds to the distribution of events in the tagged categories in Fig. \[fig:discriminants\](f),(g), which favors the SM hypothesis. The Run 1 result \[13\] favors the SM strongly, and therefore combining the two data sets results in a global minimum at $f_{a3}=0$.
Certain values of anomalous couplings, such as $f_{a2}\cos(\phi_{a2})\sim-0.5$ and $f_{\Lambda1}\cos(\phi_{\Lambda1})\sim+0.5$, lead to strong interference effects between the SM and anomalous amplitudes in Eq. (\[eq:formfact-fullampl-spin0\]). Therefore, kinematic distributions of such models are easily distinguished from SM distributions, and they are excluded at high in Fig. \[fig:resultsfan\]. Such anomalous models are shown in Fig. \[fig:discriminants\](b),(c). The $f_{a3}=1$ and $f_{\Lambda1}^{\Z\gamma}=1$ models are shown in other cases in Fig. \[fig:discriminants\], as the most distinct from SM, except for (h), where maximal forward-backward asymmetry in $\mathcal{D}_{C\!P}$ is shown for $f_{a3}=0.5$. In all cases, the observed distributions in Fig. \[fig:discriminants\] are consistent with the SM expectations.
Summary {#sec:Summary}
=======
We study anomalous interactions of the $\PH$ boson using novel techniques with a matrix element likelihood approach to simultaneously analyze the $\PH\to4\ell$ decay and associated production with two quark jets. Three categories of events are analyzed, targeting events produced in vector boson fusion, with an associated vector boson, and in gluon fusion, respectively. The data collected at a center-of-mass energy of 13in Run2 of the LHC are combined with the Run1 data, collected at 7 and 8. No deviations from the standard model are observed and constraints are set on the four anomalous $\PH{\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}{\ensuremath{\cmsSymbolFace{V}}\xspace}$ contributions, including the $C\!P$-violation parameter $f_{a3}$, summarized in Table \[tab:summary\_spin0\].
\[sec:Acknowledgments\] We thank Markus Schulze for optimizing the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">JHUGen</span> Monte Carlo simulation program and matrix element library for this analysis. We congratulate our colleagues in the CERN accelerator departments for the excellent performance of the LHC and thank the technical and administrative staffs at CERN and at other CMS institutes for their contributions to the success of the CMS effort. In addition, we gratefully acknowledge the computing centers and personnel of the Worldwide LHC Computing Grid for delivering so effectively the computing infrastructure essential to our analyses. Finally, we acknowledge the enduring support for the construction and operation of the LHC and the CMS detector provided by the following funding agencies: BMWFW and FWF (Austria); FNRS and FWO (Belgium); CNPq, CAPES, FAPERJ, and FAPESP (Brazil); MES (Bulgaria); CERN; CAS, MoST, and NSFC (China); COLCIENCIAS (Colombia); MSES and CSF (Croatia); RPF (Cyprus); SENESCYT (Ecuador); MoER, ERC IUT, and ERDF (Estonia); Academy of Finland, MEC, and HIP (Finland); CEA and CNRS/IN2P3 (France); BMBF, DFG, and HGF (Germany); GSRT (Greece); OTKA and NIH (Hungary); DAE and DST (India); IPM (Iran); SFI (Ireland); INFN (Italy); MSIP and NRF (Republic of Korea); LAS (Lithuania); MOE and UM (Malaysia); BUAP, CINVESTAV, CONACYT, LNS, SEP, and UASLP-FAI (Mexico); MBIE (New Zealand); PAEC (Pakistan); MSHE and NSC (Poland); FCT (Portugal); JINR (Dubna); MON, RosAtom, RAS, RFBR and RAEP (Russia); MESTD (Serbia); SEIDI, CPAN, PCTI and FEDER (Spain); Swiss Funding Agencies (Switzerland); MST (Taipei); ThEPCenter, IPST, STAR, and NSTDA (Thailand); TUBITAK and TAEK (Turkey); NASU and SFFR (Ukraine); STFC (United Kingdom); DOE and NSF (USA).
Individuals have received support from the Marie-Curie program and the European Research Council and Horizon 2020 Grant, contract No. 675440 (European Union); the Leventis Foundation; the A. P. Sloan Foundation; the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation; the Belgian Federal Science Policy Office; the Fonds pour la Formation à la Recherche dans l’Industrie et dans l’Agriculture (FRIA-Belgium); the Agentschap voor Innovatie door Wetenschap en Technologie (IWT-Belgium); the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MEYS) of the Czech Republic; the Council of Science and Industrial Research, India; the HOMING PLUS program of the Foundation for Polish Science, cofinanced from European Union, Regional Development Fund, the Mobility Plus program of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education, the National Science Center (Poland), contracts Harmonia 2014/14/M/ST2/00428, Opus 2014/13/B/ST2/02543, 2014/15/B/ST2/03998, and 2015/19/B/ST2/02861, Sonata-bis 2012/07/E/ST2/01406; the National Priorities Research Program by Qatar National Research Fund; the Programa Clarín-COFUND del Principado de Asturias; the Thalis and Aristeia programs cofinanced by EU-ESF and the Greek NSRF; the Rachadapisek Sompot Fund for Postdoctoral Fellowship, Chulalongkorn University and the Chulalongkorn Academic into Its 2nd Century Project Advancement Project (Thailand); and the Welch Foundation, contract C-1845.
The CMS Collaboration \[app:collab\]
====================================
=5000=500=5000
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This short paper gives an introduction to a research project to analyze how digital documents are structured and described. Using a phenomenological approach, this research will reveal common patterns that are used in data, independent from the particular technology in which the data is available. The ability to identify these patterns, on different levels of description, is important for several applications in digital libraries. A better understanding of data structuring will not only help to better capture singular characteristics of data by metadata, but will also recover intended structures of digital objects, beyond long term preservation.'
author:
- Jakob Voß
bibliography:
- 'phdvoss\_tpdl2011\_v1.bib'
subtitle: 'Concealed structures in data[^1]'
title: Revealing digital documents
---
Introduction
============
Given the growing importance of digital documents in libraries, the theoretical underpinning of data in library and information science is still insufficient. The majority of bibliographic descriptions only exist in digital form. Increasingly documents only exist as digital objects, which impacts on traditional concepts such as ‘document‘, ‘page‘, ‘edition‘, and ‘copy‘. Meanwhile most metadata consists of digital documents that describe other digital documents. With the advent of networked environments,[^2] these documents basically exist as streams of bits, abstracted from any storage medium and location. Although in practice concrete forms, such as ‘files‘, ‘records’, and ‘objects’, are dealt with, these forms are rather different views on the same thing, than inherent properties of a digital document. So what is this ‘same thing’ if you talk about a digital document? It has been shown that the nature of documents can better be defined in terms of function rather than format [@Buckland1998], and the key properties, which constitute and identify a document, depend on context [@Yeo2010]. This highlights the importance of descriptive metadata to put data in context, but it does not eliminate the need to actually look at data at some level of description. In practice, we often have to deal with heterogeneous documents provided as data that must be indexed and preserved, or with metadata, that is aggregated from diverse sources, without exact description of the data on a higher level.
This paper proposes that a deeper look at data is required, to reveal how digital documents are actually structured and described. The question should not be answered by simply pointing to concrete technologies and formats, which are subject to rapid change and obsolescence, but at a more fundamental level. The main hypothesis of this research is that all methods to structure and describe data share common patterns, independent from technology and level of description.
Background and related works
============================
The concept of data is used in many disciplines with various meanings. Ballsun-Stanton explores how different individuals understand data in different “philosophies of data” [@BallsunStanton2010]: the concept can range from the product of objective, reproducible measurements (“data as hard numbers”) to the product of any recorded observations (“data as observations”), or processable encodings of information and knowledge (“data as bits”). With this research I commit to the third philosophy, which is often found in computer science and in library and information science.[^3] However, both disciplines do not use data as a core concept but relate it to information as the main topic of interest. The growing amount of freely available “open data” and tools to analyze this data has brought up ideas of “data science” and “data journalism”. Both deal with aggregating, filtering, and visualizing large sets of data, based on statistical methods of data analysis. The growth of data-driven science combined with principles of Open Access also raises the awareness of the need to publish and share data sets. Library institutions begin to recognize this need and start to provide infrastructure for collecting and identifying research data [@DLib2011]. Data discussed in this context is mainly seen as “data as observations” and the main concern of data science evangelists seems to be “big data”, that is “when the size of the data itself becomes part of the problem” [@Loukides2010]. The problem, that I want to tackle, does not depend on the size of the data or on problems of preservation [@Rosenthal2010], but on the inherent complexity of data, independent from its applications.
While disciplines that deal with physical documents, such as codicology and palaeography, have long been acknowledged as part of library and information science, there is no established curriculum of data studies as yet. The best examination of data by libraries so far can be found in long-term preservation of digital material and in metadata research and practice. The former is still in an early stage of development.[^4] It provides two general strategies to cope with the rapid change and decay of technologies: either you need to emulate the environment of digital objects or you must regularly migrate them to other environments and formats. Both strategies require good descriptions of the data to be archived. When time passes, these descriptions themselves become subject of preservation and digital objects may get buried in nested layers of metadata. Metadata research deals with data on a more explicit level. Although metadata has become one of the core concepts of library and information science, there is no commonly agreed upon definition. The general “data about data” definition at least makes clear that metadata is data about something. Coyle’s definition of metadata as something constructed, constructive, and actionable [@Coyle2010] highlights the relevance of function and context as Buckland [@Buckland1998] and Yeo [@Yeo2010] do for documents. As a result there are numerous ways to describe the same object by data and the same data can describe different things. Metadata research provides at least some guidelines for interoperability by metadata registries, application profiles, and crosswalks. However, in practice a lot of manual work is needed to make use of metadata, because context and function are not fully known or creators of data just do not comply to assumed standards. Currently, the Resource Description Framework (RDF) and persistent identifiers promise to solve most problems. However, as also confirmed by the preliminary results below, there is no silver bullet in data description. Data is always a simplified, context-dependent image of the information, knowledge, or reality where an attempt has been to encode it in data. Some good criticism of the expressive power of particular data encoding languages has been given by Kent [@Kent1978; @Kent1988; @Kent2003].
Patterns as structured methods of describing good design practice, were first introduced by Alexander et al. in the field of architecture [@Alexander1977]. In their words “each pattern describes a problem which occurs over and over again in our environment, and then describes the core of the solution to that problem.” Patterns were later adopted in other fields of engineering, especially in (object-oriented) software design [@Beck1987; @Gamma1994]. There are some works that describe pattern for specific data structuring or data modeling languages, among them Linked Data in RDF [@Dodds2010], Markup languages [@Dattolo2007a], data models in enterprises[@Hay1995; @Silverston2001], and meta models [@Hay2006; @Silverston2009]. A general limitation of existing approaches is the focus to one specific formalization method. This practical limitation blocks the view to more general data patterns, independent from a particular encoding, and it conceals blind spots and weaknesses of a chosen formalism.
Method
======
A preliminary analysis of different structuring methods shows that each data language highlights some structuring features that are then overused and even conceal intended structures of data. For instance, the nesting and order of elements in an XML document can be chosen with intent. However, they can also be chosen in an arbitrary manner because an XML document must always be an ordered tree. For this reason we cannot rely only on official descriptions and specifications to reveal patterns in data. Most existing approaches to analyze data structuring are either normative (theoretical descriptions how data should be), or empirical but limited. Existing empirical approaches only view data at one level of description, in order to have a base for statistical methods (data mining) and other automatic methods (machine learning). In contrast, I use a phenomenological research method that includes all aspects of data structuring and description. Beside technical standards that specify data, software that shapes data, typical examples of data, and at how data is actually used by people, must also be considered.
The phenomenological method views data as social artifacts, that cannot be described from an absolute, objective point of view. Instead data are studied as “‘phenomena‘: appearances of things, or things as they appear in our experience’’ [@Smith2009]. The analysis begins with a detailed review of methods and systems for structuring and describing data, from simple character encodings to data languages and even graphical notations. The focus is on conceptual properties, while details of implementation, such as performance and security, are only mentioned where they show how and why specific techniques have evolved.
Preliminary results
===================
The first outcome of this work is a broad typology of existing methods to structure and describe data. These methods are normally described as data codes, systems, languages, or models without consistent terminology jointly among technologies. The following groups of methods can be identified, each with a primary but not exclusive purpose:
- **character and number encodings** to express data
- **identifiers** and **query languages** to identify data
- **file systems** and **databases** to store data
- **data structuring languages** and **markup languages** to structure data
- **schema languages** to define and constrain data
- **conceptual modeling languages** to abstract and describe data
These methods are rarely discussed together as general structures with data as their common domain. Instead a strong focus on trends and families of basic technologies is found, that often concentrate on one specification or implementation. Examples include; the dominance of the Structured Query Language (SQL) and the hype around the extensible markup language (XML) in the late 1990s. With size and speed as a main driving force of development, there is little progress at the conceptual level. An example of this being the large gap between research and practice in conceptual modeling languages, which are mostly used in form of an oversimplification of the Entity-Relationship Model (ERM) [@Simsion2007]. The main empirical part of the analysis consists of a detailed description and placement of the most relevant instances and subgroups from the typology above. It is shown how each structuring method has its strengths and limitations, and how each method shapes digital objects independent from the object’s characteristic properties. A deeper look at data also shows that the most influential technologies of data structuring are not used in one exact and established form, but they occur as groups of slightly differing variants. For example, the set of data expressible in RDF/XML differs from the full RDF triple model. This triple model with URIs, blank nodes and literals, also has different characteristics and limitations depending on which technology (serialization, triple store, SPARQL, reasoners etc.) and which entailment regime (simple, RDF, OWL etc.) is applied. Other examples include; SQL databases, which substantially differ from the original relational database model, and the family of XML-related standards. In many cases confusion originates from differences between syntaxes and implementations on one side and abstract models on the other.
To some degree, common patterns can be derived from specific systems by modeling them in a higher level modeling language, such as ERM and Object Role Modeling (ORM), or in schema and ontology languages such as Backus Naur Form (BNF), XML Schema (XSD) and the Web Ontology language (OWL). In software engineering it is common practice to use domain specific modeling languages in nested layers of abstraction [@Kelly2008]. These languages exist in many variants as tools to communicate between levels of description. As a result, each language highlights a specific subset of patterns and makes other patterns less visible or more difficult to apply. Typical instances of data further show that in practice, patterns and levels of abstraction often overlap and that methods of structuring are often used against their original purpose. Typical examples include; the creation of dummy values for non-existing mandatory elements and the use of separators to add lists to non-repeatable fields. It appears that in practice it is often difficult to judge which properties of data are intended and which arise as artifacts from the constraints of a given modeling language. The example of XML was already mentioned above: XML structures data in form of an ordered tree, but many instances of XML documents use this feature to apply other patterns but hierarchy and strict ordering. Figure \[fig:sequencepattern\] shows an example from a yet to be finished catalog of data patterns.
Evaluation and application
==========================
The preliminary results show a large variety of methods to structure and describe data. The research hypotheses can be confirmed, as common patterns like identifiers, repeatability, grouping, sequences and ordering are used on all levels in different variants and explicitly. The ability to identify and apply these patterns is crucial for several applications in digital libraries. Some patterns are already recognized, but the results show that it lacks a more systematic view, independent from the constraints of particular technologies. A better understanding of methods to structure and describe data can help both, the creation of data and its consumption. These applications are shortly illustrated in the following.
Creation of data in libraries is most notably present as creation of metadata. This process is guided by complex cataloging rules and specialized formats. Both are deeply intertwined and often criticized as barriers to innovation. However, simpler forms of metadata do not provide a solution [@Tennant2004]. Remarkably, alternatives are most visible as technologies, for instance XML [@Tennant2002] or RDF [@Coyle2010]. Despite the strengths of each technology, it is unlikely that one method will provide the ultimate tool to express all metadata. Instead a look at metadata pattern can aid the construction of more precise and interoperable metadata that better captures an object’s unique characteristics. The nature of patterns in general shows that data creation is no an automatic process, but a creative act of design. Recognizing the artificial nature of data will to some degree free data designers from apologies and unquestioned habits that are justified as enforced by natural needs or technical requirements.
Consumption of data can benefit even more from an understanding of data patterns. Since the invention of digital computers, technologies and formats rapidly change. The fluctuation will unlikely slow down because it is also driven by trends, as progress in data description (in contrast to quantitative data processing) is difficult to measure. The results show that many description methods result in other structures than originally intended, when the the patterns that are actually applied are examined. Relevant structures are less visible, if you concentrate on single technologies. Knowledge of general data patterns can therefore help to reveal concealed structures in digital documents. This application could be named “data archeology”.[^5] Data archeology, in contrast to long-term preservation, which tries to prevent the need of the former, deals with the retrospective analysis of incompletely defined or unknown data. Similar to traditional archeology, data archeology belongs to the humanities, as it involves study of the cultural context of data creation and usage. Existing techniques from computer science, like data mining and knowledge discovery, provide useful tools to discover detailed views on data. However, they cannot reveal its meaning as part of social practice. Data patterns can provide a contribution to intellectual data analysis, which is needed to underpin and interpret algorithmic data analysis.
Beside the creation of a catalog of the most common data patterns as basic primitives and derived patterns, there are some open tasks that may be answered by the analysis described in this paper. It is assumed that no closed system or meta-system can fully describe all aspects of practical data. This thesis could be proved at least for formal systems of description based on results of Gödel [@Goedel1931]. Further research, which will probably not be covered fully in this work, includes how to best find known patterns in given data using semi-automatic methods and which methods are best suited to express a given set of patterns.
In any case, libraries can benefit from a general understanding of data and data patterns, at least as deep as the current understanding of physical publication types and material.
[^1]: $[$v1$]$ 2011-05-29. To be presented at the TPDL 2011 Doctoral Consortium, Berlin.
[^2]: An ongoing trend that is most visible in hypes, for instance, today, cloud computing and Semantic Web.
[^3]: This does not imply that results will not be applicable to other philosophies of data. Revealed data patterns may also reflect typical structures of data observation and measurements. However, this is beyond the scope of this work.
[^4]: By definition you can only speak retrospectively of successful long-term preservation, but most digital objects are too young to judge.
[^5]: The most related existing discipline is digital forensics. It has a more specific scope and its application to more complex and heterogeneous methods of data structuring, e.g. databases, is in an early stage of development [@Olivier2009].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Dilepton spectra from the decay of phi mesons produced in heavy-ion collisions at SIS/GSI energies ($\sim 2$ GeV/nucleon) are studied in the relativistic transport model. We include phi mesons produced from baryon-baryon, pion-baryon, and kaon-antikaon collisions. The cross sections for the first two processes are obtained from an one-boson-exchange model, while that for the last process is taken to be the Breit-Wigner form through the phi meson resonance. For dileptons with invariant mass near the phi meson peak, we also include contributions from neutron-proton bremsstrahlung, pion-pion annihilation, and the decay of rho and omega mesons produced in baryon-baryon and meson-baryon collisions. Effects due to medium modifications of the kaon and vector (rho, omega and phi) meson properties are investigated. We find that the kaon medium effects lead to a broadening of the dilepton spectrum as a result of the increase of phi meson decay width. Furthermore, the dropping of phi meson mass in nuclear medium leads to a shoulder structure in the dilepton spectrum besides the main peak at the bare phi meson mass. The experimental measurement of the dilepton spectra from heavy-ion collisions is expected to provide useful information about the phi meson properties in dense matter.'
address:
- |
Cyclotron Institute and Department of Physics, Texas A&M University,\
College Station, Texas 77843, U.S.A.
- |
Department of Physics and Astronomy, State University of New York at Stony Brook,\
Stony Brook, New York 11794, U.S.A.
author:
- 'W.S. Chung and C.M. Ko'
- 'G.Q. Li'
title: 'Seeing phi meson through the dilepton spectra in heavy-ion collisions'
---
introduction
============
The goal of relativistic heavy ion collisions is to study the properties of nuclear matter under extreme conditions, including extremely high density and/or temperature. This information is important for understanding the physics of the early universe and for studying the dynamic and static properties of stellar objects, like the structure of neutron stars and supernova explosion. It has been suggested that there may exist various phase transitions in the nuclear matter, such as the liquid-gas phase transition [@liqgas], the kaon condensation [@kap86; @lee95], the restoration of chiral symmetry [@brown96], and the formation of the quark-gluon plasma [@mull96]. These phase transitions, if they do occur in heavy ion collisions, will have significant phenomenological implications. For example, as a precursor to chiral symmetry restoration, hadron properties are expected to be modified in hot and dense matter [@brown91], leading to significant effects on their production rate. To study the properties of hot and dense nuclear matter, heavy-ion accelerators have been constructed since mid-70s. At the relativistic energy regime, important facilities include the BEVALAC at Berkeley, the SIS at Darmstadt, the AGS at Brookhaven and the SPS at CERN. Still under construction are two ultra-relativistic colliders; the RHIC at BNL and the heavy ion program at CERN LHC.
To extract information about phase transitions and hadron in-medium properties from heavy ion experiments, different observables that are sensitive to the underlying theoretical parameters have been proposed. Among the important ones are the collective flow of various types [@reis97] and particle production [@cass90; @koli96]. Dileptons, because of their relatively weak interaction with the dense environment, are particularly useful for studying the medium effects and phase transitions in heavy-ion collisions [@shur78; @kkmm86; @gale87; @liko95].
Dielectron production in the energy regime of 1-2 GeV/nucleon was studied by the DLS collaboration at the BEVALAC in Berkeley [@dlsold; @dlsnew]. Because of the high hadron multiplicity the heaviest systems measured with DLS were reactions involving Ca+Ca. Also, the mass resolution of the DLS spectrometer is not sufficient to resolve the $\omega$ and $\phi$ peaks from the $\rho$ distribution. A second generation detector HADES is currently under construction at GSI [@hades]. With its high counting rate capability and large geometrical acceptance, HADES is able to measure dielectron pairs for the heavy system U+U. With an invariant mass resolution better than 1%, a clear identification of the $\omega$ and $\phi$ peaks can be achieved.
At higher SPS energies, dilepton spectra have been measured by three collaborations: the CERES collaboration is specialized in the mass region up to about 1.5 GeV [@ceres], the HELIOS-3 collaboration has measured dimuon spectra from its threshold up to the $J/\Psi$ region [@helios], and the NA38/NA50 collaboration measures dimuon spectra in the intermediate- and high-mass region [@na38]. Recent observation of low-mass dilepton enhancement in heavy-ion collisions by the CERES and HELIOS-3 collaborations has led to the suggestions of various medium effects [@likob95; @cass95; @rapp97], including the dropping of vector meson masses in hot dense matter.
Theoretical studies on dilepton production at BEVALAC energies were carried out by Xiong [*et. al.*]{} [@xiong90] and Wolf [*et. al.*]{} [@wolf90]. They calculated the dilepton yield from proton-neutron ($pn$) bremsstrahlung, $\Delta$ Dalitz decay, $\pi
\pi$ annihilation, pion annihilation on nucleon, and, in Ref. [@wolf90], also the $\eta$ Dalitz decay. Their results indicate that the $\pi^{0}$ Dalitz decay dominates the invariant mass spectrum below the pion mass. The $\eta$ Dalitz decay then dominates the spectrum up to an invariant mass of 450 MeV. Above 500 MeV, the most important channels are found to be $pn$ bremsstrahlung and $\pi \pi$ annihilation. These studies reproduce well the original DLS data [@dlsold]. Recently published data from the DLS collaboration [@dlsnew] show, however, a strong enhancement in the $\eta$ mass region compared with the original data, implying that the $\eta$ yield could be enhanced. This is, however, in conflict with the $\eta$ yield and spectra measured by the TAPS collaboration for similar reactions [@taps97].
In this paper, we will concern ourselves mainly with dilepton spectra from phi meson decay in heavy-ion collisions at energies available from the SIS at GSI, where experimental data will become available in the near future from the HADES collaboration. The study of phi meson in heavy ion collisions is interesting in view of the following considerations:
- [First of all, phi meson is a pure $s\bar s$ state, and its production in hadronic interactions are therefore suppressed by the OZI rule [@ozi]. This has led to the suggestion of identifying phi meson enhancement as a possible signature for the formation of the quark-gluon plasma in heavy-ion collisions [@shor85].]{}
- [Phi meson decays chiefly into a kaon-antikaon pair. Since the mass of phi meson is very close to twice the kaon mass ($m_\phi- 2m_K$ = 0.032 GeV), its width in free space is small (about 4.4 MeV). In nuclear medium, both kaon and phi meson masses may change. If the decrease of $m_K^*+m_{\bar K}^*$ is larger than that of $m_\phi^*$, then the phi meson decay width would increase, leading to a broader phi meson mass spectrum. On the other hand, if the decrease of phi meson mass is larger than that of $m_K^*+m_{\bar K}$, its strong decay channel will be prohibited in the medium. The phi meson mass spectrum from heavy-ion collisions thus provides important information on the medium modification of both kaon and phi mesons. The suggestion of studying the kaon medium effects from phi meson production in heavy-ion collisions was first proposed by Shuryak and collaborators [@shur91].]{}
- [In QCD sum-rule calculations [@hat92], the change of phi meson mass is related to the nucleon strangeness content. Thus, the detection of in-medium phi meson mass is expected to provide indirect information about the nucleon strangeness content.]{}
- [Experimentally, phi meson can be detected from both its $K^+K^-$ and dilepton decay channels. The main difference between these two channels is that in the $K^+K^-$ case, the strong kaon and antikaon final-state interactions basically limit the detection of only those phi mesons that decay at and after freeze-out, while from the dilepton channel one can also detect phi mesons that decay inside the initial hot dense matter, i.e., before freeze-out. Therefore, a simultaneous measurement of the phi meson spectra in the $K^+K^-$ and dilepton channels will provide useful information about the relative decay probabilities of phi mesons inside and outside the matter.]{}
Phi meson production from heavy-ion collisions has already been studied at various energies. At SPS energies it was measured by the NA38 collaboration [@na38fi] and the HELIOS-3 collaboration [@heliosfi] via the dimuon invariant mass spectra. A factor of 2 to 3 enhancement in the double ratio $( \phi / (\omega+\rho^{0}
))_{SU(W)} /( \phi / (\omega+\rho^{0}))_{pW}$ was observed. Various theoretical attempts have been made to understand this enhancement [@kosa; @greiner; @koch90]. In particular, an enhancement of the phi meson yield may be a signature of the formation of a quark-gluon plasma in the collisions [@shor85]. However, the enhancement can also be explained in hadronic models if one takes into account the reduced phi meson mass in medium [@kosa] or the formation of color ropes in the initial stage of the collisions [@greiner].
The phi meson yield has also been measured at AGS/BNL by the E802 collaboration in central collisions between a 14.6 AGeV/c Si beam and a Au target [@e802]. They are identified from the invariant mass spectrum of $K^{+} K^{-}$ pairs, and the measured phi meson mass and width are found to be consistent with those in free space. The ratio of the phi meson yield to the $K^{-}$ yield is about 10%, which can be understood if thermal and chemical equilibrium with a temperature of about 110 MeV are assumed at freeze out [@bs95; @fireball]. On the other hand, calculations based on the coalescence model [@dover], in which the phi meson is formed from the kaon and antikaon at freeze out, underestimate the data by a large factor, indicating that processes other than kaon-antikaon annihilation should dominate phi meson production at these energies.
Phi meson production from heavy-ion collisions at SIS/GSI energies is being studied by the FOPI collaboration [@fopi] through the $K^{+} K^{-}$ invariant mass distribution. A total of $30\pm8$ $\phi$ has been reconstructed in the reaction Ni+Ni at 1.93 GeV/nucleon from an event sample of $7 \times 10^{6}$ events. Based on these preliminary results it has been concluded that the phi meson yield is about 10% of the $K^{-}$ yield, which is very similar to that observed at the AGS energies. This is somewhat surprising since the SIS energies are below the phi meson production threshold in the nucleon-nucleon collision in free space, while the AGS energies are well above the threshold. In Ref. [@chung97], we have studied phi meson production from heavy-ion collisions at these energies through its $K {\bar K}$ decay channel. Comparison of the phi meson yield from the transport model with the preliminary data from the FOPI collaboration [@fopi] seems to indicate that medium effects on phi meson play a non-negligible role. The present work is a continuation of Ref. [@chung97]. Our main motivation is to examine the feasibility of detecting directly the reduction of phi meson mass in nuclear medium from the dilepton invariant mass spectrum from heavy ion collisions, which will be measured by HADES in the near future [@hades].
Theoretical studies of the dilepton decay of phi mesons in heavy ion collisions at SIS energies have been carried out in Ref. [@liko95] by assuming that they are only produced from $K \bar
K$ annihilation. It was found that for dileptons with invariant mass around $m_\phi$, contributions from $\pi \pi$ annihilation and phi meson decay are comparable. As shown in Ref. [@chung97], $\phi$ mesons can also be produced from baryon-baryon collisions and pion-baryon collisions. Because of the larger abundance of pions and nucleons than kaons, these two channels were found to be more important than the $K \bar K$ channel. One thus expect that including these contributions in the transport model would raise the $\phi$ peak in the dilepton mass spectrum to above the background from $\pi$ $\pi$ annihilation and also other background studied in Refs. [@xiong90; @wolf90]. In addition, we will also consider the background from direct leptonic decay of rho and omega mesons produced from baryon-baryon and pion-baryon interactions.
This paper is arranged as follows. In Section 2 we review the theoretical predictions for the properties of vector mesons and kaon meson in dense matter. In Section 3 we discuss the elementary cross sections for vector meson and kaon production in baryon-baryon and meson-baryon interactions. The results and discussions of dilepton production from heavy ion collisions are then presented in Section 4. The papers ends with a brief conclusion in Section 5.
In-medium properties of mesons
==============================
In this section, we review briefly various theoretical predictions for the in-medium properties of vector mesons and kaons. Details can be found in a recent review by two of the authors [@kkl].
vector mesons
-------------
Various approaches and models have been used to study theoretically the vector meson masses in nuclear matter. These include the scaling anatz of Brown and Rho [@brown91], the QCD sum-rule approach [@hat92; @jin95; @asa93; @weise97; @mosel97], the quark-meson coupling model [@saito97], and the quantum hadrodynamics (QHD) [@jean94; @shi94; @song95]. All these studies seem to suggest that decreasing vector meson masses is a generic consequence of chiral symmetry restoration at high densities and/or temperature.
Studies on vector meson in-medium masses using the QCD sum rules were first carried out by Hatsuda and Lee [@hat92]. In this approach, the real part of the current-current correlation function is expressed in terms of the scalar quark and gluon condensates after using the operator product expansion(OPE) at short distances. The imaginary part is, on the other hand, parameterized phenomenologically. Using the dispersion relation to relate the real and imaginary parts, vector meson masses are found to satisfy certain sum rules involving the quark and gluon condensates. To extend this approach to vector mesons in nuclear medium, one needs to include not only the density dependence of the condensates but also non-scalar condensates. With a simple delta-function plus continuum for the rho meson spectral function, Hatsuda and Lee obtained the following results for the in-medium vector meson masses [@hat92] $$\begin{aligned}
{m_{\rho,\omega}^* \over m_{\rho,\omega}} &\approx&
1-(0.16 \pm 0.06) {\rho \over \rho_0}\\
{m_{\phi}^* \over m_\phi} &\approx&
1-(0.15 \pm 0.05) y {\rho \over \rho_0 }.
\label{Vmedmass}\end{aligned}$$ The uncertainties in the above expressions are due to uncertainties in the density dependence of the condensates. At normal nuclear matter density, $\rho_0$, rho and omega meson masses thus drop by about 20%. For phi meson, the in-medium mass depends on the nucleon strangeness content $y$. Taking $y=0.15$, the phi meson mass is seen to drop by about 2% at normal nuclear matter density.
The QCD sum rules for vector mesons were reanalyzed in Ref. [@jin95] by assessing the uncertainties of the condensates and other inputs using the Monte Carlo error analysis. It was found that at normal nuclear matter density $m_\rho ^*/m_\rho \approx
0.78 \pm 0.08$, in agreement with the findings of Ref. [@hat92].
The assumption that the rho meson spectral function in nuclear medium is the sum of a delta function and a continuum is, however, too simplistic, as the rho meson has a large decay width in free space and it also interacts strongly with nucleons. An improved QCD sum-rule calculation was carried out by Asakawa and Ko [@asa93] using a more realistic rho meson spectral function. They found a similar decrease of the rho meson mass with density as that of Ref. [@hat92]. More recently, another realistic study of rho meson spectral function has been carried out in Ref. [@weise97], and it is found the rho meson mass does not change but its width becomes larger. This rho spectral function also satisfies the QCD sum rules. According to Liupold [*et al.*]{} [@mosel97], the QCD sum rules do not give a stringent constraint on the rho meson spectral function as they can be satisfied either with a reduced mass and width or a larger width but without much change in its mass.
The quark-meson coupling model has also been used to study the density dependence of hadron masses [@saito97]. In this model, the vector meson is treated as an MIT bag with two light quarks which are coupled to the vector and scalar fields generated by the nuclear medium. It was found that at normal nuclear matter density the rho and omega meson masses drop by about 17%, in agreement with the QCD sum-rule predictions.
Various hadronic models have also been used to study the medium effect on vector meson masses. Calculations that only include the polarization of the Fermi sea predict that $\omega$ and $\rho$ meson masses either increase or stay more or less the same in nuclear matter [@chin77; @herr93]. The effect of vacuum polarization or the polarization due to nucleons in the Dirac sea was studied in Refs. [@jean94; @shi94; @song95] and found to dominate over the Fermi sea polarization, leading thus to decreasing rho and omega meson masses. For phi meson, both nucleon and hyperon vacuum polarization contribute, leading to a reduction of its mass by about 2-3% at normal nuclear matter density as in QCD sum-rule studies [@hat95]. In the vector dominance model, inclusion of dropping kaon-antikoan in-medium mass also leads to a decrease of phi meson mass in nuclear medium [@ko92; @klingle97].
The results from Refs. [@hat92; @jin95; @saito97; @hat95] for vector meson in-medium masses are summarized in Fig. \[vmass\]. In this work, as in Refs. [@liko95; @chung97], we use the results of Hatsuda and Lee [@hat92] for the density dependence of vector meson masses and linearly extrapolate it to high densities.
Because of the change in vector meson masses, their decay widths are also modified. The rho meson decays dominantly to two pions with the following decay width in nuclear matter, $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_{\rho}^{*} = { {g^2_{\rho \pi \pi} } \over {4 \pi} }
{ {1}\over {12 m_{\rho}^{*2}}}
(m_{\rho}^{*2}-4 m_{\pi}^{2})^{3/2},\end{aligned}$$ where the coupling $g^{2}_{\rho \pi \pi}/4\pi \approx 2.9$ is determined from its decay width in free space.
The omega meson decays mostly to three pions. Without a hadronic model the functional form of the decay width cannot be given. Here we simply assume that its decay width is proportional to its in-medium mass, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma _\omega ^* \approx \Gamma _\omega {m^*_\omega \over m_\omega}.\end{aligned}$$ The density dependence of the rho and omega meson decay widths is shown in Fig. \[vwidth\].
kaons
-----
Since phi mesons decay predominantly into $K{\bar K}$ pairs, it is necessary to address the issue of kaon medium effects. It has been proposed [@shur91] that the phi meson yield can also be used as a signature for the medium effect on kaons. A reduced kaon in-medium mass increases $\Gamma_{\phi\rightarrow K{\bar K}}$, so phi mesons are more likely to decay before freeze out, leading to a lower yield of final phi mesons that can be detected through their decay into $K^+K^-$ pairs. A cleaner signature can be observed from the width of the phi meson peak in the dilepton invariant mass spectrum. A significantly broadened peak can be another signature of the kaon medium effect.
Since the pioneering work of Kaplan and Nelson [@kap86] on the possibility of kaon condensation in nuclear matter, a large amount of theoretical efforts have been devoted to the study of kaon properties in dense matter, using such diversified approaches as the chiral Lagrangian [@brown87; @wise91; @brown94; @kai95; @lee96; @waas97], the Nambu$-$Jona-Lasinio model [@lutz94], and the SU(3) Walecka-type mean-field model [@sch94; @knor95]. Although quantitative results from these models are not identical, a consistent picture has emerged qualitatively; namely, in nuclear matter the $K^+$ feels a weak repulsive potential, whereas the $K^-$ feels a strong attractive potential. Most experimental data for strangeness production and collective flow in heavy ion collisions at SIS energies [@gsiall] have been found to support the existence of these medium effects [@liall; @lilee97; @cassall; @fae97]. The kaon and antikaon potentials also have observable effects on kaon azimuthal distributions [@likobrown96] and antikaon flow [@liko96].
We will consider two scenarios for kaon properties in nuclear medium, one with and one without medium modification. From the chiral Lagrangian the kaon and antikaon in-medium masses can be written as [@lilee97] $$\begin{aligned}
m_K^*=\left[m_K^2-a_K\rho_S +(b_K \rho )^2\right]^{1/2} + b_K \rho,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
m_{\bar K}^*=\left[m_K^2-a_{\bar K}\rho_S +(b_K \rho
)^2\right]^{1/2} - b_K \rho,\end{aligned}$$ where $b_K=3/(8f_\pi^2)\approx 0.333$ GeV$\cdot$fm$^3$, $a_K$ and $a_{\bar K}$ are two parameters that determine the strength of the attractive scalar potential for kaon and antikaon, respectively. If one considers only the Kaplan-Nelson term, then $a_K=a_{\bar
K}=\Sigma _{KN}/f_\pi ^2$. In the same order, there is also a range term which acts differently on kaon and antikaon, and leads to different scalar attractions. Since the exact value of $\Sigma
_{KN}$ and the size of the higher-order corrections are still under debate, we take the point of view that $a_{K,{\bar K}}$ can be treated as free parameters and try to constrain them from the experimental observables in heavy-ion collisions. In Ref. [@lilee97] it was found that $a_K\approx 0.22$ GeV$^2$$\cdot$fm$^3$ and $a_{\bar K}\approx 0.45$ GeV$^2$fm$^3$ provide a good description of the kaon and antikaon spectra from Ni+Ni collisions at 1 and 1.8 AGeV. These values will be used in this work as well. The density dependence of the kaon and antikaon masses is shown in Fig. \[kmass\].
Because of the change of phi and/or kaon masses with nuclear density, the phi meson decay width is also modified. According to Ref. [@liko95], the phi meson decay width is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma _\phi ^* = {g_{\phi K {\bar K}} \over 4\pi} {1\over 6 m_\phi
^{*5}} \left[(m_\phi^{*2}-(m^*_K+m^*_{\bar K})^2)(m_\phi^{*2}
-(m^*_K-m_{\bar K}^*)^2)\right]^{3/2}.\end{aligned}$$ In Fig. \[fiwidth\], we show the density dependence of the phi meson decay width in three different scenarios for phi and kaon masses. Generally, the phi meson decay width is seen to increase with density if kaon medium effects or both kaon and phi medium effects are included. In the latter case, the dropping of $m_K^*+m_{\bar
K}^*$ is apparently more significant than that of $m_\phi^*$.
Particle production cross sections
==================================
One of the most important inputs in the transport model for particle production from heavy-ion collisions is the elementary particle production cross section in hadron-hadron interactions. In this section we shall discuss the vector meson and kaon production cross sections that are used in the present work. We will also discuss dilepton production cross sections from $pn$ bremsstrahlung and pion-pion annihilation, as well as the decay widths of vector mesons into dileptons.
phi meson production
--------------------
In heavy-ion collisions at SIS energies, the most abundant particles are nucleons, $\Delta$ resonances, and pions. Phi meson can thus be produced from reactions such as $NN\rightarrow NN\phi$, $N\Delta\rightarrow NN\phi$, $\Delta\Delta\rightarrow NN \phi$, $\pi N \rightarrow \phi N$, and $\pi \Delta \rightarrow \phi N$. In addition, phi meson can also be formed from kaon-antikaon annihilation, which has a cross section of usual Breit-Wigner form $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma (K{\bar K}\rightarrow \phi )
= {3\pi \over k^2} {(m_\phi \Gamma _\phi )^2 \over
(M^2-m_\phi^2)^2 + (m_\phi \Gamma _\phi )^2},\end{aligned}$$ where $M$ is the invariant mass of the kaon-antikaon pair and $k$ is the magnitude of the kaon momentum in the center-of-mass frame.
The cross sections for the other processes listed above have been studied in Ref. [@chung97] based on an one-boson exchange model. For the reaction $\pi B \rightarrow\phi N$, where $B$ denotes either a nucleon or a $\Delta$ resonance, rho meson exchange is used, while both rho and pion exchange are introduced for the reaction $BB\rightarrow NN\phi$. Coupling constants needed for evaluating these cross sections are either taken from the Bonn model for $NN$ potential [@mach89] or determined from the measured width for $\phi\rightarrow\pi\rho$. Most cut-off parameters at the interaction vertices aer also taken from the Bonn model. Since the exchanged rho and pion are virtual, two cut-off parameters at the $\phi\pi\rho$ vertex are introduced, and they are determined by fitting to available experimental data for the reactions $\pi^-p\rightarrow \phi n$ and $pp\rightarrow pp\phi$ [@xdata]. This model is then extended, without introducing further adjustable parameters, to calculate the cross sections involving baryon resonances.
rho and omega meson production
------------------------------
An important background for the dilepton spectrum around phi meson mass comes from the tail part of the dilepton spectra from the decay of omega and rho mesons, which are produced from baryon-baryon and pion-baryon interactions. The rho meson can also be formed in pion-pion annihilation. In this work, we treated the dilepton spectrum from pion-pion annihilation using the so-called form factor approaches [@liko95],i.e., without considering the explicit formation and propagation of rho meson from pion-pion annihilation.
Several parameterizations have been proposed for the rho and omega meson production cross sections in pion-nucleon interactions [@cug90; @sib96; @sib97]. These parameterizations have been used in studying vector meson production in pion-nucleus [@weid97] and proton-nucleus [@sib98] reactions through their dilepton decays. Here we shall follow the one introduced in Ref. [@sib96]. For rho meson production, experimental data for the four channels, $\pi^+p\to\rho^+p$, $\pi^+n\to\rho^0p$, $\pi^-p\to\rho^-p$, and $\pi^-p\to\rho^0n$ [@xdata], show that their cross sections are similar and can be parameterized by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{para-pirho}
\sigma (\pi^- p \rightarrow \rho^0 n) =& 9.75
(\sqrt s-\sqrt {s_0})^{0.844} ~{\rm mb}, &~\sqrt s\le 2 ~{\rm GeV}
\nonumber\\
=&64.1 s^{-2.11} ~{\rm mb}, &~\sqrt s> 2 ~{\rm GeV},\end{aligned}$$ where $\sqrt {s_0} = m_N+ m_\rho$ is the threshold. This parameterization is slightly different from that proposed in Ref. [@sib96], in order to better fit the data for $\pi ^-
p\rightarrow \rho^0 n$ near the threshold. Comparison of this parameterization with the experimental data is shown in Fig. \[pirho\].
Similarly, available experimental data for omega meson production in pion-nucleon collisions can be fitted by the following parameterization, which is taken from Ref. [@sib96], $$\begin{aligned}
\label{para-omega}
\sigma (\pi ^- p \rightarrow \omega n) =& 40.43
(\sqrt s-\sqrt {s_0}) ~{\rm mb}, ~ & \sqrt s\le 1.8 ~{\rm GeV}
\nonumber\\
=& 61.57 s^{-2.55} ~{\rm mb}, ~ &\sqrt s> 1.8 ~{\rm GeV},\end{aligned}$$ where $\sqrt {s_0} = m_N +m _\omega$ is the threshold. Comparison of this parameterization with the experimental data is shown in Fig. \[piom\].
Rho and omega production from the nucleon-nucleon interaction has been studied in Ref. [@sib96] using an one-boson-exchange model, assuming that these processes can be factorized into a two step process. A form factor is introduced to account for the virtuality of the pion. Furthermore, simple parameterizations were proposed. Here we use a somewhat different form of parameterization, which has been used also for the parameterization of the eta meson production cross section in proton-proton collision near the threshold [@wolf90], i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma ( pp\rightarrow pp\rho^0) = {0.393 (\sqrt s -\sqrt {s_0})
\over 1.05 + (\sqrt s-\sqrt {s_0})^2} ~{\rm mb},\end{aligned}$$ where $\sqrt {s_0}= 2m_N+m_\rho$ is the threshold, and $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma(pp \rightarrow pp \omega ) = {0.219 (\sqrt s- \sqrt {s_0}
\over 1.238 + (\sqrt s - \sqrt {s_0})^2} ~{\rm mb},\end{aligned}$$ with the threshold $\sqrt {s_0}= 2m_N+m_\omega$. Comparison of these parameterizations with experimental data and the parameterizations from Ref. [@sib96] are shown in Figs. \[pprho\] and \[ppom\].
The cross sections for rho and omega production from other isospin channels of nucleon-nucleon interactions are not available in Ref. [@sib96]. Here we simply assume that are the same as those for proton-proton interactions. Vector mesons can also be produced in these processes with nucleons replaced by $\Delta$’s. These cross sections cannot be studied experimentally. Here we follow the usual procedure used in transport models by assuming that these cross sections are the same as those for the corresponding nucleon channels.
kaon and antikaon production
----------------------------
In heavy-ion collisions at incident energies considered in this work, kaons can be produced from pion-baryon and baryon-baryon collisions. For the former we use the cross sections obtained in the resonance model by Tsushima [*et al.*]{} [@tsu94]. For the latter the cross sections obtained in the one-boson-exchange model of Ref. [@liko98] are used. Both models describe the available experimental data very well. For antikaon production from pion-baryon collisions we use the parameterization proposed by Sibirtsev [*et al.*]{} [@sib97b]. For baryon-baryon collisions, we use a somewhat different parameterization, which describes the experimental data better than Ref. [@sib97b]. In addition, the antikaon can also be produced from strangeness-exchange processes such as $\pi Y\rightarrow {\bar K}N$, where $Y$ is either a $\Lambda$ or $\Sigma$ hyperon [@ko83]. Cross sections for these processes are obtained from the inverse ones, ${\bar K}N\rightarrow
\pi Y$, by the detailed-balance relation. All parameterizations for the elementary cross sections and comparisons with experimental data can be found in Ref. [@lilee97].
final-state interactions
------------------------
Particles produced in elementary hadron-hadron interactions in heavy-ion collisions cannot escape the hadronic matter freely. Instead, they are subjected to strong final-state interactions. For kaons, because of strangeness conservation, their scattering with nucleons at low energies is dominated by elastic and pion production processes, which do not affect its final yield but change its momentum spectrum. The final-state interaction for the antikaon is much stronger. Antikaons can be destroyed in the strangeness-exchange processes, and they also undergo elastic scattering. Both the elastic and absorption cross sections increase rapidly with decreasing antikaon momenta.
Final-state interactions for phi meson were analyzed in Ref. [@chung97]. These include both absorption and elastic rescattering by nucleons. Of all absorption processes considered, the $\phi N\rightarrow \Lambda K$, which is not OZI suppressed, was found to be the most important. In this work we follow Ref. [@chung97] for the treatment of phi meson final-state interactions.
We also consider the absorption and rescattering of rho and omega mesons. Reactions such as $\omega N \rightarrow\pi N, ~\pi\Delta $ and $\rho N \rightarrow \pi N, ~\pi\Delta$ are included. Cross sections for these reactions can be found from those of the reversed processes and the detailed balance relations. The cross sections for $\omega N$ and $\rho N$ elastic scattering have been extracted from the cross sections of the corresponding photoproduction processes using the photo-dissociation model [@joo67]. It is found to be 5.6 mb at $p_{\rm lab}$ around 3 GeV. As elastic scattering does not change the dilepton yield, its effect on the dilepton spectrum is not expected to be significantly. We thus assume that their cross sections take a constant value in the energy range relevant for our calculations.
dilepton production
-------------------
A vector meson can decay directly into a lepton pair. We use the following mass-dependent leptonic decay width for vector mesons [@likob95], $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma _{V\rightarrow e^+e^-} (M) = C _{e^+e^-} {m_V^4\over M^3},\end{aligned}$$ where $M$ is the mass of the vector meson, while $m_V$ is its mass at the centroid. From the measured widths, the coefficient $C_{e^+e^-}$ is determined to be $8.814 \times 10^{-6}$, $0.767\times 10^{-6}$, and $1.334 \times 10^{-6}$ for $\rho^0$, $\omega$, and $\phi$ decay, respectively. To obtain the final dilepton spectra from vector meson decays, we need to integrate over time and add also the contribution after the freeze-out. Denoting $dP_\phi (t)/dt$ the differential probability of finding phi mesons at time $t$, the dilepton invariant mass spectrum from phi meson decays is then given by $$\begin{aligned}
{dP_{e^+e^-}\over dM} = \int ^{t_f}_0 {dP_\phi (t)\over dM}
\Gamma _{\phi \rightarrow e^+e^-} (M) dt
+{dP_\phi (t_f)\over dM} {\Gamma _{\phi \rightarrow e^+e^-} (M)
\over \Gamma _\phi (M)}.\end{aligned}$$ The freeze-out time $t_f$ follows automatically in the transport model when particle collisions become negligible. The first term in the above expression gives the contribution from phi meson decay ‘inside’ the fire ball, and the second term gives that from decay ‘outside’ the fire ball. Similar procedures are used for dileptons from rho and omega meson decays.
In addition, we shall also include dileptons from $pn$ bremsstrahlung and pion-pion annihilation. Our procedure for $pn$ bremsstrahlung is the same as in Xiong [*et. al.*]{} [@xiong90]. In the soft-photon approximation and including the phase-space correction, the differential cross section for dileptons with invariant mass $M$ is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
{d \sigma \over d^3{\bf p}dM} \simeq
{ {\alpha^{2}} \over {6 \pi^{3}} }
{ {\bar \sigma(s)} \over {ME^{3}} }
{ {R_{2}(\surd s_{2})} \over {R_{2}(\surd s)} }\end{aligned}$$ where $$R_{2}(s)= \sqrt{1-{{4m^2}\over {s}} },$$ $$s_{2}=s+M^{2}-2 E \surd s,$$ $$\bar {\sigma}(s) = { { s-4m^2 } \over {2 m^{2}} }\sigma(s).$$ In the above, $\alpha$ is the fine structure constant, $E$ and [**p**]{} are the total energy and momentum of the dilepton pair, respectively, $\sigma(s)$ is the cross section of nucleon-nucleon elastic scattering, while $m$ is the nucleon mass.
The dilepton production cross section from pion-pion annihilation is well-known [@gale87; @liko95], i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma (M) = {4\pi\alpha^2 \over 3M^2}
\sqrt{1-{ {4 m_{\pi}^2} \over {M^2}} }
\vert F_{\pi} \vert^{2},\end{aligned}$$ where the pion electromagnetic form factor is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
\vert F_{\pi} \vert^{2} =
{ {m_{\rho}^4} \over { (M^{2}-m_{\rho}^2)^{2}
+m_{\rho}^{2} \Gamma_{\rho}^{2} } },\end{aligned}$$ in terms of the rho meson mass $m_{\rho}$ and width $\Gamma_{\rho}$.
results and discussions
=======================
As in Ref. [@chung97], the dynamical evolution of heavy-ion collisions at SIS energies is described by the relativistic transport model, originally developed in Ref. [@ko87] and extensively used in studying medium effects in heavy ion collisins [@koli96]. As we are mainly interested in the possibility of seeing phi and kaon medium effects on the dilepton spectra, we shall present our results in the mass region from 0.8 to 1.2 GeV in central Ni+Ni collisions at 1.93 AGeV.
In Fig. \[ee\] we show the dilepton invariant mass spectra in the case that both vector and kaon medium effects are neglected. Here, as well as in the following figures, the histogram bin size is taken to be 10 MeV, corresponding roughly to the mass resolution of HADES in the phi meson mass region. The major background around phi meson peak comes from $\pi \pi$ annihilation. The contribution from direct rho meson decay is about a factor of 3 below that from $\pi\pi$ annihilation. Furthermore, the contribution from $pn$ bremsstrahlung is about one order of magnitude smaller than other background in this mass region. Finally, the contribution from direct omega meson decay is insignificant due to its narrow mass distribution. A well defined phi meson peak is seen in the dilepton spectrum, reflecting its small decay width of about 4 MeV. Overall the phi meson peak is about a factor 4-5 above the background. This make its detection relatively easy if the mass resolution is about 1%.
In the second scenario, we turn on the kaon medium effects as were required to explain the measured kaon yields and flow [@gsiall; @liall; @lilee97; @cassall; @fae97]. As shown in Fig. \[fiwidth\], because of the opening-up of the phase space, the phi meson decay width increases substantially in nuclear medium. As a result, phi mesons tend to decay faster and therefore less number of phi mesons can be detected via the $K^+K^-$ channel. In Ref. [@chung97] we found that the inclusion of kaon medium effects reduces the phi meson yield determined from the $K^+K^-$ analysis by about a factor of two. Furthermore, the increase of phi meson decay width broadens its mass distribution and results in a large apparent width in the dilepton spectrum. The results in this scenario are shown in Fig. \[eem\]. As medium effects on vector mesons are neglected, the background is the same as in Fig. \[ee\]. Because of the increase of phi meson decay width, the dilepton mass spectrum from phi mesons becomes much broader than in Fig. \[ee\], with a width of about 30-40 MeV. Consequently, the height of the peak is substantially reduced, and the phi meson peak is now below the background from $\pi\pi$ annihilation, leading to a broad bump instead of a sharp peak around $m_\phi$ in the total dilepton spectrum.
The results in the case with both kaon and vector meson medium effects are shown in Fig. \[eemm\]. The most important background around the phi meson is still from $\pi\pi$ annihilation, which is, however, significantly smaller than in the case without vector meson medium effects. This is mainly due to the dropping rho meson mass that shifts the strength to masses below $m_\rho$. Although the rho meson yield is enhanced due to its dropping mass, they contribute mainly to dileptons with masses below $m_\rho$. On the other hand, the contribution from direct omega meson decay is enhanced in the dropping mass scenario, and it becomes comparable to that from direct rho meson decay. This is due to the enhanced production of omega meson, and the fact that most omega mesons decay after the freeze-out, when their masses return to the free ones. In this case the $\phi$ peak is about a factor of 3-4 above the background. Furthermore, there appears a shoulder around the invariant mass of 0.95 GeV, arising from the decay of phi mesons inside the fireball. Unfortunately, the height of the shoulder is about a factor of 2 below the background. In the total dilepton spectrum, an outstanding and broad peak instead of a weak bump is seen.
In Fig. \[phiee\] we summarize the dilepton spectra from phi meson decay in the three scenarios discussed above. In the scenario without medium effects, a very sharp phi peak is seen with a width of about 4 MeV. Including kaon medium effects that increases the phi meson decay width, the dilepton spectrum from phi meson decay becomes much broader with a width of about 30-40 MeV, and its height is substantially reduced. In the scenario with both decreasing kaon and vector meson in-medium masses, the dilepton spectrum is also quite broad with a width of about 30-40 MeV. Its height increases, however, by about a factor of 2 with respect to the second scenario, reflecting the fact that the phi meson yield is increased due to a reduced mass. A shoulder, although not very prominant, also develops around 0.95 GeV as a result of the decay of phi mesons inside the fireball.
Our studies thus show that it will be quite difficult to isolate or extract from the measured dilepton spectrum the contribution from phi mesons. It is therefore useful to identify the characteristic differences in the total dilepton spectra from the three scenarios. This is shown in Fig. \[totee\]. The dotted curves in the figure show the background in the three scenarios, with those of the first and second scenario being the same. With the HADES mass resolution of about 1%, we expect to see a sharp peak in the dilepton spectrum which is about a factor of 5 above the background, if there are no medium effects on both kaon and vector mesons. On the other hand, a weak bump around $m_\phi$ would indicate that the phi meson mass distribution becomes broader as a result of kaon medium effects. Finally, if a broad and significant peak is seen around $m_\phi$ together with a shoulder around 0.95 GeV, this could be a good indication for the existence of both kaon and vector meson medium effects.
conclusion
==========
In conclusion, continuing our previous investigation on phi meson production from heavy-ion collisions [@chung97], we studied in this paper the possibility of seeing the phi meson through its dilepton spectrum. To make a quantitative prediction, we have included contributions to dileptons with invariant mass around $m_\phi$ from pion-pion annihilation, $pn$ bremsstrahlung, and the direct decay of rho and omega mesons. The most important one is found to come from pion-pion annihilation.
We have considered three scenarios for the kaon and vector meson properties in nuclear medium. The dilepton spectra from phi meson decays, as well as the total dilepton spectra, in the three scenarios show quite different characteristics. We conclude that with a mass resolution of about 1% as to be achieved by the HADES collaboration, it is possible to determine qualitatively whether there are any medium effect on kaon and/or vector mesons. A quantitative determination of the effective masses of kaons and vector mesons from the dilepton spectrum is found to be difficult. However, a combination of the information from the dilepton spectra and other observables such as the phi meson yield from the analysis of $K^+K^-$ channels as well as the kaon yields and spectra will definitely provide good constraints on the in-medium properties of kaons and vector mesons.
[**Acknowledgement**]{}
WSC and CMK were supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. PHY-9509266 and The Welch Foundation under Grant No. A-1358. GQL was supported in part by the Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-FG02-88Er40388.
[99]{}
J. Pochodzalla, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 39 (1997) 443
D. B. Kaplan and A. E. Nelson, Phys. Lett. B 175 (1986) 57;\
A. E. Nelson and D. B. Kaplan, Phys. Lett. B 192 (1987) 193.
C. H. Lee, G. E. Brown, D. P. Min, and M. Rho, Nucl. Phys. A 585 (1995) 401.
G. E. Brown and M. Rho, Phys. Rep. 269 (1996) 333.
J. W. Harris abd B. Müller, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 46 (1996) 71.
G. E. Brown and M. Rho, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66 (1991) 2720.
W. Reisdorf and H. G. Ritter, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 48 (1997)
W. Cassing, V. Metag, U. Mosel, and K. Niita, Phys. Rep. 188 (1990) 363.
C. M. Ko and G. Q. Li, J. Phys. G 22 (1996) 1673.
E. Shuryak, Phys. Rep. 67 (1980) 71.
K. Kajantie, J. Kapusta, L. McLerran, and A. Mekjian, Phys. Rev. D 34 (1986) 2746.
C. Gale and J. Kapusta, Phys. Rev. C 35 (1987) 2107.
G. Q. Li and C. M. Ko, Nucl. Phys. A 582 (1995) 731.
G. Roche [*et al.*]{} (DLS collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 61 (1988) 1069;\
C. Naudet [*et al.*]{} (DLS collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 62 (1989) 2652.
R. J. Porter [*et al.*]{} (DLS collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 79 (1997) 1229.
W. Koenig, in Proc. Workshop on Dilepton Production in Relativistic Heavy-Ion Collisions, ed. H. Bokemeyer (GSI, Darmstadt, 1994).
G. Agakichiev [*et al.*]{} (CERES collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 (1995) 1272;\
G. Agakichiev [*et al.*]{} (CERES collaboration), Nucl. Phys. A 610 (1996) 317c;\
A. Drees, Nucl. Phys. A 610 (1996) 536c.
M. Masera for the HELIOS-3 collaboration, Nucl. Phys. A 590 (1995) 93c;\
A.L.S. Angelis [*et al.*]{} (HELIOS-3 collaboration), CERN-PPE/97-117.
M. C. Abreu [*et al.*]{} (NA38 collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 368 (1996) 230;\
C. Lourenco, Nucl. Phys. A 610 (1996) 552c.
G. Q. Li, C. M. Ko, and G. E. Brown, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 (1995) 4007;\
G. Q. Li, C. M. Ko, and G. E. Brown, Nucl. Phys. A 606 (1996) 568;\
G. Q. Li, C. M. Ko, G. E. Brown, and H. Sorge, Nucl. Phys. A 611 (1996) 539.
W. Cassing, W. Ehehalt, and C. M. Ko, Phys. Lett. B 363 (1995) 35.
R. Rapp, G. Chanfray, and J. Wambach, Nucl. Phys. A 617 (1997) 472.
L. Xiong, Z. G. Wu, C. M. Ko, and J. Q. Wu, Nucl. Phys. A 512 (1990) 772.
Gy. Wolf, G. Batko, W. Cassing, U. Mosel, K. Niita, and M. Schäfer, Nucl. Phys. A 517 (1990) 615;\
Gy. Wolf, W. Cassing, and U. Mosel, Nucl. Phys. A 552 (1993) 549.
R. Holzmann [*et al.*]{} (TAPS collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 56 (1997) R2920.
S. Okubo, Phys. Lett. 5 (1963) 165;\
J. Iizuka, Prog. Theo. Phys. Suppl. 37-38 (1966) 21.
A. Shor, Phys. Rev. Lett., 54 (1985) 1122.
D. Lissauer and E. Shuryak, Phys. Lett. B 253 (1991) 15;\
E. Shuryak and V. Thorsson, Nucl. Phys. A 536 (1992) 739.
T. Hatsuda and S. H. Lee, Phys. Rev. C 46 (1992) R34;\
T. Hatsuda, Nucl. Phys. A 544 (1992) 27c.
R. Ferreira for the NA38 collaboration, Nucl. Phys. A 544 (1992) 497c.
M. A. Mazzoni for the HELIOS-3 collaboration, Nucl. Phys. A 566 (1994) 95c.
C. M. Ko and B. H. Sa, Phys. Lett. B 258 (1991) 6.
M. Berenguer, H. Sorge, and W. Greiner, Phys. Lett. B 332 (1994) 15.
P. Koch, U. Heinz, and J. Pisút, Phys. Lett. B 243 (1990) 149.
B. A. Cole for the E802 Collaboration, Nucl. Phys. A 590 (1995) 179c;\
Y. Akiba [*et al.*]{} (E802 collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 76 (1996) 2021.
P. Braun-Munzinger, J. Stachel, J. P. Wessels, and N. Xu, Phys. Lett. B 344 (1995) 43.
J. Cleymans, D. Elliott, H. Satz, and R.L. Thews, nucl-th/9603004.
A. J. Baltz and C. Dover, Phys. Rev. C 53 (1996) 362.
N. Herrmann for FOPI Collaboration, Nucl. Phys. A 610 (1996) 49c.
W. S. Chung, G. Q. Li, and C. M. Ko, Phys. Lett. B 401 (1997) 1;\
W. S. Chung, G. Q. Li, and C. M. Ko, Nucl. Phys. A 625 (1997) 347.
C. M. Ko, V. Koch, and G. Q. Li, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 47 (1997) 505. X. Jin and D. B. Leinweber, Phys. Rev. C 52 (1995) 3344.
M. Asakawa and C. M. Ko, Nucl. Phys. A 560 (1993) 399.
F. Klingl, N. Kaiser, and W. Weise, Nucl. Phys. A 624 (1997) 527.
S. Leupold, W. Peters, and U. Mosel, Nucl. Phys. A 628 (1998) 311.
K. Saito, K. Tsushima, and A. W. Thomas, Phys. Rev. C 55 (1997) 2637.
H. C. Jean, J. Pickarewicz, and A. G. Williams, Phys. Rev. C 49 (1994) 1981.
H. Shiomo and T. Hatsuda, Phys. Lett. B 334 (1994) 281.
C. S. Song, P. W. Xia, and C. M. Ko, Phys. Rev. C 52 (1995) 408.
S. A. Chin, Ann. Phys. 108 (1977) 301.
M. Herrmann, B. L. Friman, and W. Nörenberg, Nucl. Phys. A 560 (1993) 411.
H. Kuwaraba and T. Hatsuda, Prog. Theor. Phys. 94 (1995) 1163c.
C. M. Ko, P. Lévai, X. J. Qiu, and C. T. Li, Phys. Rev. C 45 (1992) 1400.
F. Klingle, T. Wass, and W. Weiss, Phys. Lett. B, in press (hep-ph/9709210).
G. E. Brown, K. Kubodera, and M. Rho, Phys. Lett. B 192 (1987) 272.
H. D. Politzer and M. B. Wise, Phys. Lett. B 273 (1991) 156.
G. E. Brown, C. H. Lee, M. Rho, and V. Thorsson, Nucl. Phys. A 567 (1994) 937.
N. Kaiser, P. B. Siegel, and W. Weise, Nucl. Phys. A 594 (1995) 325.
C. H. Lee, Phys. Rep 275 (1996) 255.
T. Waas and W. Weise, Nucl. Phys. A 625 (1997) 287.
M. Lutz, A. Steiner, and W. Weise, Nucl. Phys. A 574 (1994) 755.
J. Schaffner, A. Gal, I. N. Mishistin, H. Stöcker, and W. Greiner, Phys. Lett. B 334 (1994) 268.
R. Knorren, M. Prakash, and P. J. Ellis, Phys. Rev. C 52 (1995) 3470.
J. L. Ritman [*et al.*]{} (FOPI collaboration), Z. Phys. A 352 (1995) 355;\
D. Best [*et al.*]{} (FOPI collaboration), Nucl. Phys. A 625 (1997) 307;\
D. Miskowiec [*et al.*]{} (KaoS collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 72 (1994) 3650;\
R. Elmer [*et al.*]{} (KaoS collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 (1996) 4886;\
P. Senger for the KaoS collaboration, Heavy Ion Physics 4 (1996) 317;\
R. Barth [*et al.*]{} (KaoS collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 78 (1997) 4027.
X. S. Fang, C. M. Ko, G. Q. Li, and Y. M. Zheng, Nucl. Phys. A 575 (1994) 766;\
G. Q. Li, C. M. Ko, and X. S. Fang, Phys. Lett. B 329 (1994) 149;\
G. Q. Li, C. M. Ko, and B. A. Li, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74 (1995) 235;\
G. Q. Li and C. M. Ko, Nucl. Phys. A 594 (1995) 460.
G. Q. Li, C. H. Lee, and G. E. Brown, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79 (1997) 5214;\
G.Q. Li, C. H. Lee, and G.E. Brown, Nucl. Phys A 625 (1997) 372.
W. Cassing, E. L. Bratkovskaya, U. Mosel, S. Teis, and A. Sibirtsev, Nucl. Phys. A614 (1997) 415;\
E. L. Bratkovskaya, W. Cassing, and U. Mosel, Nucl. Phys. A 622 (1997) 593.
Z. S. Wang, A. Faessler, C. Fuchs, V. S. Uma Maheswari, and D. S. Kosov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79 (1997) 4096;\
Z .S. Wang, A. Faessler, C. Fuchs, V .S. Uma Maheswari, and D .S. Kosov, Nucl. Phys. A, in press.
G. Q. Li, C. M. Ko, and G. E. Brown, Phys. Lett. B 381 (1996) 17.
G. Q. Li and C. M. Ko, Phys. Rev. C 54 (1996) R2159.
R. Machleidt, Adv. Nucl. Phys. 19 (1989) 189.
A. Baldini [*et al.*]{}, Total cross sections of high energy particles, (Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, 1988).
J. Cugnon, P. Deneye, and J. Vandermeulen, Phys. Rev. C 41 (1990) 1339.
A. Sibirtsev, Nucl. Phys. A 604 (1996) 455.
A. Sibirtsev, W. Cassing, and U. Mosel, Z. Phys. A 358 (1997) 357.
Ye. S. Golubeva, L. A. Kondratyuk, and W. Cassing, Nucl. Phys. A 625 (1996) 832;\
Th. Weidmann, E. L. Bratkovskaya, W. Cassing, and U. Mosel, nucl-th/9711004.
A. Sibirtsev and W. Cassing, nucl-th/9712009.
K. Tsushima, S. W. Huang, and A. Faessler, Phys. Lett. B 337 (1994) 245;\
K. Tsushima, S. W. Huang, and A. Faessler, J. Phys. G 21 (1995) 33.
G. Q. Li and C. M. Ko, Nucl. Phys. A 594 (1995) 439;\
G. Q. Li, C. M. Ko, and W. S. Chung, Phys. Rev. C 57 (1998).
A. Sibirtsev, W. Cassing, and C. M. Ko, Z. Phys. A 358 (1997) 101.
C. M. Ko, Phys. Lett. B 120 (1983) 294; B 138 (1984) 361.
H. Joos, Phys. Lett. B24 (1967) 103.
C. M. Ko, Q. Li, and R. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59 (1987) 1084;\
C. M. Ko and Q. Li, Phys. Rev. C 37 (1988) 2270;\
Q. Li, J. Q. Wu, and C. M. Ko. Phys. Rev. C 39 (1989) 849.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Pawe[ł]{} Zin'
- Maciej Pylak
- Mariusz Gajda
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
title: 'Revisiting a stability problem of two-component droplets'
---
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
In his seminal paper D. Petrov [@Petrov15] showed the stabilizing role of the Lee-Huang-Young (LHY) energy [@LHY] in a system of a two component Bose-Bose mixture. The analysis presented in [@Petrov15] is based on a particular form of the mean field energy and the observation that a stable droplet can be formed if the densities of both components are chosen in such a way that the hard mode energy (the dominant term) vanishes, so that the instability of the weak mode is suppressed by a small contribution of quantum fluctuations – the LHY term. Soon experiments confirmed this theory [@Cabrera18; @Fattori18; @Tarruell18]. Moreover, a similar mechanism occurred to be responsible for stabilization of elongated dipolar condensates of Dysprosium [@Pfau16; @Pfau16a; @Kadau16; @Ferrier-Barbut16] and Erbium [@Chomaz16] atoms. Recently, quantum droplets in heteronuclear bosonic mixtures have been reported [@Modugno19a]. For review of the present status of quantum droplets physics see [@malomed1].
Standard stability analysis of a two component Bose-Bose mixture is based on a particular form of the mean field energy density. The distinction of a stable hard mode of energetically expensive excitations and a slightly unstable soft mode forms the basis of the entire analysis. In this paper we want to address the issue of stability of a two component droplet going beyond approximations which rely on the distinction between hard and soft modes [@Petrov15]. In particular we want to formulate a description of droplets which accounts not only for the ground state and soft mode excitations, but hard mode excitations too. The correct description of hard mode excitations (absent in the former approximate treatment) is crucial when considering collisions of droplets [@pylak_tobe].
To define a stable solution we have to specify a physical constraint first. Note that the question of a global unconstrained minimum has a simple but trivial answer if analysis is limited to the mean field approach – in an effectively attractive case the system collapses and both densities become infinite, or on the other hand if the system is a repulsive one, the atoms expand to infinity and their densities vanish. The collapse predicted on the mean field level in fact signifies that the description used does not account for physical processes in this situation. Formation of bound molecules, larger complexes or solidification is expected then.
Here we address a typical experimental situation where initially $N_1$ atoms of the first component are mixed with $N_2$ atoms of the second component in an external trap. After tuning the interactions to the region in which a stable droplet is expected, the external potential is removed. Eventually a droplet is formed. This is a scenario which defines plausible physical constraints. Our goal is to find densities of a stable system formed this way and/or the final number of atoms in each component. Note that final number of atoms need not be necessarily the same as the number of atoms mixed initially. Some can evaporate yet.
Constraints {#constraints .unnumbered}
===========
We study a mixture of two species of ultracold atoms of mass $m$. The choice of equal masses has one serious advantage – it allows for (to a large extent) analytical treatment. The entire procedure is also valid for different masses of both species, however, numerics is needed then. The number of atoms in every component is $N_1$ and $N_2$ respectively. Intraspecies interactions are repulsive, i.e. corresponding scattering lengths are positive $a_{11}>0, a_{22}>0$, but interspecies interactions are attractive, $a_{12}<0$.
The interaction energy density of the system, for fixed interaction strength, is a function of densities of the two components $n_1, n_2$, $\varepsilon =\varepsilon(n_1,n_2)$. The densities are related to corresponding wavefunctions $n_i = |\psi_i|^2$ which are normalized to the number of particles $\int d{{{\bf r}}} |\psi_i({{{\bf r}}})|^2 = N_i$. The total energy density with kinetic energy included is: $${\cal E}=-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\sum_{i=1}^2 \nabla \psi_i^* \nabla \psi_i +\varepsilon(n_1,n_2)$$ A corresponding time-dependent set of two coupled Gross-Pitaevskii (GP) equations describing the dynamics of both components can be easily obtained by minimizing the action $S= \int d^3x\int dt L$, where the Lagrangian density is $L = \hbar {\cal R}e(i \sum_j \psi_j^* \partial_t \psi_j) - {\cal E}$: $$i \hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \psi_i ({{\bf r}}) = \left[ -\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\Delta + \frac{\delta \varepsilon(n_1,n_2)}{\delta n_i} \right] \psi_i({{\bf r}})
\label{e-gp1}$$ By the standard substitution $\psi_i({{\bf r}},t)=e^{-i \mu_i t/\hbar}\psi_i({{\bf r}})$ the time dependent equations lead to a set of two stationary GP equations: $$\left[ -\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\Delta + \frac{\delta \varepsilon(n_1,n_2)}{\delta n_i} \right] \psi_i({{\bf r}}) = \mu_i \psi_i ({{\bf r}})
\label{e-gp2}$$ where $\mu_i$ are chemical potentials.
We assume that interactions are tuned in such a way that the system is effectively very weakly attractive and is on the collapse side of the stability diagram [@Rzazewski13; @Oldziejewski16], $-\delta a =\sqrt{a_{11}a_{22}}+a_{12}<0$, where coupling constants are related to the scattering lengths via $g_{ij}=4\pi \hbar^2a_{ij}/m $. As shown by D. Petrov [@Petrov15], if the energy of quantum fluctuations is included in addition to the aforementioned mean-field interaction energy, the collapse may be avoided and a liquid droplet of volume $V$ is formed. This however can only happen if the interactions are appropriately tuned. Moreover, the numbers of available atoms in every component must be in a right proportion.
If interactions are in the region not supporting droplet formation the solutions will correspond to an infinite system with densities vanishing everywhere (the system expands to infinity when repulsive interactions dominate). On the other hand, i.e. for ‘well chosen’ interactions but with wrong initial number of particles only some fraction of them will be bound, while the remaining ones evaporate.
Although its density is small ($\sim 10^{14} - 10^{15} {\rm cm}^{-3}$) a quantum droplet behaves like a liquid. This density is fixed by interaction – by adding particles of both kinds the droplet enlarges keeping its density. Moreover, the densities of both components are not independent. The same is true for the number of particles forming a droplet. In general the number of particles forming a droplet is different from the number of atoms $N_1, N_2$ prepared initially in the trap and used in the formation process. After the trapping potential is removed the system is free. There are no constraints on volume nor particle number. The volume of the system may change and some particles may evaporate. These excess particles are ejected to infinity and will not contribute to the total energy. We do not assume interaction of the system with any external reservoir of particles, the number of particles forming a droplet may not grow larger than the initial $N_1$ and $N_2$. These are the only physical constraints we impose on the system.
The question we want to answer here is: [*which stable system (for fixed interactions) can be formed having at disposal $N_1$ atoms of the first kind and $N_2$ atoms of the second kind?*]{}
Stable solutions of GP equations Eq.(\[e-gp1\]) should correspond to a minimum of energy. If it is a global minimum the system is absolutely stable. Metastable states correspond to a local minimum of energy. The system has to overcome a potential barrier on a way to a global minimum. The total energy of the system is: $$\begin{aligned}
E(N_1,N_2) = \int d{{{\bf r}}} \, {\cal E}({{\bf r}}).\end{aligned}$$ Chemical potentials $\mu_i$ appear in Eqs.(\[e-gp1\], \[e-gp2\]) as eigenenergies of stationary solutions of the GP equations. It is a simple exercise to verify that these eigenenergies $\mu_i$, as it should be in the case of true chemical potentials, describe a response of the total energy of the system to a change of particle number: $$\label{mui1}
\frac{\partial E}{\partial N_i}=\mu_i$$ Note that if the system is stable, i.e. its energy $E(N_1,N_2)$ corresponds to some minimum, then infinitesimally small change of atom number in any component must increase its energy: $$\label{stab1}
dE=\frac{\partial E}{\partial N_1} dN_1+\frac{\partial E}{\partial N_2} dN_2 = \mu_1 dN_1 + \mu_2 dN_2 >0$$ For the purposes of this consideration the number of atoms may only decrease, i.e. $dN_i <0$. If any of the chemical potentials were positive the system would decrease its energy by evaporating some particles of the corresponding kind. Therefore the constraints we impose on a stable droplet are: $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_1 & < & 0, \\
\mu_2 & < & 0.\end{aligned}$$ If in a given state both chemical potentials are negative then there is no state of lower energy in its close neighbourhood. We are going to exploit these conditions in the following.
Note, however, that in the above we analyzed only stationary states i.e. states being the solution of stationary GP equation (\[e-gp2\]). We did not consider stability of the solution against some small perturbation. It is known that there exists stationary localized droplet solutions which are however dynamically unstable - small initial perturbation grows exponentially in time [@malomed2]. In what follows we do not consider the issue of dynamical stability.
Bose-Bose droplets {#bose-bose-droplets .unnumbered}
==================
In the general approach sketched above a kinetic energy was included. This way we accounted for surface tension providing a necessary pressure to stabilize the system. Unfortunately including kinetic energy leads to differential equations which cannot be treated analytically in more detail in the general case.
To get some better insight into the problem of stability of a droplet we simplify our analysis and assume that the system is large and the surface energy is much smaller than the interaction energy so that it can be neglected. This approximation is known as the Thomas-Fermi approximation. It amounts to assuming that ${\cal E} = \varepsilon(n_1,n_2)$. Such a system is uniform, has well defined volume $V$ and constant densities $n_i=N_i/V$. The energy density is of the form: $$\varepsilon(n_1,n_2) /\left(\frac{4\pi \hbar^2}{m}\right) = \frac{1}{2} (\sqrt{a_{11}} n_1 - \sqrt{a_{22}} n_2 )^2-\delta a n_1 n_2 + c (a_{11} n_1 + a_{22} n_2)^{5/2}
\label{e-density}$$
The first two terms are mean field energies, in particular the first term is the ’hard’ mode energy. The last term is the LHY energy contribution, $c=64\sqrt{\pi}/15$, and $\delta a = -(a_{12}+\sqrt{a_{11}a_{22}})>0$. In order to have an explicit ‘minus’ sign in front of the attractive term, Eq.(\[e-density\]), we used a non-standard definition of $\delta a$. We assume that $\delta a \ll a_{11}, a_{22}$, i.e. that the collapse instability is weak and a small LHY term can balance it. This assumption ensures that the system is weakly interacting. The total energy of the system is $E_u(N_1,N_2,V)=V\cdot\varepsilon(N_1/V,N_2/V)$. Differential change of energy due to infinitesimal change of volume and particle number is: $$\label{dE}
d E_u(N_1,N_2,V) = -p dV + \frac{\partial E_u}{\partial N_1} \delta N_1 + \frac{\partial E_u}{\partial N_2} \delta N_2$$ where $p=-\frac{\partial E_u}{\partial V}$ is a pressure, while $\mu_{i,u} = \frac{\partial E_u}{\partial N_i} = \frac{\delta \varepsilon}{\delta n_i}$.
For a uniform free system, as opposed to a system with a surface, we get an additional constraint: a droplet will stabilize its volume if internal pressure vanishes: $$\label{pressure}
p=-\frac{\partial E_u}{\partial V}= \mu_1 n_1 +\mu_2 n_2-\varepsilon(n_1,n_2)=0$$ Equation Eq. (\[pressure\]) allows to find the volume of a droplet as a function of particle number $V=V(N_1,N_2)$. $$V(N_1,N_2) = \left( \frac{ 3 c (a_{11} N_1 + a_{22} N_2)^{5/2} }{ 2 \delta a N_1 N_2 -
(\sqrt{a_{11}} N_1 - \sqrt{a_{22}} N_2 )^2 } \right)^2
\label{volume}$$ Physical solutions of Eq. (\[pressure\]) exist if: $$|\sqrt{a_{11}} N_1 - \sqrt{a_{22}} N_2 |< \sqrt{2 \delta a N_1 N_2}
\label{volume+}$$ The first important observation is that the right hand of inequality Eq.(\[volume+\]) significantly reduces the possible variation of the ratio $N_1/N_2$, because $\delta a \ll a_{11}, a_{22}$. Thus a term $\sqrt{a_{11}N_1} - \sqrt{a_{22}N_2}$ must be very small. To quantify this difference we introduce a small parameter $\delta b = \frac{\delta a}{\sqrt{a_{11} a_{22}}} \ll 1$, and a variable $\xi$ being a scaled ratio of atom numbers (or atomic densities), $\xi =\frac{n_2 \sqrt{a_{22}}}{n_1 \sqrt{a_{11}}}$. After neglecting corrections of higher order in $\delta b$ Eq.(\[volume+\]) can be brought to the form: $$\label{magic_ratio}
\frac{1}{2}\delta \xi^2 < \delta b$$ where $\delta \xi = \xi -1$. Obviously $\delta \xi$ is the second small parameter of the theory.
In view of Eq.(\[magic\_ratio\]) it is reasonable to assume that at equilibrium the ratio of atom numbers (and therefore the ratio of equilibrium densities too) is approximately equal to: $$\label{hard_mode}
\frac{N^0_1}{N^0_2}=\frac{n^0_1}{n^0_2}= \sqrt{\frac{a_{22}}{a_{11}}}=s$$ This is a basic assumption of the analysis in [@Petrov15]. Note that condition Eq.(\[hard\_mode\]) eliminates the hard mode contribution to the energy density Eq.(\[e-density\]). Only soft mode and LHY energies remain. Using Eqs.(\[hard\_mode\]) and (\[volume\]) the equilibrium densities $n^0_i$ of a droplet can be well approximated by: $$\begin{aligned}
n^0_1 a^3_{11}=\left(\frac{2}{3c}\right)^2 \frac{\delta b^2}{(1+s)^5}\\
\label{n01}
n^0_2 a^3_{22}=\left(\frac{2}{3c}\right)^2 \frac{\delta b^2}{(1+\frac{1}{s})^5}
\label{n02}\end{aligned}$$\
If $\xi = 1$ then the ratio of densities of the components is equal to the ‘magic’ value $s$ at which the hard mode contribution to the mean field energy vanishes. Therefore $\delta \xi$ measures a deviation of a droplet’s density from this ratio. On the other hand it is easy to check that this parameter equals to fluctuations of density of the hard mode. If we define fluctuations of the densities in each mode as $n_i=n^0_i(1+\delta_i)$ then $\delta \xi$ measures the difference between these fluctuations: $$\delta \xi = \delta_1 - \delta_2$$
So far we have made use only from the condition that a stable droplet has a vanishing pressure $p=0$ what stabilizes its volume $V=V(N_1,N_2)$. Total energy of droplets, $E=E_u(N_1,N_2,V(N_1,N_2))$, becomes a function of number of atoms only, $E=E(N_1,N_2)$. We are then on the same footing as in the situation of a droplet having a surface. As we have already discussed, the droplet will stop evaporating atoms if both chemical potentials are negative.
Let us observe that the two functions $E(N_1,N_2,V(N_1,N_2))$ and $E_u(N_1,N_2,V)$ are different because in the latter case $V$ is an independent variable as opposed to $E$ where volume is a well-defined function of $N_1,N_2$, Eq.(\[volume\]). This leads to two different definitions of $\mu_i$. One is the $\mu_i$ given by Eq. (\[mui1\]) and the second one is given above $\mu_{i,u} = \partial E_u/\partial N_i$. The relation between these two is given by $$\mu_i \equiv \frac{\partial E}{\partial N_i}=\frac{\partial E_u(N_1,N_2,V)}{\partial N_i}
+\frac{\partial E_u(N_1,N_2,V)}{\partial V} \frac{\partial V}{\partial N_i} = \frac{\partial E_u(N_1,N_2,V)}{\partial N_i}$$ Because pressure in the latter case vanishes, there is no additional energy cost related to change of volume and both chemical potentials are the same, $\mu_i = \mu_{i,u}$.
![Solutions of Eq. (\[pressure\]) in the form of contour plots in the $n_1 - n_2$ plane. we show the tip of $p=0$ isobar where by blue color we indicate the stable region as given by $\mu_1<0$ and $\mu_2<0$ constraints, Eqs.(\[limits1\],\[limits2\]). In the inset we show the full zero pressure isobar which has a shape of the elongated loop. By the black dot we indicate the standard solution to the stability problem according to Eq.(\[hard\_mode\]). We consider two cases: (i) $s=\sqrt{2}$ (left panel). The standard solution is located at the border, but inside the stable region. The solution given by Eq.(\[debraj\_cond\]) marked in green is at the centre; (ii) $s=2$ (right panel). In this case the standard solution is located outside the stable region. The solution given by Eq.(\[debraj\_cond\]) remains well within the limit of stability. Densities are in units of $n_{10}=\frac{25\pi}{1024}\frac{\delta a^2}{a_{11}^5s^2(1+s)^5}$[]{data-label="fig:cisnienie"}](./dens1_dens2_a2.png "fig:"){width="40.00000%"} ![Solutions of Eq. (\[pressure\]) in the form of contour plots in the $n_1 - n_2$ plane. we show the tip of $p=0$ isobar where by blue color we indicate the stable region as given by $\mu_1<0$ and $\mu_2<0$ constraints, Eqs.(\[limits1\],\[limits2\]). In the inset we show the full zero pressure isobar which has a shape of the elongated loop. By the black dot we indicate the standard solution to the stability problem according to Eq.(\[hard\_mode\]). We consider two cases: (i) $s=\sqrt{2}$ (left panel). The standard solution is located at the border, but inside the stable region. The solution given by Eq.(\[debraj\_cond\]) marked in green is at the centre; (ii) $s=2$ (right panel). In this case the standard solution is located outside the stable region. The solution given by Eq.(\[debraj\_cond\]) remains well within the limit of stability. Densities are in units of $n_{10}=\frac{25\pi}{1024}\frac{\delta a^2}{a_{11}^5s^2(1+s)^5}$[]{data-label="fig:cisnienie"}](./dens1_dens2_a4.png "fig:"){width="41.00000%"}
To summarize the above discussion, a droplet is stable when its densities meet the following conditions: (i) the system has vanishing pressure, $p(n_1,n_2)=0$, Eq.(\[pressure\]), $$\frac{p}{(\sqrt{a_{11}a_{22}} n_1 n_2)} =\frac{1}{2} \left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{\xi}} - \sqrt{\xi} \right)^2 - \delta b+\frac{3}{2} c w \left( \frac{1}{\sqrt{\xi s}} + \sqrt{\xi s } \right)^{5/2}= 0$$ (ii) both chemical potentials are negative: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{limits1}
\frac{\mu_1}{ \sqrt{a_{11}a_{22}} n_2 } &=&
\left(\frac{1}{\xi} - 1\right) - \delta b + c \frac{5}{2} w \left( \sqrt{\xi s} + \frac{1}{\sqrt{\xi s}} \right)^{3/2} \frac{1}{\sqrt{\xi s}} < 0\\
\label{limits2}
\frac{\mu_2}{ \sqrt{a_{11}a_{22}} n_1 } &=&
- (1 - \xi) - \delta b + c \frac{5}{2} w \left( \sqrt{\xi s} + \frac{1}{\sqrt{\xi s}} \right)^{3/2} \sqrt{\xi s}
< 0\end{aligned}$$ where $w=\left( n_1a^3_{11}n_2 a^3_{22}\right)^{1/4}$. By expanding the above equations to leading order in the small parameter $\delta \xi=\xi -1 $ we get the equation corresponding to the $p=0$ isobar in the $n_1-n_2$ plane: $$\begin{aligned}
w=\left( n_1a^3_{11}n_2 a^3_{22}\right)^{1/4} = \frac{\delta b - \frac{1}{2} \delta \xi^2 }{ \frac{3}{2} c \left( \frac{1}{\sqrt{s}} + \sqrt{s } \right)^{5/2} }.\end{aligned}$$ Similar expansion allows for approximate but analytic determination of conditions limiting the region of stability of a quantum droplet with respect to evaporation, Eqs. (\[limits1\],\[limits2\]). The region of corresponding parameters forms a segment of $p=0$ isobar where the ratio of densities are limited as follows: $$\label{stability}
- 1 + \frac{5}{3} \frac{s}{1 + s } < -\frac{\delta \xi}{\delta b} < 1 - \frac{5}{3} \frac{1 }{1 + s }.$$
Finally we want to address the solution to the problem of stability of an infinite homogeneous two-component system as presented in [@Rakshit19; @Rakshit19low]. In this case only intensive quantities make sense. These are the energy densities and pressure. The stability problem in such a case should be defined as a problem of finding a constrained minimum of the energy density. The imposed constraint is a vanishing pressure. This condition ensures that locally there are no net internal forces acting on a fictitious surface inside the bulk of a droplet. This is the same condition which fixes the volume of a finite homogeneous droplet, Eq.(\[pressure\]).
Additionally, at a minimum of energy density $\varepsilon(n_1,n_2)$ any infinitesimally small variation of densities cannot change the energy density: $$d\varepsilon = \mu_1 dn_1+\mu_2 dn_2 =0
\label{min_e}$$ On the contour $p(n_1,n_2)=0$ variations of both densities $dn_1$ and $d n_2$ are not independent. The following condition is met, $dp=\frac{\partial p}{\partial n_1} dn_1+\frac{\partial p}{\partial n_2}dn_2=0$. Combining this condition with Eq.(\[min\_e\]) we get the following equation for the minimum of energy density, $\epsilon(n_1,n_2)$, on the contour $p=\mu_1 n_1+\mu_2 n_2 -\varepsilon = 0$: $$\label{debraj_cond}
\mu_1 \frac{\partial p}{\partial n_2} - \mu_2 \frac{\partial p}{\partial n_1}=0$$
Again, expressing derivatives of pressure contributing to the above equation in terms of $\xi$ and expanding Eq.(\[debraj\_cond\]) in the small parameter $\delta \xi$ around the value $\xi =1$ we get the approximate solution for densities in a stationary droplet state as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{debraj}
\frac{\delta \xi}{\delta b} = \frac{1-s}{1+s}\end{aligned}$$ Let us stress that this solution gives densities which meet the stability criteria defined here. Independently of the value of the parameter $s$ the Eq.(\[debraj\_cond\]) predicts droplet densities very close to the center of the stability region. This solution is marked by a green dot in Fig. (\[fig:cisnienie\]). We rewrite both approximate formulae for ratio of droplet densities, Eq.(\[hard\_mode\]) and Eq.(\[debraj\]), in a form allowing for their direct comparison. The solution based on Eq. (\[hard\_mode\]) gives $n_1=n^0_1$, $n_2=n^0_2$ and: $$\label{petrov}
\delta \xi = \left(\frac{n_1}{n^0_1}-\frac{n_2}{n^0_2}\right) = 0.$$ Eq.(\[debraj\]) based on the criterion of Ref. [@Rakshit19; @Rakshit19low] is simply: $$\label{debraj2}
\delta \xi = \left(\frac{n_1}{n^0_1}-\frac{n_2}{n^0_2}\right) = \delta b \left( \frac{1-s}{1+s}\right).$$ Evidently both formulae are equivalent if intraspecies interactions are equal $s=1$. Note that the right hand side of Eq.(\[debraj2\]) confirms the contribution of hard mode excitations to the densities of a stable droplet. This contribution is small as it is proportional to the small parameter $\delta b$. However, the situation is different for $s>3/2$. Then the standard result $\delta \xi = 0$ given by Eq. (\[petrov\]) is outside the stability region given by Eq.(\[stability\]). Thus, for sufficiently strong asymmetric intraspecies interaction the standard solution does not support a stable droplet.
![The total energy as a function of the number of particles in every component for unequal intraspecies interaction, $s=\sqrt{2}$. Left panel: Coloured region corresponds to such a composition of the mixture for which $p=0$ condition can be met. The isobar $p=0$ shown in Fig.(\[fig:cisnienie\]) becomes here the interior of the angular region given by Eq.(\[volume+\]). White lines indicate the edges of the zone of stable droplets where $\mu_1<0,\mu_2<0$. The rectangle at the center indicates the region which we zoom-in in the right panel. Right panel: Zoom of the energy landscape in $N_1-N_2$ plane. It illustrate adiabatic evolution of two initial states $(N_1^{ini},N_2^{ini})$ marked by black dots. Evolution towards the state of minimal possible energy constrained by initial atoms’ numbers cannot have any positive-valued gradient component of the chemical potential vector $(\mu_1,\mu_2)$. The withe arrows show a trajectories towards the final state $(N_1^{fin},N_2^{fin})$ (red dots) of lowest possible energy for the assumed arrangement. Note please that only edges of the stability region can be reached. Getting into the interior of this region requires increasing of number of atoms of one kind at least. On the contrary, all systems having initially the number of particles corresponding to the area between white lines is stable against small perturbations. The number of atoms is expressed in convenient units of Ref. [@Petrov15]. Therefore, ’the real’ number of atoms is equal to $N_r=N\cdot n_{10}\tilde{r}^3\approx N\cdot6300$, where $\tilde{r}=\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}\frac{s+1}{4\pi|\delta a|n_{10}}}$ is the length unit[]{data-label="fig:energia"}](./energia_N1_N2_a2.png "fig:"){width="40.00000%"} ![The total energy as a function of the number of particles in every component for unequal intraspecies interaction, $s=\sqrt{2}$. Left panel: Coloured region corresponds to such a composition of the mixture for which $p=0$ condition can be met. The isobar $p=0$ shown in Fig.(\[fig:cisnienie\]) becomes here the interior of the angular region given by Eq.(\[volume+\]). White lines indicate the edges of the zone of stable droplets where $\mu_1<0,\mu_2<0$. The rectangle at the center indicates the region which we zoom-in in the right panel. Right panel: Zoom of the energy landscape in $N_1-N_2$ plane. It illustrate adiabatic evolution of two initial states $(N_1^{ini},N_2^{ini})$ marked by black dots. Evolution towards the state of minimal possible energy constrained by initial atoms’ numbers cannot have any positive-valued gradient component of the chemical potential vector $(\mu_1,\mu_2)$. The withe arrows show a trajectories towards the final state $(N_1^{fin},N_2^{fin})$ (red dots) of lowest possible energy for the assumed arrangement. Note please that only edges of the stability region can be reached. Getting into the interior of this region requires increasing of number of atoms of one kind at least. On the contrary, all systems having initially the number of particles corresponding to the area between white lines is stable against small perturbations. The number of atoms is expressed in convenient units of Ref. [@Petrov15]. Therefore, ’the real’ number of atoms is equal to $N_r=N\cdot n_{10}\tilde{r}^3\approx N\cdot6300$, where $\tilde{r}=\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}\frac{s+1}{4\pi|\delta a|n_{10}}}$ is the length unit[]{data-label="fig:energia"}](./energia2_N1_N2_a2.png "fig:"){width="40.00000%"}
The results are illustrated in Fig.(\[fig:cisnienie\]) where we show the stability diagram in a plane of atomic densities, $n_1$ and $n_2$. For comparison we present the two cases: $s=\sqrt{2}$ and $s=2$. The $p=0$ isobar has the form of a closed loop originating at the center of the coordinate system – see inset in Fig.(\[fig:cisnienie\]). The region which is stable with respect to atom losses, ($\mu_1,\mu_2\leq0$), Eqs.(\[limits1\],\[limits2\]), is located close to the tip of the loop which we zoom-in in the main frame. This is the part of the isobar marked in blue. By green dot we mark the solution corresponding to the global minimum of an infinite system as suggested in [@Rakshit19; @Rakshit19low] and given by Eq.(\[debraj\]). This result is well in the stable part of the diagram regardless the interactions. The standard solution of [@Petrov15], Eq.(\[hard\_mode\]), is indicated by a black dot. We stress that when the disproportion of intraspecies interactions is too large ($s=2$) the standard solution of Ref.[@Petrov15] is out of the stability region.
In the last part of the paper we go back to the problem which was the inspiration for our study. We address the question asked at the beginning of this work, i.e. we are going to show which is a minimal energy state which can be reached having to the disposal $N_1^{ini}$ atoms of the first kind and $N_2^{ini}$ atoms of the second kind allowing for throwing away some of them.
The solution to this problem is illustrated in Fig.(\[fig:energia\]) which shows the total energy of the system $E(N_1,N_2,V(N_1,N_2)) = V(N_1,N_2) \varepsilon(N_1/V,N_2/V)$ in the plane of extensive quantities $N_1,N_2$. If one has initially the two component mixture with $(N_1^{ini},N_2^{ini})$ atoms then the droplet formed would be in general a mixture of $(N_1^{fin},N_2^{fin})$ atoms of both kinds. To find the droplet of the lowest energy among all possible final states all droplets composed with number of atoms limited by the initial values, $N_1^{fin} \leq N_1^{ini}$ and $N_2^{fin} \leq N_2^{ini}$ we directly examine the region of energies in the relevant rectangular domain in $N_1-N_2$ plane: $$\begin{aligned}
0 \leq N_1 \leq N_1^{ini},\\
0 \leq N_2 \leq N_2^{ini}.\end{aligned}$$
In Fig. (\[fig:energia\]) the initial composition of droplet is marked by a black dot. White vertical and horizontal arrows point to the final states $(N_1^{fin},N_2^{fin})$ which minimize the energy constrained according to the previous discussion. We consider two situations. The first one is that $N_2^{ini}/N_1^{ini}$ is so large that $- \delta\xi/\delta b > 1-5/3(1/(1+s))$, i.e. the second component of the mixture is strongly excessive one. In such a case the atoms simply evaporate until the system reaches the boundary of the stable region, vertical arrow in figure. It is worth mentioning that the number of minority atoms is conserved. Further evaporation stops when the border of the stability sector is reached. This is because total energy is an extensive quantity and although chemical potential (inside this area) becomes more negative, total energy grows.
The second case shown in Fig.(\[fig:energia\]) relates to the situation where the first component dominates, i.e. if $- \delta\xi/\delta b < -1+5/3(s/(1+s))$. The the scenario described above repeats. Excessive atoms of the first component evaporate, while the number of atoms in the second component remains constant (horizontal white arrow in figure). This process stops while reaching the border of the stable sector.
If initially the system is prepared in the stable zone, i.e. in the area limited by the two white lines in Fig.(\[fig:energia\]) it will not evaporate atoms at all.
We have to add that all presented discussion is based on the stability analysis and no any time dynamics was considered at all. Therefore all our conclusions, in particular these invoking dynamic processes such as evaporation, implicitly assume that the system remains at equilibrium and adiabatically follows the state determined by external parameters and temporal number of atoms. For the same reason we are not able to discuss such a situation when initial number of atoms is outside the entire coloured angular sector in Fig.(\[fig:energia\]). This is the unstable sector and the way the instability develops depends on the details of dynamics. Only dynamical studies of the process of formation of the droplet might give the state of droplet formed eventually.
Conclusions {#conclusions .unnumbered}
===========
In this paper we specified stability conditions for a self-bound two-component droplet. They are not related to any particular form of the energy density functional, and are therefore valid not only for Bose-Bose but also Bose-Fermi mixtures. The case of Bose-Bose droplets was studied carefully. In contrast to the standard solution of Ref.[@Petrov15] we show that the stable droplets’ densities, for fixed values of interactions strengths, can take values from some finite range of parameters, thus there is no unique droplet solution. This regime of allowed densities is however rather small and deviations from the standard solution are limited particularly for similar strengths of intraspecies interactions. In a limit of large droplets, when kinetic energy can be neglected, we found very useful analytic expression for the boundaries of the stability zone. We have shown that if the intraspecies interactions are very different from each other then the prediction of Ref.[@Petrov15] is out of the stability sector.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
Authors acknowledge support from National Science Center (Polish)) grant No. 2017/25/B/ST2/01943.
Author contributions statement {#author-contributions-statement .unnumbered}
==============================
P.Z., M.P., and M.G. equally contributed to the idea of the paper and discussions of results. P.Z found analytic results. M.P. led numerical calculations and prepared the figures and M.G formulated the problem and supervised the project. All authors participated in writing and reviewed the manuscript.
Additional information {#additional-information .unnumbered}
======================
Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Many-body quantum systems present a rich phenomenology which can be significantly altered when they are in contact with an environment. In order to study such setups, a number of approximations are usually performed, either concerning the system, the environment, or both. A typical approach for large quantum interacting systems is to use master equations which are local, Markovian, and in Lindblad form. Here, we present an implementation of the Redfield master equation using matrix product states and operators. We show that this allows us to explore parameter regimes of the many-body quantum system and the environment which could not be probed with previous approaches based on local Lindblad master equations. We also show the validity of our results by comparing with the numerical exact thermofield-based chain-mapping approach.'
author:
- Xiansong Xu
- Juzar Thingna
- Chu Guo
- Dario Poletti
title: 'Many-body open quantum systems beyond Lindblad master equations'
---
\[Sec:intro\] Introduction
==========================
In quantum systems, interactions can induce phases of matter with peculiar properties [@SachdevBook]. While it is still a very demanding task to understand the ground-state properties of strongly correlated quantum systems, the study of many-body quantum systems in contact with an environment is a much less explored territory. In this case the environment can significantly alter the properties of the system, either suppressing desired properties or enhancing them [@DiehlZoller2008; @MullerZoller2012]. For example, the environment can induce dephasing in a system, thus forcing it to lose coherence or to alter or suppress its localization properties [@FischerAltman2016; @LeviGarrahan2016; @EverestLevi2016; @ZnidaricGoold2016; @ZnidaricVarma2016; @MedvedyevaZnidaric2016; @VanNieuwenburgFischer2017; @XuPoletti2018; @VakulchykDenisov2017]. On the other hand, a bath, especially if carefully tailored, can be used to favor condensation [@DiehlZoller2008; @DiehlZoller2010] or exotic phases of matter in the steady state [@MullerZoller2012] or for long times [@BernierKollath2013; @ShiraiMiyashita2016]. The interplay of strong interaction and dissipation has also been shown to result in nontrivial relaxation regimes, from power law [@PolettiKollath2012; @CaiBarthel2012] to stretched exponentials [@LeviGarrahan2016; @EverestLevi2016; @PolettiKollath2013] and aging [@SciollaKollath2015]. For a review on some aspects of many-body open quantum systems one can refer to [@Daley2014]. The study of such systems is, however, limited by approximations needed to treat the many-body quantum system and to model the environment and its interaction with the system itself.
The difficulty of studying many-body quantum systems (even when isolated from the environment) stems from the fact that a many-body wave function lives in a space which grows exponentially with the system size. Hence, simulation of such systems would be computationally expensive, even for a few tens of sites. Over the years, various numerical methods have been developed to study such systems, from mean-field [@Gutzwiller1963; @Gutzwiller1964; @Gutzwiller1965; @FisherFisher1989; @RoksharKotliar1991; @JakschZoller1998] to dynamical mean-field theory [@MetznerVollhardt1989; @GeorgesKotliar; @GeorgesRozenberg1996] and quantum Monte Carlo [@SenatoreMarch1994; @Ceperley1995; @FoulkesRajagopal2001]. Another family of methods uses tensor networks [@Schollwock2005; @VerstraeteCirac2008; @Schollwock2011; @Orus2014], especially for one-dimensional systems where they are commonly known as matrix product states (MPSs). In this scenario, tensor network algorithms are implemented in different flavors to search for ground states [@White1992] and to compute time evolutions [@WhiteFeguin2004; @Vidal2004; @DaleyVidal2004; @VerstraeteCirac2004; @ZwolakVidal2004].
For open quantum systems the computational complexity grows further. In fact, density matrices are described in a space which is the square of that of wave functions. Moreover, the environments need to be modeled appropriately for an accurate description of dissipative effects. For weak system-environment coupling, it is possible to derive various master equations under different assumptions [@GardinerZoller2000; @PetruccioneBreuer2002; @DeVegaAlonso2017].
Current studies of large many-body open quantum systems mostly rely on master equations in Lindblad form [@GoriniSudarshan1976; @Lindblad1976] due to its ease of implementation and computation. In addition, to study large systems, further assumptions on the locality of operators used are required in order to remove the time dependence in the dissipator. However, they may not produce physical results even for weak system-environment coupling [@Wichterich2007; @Purkayastha2016; @XuThingnaWang2017; @LevyKosloff2014], and this is motivating recent research [@RivasPlenio2010; @TrushechkinVolovich2016; @GonzalezAdesso2017; @HoferBrunner2017; @Rivas2017; @MitchisonPlenio2018; @WerlangValente2014]. To go beyond the local system operator assumption, one could opt for master equations with a global system operator. Unfortunately, however, these master equations usually work in the eigenbasis where the full energy spectra are required, making it difficult to simulate large quantum systems. Hence, it has not been shown how to simulate large many-body quantum systems with master equations that go beyond the local Lindblad approach. Due to these constraints, a large variety of many-body open quantum systems still remain unexplored.
Here we show how to realize the Redfield master equation RME, which goes beyond the limits of local Lindblad master equations, by using matrix product states and operators to study larger many-body quantum systems. As an application, we consider an XXZ spin chain with its center site coupled to a thermal bath, and we show the system’s response to the thermal bath by analyzing the local magnetization and correlation propagation. We also demonstrate that this approach goes beyond various Lindblad master equation approaches and is consistent with the numerical exact thermofield-based chain-mapping approach [@deVegaBanuls2015].
This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \[Sec:frame\], we give a general form of the Redfield master equation that can be studied via matrix product state and briefly discuss other types of quantum master equations. In Sec. \[Sec:RMEMPS\], we propose a possible implementation of the Redfield master equation with matrix product states and operators. As a demonstration of the implementation, we study the dynamics of a spin-1/2 Heisenberg XXZ model described in Sec. \[Sec:model\]. In \[Sec:results\], we show the supremacy of the proposed implementation by comparing to the conventional approach as well as Lindblad master equations. We further show the consistency between our implementation and the numerical exact thermofield-based chain-mapping approach described in Appendix \[App:tcmps\]. Detailed discussions on the numerical errors of these implementations are presented in Appendix \[App:error\].
\[Sec:frame\] Framework
=======================
We consider a time-independent total Hamiltonian $H_{\rm tot}$ including both the system and bath $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\rm tot} = H_{\rm S} + H_{\rm B} + S\otimes B, \end{aligned}$$ where $H_{\rm S}$ is the Hamiltonian of the system under consideration, $H_{\rm B}$ is the bath Hamiltonian, and the interaction between system and bath is given by $ S\!\otimes \! B$, where $S$ acts on the system while $B$ acts on the bath. Assuming the system-bath coupling to be weak, and that the initial global density matrix of the system and bath $\rho_{\rm tot}(0)$ is in a separable form $\rho_{\rm tot}(0)\approx \rho(0)\otimes \rho_B$ where the reduced density matrix $\rho(0)$ describes the system while $\rho_B$ is a thermal Gibbs state for the bath at temperature $T$, it is possible to derive a master equation for the evolution of $\rho(t)$ given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\frac{\partial \rho{\left(t\right)}}{\partial t}}=&-{{\mathrm{i}}}{\left[{{H_\mathrm{S}}},{\rho{\left(t\right)}}\right]}+{\mathcal{R}^{t}\left[\rho{{\left(t\right)}}\right]},
\label{eq:rme}\end{aligned}$$ which is also known as the Redfield master equation (RME) [@Redfield1957]. Here the first term on the right-hand side describes the unitary evolution due to the system Hamiltonian. The dissipation due to the bath is described by a time-dependent superoperator $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:relaxation}
{\mathcal{R}^{t}\left[~\cdot~\right]}=& {\left[{\mathbb{S}{\left(t\right)}~\cdot~},{S}\right]}+{\left[{S},{~\cdot~\mathbb{S}^\dagger{\left(t\right)} }\right]}, \\
\mathbb{S}{\left(t\right)}=&\int^{t}_0 \tilde{S}{\left(-\tau\right)}C{\left(\tau\right)} d\tau,
\label{eq:transition}\end{aligned}$$ with $\tilde{S}{\left(\tau\right)}={\mathrm{e}}^{{\mathrm{i}}{H_\mathrm{S}}\tau}S{\mathrm{e}}^{-{\mathrm{i}}{H_\mathrm{S}}\tau}$, while the bath correlation function is $C{\left(\tau\right)}={\rm tr}\!\left(e^{{\mathrm{i}}H_B \tau} B e^{-{\mathrm{i}}H_B \tau} \; B \;\rho_B\right)$. Note that we work in units such that $J=\hbar=k_B=1$, where $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant.
To simulate quantum dynamics by using Eq. (\[eq:rme\]), one would typically diagonalize the system Hamiltonian $H_{\rm S}$ and express the terms of (\[eq:relaxation\]) in the energy eigenbasis. Such an approach strongly limits the size of the systems that can be studied. For the long time dynamics or steady states, one could evolve the system under a time-independent dissipator ${\mathcal{R}^{\infty}\left[~\cdot~\right]}$ with the transition operator $\mathbb{S}(\infty)$. For clarity, we refer to it as the time-independent Redfield master equation (iRME), in contrast to the time-dependent one in Eq. (\[eq:rme\]).
In order to investigate larger systems, Lindblad master equations with short range operators are typically used. The advantage of such a master equations is that they can be simulated very effectively with MPS algorithms, either using a trajectory method [@MolmerDalibard1992; @Daley2014] or the purification of the density matrix [@VerstraeteCirac2004]. A common microscopic derived Lindblad master equation with local operators relies on the local Hamiltonian approximation and a high-temperature condition [@Wichterich2007], and it is known as the local Lindblad master equation (LLME). In this case, the transition operator $\mathbb{S}(\infty)$ is governed by an approximated local system Hamiltonian (i.e., with intersite coupling terms ignored).
Another archetypal approximation is to take the singular coupling limit master equation (SCME) [@GoriniKossakowski1976; @Palmer1977]. In this limit, the correlation function is approximated as $C\left(\tau\right)\approx 2a\delta\left(\tau\right)$, where $a$ depends on the bath model. The corresponding transition operator $\mathbb{S}(\infty)$ then reduces to $aS$ and as a result, the dissipator ${\mathcal{R}^{\infty}\left[~\cdot~\right]}$ becomes local and in Lindblad form too, thus allowing efficient evolution with MPSs.
![Illustration of the MPO representation of $\mathbb{S}(t)$ and $\mathcal{R}^t$. Starting from the system-bath coupling operator $S$ we evaluate $\mathbb{S}(t)$ via Eq. (\[eq:transition\]) and $\mathcal{R}^t$ via Eq. (\[eq:relaxation\]). At site $l$ the physical indices of the MPO tensor for $\mathbb{S}$ are $\tau_l$ and $\tau_l'$, while the auxiliary indices are $\alpha_l$ and $\alpha_{l+1}$. For $\mathcal{R}^t$ the tensor at site $l$ has physical indices given by the tuples $(\tau_l, \tau_l')$ for the input and $(\kappa_l, \kappa_l')$ for the output, while the auxiliary indices are $\alpha'_l$ and $\alpha'_{l+1}$. []{data-label="fig:Fig1"}](Fig1){width="\columnwidth"}
\[Sec:RMEMPS\]Redfield dynamics with matrix product states
==========================================================
In order to accurately compute the evolution of a many-body open quantum system, it would be useful to develop a way to compute Eq. (\[eq:rme\]) with MPSs, which would allow one to significantly increase the size of the systems currently studied by diagonalizing the system Hamiltonian $H_{\rm S}$. In the following we explain how this can be done. It is possible to describe wave functions and density matrices, even exactly, as a product of tensors [@Schollwock2011] with three indices, one for the physical dimension (e.g., of the size of the local Hilbert space), and two auxiliary dimensions (of a maximum size called the bond dimension $D$). Operators acting on a state can be described by linear maps from MPS to MPS, which are called matrix product operators (MPOs). An MPO is a tensor with four indices, one for the input and one for the output physical dimensions, and two auxiliary dimensions of maximum size $D_W$ (the MPO bond dimension). We first rewrite the system density matrix $\rho(t)$ as an MPS [@VerstraeteCirac2004] and the operators acting on it as MPOs. The MPO representing $S$ is then evolved in time to obtain $\tilde{S}(\tau)$ using a Trotter decomposition at second order. The convolution in Eq. (\[eq:transition\]) to compute $\mathbb{S}$ is evaluated subsequently using Romberg integration. The algorithm to evaluate $\mathcal{R}^t$ is described pictorially in Fig. \[fig:Fig1\]. After having obtained $\mathcal{R}^t$ we can use the Runge-Kutta method to evolve $\rho(t)$ using Eq. (\[eq:rme\]) [@details]. We should here comment on the simulability of the evolved and convoluted MPO for the time evolution of the density operator represented by an MPS. In general, for time evolution one can either evolve the state, the operators, or a mixture of both. In practice, when using tensor networks, the best approach depends on the system studied. For instance, an evolution in the Heisenberg picture can be chosen both for isolated [@MullerHermesBanuls2012; @MuthFleischhauer2011] and open systems [@HartmannPlenio2009; @PizornTroyer2014; @KarraschMoore2012]. However, in general, the time evolution of an operator may require an exponentially increasing amount of memory. In our case, and for the times considered, the decay of the correlations in the bath helps in representing accurately the evolution dynamics of the system while using MPOs of manageable size. For more details on the convergence of numerical simulations, see Appendix \[App:rmemps-error\].
\[Sec:model\] Model
===================
The methods described above could be applied to a broad range of physical systems. Here we consider a spin-$1/2$ Heisenberg XXZ spin chain with $(2L+1)$ sites, with $$\begin{aligned}
{H_\mathrm{S}}=\!\!\sum_{l=-L}^{L-1}\left[J\left({\sigma}^{x}_l {\sigma}^x_{l+1}+{\sigma}^y_l {\sigma}^y_{l+1}\right)+\Delta{\sigma}^z_l{\sigma}^z_{l+1}\right]+h\!\!\sum_{l=-L}^{L}{\sigma}^z_l, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $h$ is a uniform magnetic field, and the elements of ${\sigma}_l^\alpha$ are given by the Pauli matrices for $\alpha=x,\;y$, or $z$. $J$ and $\Delta$ denote the tunneling strength and interaction strength, respectively [@hfield]. The central site ($l=0$) of the spin chain is coupled to a harmonic oscillator bath, with bath Hamiltonian $H_B=\sum^\infty_{n=1}\left[\frac{p_n^2}{2m_n}+\frac{m_n\omega_n^2 x_n^2}{2}\right]$, through the system operator $S={\sigma}^x_0$ and $B=-\sum^\infty_{n=1}c_n x_n$, where $c_n$ is the system-bath coupling constant for the $n-$th mode. The bath properties can be characterized by the spectral function ${\rm J}(\omega)$ [@spectral]. In the following, we consider an Ohmic bath with an exponential cutoff, i.e., ${\rm J}(\omega)=\gamma \omega\exp{(-\omega/\omega_{\rm c})}$ [@DeVegaAlonso2017; @spectral], and where $\gamma (\propto\sum_n c_n^2)$ is the dissipation strength. It also follows that in the singular coupling limit the prefactor $a=\gamma T$. We consider a system with 21 sites, i.e., $L=10$, which cannot be simulated via conventional Redfield master equation approaches ($L\approx 4$, that is, 9-10 sites at most). As an initial condition we choose a fully polarized initial state $\ket{\Psi_0}=\ket{\downarrow\downarrow\downarrow\cdots\downarrow\downarrow\downarrow}$, which is an eigenstate of the system Hamiltonian and it evolves only due to the coupling to the bath.
![(a) Contour plot of $\langle \sigma^z_l \rangle$ with Redfield master equation (\[eq:rme\]). (b) Local magnetization profile for times $t=0$, $0.5$, $1$, $1.5$, $2$, $2.5$ (darker lines for larger times). (c) $\sqrt{\braket{d^2}}$ as a function of time from Eq. (\[eq:rme\]) (red solid lines), for sizes $5$, $9$, $13$, and $21$ (darker lines for larger systems). Other parameters: $\Delta=5$, $h=0.5$, $\omega_{\rm c}=20$, $T=2$, $\gamma=0.02$. []{data-label="fig:fig2"}](Fig2){width="\columnwidth"}
\[Sec:results\] Results
=======================
In Fig. \[fig:fig2\](a) we show the open system dynamics for the fully polarized state $\ket{\Psi_0}$ (the white dotted line depicts a linear propagation). This is expressed more clearly in Fig. \[fig:fig2\](b), which shows cuts, at different times, of panel (a). For a more quantitative analysis we study the variance of the spreading of the magnetization, given by $$\begin{aligned}
\braket{d^2} = \sum_l \braket{{\sigma}^{u}_l} l^2 \; / \; \sum_l \braket{{\sigma}^{u}_l} , \end{aligned}$$ where ${\sigma}^{u}_l={\sigma}^+_l {\sigma}^-_l$ with ${\sigma}^\pm_l=({\sigma}_l^x\pm{\rm i}{\sigma}_l^y)/2$. The evolution of $\sqrt{\braket{d^2}}$ is linear due to the fact that an excitation, after it is introduced by the bath, propagates ballistically. For the dissipative evolution we have considered different system sizes so as to show how quickly finite-size effects can play an important role and limit the predictive power.
![Evolution of local magnetization $\langle{\sigma}^z_0\rangle$, panels (a,c,e) and real part of the long distance correlation $\braket{{\sigma}^+_{-5}{\sigma}^-_{5}}$, panels (b,d,f) as functions of time. The evolutions are computed using RME (red solid lines), SCME (green dotted lines) ,and LLME (blue dashed lines) master equations. Panels (a,b) are for $T=0.2$, (c,d) are for $T=2$, and (e,f) are for $T=5$. Other parameters: $\Delta=0.5$, $h=0.5$, $\omega_{\rm c}=20$, $\gamma=0.02$.[]{data-label="fig:fig3"}](Fig3){width="\columnwidth"}
![Local magnetization $\braket{{\sigma}^z_{0}}$ vs time $t$ (a) for different interactions $\Delta= 0.5,\; 1.5,\; 3,\; 5$ at $\omega_{\rm c}=20$ or (b) for different cut-off frequencies $\omega_{\rm c}= 1,\; 5,\;10,\;15$ at $\Delta=0.5$, computed from RME (red solid lines with color gradient), SCME (green dotted lines), and LLME (blue dashed lines) for $21$ sites with $\gamma=0.02$. Darker colors imply larger interactions or cut-off frequencies. In all panels, $T=2$. The squares in panels (a) and (b) correspond to the numerically exact TCMPS approach. The parameters used for the TCMPS approach can be referred to Appendix \[App:tcmps-error\]](Fig4){width="\columnwidth"}
. \[fig:fig4\]
We now compare the results of our approach to those of the LLME and SCME. We study two quantities, the local magnetization in the center $\braket{{\sigma}^z_{0}}$, Figs. \[fig:fig3\](a), \[fig:fig3\](c), and \[fig:fig3\](e), and the correlation between two distant sites $\braket{{\sigma}^+_{-5}{\sigma}^-_{5}}$, Figs. \[fig:fig3\](b), \[fig:fig3\](d), and \[fig:fig3\](f), for different bath temperatures $T$. For low temperatures, Fig. \[fig:fig3\](a) and \[fig:fig3\](b), the dynamics of the Lindblad master equations (dashed blue line for LLME and green dotted line for SCME) is much slower than the more accurate RME (red continuous line). In fact, the derivation of both LLME and SCME requires a high-temperature approximation. As $T$ increases, the curves approach each other, but even for $T=5$, while the evolution is similar, the difference between the various Lindblad master equations and RME is sizable.
It is important to probe the performance of these master equations for varying many-body interaction strength $\Delta$. In Fig. \[fig:fig4\](a) we show the local magnetization $\langle \sigma_0^z \rangle$ versus time as we vary $\Delta$. We observe that the Redfield dynamics is strongly affected by $\Delta$ (red continuous lines from light to dark as $\Delta$ increases); however, the evolution of both Lindblad master equations (green dotted curves for SCME and blue dashed lines for LLME) does not vary significantly with $\Delta$ but changes only in the shaded regions. This implies that these Lindblad master equations are unable to accurately capture the effect of strong interaction, effectively approximating the many-body physics in this system.
We also study the effect of bath cutoff frequency $\omega_{\rm c}$, which modifies how different energy levels are coupled to the bath. In Fig. \[fig:fig4\](b) we show $\langle \sigma_0^z \rangle$ as a function of $t$ for various cut-off frequencies $\omega_{\rm c}$. The SCME cannot probe the differences in $\omega_{\rm c}$, and in fact, there is a single green dotted line. The LLME can vary with $\omega_{\rm c}$, but it is not accurately reproducing the RME, even in the weak interaction regime. In particular, even for a highly Markovian environment (i.e., dark red), the LLME shows a strong deviation from RME (see Appendix \[App:rme\] for more details).
We benchmark the Redfield dynamics with a *numerically exact* thermofield-based chain-mapping approach with MPS (TCMPS). The scheme evolves the total Hamiltonian $H_{\rm tot}$ that comprises the system and the bath. The TCMPS approach contains four main ingredients: (i) discretization of the bath with respect to its spectral density. (ii) Thermofield transformation that allows one to exactly map the effect of a finite-temperature bath to that of two zero-temperature baths. (iii) Star-to-chain mapping to ensure that the baths are mapped to linear chains. (iv) An MPS implementation to evolve the total Hamiltonian of the system plus baths. This approach was first introduced and rigorously tested in [@deVegaBanuls2015; @deVegaSchollwock2015] and also used in [@GuoPoletti2017; @CascioDeVega2018]. More details on the method and relevant convergence tests can be found in Appendix \[App:tcmps-error\]. It should be pointed out, however, that the method is restricted to finite times due to the finiteness of the bath. Before the boundary is reached, the finite bath mimics an infinite reservoir, allowing us to compare it with our Redfield implementation. The results for the Redfield (solid lines) and the TCMPS (open squares) match exactly for the entire duration of the evolution considered herein, as seen in Fig. \[fig:fig4\], validating our Redfield implementation and establishing its correctness over the results from the Lindblad master equations.
\[Sec:conclusion\] Conclusions
==============================
We have presented an implementation of the Redfield master equations using MPS and MPO. Unlike the conventional approach that requires the full eigenenergy spectrum, the MPS/MPO-based method allows us to probe the dynamics of large many-body open quantum systems. We have compared results from the Redfield master equation to typical master equations in Lindblad form which can be computed efficiently for large systems, and we have shown that those Lindblad master equations fail to capture the dynamics as the Redfield master equation can. Moreover, the time dependence in the evolution equations of our approach do not come at an additional cost and in most of the regimes it is computationally cheaper than the time-independent counterpart. The approach is thus robust, and the current algorithm can be readily extended to the study of multiple baths, different types of couplings, or even systems with time-dependent Hamiltonians.
More work would be needed to increase the efficiency of the code, especially in terms of memory requirements, for example, using different evolution or integration schemes. Systematic comparison to the TCMPS approach, or to finite-time unitary evolution with small baths (see, e.g., [@MascarenhasSavona2017]), which are valid also for strong system-bath coupling, would give important insights into the regime of validity of the weak-coupling approximation [@ThingnaWangHanggi2012; @ThingnaWangHanggi2013].
The possibility of studying accurately the open dynamics of many-body quantum systems beyond Lindblad master equations leads to interesting opportunities in various directions, for instance, quantum thermodynamics and quantum transport.
\[Sec:acknowledge\] ACKNOWLEDGMENTS {#secacknowledge-acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===================================
D.P. acknowledges fruitful discussions with S. Maniscalco and K. Modi. D.P. and X.X. acknowledge support from the Ministry of Education of Singapore AcRF MOE Tier II (Project MOE2016-T2-1-065, WBS R-144-000-350-112). C.G. acknowledges support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grants No. 11504430 and No. 11805279. J.T. acknowledges support from the European Research Council project NanoThermo (ERC-2015-CoG Agreement No. 681456). This research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. NSF PHY-1748958. The computational work for this article was partially performed on resources of the National Supercomputing Centre, Singapore [@nscc].
\[App:tcmps\] Thermofield-based Chain-mapping Approach with Matrix Product States
=================================================================================
A detailed description of the [thermofield-based chain-mapping technique with matrix product states (TCMPS) to study many-body open quantum systems]{} can be found in Ref. [@deVegaBanuls2015]. Instead of studying the reduced dynamics of the system, the exact dynamics of the total composite system is investigated without perturbative treatments on the system-bath coupling strength. For our setup, we consider a [linearly discretized]{} bath with the frequency spacing given by $\Delta \omega = \omega_{\rm max} / N_{\rm max}$, where $\omega_{\rm max}$ is the numerical cutoff for the frequency of spectral density ${\rm J}(\omega)$ and $N_{\rm max}$ is the number of sites in the bath. The discretized bath Hamiltonian and system-bath coupling Hamiltonian are given by $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\rm B}^{\rm discrete} & = \sum^{N_{\rm max}}_{j=1} \omega_{j} b^\dagger_j b_j, \\
H_{\rm SB}^{\rm discrete}& = \sum^{N_{\rm max}}_{j=1}\sqrt{{\rm J}_j}\sigma^x_0 \left(b_j+b^\dagger_j\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $\omega_j=j\Delta\omega$ and ${\rm J}_j = \int^{\omega_{j+1}} _{\omega_j} d\omega {\rm J}(\omega)\approx {\rm J}(\omega_j)\Delta \omega$.
Via thermofield transformation, the finite-temperature bath is mapped to another environment of $2N_{\rm max}$ modes $a_{1,j}$ and $a_{2,j}$, but in a vacuum state [@deVegaBanuls2015]. The transformed bath Hamiltonian and system-bath coupling then become $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\rm B}^{\rm thermal} =& \sum^{N_{\rm max}}_{j=1} \omega_j\left(a^\dagger_{1,j}a_{1,j}-a^\dagger_{2,j}a_{2,j}\right), \\
H_{\rm SB}^{\rm thermal} =& \sum^{N_{\rm max}}_{j=1} g_{1,j}\sigma^x_0\left(a_{1,j}+a^\dagger_{1,j}\right) \nonumber\\
& + \sum^{N_{\rm max}}_{j=1}g_{2,j}\sigma^x_0\left(a_{2,j}+a^\dagger_{2,j}\right), \end{aligned}$$ where $g_{1,j} = \sqrt{{\rm J}_j[1+N(\omega_j)]}$ and $g_{2,j} = \sqrt{{\rm J}_j N(\omega_j)}$, with $N(\omega) = 1/[\exp{(\omega/T)}-1]$ for a harmonic oscillator bath. Since $\sigma^x_0$ is the operator that couples the system to the bath, we refer to it as the system operator.
The above form is the so-called star configuration, where all modes of the bath are coupled to the system. [However, such a configuration can be computationally inefficient to evolve numerically]{}. The star-to-chain mapping [@Wilson1975; @PriorPlenio2010; @ChinPlenio2010; @deVegaSchollwock2015] is then performed to transform the star configuration to a linear chain, which could be efficiently implemented with matrix product states, and which could be easier for a Trotter-expansion-based time evolution algorithm with matrix product states. The transformed Hamiltonians are $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\rm B}^{\rm chain} = & \sum_{k=1}^2 \sum^{N^\prime_{\rm max}}_{j=1} \Omega_{k,j} a^\dagger_{k,j}a_{k,j} \nonumber \\
& + \sum_{k=1}^2 \sum^{N^\prime_{\rm max}-1}_{j=1} \beta_{k,j} \left(a^\dagger_{k,j} a_{k,j+1} + a^\dagger_{k,j+1} a_{k,j}\right), \\
H_{\rm SB}^{\rm chain} & = \sum_{k=1}^2 \beta_{k,0}\sigma^x_0\left(a_{k,1}+a^\dagger_{k,1}\right), \end{aligned}$$ where we used $k$ to label the $N'_{\rm max} \le N_{\rm max}$ modes of two virtual baths $\Omega_{k,j}$, while the $\beta_{k,j}$ are generated via the Lanczos tridiagonalization of the discretized bath dispersion given by a diagonal matrix with elements, in increasing order, $\omega_1,\omega_2,\cdots,\omega_{N_{\rm max}}$. Here we emphasize that $N'_{\rm max}$ is the number of sites we kept in the transformed chain. The particular choice of $N'_{\rm max}$ could depend on the time scale of the simulation.
In summary, the discretized bath Hamiltonian has undergone the following transformation for efficient simulations: $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\rm B}^{\rm discrete} {\xrightarrow[\text{transformation}]{\text{thermofield}}} H_{\rm B} ^{\text{thermal}} {\xrightarrow[\text{mapping}]{\text{star-to-chain}}} H_{\rm B}^{\rm chain}. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
In Fig. 4 of the main paper we use for the wave function bond dimension $D_f=100$, and at each site we consider a local Hilbert space of at most $d=5$ levels. The numerical simulation is done using a second-order Suzuki-Trotter method with time step $dt=0.01$. We find that for Fig. 4 we can take $\omega_{\rm max}=60$, $N_{\rm max}=6000$, $N'_{\rm max}=300$, to ensure that the results are converged in all relevant parameter regimes.
\[App:error\] Numerical Error
=============================
\[App:rmemps-error\] Redfield Master Equation with MPS and MPO
--------------------------------------------------------------
Our numerical simulation relies on the truncation of the evolution of the system operator $\sigma^x_0$ as well as the density operator $\rho$. We perform the following error analysis by varying the bond dimension of the system operator and the bond dimension of the density operator. We first investigate the error due to truncation of the system operator. By using the parameters in Fig. 2, we check the results for the system operator with bond dimensions $D_W=15,\;30, \;45$, and $60$. From Fig. [\[fig:S1\]]{}(a), the dynamics show qualitative agreement for various bond dimensions. In Fig. [\[fig:S1\]]{}(b), we show the differences in results from different bond dimensions $D_W$ (i.e., between $60$ and $15$, $60$ and $30$, $60$ and $45$) . By keeping system operator bond dimension as $D_W=30$, the error of our results would be of the order of $10^{-4}$.
![(a) The dynamics of local magnetization of the central site $\Braket{\sigma_0^z}$ under various system operator bond dimensions $D_W=15$ (red dotted), $30$ (green dash-dotted), $45$ (orange dashed), and $60$ (blue solid). (b) The difference of the local magnetization for between bond dimension $D_W=60$ and $15$ (green dash-dotted), $60$ and $30$ (orange dashed), $60$ and $45$ (blue solid). The bond dimension of the density operator is $D=100$. Other parameters are consistent with Fig. 2 in the article.[]{data-label="fig:S1"}](Fig5){width="\columnwidth"}
For various bond dimensions $D$ of the density operator, the results are shown in Fig. \[fig:S2\]. The dynamics obtained via various density operator bond dimensions again show agreement with each other. The error is of the order of $10^{-4}$ when the density operator bond dimension is kept at $D=100$.
![(a) The dynamics of local magnetization of the central site $\Braket{\sigma_0^z}$ under various density operator bond dimensions $D=50$ (red dotted), $75$ (green dash-dotted), $100$ (orange dashed), $125$ (blue solid). (b) The difference of the local magnetization for between bond dimension $D=125$ and $50$ (green dash-dotted), $125$ and $75$ (orange dashed), $125$ and $100$ (blue solid). The bond dimension of the system operator is $D_W=30$. Other parameters are consistent with Fig. 2 in the article.[]{data-label="fig:S2"}](Fig6){width="\columnwidth"}
\[App:tcmps-error\] Thermofield-based Chain-mapping Approach with MPS
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In this section, we show the error for the TCMPS approach. Many parameters can be fine-tuned, for instance, the discretization of the spectral function, [the numerical frequency cutoff]{}, the Trotter evolution parameters, the size of the local Hilbert space, and the maximum bond dimension. Here we focus on the discretization of the bath and on the bond dimension. For the discretization of the bath, we first check the error with respect to the bath discretization parameters $\Delta \omega$ and $\omega_{\rm max}$.
By comparing the results of various numerical frequency cutoffs $\omega_{\rm max}=50$, $60$, $70$, $80$, it can be shown that the dynamics reach a good agreement in Fig. \[fig:S3\](a). A large numerical cutoff frequency $\omega_{\rm max} = 60$ is required due to the shape of the spectral function to obtain an error at the order of $10^{-4}$ as illustrated by Fig. \[fig:S3\](b).
![(a) The dynamics of local magnetization of the central site $\Braket{\sigma_0^z}$ under various numerical cutoff frequencies $\omega_{\rm max}=50$ (red dotted), 60 (green dash-dotted), 70 (orange dashed), 80 (blue solid). (b) The difference of the local magnetization between various numerical cutoff frequencies $\omega_{\rm max}$ 80 and 50 (green dash-dotted), 80 and 60 (orange dashed), 80 and 70 (blue solid). The bath discretization parameters are $\Delta\omega = 0.01$. The transformed chain size $N'_{\rm max}=300$ with local bath dimension $d=5$. The wave function bond dimension $D_f=100$. Other parameters are consistent with Fig. 2 in the article.[]{data-label="fig:S3"}](Fig7){width="\columnwidth"}
It follows that we would also need to consider the frequency spacing $\Delta \omega = 0.005$, $0.01$, $0.02$, $0.04$, which determines the $N_{\rm max}$ ranging from $12000$ to $1500$ with a fixed $\omega_{\rm max}=60$. By studying the dynamics in Fig. \[fig:S4\](a), the dynamics for frequency spacing $\Delta \omega$ cannot be resolved at $10^{-3}$. The errors are more quantitatively depicted in Fig. \[fig:S4\](b), where clear convergence can be observed when the frequency spacings are reduced. We have represented the difference between various bath sizes. In particular. Fig. \[fig:S4\](b) shows the difference $\Delta\langle\sigma^z_0\rangle$ between frequency spacings $\Delta\omega=0.005$ and $0.04$ (green dash-dotted), $0.005$ and $0.02$ (orange dashed), $0.005$ and $0.01$ (blue solid). In our simulation, by choosing $\Delta \omega=0.01$, the error would be at the order of $10^{-5}$.
![(a) The dynamics of local magnetization of the central site $\Braket{\sigma_0^z}$ under various frequency spacings $\Delta \omega$ = 0.04 (red dotted), 0.02 (green dash-dotted), 0.01 (orange dashed), 0.005 (blue solid). (b) The difference of the local magnetization between various frequency spacings, $\Delta \omega$, 0.005 and 0.04 (green dash-dotted), 0.005 and 0.02 (orange dashed), 0.005 and 0.01 (blue solid). The bath numerical cutoff frequency $\omega_{\rm max}=60$ and the transformed chain size $N'_{\rm max}$ are kept at 300 with local bath dimension $d=5$. The wave function bond dimension $D_f$=100. Other parameters are consistent with Fig. 2 in the article.[]{data-label="fig:S4"}](Fig8){width="\columnwidth"}
Last we examine the role of the wave function bond dimension $D_f$ kept, ranging from $50$ to $200$. Fig. \[fig:S5\](a) also reveals qualitative agreement between various bond dimensions, while Fig. \[fig:S5\](b) demonstrates the error convergence when the bond dimension increases.
![(a) The dynamics of local magnetization of the central site $\Braket{\sigma_0^z}$ under various wave function bond dimensions $D_f=50$ (red dotted), 100 (green dash-dotted), 150 (orange dashed), 200 (blue solid). (b) The difference of the local magnetization between bond dimensions $D_f=200$ and 50 (green dash-dotted) , 200 and 100 (orange dashed), 200 and 150 (blue solid). The bath discretization parameters are $N^\prime_{\rm max}=300$, $\Delta\omega = 0.01$, and $\omega_{\rm max} = 60$ with local bath dimension $d=5$. Other parameters are consistent with Fig. 2 in the article.[]{data-label="fig:S5"}](Fig9){width="\columnwidth"}
In the above simulation, we used a second-order Trotter time evolution with a time step of $0.01$, resulting in a relatively large error. This could be improved with a fourth-order Trotter method. However, increasing the accuracy of the method, or its time of validity, could require a sizable computing time.
\[App:rme\] Comparison between Redfield Master Equation and Time-independent Redfield Master Equation
=====================================================================================================
![The dynamics of local magnetization of the central site $\Braket{\sigma_0^z}$ vs time $t$ computed from RME (red solid lines) and iRME (purple filled circles) for (a) $\Delta$ = 0.5, $T=2$, $\omega_{\rm c}$=10, $\gamma$=0.02 and (b) $\Delta$ =0.5, $T=2$, $\omega_{\rm c}$=1, $\gamma=0.2$ for seven sites (faint colors) and nine sites (darker colors)[]{data-label="fig:S6"}](Fig10){width="\columnwidth"}
It is also important to point out that in the small $\omega_{\rm c}$ regime, the evolution due to the time-dependent RME cannot be approximated by the (time-independent) iRME. This is highlighted in Figs. \[fig:S6\](a) and \[fig:S6\](b), where results from RME (red solid lines) are compared to those of its time-independent approximation iRME, where $\mathcal{R}^{\infty}$ is used instead of $\mathcal{R}^{t}$ (purple circles). Here we consider systems with nine (darker lines or circles) or seven (lighter lines or circles) sites. In Fig. \[fig:S6\](a) we consider $\omega_{\rm c}=10$ and in Fig. \[fig:S6\](b) $\omega_{\rm c}=1$. For a large enough cutoff, panel (a), the predictions of RME and iRME are in agreement. For small cutoffs $\omega_{\rm c}$, panel (b), the finite time effects are stronger and the inaccuracy of the iRME more evident. This is due to the fact that at small frequencies the size of the system plays a bigger role. For the iRME the superoperator $\mathcal{R}^\infty$ would be quickly affected by the finite system size, while $\mathcal{R}^t$ would require some time before the finite-size effects were felt.
[10]{} S. Sachdev, [*Quantum Phase Transitions*]{}, Cambridge University Press (2011). S. Diehl, A. Micheli, A. Kantian, B. Kraus, H. P. Büchler, and P. Zoller, Nat. Phys. [**4**]{}, 878 (2008). M. Müller, S. Diehl, G. Pupillo, and P. Zoller, Adv. At. Mol. Opt. Phys. [**61**]{}, 1 (2012). M. H. Fischer, M. Maksymenko, and E. Altman, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**116**]{}, 160401 (2016). E. Levi, M. Heyl, I. Lesanovsky, and J. P. Garrahan, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**116**]{}, 237203 (2016). B. Everest, I. Lesanovsky, J. P. Garrahan, and E. Levi, Phys. Rev. B [**95**]{}, 024310 (2017). M. Žnidarič, J. J. Mendoza-Arenas, S. R. Clark, and J. Goold, Ann. Phys. (Berlin) [**529**]{}, 1600298 (2017). M. Žnidarič, A. Scardicchio, and V. K. Varma, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**117**]{}, 040601 (2016). M. V. Medvedyeva, T. Prosen, and M. Žnidarič, Phys. Rev. B [**93**]{}, 094205 (2016). E. P. L. van Nieuwenburg, J. Yago Malo, A. J. Daley, and M. H. Fischer, Quantum Sci. Technol. 3, 01LT02 (2018). X. Xu, C. Guo, and D. Poletti, Phys. Rev. B [**97**]{}, 140201 (2018). I. Vakulchyk, I. Yusipov, M. Ivanchenko, S. Flach, and S. Denisov, Phys. Rev. B [**98**]{}, 020202 (2018). S. Diehl, A. Tomadin, A. Micheli, R. Fazio, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**105**]{}, 015702 (2010). J.-S. Bernier, P. Barmettler, D. Poletti, and C. Kollath, Phys. Rev. A [**87**]{}, 063608 (2013). T. Shirai, J. Thingna, T. Mori, S. Denisov, P. Hänggi, and S. Miyashita, New J. Phys. [**18**]{}, 053008 (2016). D. Poletti, J.-S. Bernier, A. Georges, and C. Kollath, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**109**]{}, 045302 (2012). Z. Cai and T. Barthel, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**111**]{}, 150403 (2013). D. Poletti, P. Barmettler, A. Georges, and C. Kollath, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**111**]{}, 195301 (2013). B. Sciolla, D. Poletti, and C. Kollath, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**114**]{}, 170401 (2015). A. J. Daley, Adv. Phys. [**63**]{}, 77 (2014). M. Gutzwiller, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**10**]{}, 159 (1963). M. Gutzwiller, Phys. Rev. [**134**]{}, A923 (1964). M. Gutzwiller, Phys. Rev. [**137**]{}, A1726 (1965). M. P. A. Fisher, P. B. Weichman, G. Grinstein, and D. S. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B [**40**]{}, 546 (1989). D. S. Rokhsar, and B. G. Kotliar, Phys. Rev. B [**44**]{}, 10328 (1991). D. Jaksch, C. Bruder, J. I. Cirac, C. W. Gardiner, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 3108 (1998). W. Metzner, and D. Vollhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**62**]{}, 324 (1989). A. Georges and G. Kotliar, Phys. Rev. B [**45**]{}, 6479 (1992). A. Georges, G. Kotliar, W. Krauth, and M. J. Rozenberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**68**]{}, 13 (1996). G. Senatore, and N. H. March, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**66**]{}, 445 (1994). D. M. Ceperley, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**67**]{}, 279 (1995). W. M. C. Foulkes, L. Mitas, R. J. Needs, and G. Rajagopal, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**73**]{}, 33 (2001). U. Schollwöck, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**77**]{}, 259 (2005). F. Verstraete, V. Murg, and J. I. Cirac, Adv. Phys. [**57**]{}, 143 (2008). U. Schollwöck, Ann. Phys. [**326**]{}, 96 (2011). R. Orús, Ann. Phys. [**349**]{}, 117 (2014). S. R. White, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**69**]{}, 2863 (1992). S. R. White, and A. E. Feiguin, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{}, 076401 (2004). G. Vidal, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{}, 040502 (2004). A. J. Daley, C. Kollath, U. Schollwöck, and G. Vidal, J. Stat. Mech. P04005 (2004). F. Verstraete, J. J. García-Ripoll, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{}, 207204 (2004). M. Zwolak, and G. Vidal, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{}, 207205 (2004). C. W. Gardiner and P. Zoller, [*Quantum Noise*]{} (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2000). H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione, [*The Theory of Open Quantum Systems*]{}, (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002). I. de Vega and D. Alonso, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**89**]{}, 015001 (2017). V. Gorini, A. Kossakowski, and E. C. G. Sudarshan, J. Math. Phys. [**17**]{}, 821 (1976). G. Lindblad, Commun. Math. Phys. [**48**]{}, 119 (1976). H. Wichterich, M.J. Henrich, H.-P. Breuer, J. Gemmer, and M. Michel, Phys. Rev. E [**76**]{}, 031115 (2007). A. Purkayastha, A. Dhar, and M. Kulkarni, Phys. Rev. A [**93**]{}, 062114 (2016). X. Xu, J. Thingna, and J.-S. Wang, Phys. Rev. B [**95**]{}, 035428 (2017). A. Levy and R. Kosloff, Europhys. Lett. [**107**]{}, 20004 (2014). A. Rivas, A. D. K. Plato, S. F. Huelga and M. B. Plenio, New J. Phys. [**12**]{}, 113032 (2010). A. S. Trushechkin, and I. V. Volovich, Europhys. Lett. [**113**]{}, 30005 (2016). J. O. González, L. A. Correa, G. Nocerino, J. P. Palao, D. Alonso, and G. Adesso, Open Sys. Inf. Dyn. [**24**]{}, 1740010 (2017). P. P. Hofer , M. Perarnau-Llobet, L. D. M. Miranda, G. Haack, R. Silva, J. BohrBrask, and N. Brunner, New J. Phys. [**19**]{}, 123037 (2017). Á. Rivas and A. Martin-Delgado, Sci. Rep. [**7**]{}, 6350 (2017). M. T. Mitchison and M. B. Plenio, New. J. Phys. [**20**]{}, 033005 (2018). T. Werlang, M. A. Marchiori, M. F. Cornelio, and D. Valente, Phys. Rev. E [**89**]{}, 062109 (2014). I. de Vega, and M.-C. Bañuls, Phys. Rev. A [**92**]{}, 052116 (2015). A. G. Redfield, IBM J. Res. Dev. [**1**]{}, 19 (1957). K. M[ø]{}lmer, Y. Castin, and J. Dalibard, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B [**10**]{}, 524 (1993). V. Gorini and A. Kossakowski, J. Math. Phys. [**17**]{}, 1298 (1976). P. F. Palmer, J. Math. Phys. [**18**]{}, 527 (1977). In all our simulations we use maximum bond dimensions $D=100$ and $D_W=30$. The time step in the second order Trotter evolution of the MPO is 0.00125, and in the fourth-order Runge-Kutta evolution of the density matrix, it is 0.01. For the Romberg integration we use a third order with time step $0.00125$. For the evolution of Lindblad master equations we use $D=100$ with fourth-order Trotter-Suzuki method with time step 0.01. A. Müller-Hermes, J. I. Cirac, and M.-C. Bañuls, New J. Phys. [**14**]{}, 075003 (2012). D. Muth, R. G. Unanyan, and M. Fleischhauer, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**106**]{}, 077202 (2011). M. J. Hartmann, J. Prior, S. R. Clark, and M. B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**102**]{}, 057202 (2009). I. Pižorn, V. Eisler, S. Andergassen, and M. Troyer, New J. Phys. [**16**]{}, 073007 (2014). C. Karrasch, J. H. Bardarson, and J. E. Moore, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**108**]{}, 227206 (2012). We note here that the presence of a local magnetization $h$ is a prerequisite for LLME to perform a local approximation, while it is not necessary for RME. From the definition of $C(\tau)$ we get $C(\tau)=\int_0^\infty \left(d\omega/\pi\right){\rm J}(\omega) \left[\coth\left(\omega/2T\right)\cos(\omega\tau) - {\mathrm{i}}\sin(\omega\tau)\right]$ with ${\rm J}(\omega)=\pi \sum c_n^2/(2m_n\omega_n)\delta(\omega-\omega_n)$.
I. de Vega, U. Schollwöck, and F. A. Wolf, Phys. Rev. B [**92**]{}, 155126 (2015). C. Guo, I. de Vega, U. Schollwöck, and D. Poletti, Phys. Rev. A [**97**]{}, 053610 (2018). C. Cascio, J. C. Halimeh, I. P. McCulloch, A. Recati, and I. de Vega, arXiv:1801.08176. E. Mascarenhas, G. Giudice, and V. Savona, Quantum [**1**]{}, 40 (2017). J. Thingna, J.-S. Wang, and P. Hänggi, J. Chem. Phys. [**136**]{}, 194110 (2012). J. Thingna, J.-S. Wang, and P. Hänggi, Phys. Rev. E [**88**]{}, 052127 (2013). https://www.nscc.sg K. G. Wilson, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**47**]{}, 773 (1975). J. Prior, A. W. Chin, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**105**]{}, 050404 (2010). A. W. Chin, Á. Rivas, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, J. Math. Phys. [**51**]{}, 092109 (2010).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper we present Plane symmetric, Cylindrically Symmetric and Spherically Symmetric Black hole or Vacuum solutions of Einstein Field Equations(EFEs). Some of these solutions are new which we have not seen in the literature. This calculation will help us in understanding the gravitational wave and gravitational wave spacetimes.'
author:
- |
\
School of Natural Sciences,\
National University of Sciences and Technology,\
H-12 Islamabad, Pakistan.\
Email: [email protected]
title: '**Plane Symmetric, Cylindrically Symmetric and Spherically Symmetric Black hole Solutions of Einstein Field Equations**'
---
**Key words:** Ricci curvature tensors, Einstein Field Equations, Black hole, Vacuum Solutions.
Introduction
============
General plane symmetric [@f], cylindrically symmetric and spherically symmetric static spacetimes are consider for calculating the vacuum solutions of EFEs [@Q]. The calculation is straight forward, we calculate the Ricci tensors of the generally plane symmetric, cylindrically symmetric and spherically symmetric static spacetimes and put these Ricci curvature tensors equal to zero. Obtaining a system of three non-linear partial differential equations in plane symmetric case, four non-linear partial differential equations in cylindrically symmetric and three non-linear partial differential equations in spherically symmetric static spacetimes. The solutions of these system give us the required vacuum solutions of EFEs in each case. In all these calculation we are searching all those spacetimes which are the vacuum solutions or black hole solutions of EFEs [@g]. In all our calculation we have seen only one singularity which is the essential singularity and occur at $r=0$. These spacetimes will help in understanding of the gravitational wave spacetime, black hole [@R] and asymptotic behavior of black hole [@p].
Plane symmetric Static Spacetimes and Vacuum solutions of EFEs
==============================================================
Consider the following general plane symmetric static spacetime $$ds^2=e^{\nu(x)}dt^2-dx^2-e^{\mu(x)}(dy^2+dz^2).\label{1}$$ We find the Ricci curvature tensors for this spacetimes and put them equal to zero. We get a system of three non-linear partial differential equations in two unknown functions $\nu(x)$ and $\mu(x)$,$$\begin{split}&R_{00}=2\nu_{xx}(x)+2\nu_x(x)\mu_x(x)+\nu_x^2(x)=0,\\&R_{11}=2\nu_{xx}(x)+4\mu_{xx}(x)+\nu_x^2(x)+2\mu_{x}^2(x)=0,\\&
R_{22}=2\mu_{xx}(x)+2\mu_x^2(x)+\nu_x(x)\mu_x(x)=0.\end{split}\label{2}$$ The solution of this system is$$\nu(x)=-\frac{2}{3}\ln\big(\frac{x}{\alpha}\big),\quad\mu(x)=\frac{4}{3}\ln\big(\frac{x}{\alpha}\big).\label{8}$$ Which is the famous Taub Spacetime. This is a static gravitational wave spacetime and we check that it does not admit time conformal perturbation to form it an actual non-static gravitational wave spacetime [@z]. We can see that there is only one singularity at $r=0$. For time conformal perturbation either one of the exponent of $\frac{x}{\alpha}$ is $2$ or $\nu(x)=\mu(x)=a\ln\big(\frac{x}{\alpha}\big)$. Which mean that the metric for plane symmetric vacuum solutions of EFEs must be static and independent of time as was proved by Taub in his paper [@T].
Cylindrically Symmetric Static Vacuum Solution of EFEs
======================================================
The general metric of cylindrically symmetric static spacetimes is [@Q] $$ds^2=e^{\nu(r)}dt^2-dr^2-e^{\mu(r)}d\theta^2-e^{\lambda(r)}dz^2.\label{3}$$ We calculated the Ricci tensors of the spacetimes given in equation (\[3\]) and put them equal to zero we get the following system of four non-linear partial differential equations in unknown functions $\nu(r)$, $\mu(r)$ and $\lambda(r)$. $$\begin{split}&R_{00}={\nu}_r^2(r)+2\nu_{rr}(r)+{\nu}_r(r){\mu}_r(r)+{\nu}_r(r){\lambda}_r(r)=0,\\&
R_{11}={\nu}_r^2(r)+2\nu_{rr}(r)+{\mu}_r^2(r)+2\mu_{rr}(r)+{\lambda}_r^2(r)+2\lambda_{rr}(r)=0,\\&
R_{22}={\nu}_r(r){\mu}_r(r)+{\mu}_r^2(r)+2\mu_{rr}(r)+{\mu}_r(r){\lambda}_r(r)=0,\\&
R_{33}={\nu}_r(r){\lambda}_r(r)+{\lambda}_r^2(r)+2\lambda_{rr}(r)+{\mu}_r(r){\lambda}_r(r)=0.
\end{split}\label{4}$$ The solution set to the system (\[4\]) is $$\begin{split}&(i):\quad\nu(r)=2\ln\big(\frac{r}{\alpha}\big),\quad\mu(r)=c_1,\quad\lambda(r)=c_2
,\\&(ii):\quad\nu(r)=c_1,\quad\mu(r)=2\ln\big(\frac{r}{\alpha}\big),\quad\lambda(r)=c_2
,\\&(iii):\quad\nu(r)=c_1,\quad\mu(r)=c_2,\quad\lambda(r)=2\ln\big(\frac{r}{\alpha}\big),\\&
(iv):\quad\nu(r)=\frac{1+2a+\sqrt{4a^2-4a-3}}{2a}\ln\big(\frac{r}{\alpha}\big),\quad\mu(r)=-\frac{1}{a}\ln\big(\frac{r}{\alpha}\big),\quad
\lambda(r)=\frac{1+2a-\sqrt{4a^2-4a-3}}{2a}\ln\big(\frac{r}{\alpha}\big),\\&
(v):\quad\nu(r)=\frac{1+2a-\sqrt{4a^2-4a-3}}{2a}\ln\big(\frac{r}{\alpha}\big),\quad\mu(r)=-\frac{1}{a}\ln\big(\frac{r}{\alpha}\big),\quad
\lambda(r)=\frac{1+2a+\sqrt{4a^2-4a-3}}{2a}\ln\big(\frac{r}{\alpha}\big),\\&
(vi):\quad\nu(r)=-\frac{1}{a}\ln\big(\frac{r}{\alpha}\big),\quad\mu(r)=\frac{1+2a+\sqrt{4a^2-4a-3}}{2a}\ln\big(\frac{r}{\alpha}\big),\quad
\lambda(r)=\frac{1+2a-\sqrt{4a^2-4a-3}}{2a}\ln\big(\frac{r}{\alpha}\big),\\&
(vii):\quad\nu(r)=-\frac{1}{a}\ln\big(\frac{r}{\alpha}\big),\quad\mu(r)=\frac{1+2a-\sqrt{4a^2-4a-3}}{2a}\ln\big(\frac{r}{\alpha}\big),\quad
\lambda(r)=\frac{1+2a+\sqrt{4a^2-4a-3}}{2a}\ln\big(\frac{r}{\alpha}\big),\\&
(viii):\quad\nu(r)=\frac{1+2a+\sqrt{4a^2-4a-3}}{2a}\ln\big(\frac{r}{\alpha}\big),\quad\mu(r)=\frac{1+2a-\sqrt{4a^2-4a-3}}{2a}\ln\big(\frac{r}{\alpha}\big),\quad
\lambda(r)=-\frac{1}{a}\ln\big(\frac{r}{\alpha}\big),\\&
(ix):\quad\nu(r)=\frac{1+2a-\sqrt{4a^2-4a-3}}{2a}\ln\big(\frac{r}{\alpha}\big),\quad\mu(r)=\frac{1+2a+\sqrt{4a^2-4a-3}}{2a}\ln\big(\frac{r}{\alpha}\big)
,\quad
\lambda(r)=-\frac{1}{a}\ln\big(\frac{r}{\alpha}\big).\label{5}\end{split}$$The solutions (i), (ii) and (iii) are the cone solutions that is they are the flat spacetimes where all the Reimann curvature tensors are vanishing (Minkowski spacetimes) [@10]. The remaining solutions from (iv) to (ix) are the solutions of EFEs which have some important features. We are going to discuss some of the important points about the spacetimes. The metric for case (iv) in solution set (\[5\]) takes the form $$ds^2=\big(\frac{r}{\alpha}\big)^{\frac{1+2a+\sqrt{4a^2-4a-3}}{2a}}dt^2-dr^2-\big(\frac{r}{\alpha}\big)^{-\frac{1}{a}}d\theta^2-
\big(\frac{r}{\alpha}\big)^{\frac{1+2a-\sqrt{4a^2-4a-3}}{2a}}dz^2.\label{6}$$Here the exponents of $\frac{r}{\alpha}$ are the following functions $$\begin{split}&f_1(a)=\frac{1+2a+\sqrt{4a^2-4a-3}}{2a},\\&f_2(a)=-\frac{1}{a},\\&f_3(a)=\frac{1+2a-\sqrt{4a^2-4a-3}}{2a}\label{w}\end{split}$$ The importance of these exponents are describe in the following lines. The functions $f_1(a)$, $f_2(a)$ are defined on the domain $(-\infty,-\frac{1}{2})U(\frac{3}{2}, \infty)$ and the function $f_3(a)$ are define for all real $a$ except at $a=0$. For $a=-\frac{1}{2}$ the solutions $(iv)-(ix)$ are the cone solutions as given in $(i)$, $(ii)$ and $(iii),$ while for $a=\frac{3}{2}$ we have the following solutions $$\begin{split}&(k):\quad\nu(r)=\frac{4}{3}\ln\big(\frac{r}{\alpha}\big),\quad\mu(r)=-\frac{2}{3}\ln\big(\frac{r}{\alpha}\big)
,\quad\lambda(r)=\frac{4}{3}\ln\big(\frac{r}{\alpha}\big),\\&(l):\quad\nu(r)=\frac{4}{3}\ln\big(\frac{r}{\alpha}\big),
\quad\mu(r)=\frac{4}{3}\ln\big(\frac{r}{\alpha}\big),\quad\lambda(r)=-\frac{2}{3}\ln\big(\frac{r}{\alpha}\big),\\&
(m):\quad\nu(r)=-\frac{2}{3}\ln\big(\frac{r}{\alpha}\big),\quad\mu(r)=\frac{4}{3}\ln\big(\frac{r}{\alpha}\big)
,\quad\lambda(r)=\frac{4}{3}\ln\big(\frac{r}{\alpha}\big).\label{7}\end{split}$$ The coefficients given in $(m)$ are again the same as given in equation (\[8\]), that is, it is the Taub spacetime and the coefficients given in $(k)$ and $(l)$ are new which we have not seen in the literature. It is interesting to note that for $a=-\frac{3}{4}$ we get the solution set (\[7\]) again in different order that is for this value of $a$ we have $f_1(a)=-\frac{2}{3}$., $f_2(a)=\frac{4}{3}$ and $f_3(a)=\frac{4}{3}$.
Asymptotic behavior
===================
For asymptotic behavior of these spacetimes we need to draw graphs of function given in (\[w\]) and check the limits of these functions. The limiting values of $f_1(a)$, $f_2(a)$ and $f_3(a)$ are as follows, when $a\rightarrow\infty$ then $f_1(a)\rightarrow 2$, $f_2(a)\rightarrow 0$ and $f_3(a)\rightarrow 0$ while when $a\rightarrow-\infty$ then $f_1(a)\rightarrow 0$, $f_2(a)\rightarrow 0$ and $f_3(a)\rightarrow 2$ so in all the limiting cases we have the cone solutions of EFEs which are given in $(i)$, $(ii)$ and $(iii)$. Otherwise we will have the curvature in the spacetimes and will get some gravitating source in the spacetimes other than the energy momentum tensor $T_{\mu\nu}$ [@7]. It is evident from the graphs of the functions $f_1(a)$, $f_2(a)$ and $f_3(a)$ given in the following figures, that there is always a singularity at $r=0$ in all cases, which is the essential singularity, and there is no other singularity in these cases [@l].
{width="8cm"}\
{width="8cm"}\
{width="8cm"}
Cylindrically symmetric vacuum solution of EFEs do not admit time conformal perturbation. Therefore the line element of cylindrically symmetric vacuum solution of EFEs must be in dependent of time. For the spacetime (\[6\]) we have three possibilities to admit time conformal perturbation\
(1):$f_1(a)=f_2(a)=f_3(a)$,\
(2):$f_1(a)=2$ and $f_2(a)=f_3(a)$,\
(3):$f_2(a)=f_3(a)=2$.\
But it is clear from the graphs of these functions that non of these three conditions satisfied, which confirm that the line element of cylindrically symmetric vacuum solutions of EFEs are independent of time.
Spherically symmetric Vacuum Solution of EFEs
=============================================
The general metric for spherically symmetric static spacetime is [@5] $$ds^2={\nu(r)}dt^2-{\mu(r)}dr^2-r^2(d\theta^2+\sin^2\theta d\phi^2)\label{9}$$For $nu(r)=\mu(r)\neq0$, obtaining the general Ricci curvature tensors for this spacetime and them equal to zero we have $$\begin{split}&R_{00}=-\mu(r)\nu_{rr}(r)\nu(r)r-\mu(r)\nu_r(r)^2r-\nu(r)\nu_{r}(r)\mu_r(r)r-4\mu_r(r)\nu(r)^2=0,\\&
R_{11}=2\mu(r)\nu_{rr}(r)\nu(r)r-\mu(r)\nu_r(r)^2r-\nu(r)\nu_{r}(r)\mu_r(r)r+4\mu_r(r)\nu_r(r)=0,\\&
R_{22}=-2\nu_r(r)\mu(r)r\theta^2+2\mu_r(r)\nu(r)r\theta^2-4\mu(r)\nu(r)\theta^2+\mu(r)^2\nu(r)=0.\label{10}\end{split}$$ the solution of this system is $$\begin{aligned}
\nu(r)=(1-\frac{m}{r}),\quad\mu(r)=\frac{1}{1-\frac{m}{r}}\label{11}\end{aligned}$$ where $m$ is an arbitrary constant. These values of $\nu(r)$ and $\mu(r)$ are define the famous Schwarzschild spacetime. For spherically symmetric static spacetime we get exactly one vacuum solution which is the Schwarzschild spacetime.
Conclusion
==========
Here we presented plane symmetric static, cylindrically symmetric static and spherically symmetric static vacuum solutions of EFEs. In all the three cases we consider the general form the corresponding spacetimes find the general form of Ricci curvature tensors in each case and put them equal to zero we obtained system of determining partial differential equations. The solution of the determining partial differential equations provide us the require vacuum solutions of EFEs in each case. In section 2 plane symmetric static vacuum solutions are discussed. There is only one plane symmetric static vacuum solution of Einstein field equations. In section 3 we find all the cylindrically symmetric static vacuum solutions. Most of the spacetimes obtained in section 3 are new in the literature. Section 4 consist on the calculation of spherically symmetric static vacuum solution. Here we obtained only one solution which is the famous Schwarzschild solution of EFEs.
[99]{} Ali, F. and Feroze, T. *Classisification of plane symmetric static spacetimes according to their Noether’s symmetries*, Int. J. Theor. Phys. , 52(9), 3329-3342 (2013). Kramer, D., Stephani, H., MacCallum, M. A. H. and Herlt, E., *Exact Solution of Einstein Field Equations*, Cambridge University Press, (1980). Misner, C. W., Thorne K. S., and Wheeler J. A., *Gravitation*, Freeman, W. H. and Company, San Francisco, (1973). Regge, T., and Wheeler, J. A., *Stability of a schwarschild singularity*, Phys. Rev., **108(4)**, 1063-1069, (1957). Boonserm, P., Ngampitipan, T., Visser, M., *Regge-Wheeler equation, linear stability, and greybody factors for dirty black holes*, Phys. Rev. D., **88**, 041502(R) (2013). Zakharov, V. D., *Gravitational waves in Einstein’s theory*, New York: Halsted, translated by Sen, R. N., from the 1972 Russian edition, (1973). Leach, P. G. L., Moyo S., Cotsakis, S. and Lemmer, R. L., *Symmetry, singularities and integrability in complex dynamics III: approximate symmetries and invariants*, JNMP., **8(1)**, 139-156, (2001). Eric Gourgoulhon, *3 + 1 Formalism in General Relativity: Bases of Numerical Relativity*, Springer, Berlin, (2012). Hall, G. S., *Symmetries and Curvature Structure in General Relativity*, World Scientific, Singapore, (2004). Trautman, A., *Conservation laws in general relativity. In gravitation: an introduction to current research*, edited by Witten, L., New York: John Wiley and Sons, 169-198, (1962). Taub, A. H. *Empty spacetimes admitting a three parameter group of motions*, ANNALS OF MATHEMATICS **53**, 3 (1950). Boonserm, P., Ngampitipan, T., Visser, M., *Regge-Wheeler equation, linear stability, and greybody factors for dirty black holes*, Phys. Rev. D., **88**, 041502(R) (2013). Ali, F., *Conservation laws of cylindrically symmetric static vacuum solution of Einstien field equations*, Applied Mathematical Sciences, Vol. **8(94)**, 4697 - 4702, (2014).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we show that every $(2P_2,K_4)$-free graph is 4-colorable. The bound is attained by the five-wheel and the complement of the seven-cycle. This answers an open question by Wagon [@Wa80] in the 1980s. Our result can also be viewed as a result in the study of the Vizing bound for graph classes. A major open problem in the study of computational complexity of graph coloring is whether coloring can be solved in polynomial time for $(4P_1,C_4)$-free graphs. Lozin and Malyshev [@LM17] conjecture that the answer is yes. As an application of our main result, we provide the first positive evidence to the conjecture by giving a 2-approximation algorithm for coloring $(4P_1,C_4)$-free graphs.'
author:
- 'Serge Gaspers[^1] [^2]'
- 'Shenwei Huang[^3]'
date: 'August 10, 2018'
title: '[**$(2P_2,K_4)$-Free Graphs are 4-Colorable**]{}'
---
[**Keywords**]{}: graph coloring; $\chi$-bound; forbidden induced subgraphs; approximation algorithm.
[**AMS subject classifications:**]{} 68R10, 05C15, 05C75, 05C85.
Introduction
============
All graphs in this paper are finite and simple. We say that a graph $G$ [*contains*]{} a graph $H$ if $H$ is isomorphic to an induced subgraph of $G$. A graph $G$ is [*$H$-free*]{} if it does not contain $H$. For a family of graphs $\mathcal{H}$, $G$ is [*$\mathcal{H}$-free*]{} if $G$ is $H$-free for every $H\in \mathcal{H}$. In case $\mathcal{H}$ consists of two graphs, we write $(H_1,H_2)$-free instead of $\{H_1,H_2\}$-free. As usual, let $P_n$ and $C_n$ denote the path and the cycle on $n$ vertices, respectively. The complete graph on $n$ vertices is denoted by $K_n$. The [*$n$-wheel*]{} $W_n$ is the graph obtained from $C_n$ by adding a new vertex and making it adjacent to every vertex in $C_n$. For two graphs $G$ and $H$, we use $G+H$ to denote the *disjoint union* of $G$ and $H$. For a positive integer $r$, we use $rG$ to denote the disjoint union of $r$ copies of $G$. The *complement* of $G$ is denoted by $\overline{G}$. A [*hole*]{} in a graph is an induced cycle of length at least 4. A hole is [*odd*]{} if it is of odd length.
A *$q$-coloring* of a graph $G$ is a function $\phi:V(G)\longrightarrow \{ 1, \ldots ,q\}$ such that $\phi(u)\neq \phi(v)$ whenever $u$ and $v$ are adjacent in $G$. We say that $G$ is [*$q$-colorable*]{} if $G$ admits a $q$-coloring. The *chromatic number* of $G$, denoted by $\chi (G)$, is the minimum number $q$ such that $G$ is $q$-colorable. The *clique number* of $G$, denoted by $\omega(G)$, is the size of a largest clique in $G$. Obviously, $\chi(G)\ge \omega(G)$ for any graph $G$. The [*maximum degree*]{} of a graph $G$ is denoted by $\Delta(G)$.
A family $\mathcal{G}$ of graphs is said to be *$\chi$-bounded* if there exists a function $f$ such that for every graph $G\in \mathcal{G}$ and every induced subgraph $H$ of $G$ it holds that $\chi(H)\le f(\omega(H))$. The function $f$ is called a *$\chi$-binding* function for $\mathcal{G}$. The class of perfect graphs (a graph $G$ is *perfect* if for every induced subgraph $H$ of $G$ it holds that $\chi(H)=\omega(H)$), for instance, is a $\chi$-bounded family with $\chi$-binding function $f(x)=x$. Therefore, $\chi$-boundedness is a generalization of perfection. The notion of $\chi$-bounded families was introduced by Gy[á]{}rf[á]{}s [@Gy87] who make the following conjecture.
For every forest $T$, the class of $T$-free graphs is $\chi$-bounded.
Gy[á]{}rf[á]{}s [@Gy87] proved the conjecture for $T=P_t$: every $P_t$-free graph $G$ has $\chi(G)\le (t-1)^{\omega(G)-1}$. The result was slightly improved by Gravier, Ho[à]{}ng and Maffray in [@GHM03] that every $P_t$-free graph $G$ has $\chi(G)\le (t-2)^{\omega(G)-1}$. This implies that every $P_5$-free graph $G$ has $\chi(G)\le 3^{\omega(G)-1}$. Note that this $\chi$-binding function is exponential in $\omega(G)$. For $\omega(G)=3$, Esperet, Lemoine, Maffray and Morel [@ELMM13] obtained the optimal bound on the chromatic number: every $(P_5,K_4)$-free graph is 5-colorable. They also demonstrated a $(P_5,K_4)$-free graph whose chromatic number is 5. On the other hand, a polynomial $\chi$-binding function for the class of $2P_2$-free graphs was shown by Wagon [@Wa80] who proved that every such graph has $\chi(G)\le \binom{\omega(G)+1}{2}$. This implies that every $(2P_2,K_4)$-free graph is 6-colorable. In [@Wa80] it was asked if there exists a $(2P_2,K_4)$-free graph whose chromatic number is 5 or 6. We observe that the $(P_5,K_4)$-free graph with chromatic number 5 given in [@ELMM13] contains an induced $2P_2$. In this paper we settle Wagon’s question [@Wa80] by proving the following theorem.
\[thm:main\] Every $(2P_2,K_4)$-free graph $G$ has $\chi(G)\le 4$.
The bound in is attained by the five-wheel $W_5$ and the complement of a seven-cycle $\overline{C_7}$. Hence, we obtain the optimal $\chi$-bound for the class of $2P_2$-free graphs when the clique number is 3. A family $\mathcal{G}$ of graph is said to satisfy the [*Vizing bound*]{} if $f(x)=x+1$ is a $\chi$-binding function for $\mathcal{G}$. The definition was motivated by the classical Vizing’s Theorem [@Vi64] on the chromatic index $\chi'(G)$ of graphs which states that $\chi'(G)\le \Delta(G)+1$ for any graph $G$. This is equivalent to say that the class of line graphs satisfies the Vizing bound. Our result () shows that the class of $(2P_2,K_4)$-free graphs also satisfies the Vizing bound. We refer to Randerath and Schiermeyer [@RS04] and Fan, Xu, Ye and Yu [@FXYY14] for more results on the Vizing bound for various $\mathcal{H}$-free graphs.
We also note that our proofs of below are algorithmic: one can easily follow the steps of the proof and give a 4-coloring of the input graph in polynomial time.
[**An application.**]{} Let <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Coloring</span> denoted the computational problem of determining the chromatic number of a graph. In the past two decades, there has been an overwhelming attention on the complexity of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Coloring</span> $\mathcal{H}$-free graphs. The starting point is a result due to Král’, Kratochvíl, Tuza, and Woeginger [@KKTW01] who gave a complete classification of the complexity of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Coloring</span> for the case where ${\cal H}$ consists of a single graph $H$: if $H$ is an induced subgraph of $P_4$ or of $P_1+ P_3$, then <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Coloring</span> restricted to $H$-free graphs is polynomial-time solvable, otherwise it is NP-complete. Afterwards, researchers started to study <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Coloring</span> restricted to $(H_1,H_2)$-free graphs. Despite much efforts of top researchers in the area the complexity of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Coloring</span> are known only for some pairs of $H_1$ and $H_2$, see [@GJPS17] for a summary of the known partial results. Even solving the problem for particular pairs of $H_1$ and $H_2$ requires substantial work, see [@DLRR12; @Ma14; @HL15; @HJP15; @LM17; @KMP18] for instance. Lozin and Malyshev [@LM17] demonstrated that the classification is already problematic even if both $H_1$ and $H_2$ are $4$-vertex graphs: they determined the complexity of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Coloring</span> for all such pairs with three exceptions. One of the three unknown pairs is $(4P_1,C_4)$. Lozin and Malyshev [@LM17] conjecture that <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Coloring</span> can be solved in polynomial time for $(4P_1,C_4)$-free graphs. The problem was listed as an important open problem in the survey on the computational complexity of coloring graphs with forbidden subgraphs by Golovach, Johnson, Paulusma and Song [@GJPS17].
Here we use to give a 2-approximation algorithm for coloring $(4P_1,C_4)$-free graphs. This is the first general result towards a polynomial-time algorithm for the problem, although Fraser, Hamel, Hoàng, Holmes, and LaMantia showed that the problem is polynomial time solvable for a subclass of $(4P_1,C_4)$-free graphs [@FHHHL17]. For a graph $G$ and a subset $S\subseteq V(G)$, we denote by $G[S]$ the subgraph of $G$ induced by $S$. A graph is [*chordal*]{} if it is $C_t$-free for each $t\ge 4$.
There exists a polynomial-time $2$-approximation algorithm for coloring $(4P_1,C_4)$-free graphs.
Let $G$ be a $(4P_1,C_4)$-free graph. Then $\overline{G}$ is $(2P_2,K_4)$-free. By , we have that $\overline{G}$ can be partitioned into 4 stable sets. So, $G$ can be partitioned into 4 cliques $K_i$ for $1\le i\le 4$, and this partition can be found in polynomial time. Since $G$ is $C_4$-free, both $G[K_1\cup K_2]$ and $G[K_3\cup K_4]$ are chordal. It is well-known that the chromatic number of a chordal graph can be determined in linear time, see [@Go04] for example. Therefore, the value $ \chi(G[K_1\cup K_2])+\chi(G[K_3\cup K_4])$ provides a 2-approximation for $\chi(G)$.
We now turn to the proof of . The *neighborhood* of a vertex $v$ in a graph $G$, denoted by $N_G(v)$, is the set of neighbors of $v$. We simply write $N(v)$ if the graph $G$ is clear from the context. Two nonadjacent vertices $u$ and $v$ in $G$ are *comparable* if either $N(v)\subseteq N(u)$ or $N(u)\subseteq N(v)$. Observe that if $N(u)\subseteq N(v)$, then $\chi(G-u)=\chi(G)$. Therefore, it suffices to prove for every connected $(2P_2,K_4)$-free graph with no pair of comparable vertices. We do so by proving a number of lemmas below. The idea is that we assume the occurrence of some induced subgraph $H$ in $G$ and then argue that the theorem holds in this case. Afterwards, we can assume that $G$ is $H$-free in addition to being $(2P_2,K_4)$-free. We then pick a different induced subgraph as $H$ and repeat. In the end, we are able to show that the theorem holds if $G$ contains a $C_5$ (see - below). Therefore, the remaining case is that $G$ is (odd hole, $K_4$)-free. In this case, the theorem follows from a known result by Chudnovsky, Robertson, Seymour and Thomas [@CRST10] that every (odd hole, $K_4$)-free graph is $4$-colorable. This proves .
[.5]{}
=\[draw, circle, fill=white!100, minimum width=4pt,inner sep=2pt\] (v1) at (0,3) [$w$]{}; (v2) at (3,1) [$2$]{}; (v3) at (1.5,-1) [$6$]{}; (v4) at (-1.5,-1) [$3$]{}; (v5) at (-3,1) [$1$]{}; (v1)–(v2)–(v3)–(v4)–(v5)–(v1);
\(y) at (1.5,0.25) [$4$]{}; (v1)–(y) (v2)–(y) (v3)–(y) (v5)–(y) ;
\(z) at (-1.5,0.25) [$5$]{}; (v4)–(z) (v5)–(z) (v1)–(z) (v2)–(z);
at (0,-2) [$H_1$]{};
[.5]{}
=\[draw, circle, fill=white!100, minimum width=4pt,inner sep=2pt\]
(v1) at (0,3) [$1$]{}; (v2) at (3,1) [$2$]{}; (v3) at (1.5,-1) [$3$]{}; (v4) at (-1.5,-1) [$4$]{}; (v5) at (-3,1) [$5$]{}; (v1)–(v2)–(v3)–(v4)–(v5)–(v1);
\(t) at (0,1) [$t$]{}; (t)–(v5) (t)–(v2) (t)–(v3) (t)–(v4);
at (0,-2) [$H_2$]{};
Th proof idea is based on a paper by Esperet et al. [@ELMM13] who proved that every $(P_5,K_4)$-free graph is 5-colorable. In particular, the graph $H_1$ (see ) that plays an important role in our proof was also used in [@ELMM13]. However, to prove 4-colorability we need to use the argument of comparable vertices and extensively extend the structural analysis in [@ELMM13]. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In we present some preliminary results. In and we prove and , respectively. We then prove and in .
Preliminaries {#sec:pre}
=============
We present the structure around a five-cycle in $(2P_2,K_4)$-free graphs that will be used in and . Let $G$ be a $(2P_2,K_4)$-free graph and $C=12345$ be an induced $C_5$ of $G$. All indices below are modulo 5. We partition $V\setminus C$ into the following subsets: $$\label{eq1}
\begin{split}
Z & = \{v\in V\setminus C: N_{C}(v)=\emptyset\}, \\
R_i & = \{v\in V\setminus C: N_{C}(v)=\{i-1,i+1\}\}, \\
Y_i & = \{v\in V\setminus C: N_{C}(v)=\{i-2, i, i+2\}\}, \\
F_i & = \{v\in V\setminus C: N_{C}(v)=C\setminus \{i\}\}, \\
U & = \{v\in V\setminus C: N_{C}(v)=C\}. \\
\end{split}$$
\[lem:partition\] Let $G$ be a $(2P_2,K_4)$-free graph and $C=12345$ be an induced $C_5$ of $G$. Then $V(G)=C\cup Z\cup (\bigcup_{i=1}^{5}R_i)\cup (\bigcup_{i=1}^{5}Y_i)\cup (\bigcup_{i=1}^{5}F_i)\cup U$.
Suppose that there is a vertex $v\in V(G)\setminus C$ that does not belong to any of $Z$, $R_i$, $Y_i$, $F_i$ and $U$. Note that $v$ has at least one and at most three neighbors on $C$. Moreover, these neighbors must be consecutive on $C$. Without loss of generality, we may assume that $v$ is adjacent to $1$ and not adjacent to $3$ and $4$. Now $34$ and $1v$ induce a $2P_2$.
We now prove some structural properties of these sets.
1. [$Z\cup R_i$ is an independent set.]{}\[itm:ZR\]
If $Z\cup R_i$ contains an edge $xy$, then $xy$ and $(i-2)(i+2)$ induce a $2P_2$, a contradiction.
2. [$U\cup Y_i$ and $U\cup F_i$ are independent sets.]{}\[itm:UYF\]
If either $U\cup Y_i$ or $U\cup F_i$ contains an edge $xy$, then $\{x,y,i-2,i+2\}$ induces a $K_4$.
3. [$R_i$ and $R_{i+1}$ are complete.]{}\[itm:RiRi+1\]
It suffices to prove for $i=1$. If $r_1\in R_1$ and $r_2\in R_2$ are not adjacent, then $5r_1$ and $3r_2$ induce a $2P_2$.
4. [$Y_i$ and $Y_{i+1}$ are complete.]{}\[itm:YiYi+1\]
It suffices to prove for $i=1$. If $y_1\in Y_1$ and $y_2\in Y_2$ are not adjacent, then $5y_2$ and $3y_1$ induce a $2P_2$.
5. [$R_i$ and $Y_i$ are complete.]{}\[itm:RiYi\]
It suffices to prove for $i=1$. If $r_1\in R_1$ and $y_1\in Y_1$ are not adjacent, then $5r_1$ and $3y_1$ induce a $2P_2$.
6. [Either $R_i$ and $Y_{i+1}$ are anti-complete or $R_{i+1}$ and $Y_i$ are anti-complete.]{}\[itm:RiYi+1Ri+1Yi\]
Suppose, by contradiction, that there exist vertices $r_i\in R_i$, $r_{i+1}\in R_{i+1}$, $y_i\in Y_i$, $y_{i+1}\in Y_{i+1}$ such that $r_i$ and $r_{i+1}$ are adjacent to $y_{i+1}$ and $y_i$, respectively. Then it follows from \[itm:RiRi+1\], \[itm:YiYi+1\] and \[itm:RiYi\] that $\{r_i,r_{i+1},y_i,y_{i+1}\}$ induces a $K_4$.
7. [Each vertex in $Y_i$ is anti-complete to either $Y_{i-2}$ or $Y_{i+2}$.]{}\[itm:YiYi-2Yi+2\]
It suffices to prove for $i=1$. If $y_1\in Y_1$ is adjacent to a vertex $y_i\in Y_i$ for $i=3,4$, then $\{1,y_1,y_3,y_4\}$ induces a $K_4$ by \[itm:YiYi+1\].
8. [$F_i$ is complete to $Y_{i-2}\cup Y_{i+2}$ and anti-complete to $Y_{i-1}\cup Y_i\cup Y_{i+1}$.]{}\[itm:FY\]
It suffices to prove for $i=5$. Let $f\in F_5$. Recall that $f$ is adjacent to $1,2,3,4$ but not adjacent to $5$ by the definition of $F_5$. Suppose first that $f$ is not adjacent to a vertex $y\in Y_2\cup Y_3$. Note that $y$ is adjacent to $5$ by the definition of $Y_2$ and $Y_3$. Now either $3f$ or $2f$ forms a $2P_2$ with $5y$ depending on whether $y\in Y_2$ or $y\in Y_3$. This proves the first part of \[itm:FY\]. Suppose now that $f$ is adjacent to a vertex $y\in Y_i$ for some $i\in \{1,4,5\}$. Since $i\notin \{2,3\}$, it follows that $5\notin \{i-2,i+2\}$. Therefore, $f$ is adjacent to $i-2$ and $i+2$. This implies that $\{f,y,i-2,i+2\}$ induces a $K_4$. This proves the second part of \[itm:FY\].
9. [$F_i$ is complete to $R_{i-1}\cup R_{i+1}$.]{}\[itm:FR\]
It suffices to prove $i=5$. If $f\in F_5$ is not adjacent to $r\in R_1\cup R_4$, then either $f3$ or $f2$ forms a $2P_2$ with $5r$ depending on whether $r\in R_1$ or $r\in R_4$.
10. [If $U\neq \emptyset$, then $Y_i$ and $Y_{i+2}$ are anti-complete.]{}\[itm:YiYi+2\]
Let $u\in U$. If $y_i\in Y_i$ and $y_{i+2}\in Y_{i+2}$ are adjacent, then $y_iy_{i+2}$ and $u(i+1)$ induce a $2P_2$ since $u$ is adjacent to neither $y_i$ nor $y_{i+2}$ by \[itm:UYF\], a contradiction.
11. [Either $F_i$ or $F_{i+2}$ is empty.]{}\[itm:FiFi+2\]
It suffices to prove for $i=3$. Suppose that $F_i$ contains a vertex $f_i\in F_i$ for $i=3,5$. Then either $3f_5$ and $5f_3$ induce a $2P_2$ or $\{1,2,f_3,f_5\}$ induces a $K_4$ depending on whether $f_3$ and $f_5$ are nonadjacent or not.
12. [If $G$ is $H_1$-free, then the following holds: if $F_i\neq \emptyset$, then $R_{i+1}$ is anti-complete to $Y_{i+2}\cup Y_i$ and $R_{i-1}$ is anti-complete to $Y_{i-2}\cup Y_i$.]{}\[itm:Ri+1YiYi+2\]
It suffices to prove for $i=5$. Let $f\in F_5$. Suppose, by contradiction, that there exists vertices $r\in R_1$ and $y\in Y_2\cup Y_5$ such that $r$ and $y$ are adjacent. Note that $f$ is adjacent to $r$ by \[itm:FR\]. If $y\in Y_2$, then $f$ is adjacent to $y$ by \[itm:FY\] and this implies that $\{f,y,r,2\}$ induces a $K_4$. If $y\in Y_5$, then $f$ is not adjacent to $y$ by \[itm:FY\] and this implies that $C\cup \setminus \{1\}\cup \{f,y,r\}$ induces an $H_1$ (see ). This proves that $R_1$ is anti-complete to $Y_2\cup Y_5$. The proof for the second part is symmetric.
13. [Each vertex in $R_i$ is anti-complete to either $Y_{i+1}$ or $Y_{i+2}$. By symmetry, each vertex in $R_i$ is anti-complete to either $Y_{i-1}$ or $Y_{i-2}$]{}\[itm:RiYi+1Yi+2\]
Suppose, by contradiction, that there exists a vertex $r_i\in R_i$ such that $r_i$ is adjacent to a vertex $y_{i+1}\in Y_{i+1}$ and a vertex $y_{i+2}\in Y_{i+2}$. By \[itm:YiYi+1\], $y_{i+1}$ and $y_{i+2}$ are adjacent. This implies that $\{r_i,y_{i+1},y_{i+2},i-1\}$ induces a $K_4$.
Eliminate $H_1$ {#sec:F1}
===============
In this section we show that our main theorem, , holds when $G$ is connected, has no pair of comparable vertices, and contains $H_1$ as an induced subgraph.
\[lem:F1\] Let $G$ be a connected $(2P_2,K_4)$-free graph with no pair of comparable vertices. If $G$ contains an induced $H_1$, then $\chi(G)\le 4$.
Let $H=C\cup \{w\}$ be an induced $H_1$ in $G$ where $C=\{1,2,3,4,5,6\}$ induces a $\overline{C_6}$ such that $ij$ is an edge if and only if $|i-j|\neq 1$, and $w$ is adjacent to 1, 2, 4 and 5 (See ). All the indices below are modulo 6. We partition $V(G)$ into following subsets: $$\label{eq1}
\begin{split}
Z & = \{v\in V\setminus C: N_{C}(v)=\emptyset\}, \\
D_{i,i+1} & = \{v\in V\setminus C: N_{C}(v)=\{i,i+1\}\}, \\
T_i & = \{v\in V\setminus C: N_{C}(v)=\{i-1,i,i+1\}\}, \\
F_{i,i+1} & = \{v\in V\setminus C: N_{C}(v)=\{i-1, i, i+1, i+2\}\}, \\
W & = \{v\in V\setminus C: N_{C}(v)=N_C(w)=\{1,2,4,5\}\}. \\
\end{split}$$ Let $D=\bigcup_{i=1}^{6}D_{i,i+1}$, $T=\bigcup_{i=1}^{6}T_{i}$ and $F=\bigcup_{i=1}^{6}F_{i,i+1}$. Without loss of generality, we assume $H$ has been chosen such that $|T|+|F|$ is maximized. We first show that $V(G)=C\cup Z\cup D\cup T\cup F\cup W$.
[ There is no vertex $v\in V\setminus C$ such that $v$ is adjacent to $i$ but adjacent to neither $i-1$ nor $i+1$ for any $1\le i\le 6$.]{}
\[itm:1\]
Suppose that such a vertex $v$ exists. Then it follows that $vi$ and $(i-1)(i+1)$ induce a $2P_2$.
[ If a vertex in $V\setminus C$ has at most two neighbors on $C$, then $v\in Z\cup D$.]{}
\[itm:2\]
Suppose not. Let $v\in V\setminus C$ that has at most two neighbors on $C$ and $v\notin Z\cup D$. Then either $v$ has exactly one neighbor on $C$ or has two neighbors on $C$ that are not consecutive. By symmetry, we may assume that $v$ is adjacent to $1$ but not adjacent to $2$ and $6$. This contradicts \[itm:1\].
[ If a vertex $v\in V\setminus C$ that has exactly three neighbors on $C$, then $v\in T$.]{}
\[itm:3\]
Suppose not. Let $v\in V\setminus C$ that has exactly at three neighbors on $C$. By symmetry, we may assume that $v$ is adjacent to $1$. It follows from \[itm:1\] that $v$ is adjacent to either $2$ or $6$, say 2. If $v$ is not adjacent to $3$ or $6$, then it contradicts \[itm:1\] for $i=4$ or $i=5$. Therefore, $v\in T_1$ or $v\in T_2$.
[ If a vertex $v\in V\setminus C$ that has exactly four neighbors on $C$, then $v\in F\cup W$.]{}
\[itm:4\]
By \[itm:1\], $v$ must have two consecutive neighbors on $C$. If $v$ has three consecutive neighbors on $C$, then all four neighbors must be consecutive by \[itm:1\] and so $v\in F$. Now $N_C(v)=\{i,i+1,i+3,i+4\}$ for some $i$. If $i=1$, then $v\in W$. Suppose that $i=2$ (and the case $i=3$ is symmetric). Then either $w1$ and $v6$ induce a $2P_2$ or $\{w,v,2,5\}$ induces a $K_4$, depending on whether $w$ and $v$ are nonadjacent or not.
[ There is no vertex in $V\setminus C$ that has more than four neighbors.]{}
\[itm:5\]
Suppose not. Let $v\in V\setminus C$ have at least five neighbors on $C$. By symmetry, we may assume that $v$ is adjacent to $i$ for each $1\le i\le 5$. Then $\{1,3,5,v\}$ induces a $K_4$.
It follows from \[itm:2\]-\[itm:5\] that $V(G)=C\cup Z\cup D\cup T\cup F\cup W$. Note that each of the subsets defined is an independent set since $G$ is $(2P_2,K_4)$-free. We further investigate the adjacency among those subsets.
[ The set $W$ is anti-complete to $Z$.]{}
\[itm:WZ\]
If $w\in W$ and $z\in Z$ are adjacent, then $wz$ and $36$ induce a $2P_2$, a contradiction.
[ The set $W$ is complete to $D_{i,i+1}$ for $i\in \{2,3,5,6\}$ and anti-complete to $D_{i,i+1}$ for $i\in \{1,4\}$.]{}
\[itm:WD\]
Suppose that $w\in W$ is not adjacent some vertex $d\in D_{i,i+1}$ for some $i\in \{2,3,5,6\}$. By symmetry, we may assume that $i=2$. Then $d3$ and $w4$ induce a $2P_2$, a contradiction. Suppose that $w\in W$ is adjacent some vertex $d\in D_{1,2}\cup D_{4,5}$. Then $dw$ and $36$ induce a $2P_2$, a contradiction.
[ The set $W$ is complete to $T_1\cup T_2\cup T_4\cup T_5$ and anti-complete to $T_3\cup T_6$.]{}
\[itm:WT\]
Suppose that $w\in W$ is not adjacent some vertex $t\in T_{i}$ for some $i\in \{1,2,4,5\}$. By symmetry, we may assume that $i=1$. Then $t6$ and $w5$ induce a $2P_2$. Suppose that $w\in W$ is adjacent some vertex $t\in T_{i}$ for some $i\in \{3,6\}$. By symmetry, we may assume that $i=3$. Then $\{w,t,2,4\}$ induces a $K_4$.
[ The set $W$ is anti-complete to $F_{i,i+1}$ for $i\in \{2,3,5,6\}$ and complete to $F_{i,i+1}$ for $i\in \{1,4\}$.]{}
\[itm:WF\]
Suppose that $w\in W$ is adjacent some vertex $f\in F_{i,i+1}$ for some $i\in \{2,3,5,6\}$. By symmetry, we may assume that $i=2$. Then $\{f,w,1,4\}$ induces a $K_4$. Suppose that $w\in W$ is not adjacent some vertex $f\in F_{i,i+1}$ for some $i\in \{1,4\}$. By symmetry, we may assume that $i=1$. Then $6f$ and $5w$ induce a $2P_2$.
[ The set $Z$ is anti-complete to $D\cup T\cup (F\setminus (F_{1,2}\cup F_{4,5}))$.]{}
\[itm:Z\]
Suppose that $z\in Z$ is adjacent to some vertex $x\in D\cup T\cup (F\setminus (F_{1,2}\cup F_{4,5}))$. If $x\in D\cup T$, then there exists a vertex $i\in C$ such that $x$ is not adjacent to $i-1$ and $i+1$. Then $zx$ and $(i-1)(i+1)$ induce a $2P_2$. If $x\in F_{i,i+1}$ for some $i=2,3,5,6$, then $xw\notin E$ by \[itm:WF\]. Moreover, there exists a vertex $j\in N_C(w)$ such that $xj\notin E$. Then $wj$ and $zx$ induce a $2P_2$.
It follows from and \[itm:WZ\] and \[itm:Z\] that any vertex in $Z$ has neighbors only in $F_{1,2}\cup F_{4,5}$. On the other hand, $w$ is complete to $F_{1,2}\cup F_{4,5}$ by \[itm:WF\]. Since $G$ contains no pair of comparable vertices, it follows that $Z=\emptyset$.
[ For each $i$, $D_{i,i+1}$ is anti-complete to $D_{i+1,i+2}$, complete to $D_{i+2,i+3}$ and anti-complete to $D_{i+3,i+4}$.]{}
\[itm:DiDj\]
By symmetry, it suffices to prove the claim for $i=1$. Let $d\in D_{1,2}$. If $d$ is adjacent to $d'\in D_{2,3}$, then 46 and $dd'$ induce a $2P_2$. If $d$ is not adjacent to $d'\in D_{3,4}$, then $2d$ and $3d'$ induce a $2P_2$. If $d$ is adjacent to $d'\in D_{4,5}$, then 36 and $dd'$ induce a $2P_2$.
[ For each $i$, $F_{i,i+1}$ is anti-complete to $F_{i+1,i+2}\cup F_{i+3,i+4}$ and complete to $F_{i+2,i+3}$.]{}
\[itm:FiFj\]
By symmetry, it suffices to prove the claim for $i=1$. Let $f\in F_{1,2}$. If $f$ is adjacent to a vertex $f'\in F_{2,3}$, then $\{1,3,f,f'\}$ induces a $K_4$. If $f$ is not adjacent to a vertex $f'\in F_{3,4}$, then $5f'$ and $6f$ induce a $2P_2$. If $f$ is adjacent to a vertex $f'\in F_{4,5}$, then $\{3,6,f,f'\}$ induces a $K_4$.
[ The sets $T_i$ and $T_{i+1}$ are anti-complete for $i\in \{1,4\}$.]{}
\[itm:TiTi+1\]
By symmetry, it suffices to prove this for $i=1$. If $t_1\in T_1$ and $t_2\in T_2$ are adjacent, then $w$ is adjacent to both $t_1$ and $t_2$ by \[itm:WT\]. But now $\{t_1,t_2,w,1\}$ induces a $K_4$.
[ The sets $T_3$ and $T_1\cup T_5$ are complete. By symmetry, $T_6$ and $T_2\cup T_4$ are complete.]{}
\[itm:TiTi+2\]
Suppose that $t_3\in T_3$ is not adjacent to some vertex $t\in T_1\cup T_5$. By \[itm:WT\], $w$ is adjacent to $t$ but not to $t_3$. Then $3t_3$ and $wt$ induce a $2P_2$, a contradiction.
[ The sets $T_i$ and $T_{i+3}$ are complete for each $1\le i\le 6$.]{}
\[itm:TiTi+3\]
By symmetry, it suffices to prove this for $i=1$. If $t_1\in T_1$ and $t_4\in T_4$ are not adjacent, then $2t_1$ and $3t_4$ induce a $2P_2$.
[ For each $i$, $D_{i,i+1}$ is anti-complete to $T_{i-1}\cup T_i\cup T_{i+1}\cup T_{i+2}$ and complete to $T_{i+3}\cup T_{i+4}$.]{}
\[itm:DT\]
We note that $D_{1,2}$ and $D_{4,5}$ are symmetric, and $D_{2,3}$, $D_{3,4}$, $D_{5,6}$ and $D_{6,1}$ are symmetric. So, it suffices to prove the claim for $D_{1,2}$ and $D_{2,3}$.
Let $d\in D_{1,2}$. Suppose that $d$ is adjacent to some vertex $t\in T_6\cup T_1\cup T_2\cup T_3$. By symmetry, we may assume that $i\in \{1,3\}$. If $i=1$, then $td$ and $35$ induce a $2P_2$. If $i=3$, then $w$ is not adjacent to $d$ and $t$ by \[itm:WD\] and \[itm:WT\]. Then $dt$ and $w5$ induce a $2P_2$. Now suppose that $d$ is not adjacent to some vertex $t\in T_4\cup T_5$. By symmetry, we may assume that $t\in T_4$. Then $d2$ and $t3$ induce a $2P_2$. This proves the claim for $D_{1,2}$.
Let $d\in D_{2,3}$. Suppose that $d$ is adjacent to some vertex $t\in T_2\cup T_3$. By symmetry, we may assume that $t\in T_2$. Then $dt$ and $46$ induce a $2P_2$. Suppose that $d$ is not adjacent to some vertex $t\in T_5\cup T_6$. By symmetry, we may assume that $t\in T_5$. Then $d3$ and $t4$ induce a $2P_2$.
By \[itm:WD\] and \[itm:WT\], $\{2,w\}$ is complete to $D_{2,3}\cup T_1$. It follows from $K_4$-freeness of $G$ that $D_{2,3}$ is anti-complete to $T_1$. It remains to show that $D_{2,3}$ is anti-complete to $T_4$. Suppose that $d$ is adjacent to some vertex $t_4\in T_4$. Note that $C'=C\setminus \{1\}\cup \{t_4\}$ induces a $\overline{C_6}$ and $H'=C'\cup \{w\}$ induces a subgraph isomorphic to $H_1$. By \[itm:TiTi+1\] and \[itm:TiTi+2\], all vertices in $T_1\cup T_4\cup T_5\cup T_6$ remain to be $T$-vertices with respect to $C'$. Moreover, all vertices in $T_3\cup F$ remain to be $F$-vertices or $T$-vertices. By the choice of $C$, there exists a vertex $t\in T_2$ that is not adjacent to $t_4$. Then $dt_4$ and $1t_2$ induce a $2P_2$, a contradiction. This proves the claim for $D_{2,3}$.
[ For each $i$, $F_{i,i+1}$ is anti-complete to $T_i\cup T_{i+1}$ and complete to $T_{i+3}\cup T_{i+4}$]{}
\[itm:TF\]
By symmetry of $C$, it suffices to prove this for $i=1$. Let $f\in F_{1,2}$. If $f$ is adjacent to some vertex $t\in T_1\cup T_2$, then either $\{6,2,f,t\}$ or $\{1,3,f,t\}$ induces a $K_4$ depending on whether $t\in T_1$ or $t\in T_2$. Suppose that $f$ is not adjacent to some vertex $t\in T_4\cup T_5$. By symmetry, we may assume that $t\in T_4$. Then $6f$ and $5t$ induce a $2P_2$, a contradiction.
[ The sets $F_{i,i+1}$ and $T_{i-1}$ are complete for $i\in \{2,5\}$, and $F_{i,i+1}$ and $T_{i+2}$ are complete for $i\in \{3,6\}$. ]{}
\[itm:TFextra\]
Let $f\in F_{i,i+1}$ and $t\in T_i$ be nonadjacent. By \[itm:WF\] and \[itm:WT\], $w$ is adjacent to $t$ but not $f$. It can be readily checked that in each of the cases $wt$ and $f3$ or $wt$ and $f6$ induce a $2P_2$.
The set $D_{1,2}$ is anti-complete to $F_{6,1}\cup F_{2,3}$ and complete to $F_{45}$.
The set $D_{4,5}$ is anti-complete to $F_{3,4}\cup F_{5,6}$ and complete to $F_{12}$.
The set $D_{2,3}$ is anti-complete to $F_{1,2}$ and complete to $F_{5,6}\cup F_{6,1}$.
The set $D_{3,4}$ is anti-complete to $F_{4,5}$ and complete to $F_{5,6}\cup F_{6,1}$.
The set $D_{6,1}$ is anti-complete to $F_{1,2}$ and complete to $F_{2,3}\cup F_{3,4}$.
The set $D_{5,6}$ is anti-complete to $F_{4,5}$ and complete to $F_{2,3}\cup F_{3,4}$.
\[itm:DF\]
Note that $D_{1,2}$ and $D_{4,5}$ are symmetric, and $D_{2,3}$, $D_{3,4}$, $D_{5,6}$ and $D_{6,1}$ are symmetric. So, it suffices to prove the claim for $D_{1,2}$ and $D_{2,3}$. Let $d\in D_{1,2}$. If $d$ is adjacent to some vertex $f\in F_{6,1}\cup F_{2,3}$, then $w$ is not adjacent to $d$ and $f$ by \[itm:WD\] and \[itm:WF\]. Now $df$ and $w4$ or $df$and $w5$ induce a $2P_2$ depending on whether $f\in F_{6,1}$ or $f\in F_{2,3}$. If $d$ is not adjacent to some vertex $f\in F_{4,5}$, then $d2$ and $f3$ induce a $2P_2$. This proves the claim for $D_{1,2}$.
Now let $d\in D_{2,3}$. By \[itm:WD\], it follows that $wd\in E$. If $d$ is adjacent to a vertex $f\in F_{1,2}$, then $\{d,f,2,w\}$ induces a $K_4$ by \[itm:WF\]. If $d$ is not adjacent to a vertex $f\in F_{5,6}\cup F_{6,1}$, then $6f$ and $wd$ induce a $2P_2$ by \[itm:WF\]. This proves the claim for $D_{2,3}$.
We proceed with a few claims that help to show that certain sets are empty.
\[cla:D12D45\] Either $D_{1,2}$ or $D_{4,5}$ is empty.
Suppose not. Let $d_{12}\in D_{1,2}$ and $d_{45}\in D_{4,5}$. By \[itm:WD\]-\[itm:DF\], $N(d_{12})\subseteq N(w)$ unless $d_{12}$ has a neighbor $f\in F_{3,4}\cup F_{5,6}$. Similarly, $N(d_{45})\subseteq N(w)$ unless $d_{45}$ has a neighbor $f'\in F_{3,4}\cup F_{5,6}$. By \[itm:DiDj\] and \[itm:DF\], $d_{12}f$ and $d_{45}f'$ induce a $2P_2$, a contradiction.
\[cla:T1T2T4T5\] Each vertex in $T_1$ has a non-neighbor in $T_5$ and each vertex in $T_5$ has a non-neighbor in $T_1$. By symmetry, each vertex in $T_2$ has a non-neighbor in $T_4$ and each vertex in $T_4$ has a non-neighbor in $T_2$.
Let $t_1\in T_1$. Let $$X=\{6,1,2\}\cup W\cup D_{3,4}\cup D_{4,5}\cup T_3\cup T_4\cup F_{2,3}\cup F_{3,4}\cup F_{4,5}.$$ Note that $N(4)=X\cup T_5\cup F_{5,6}$ and $N(t_1)\subseteq X\cup T_5\cup F_{5,6}\cup T_6$ by the properties we have proved. Since $G$ contains no pair of comparable vertices, $t_1$ has a neighbor $t_6\in T_6$ and there exists a vertex $t\in N(4)\setminus N(t_1)$. Clearly, $t\in F_{5,6}\cup T_5$. If $t\in F_{5,6}$, then $4t$ and $t_1t_6$ induce a $2P_2$ since $F_{56}$ and $T_6$ are anti-complete by \[itm:TF\]. This shows that $t_1$ has a non-neighbor $t\in T_5$. By symmetry, each vertex in $T_5$ has a non-neighbor in $T_1$.
\[cla:T3T6\] Each vertex in $T_6$ has a neighbor in $T_1\cup T_5$. By symmetry, each vertex in $T_3$ has a neighbor in $T_2\cup T_4$.
Let $t_6\in T_6$. Let $$X=\{5,6,1\}\cup D_{2,3}\cup D_{3,4}\cup T_2\cup T_3\cup T_4\cup F_{2,3}\cup F_{3,4}.$$ Note that $N(3)=X\cup F_{1,2}\cup F_{4,5}$ and $N(t_6)\subseteq X\cup T_1\cup T_5\cup F_{12}\cup F_{45}$. Since $G$ contains no pair of comparable vertices, $t_6$ has a neighbor in $T_1\cup T_5$.
\[cla:D5661T2T4complete\] If $D_{5,6}\cup D_{6,1}\neq \emptyset$, then $T_2$ and $T_4$ are complete. By symmetry, if $D_{2,3}\cup D_{3,4}\neq \emptyset$, then $T_1$ and $T_5$ are complete.
Let $d\in D_{5,6}\cup D_{6,1}$. Suppose that $t_2\in T_2$ and $t_4\in T_4$ are not adjacent. If $d\in D_{5,6}$, then $dt_2\in E$ and $dt_4\notin E$ by \[itm:DT\]. Thus, $dt_2$ and $4t_4$ induce a $2P_2$. If $d\in D_{6,1}$, then $dt_4\in E$ and $dt_2\notin E$ by \[itm:DT\]. Thus, $dt_4$ and $2t_2$ induce a $2P_2$.
\[cla:F61F12F23\] One of $F_{6,1}$, $F_{1,2}$ and $F_{2,3}$ is empty. By symmetry, one of $F_{3,4}$, $F_{4,5}$ and $F_{5,6}$ is empty.
Suppose that $f_{61}\in F_{6,1}$, $f_{12}\in F_{1,2}$, and $f_{23}\in F_{2,3}$. Then $f_{61}f_{23}$ and $f_{12}w$ induce a $2P_2$ by \[itm:WF\] and \[itm:FiFj\].
=\[draw, circle, fill=white!100, minimum width=4pt,inner sep=2pt\] (v1) at (-1.5,2) [$T_1$]{}; (v2) at (1.5,2) [$T_2$]{}; (v3) at (4,0) [$T_3$]{}; (v4) at (1.5,-2) [$T_4$]{}; (v5) at (-1.5,-2) [$T_5$]{}; (v6) at (-4,0) [$T_6$]{};
(v2)–(v3)–(v4)–(v2); (v1)–(v6)–(v5)–(v1); (v1)–(v4) (v2)–(v5) (v3)–(v6); (v3)–(v1) (v3)–(v5) (v6)–(v2) (v6)–(v4);
(d45) at (0,4) [$D_{45}$]{}; (d45)–(v1) (d45)–(v2); (d12) at (0,-4) [$D_{12}$]{}; (d12)–(v4) (d12)–(v5); (d23) at (-4,-2) [$D_{23}$]{}; (d23)–(v5) (d23)–(v6); (d34) at (-4,2) [$D_{34}$]{}; (d34)–(v6) (d34)–(v1); (d56) at (4,2) [$D_{56}$]{}; (d56)–(v2) (d56)–(v3); (d61) at (4,-2) [$D_{61}$]{}; (d61)–(v3) (d61)–(v4);
By , we may assume that $D_{4,5}=\emptyset$. It follows from \[itm:TiTi+1\], \[itm:TiTi+2\] and \[itm:TiTi+3\] that either $T_1$ and $T_5$ are complete or $T_2$ and $T_4$ are complete for otherwise $G$ would contain a $2P_2$ (see ). By symmetry, we may assume that $T_1$ and $T_5$ are complete. It then follows from and that $T_1\cup T_5\cup T_6=\emptyset$.
If $D_{5,6}\cup D_{6,1}\neq \emptyset$, then $T_2\cup T_3\cup T_4=\emptyset$ due to -. In the following we shall use this fact without explicitly mentioning it. We divide our proof into four cases depending on whether $F_{1,2}$ and $F_{4,5}$ are empty or not. One can verify that each of the partitions of $V(G)$ into 4 subsets in the following is a 4-coloring of $G$ using the properties we have proved. For convenience, we draw to visulize the adjacency among $D_{i,i+1}$ and $F_{i,i+1}$. From it can be seen that if $T_2\cup T_3\cup T_4=\emptyset$, then we can use the symmetry of $H$ under its automorphism $f:V(H)\rightarrow V(H)$ with $f(1)=2$, $f(2)=1$, $f(3)=6$, $f(4)=5$, $f(5)=4$, $f(6)=3$ and $f(w)=w$.
=\[draw, circle, fill=white!100, minimum width=4pt,inner sep=2pt\] (f12) at (0,4) [$F_{12}$]{}; (f23) at (4,2) [$F_{23}$]{}; (f34) at (4,-2) [$F_{34}$]{}; (f45) at (0,-4) [$F_{45}$]{}; (f56) at (-4,-2) [$F_{56}$]{}; (f61) at (-4,2) [$F_{61}$]{};
(f12)–(f34)–(f56)–(f12); (f23)–(f45)–(f61)–(f23);
(d12) at (0,0) [$D_{12}$]{}; (d12)–(f45); (f34)–(d12)–(f56) (d12)–(f12);
(d23) at (-6,-5) [$D_{23}$]{}; (f56)–(d23)–(f61); (d23)–(f23) (d23)–(f34); (d23)–(f45);
(d34) at (-6,5) [$D_{34}$]{}; (f56)–(d34)–(f61); (d34)–(f23) (d34)–(f34); (d34)–(f12);
(d56) at (6,5) [$D_{56}$]{}; (f23)–(d56)–(f34); (d56)–(f56) (d56)–(f61); (d56)–(f12);
(d61) at (6,-5) [$D_{61}$]{}; (f23)–(d61)–(f34); (d61)–(f56) (d61)–(f61); (d61)–(f45);
[[**Case 1.**]{}]{} Both $F_{1,2}$ and $F_{4,5}$ are not empty. Let $f_{12}\in D_{1,2}$ and $f_{45}\in D_{4,5}$. We first show that $F_{1,2}\cup F_{4,5}$ is anti-complete to $D_{2,3}\cup D_{3,4}\cup D_{5,6}\cup D_{6,1}$. By symmetry, it suffices to show that $F_{1,2}\cup F_{4,5}$ is anti-complete to $D_{2,3}$. Suppose that $d\in D_{2,3}$ and $f\in F_{1,2}\cup F_{4,5}$ are adjacent. By \[itm:DF\], $f\in F_{4,5}$. Then $df$ and $1f_{12}$ induce a $2P_2$. On the other hand, it follows from and \[itm:FiFj\] that at most one of $F_{2,3}$, $F_{3,4}$, $F_{5,6}$ and $F_{6,1}$ is not empty.
$\bullet$ If $F_{2,3}\neq \emptyset$, then $G$ has a 4-coloring: $$\begin{aligned}
& F_{4,5}\cup D_{2,3}\cup D_{3,4} \cup \{1\}\cup T_4,\\
& F_{2,3}\cup D_{1,2}\cup W\cup \{6\}\cup T_3, \\
& F_{1,2}\cup \{4,5\}\cup T_2, \\
& D_{5,6}\cup D_{6,1}\cup \{2,3\}. \\ \end{aligned}$$
$\bullet$ Suppose that $F_{6,1}\neq \emptyset$.
If $D_{5,6}\cup D_{6,1}\neq \emptyset$, then $G$ has a 4-coloring: $$\begin{aligned}
& F_{4,5}\cup D_{5,6}\cup D_{6,1} \cup \{2\},\\
& F_{6,1}\cup D_{1,2}\cup W\cup \{3\}, \\
& F_{1,2}\cup \{4,5\}, \\
& D_{2,3}\cup D_{3,4}\cup \{1,6\}. \\ \end{aligned}$$
If $D_{5,6}\cup D_{6,1}= \emptyset$, then $G$ has a 4-coloring: $$\begin{aligned}
& F_{4,5}\cup \{1,2\}\cup T_4,\\
& F_{6,1}\cup D_{1,2}\cup W\cup \{3\}, \\
& F_{1,2}\cup \{4,5\}\cup T_2, \\
& D_{2,3}\cup D_{3,4}\cup \{6\}\cup T_3. \\ \end{aligned}$$
$\bullet$ Suppose that $F_{3,4}\neq \emptyset$. Note first that no vertex $d\in D_{1,2}$ can have a neighbor in both $F_{1,2}$ and $F_{3,4}$ for otherwise a neighbor of $d$ in $F_{1,2}$, a neighbor of $d$ in $F_{3,4}$, $d$ and $2$ induce a $K_4$. Let $D'_{1,2}$ be the set of vertices in $D_{1,2}$ that are anti-complete to $F_{3,4}$ and $D''_{1,2}=D_{1,2}\setminus D'_{1,2}$. Then $G$ has a 4-coloring: $$\begin{aligned}
&F_{4,5}\cup D_{2,3}\cup D_{3,4} \cup \{1\}\cup T_4,\\
&F_{3,4}\cup D'_{1,2}\cup W\cup \{6\}\cup T_3, \\
&F_{1,2}\cup D''_{1,2}\cup \{4,5\}\cup T_2, \\
&D_{5,6}\cup D_{6,1}\cup \{2,3\}. \\ \end{aligned}$$
$\bullet$ Suppose that $F_{5,6}\neq \emptyset$. Note first that no vertex $d\in D_{1,2}$ can have a neighbor in both $F_{1,2}$ and $F_{5,6}$ for otherwise a neighbor of $d$ in $F_{1,2}$, a neighbor of $d$ in $F_{5,6}$, $d$ and 1 induce a $K_4$. Let $D'_{1,2}$ be the set of vertices in $D_{1,2}$ that are anti-complete to $F_{5,6}$ and $D''_{1,2}=D_{1,2}\setminus D'_{1,2}$. By \[itm:TF\] and \[itm:TFextra\], $F_{5,6}$ and $T_3\cup T_4$ are complete. Since $G$ is $K_4$-free, $T_3$ and $T_4$ are anti-complete. Then $G$ has a 4-coloring: $$\begin{aligned}
&F_{4,5}\cup D_{5,6}\cup D_{6,1} \cup \{2\},\\
&F_{5,6}\cup D'_{1,2}\cup W\cup \{3\}, \\
&F_{1,2}\cup D''_{1,2}\cup \{4,5\}\cup T_2, \\
&D_{2,3}\cup D_{3,4}\cup \{1,6\}\cup T_3\cup T_4. \\ \end{aligned}$$
[[**Case 2.**]{}]{} Both $F_{1,2}$ and $F_{4,5}$ are empty. By \[itm:FiFj\] and the fact that $G$ is $2P_2$-free, one of $F_{2,3}$, $F_{3,4}$, $F_{5,6}$ and $F_{6,1}$ is empty. By \[itm:DiDj\], \[itm:DF\], \[itm:FiFj\] and $K_4$-freeness of $G$, either $D_{5,6}$ and $F_{5,6}$ are anti-complete or $D_{3,4}$ and $F_{3,4}$ are anti-complete.
$\bullet$ Suppose that $F_{6,1}=\emptyset$.
If $D_{5,6}$ and $F_{5,6}$ are anti-complete, then $G$ has a 4-coloring: $$\begin{aligned}
&F_{2,3}\cup F_{3,4}\cup W\cup \{6\}\cup T_3,\\
&F_{5,6}\cup D_{5,6}\cup \{2,3\}, \\
&D_{1,2}\cup D_{6,1}\cup \{4,5\}\cup T_2, \\
&D_{2,3}\cup D_{3,4}\cup \{1\}\cup T_4. \\ \end{aligned}$$
Now assume that $D_{3,4}$ and $F_{3,4}$ are anti-complete.
If $D_{5,6}\cup D_{6,1}\neq \emptyset$, then $G$ has a 4-coloring: $$\begin{aligned}
&F_{2,3}\cup F_{5,6}\cup W,\\
&F_{3,4}\cup D_{3,4}\cup \{6,1\}, \\
&D_{1,2}\cup D_{2,3}\cup \{4,5\}, \\
&D_{5,6}\cup D_{6,1}\cup \{2,3\}. \\ \end{aligned}$$
If $D_{5,6}\cup D_{6,1}= \emptyset$, then $G$ has a 4-coloring: $$\begin{aligned}
&F_{2,3}\cup D_{1,2}\cup W\cup \{6\}\cup T_3,\\
&F_{3,4}\cup D_{3,4}\cup \{1\}\cup T_4, \\
&F_{5,6}\cup \{2,3\}, \\
&D_{2,3}\cup \{4,5\}\cup T_2. \\ \end{aligned}$$
$\bullet$ Suppose that $F_{2,3}=\emptyset$.
Suppose first that $D_{3,4}$ and $F_{3,4}$ are anti-complete.
If $D_{5,6}\cup D_{6,1}\neq \emptyset$, then $G$ has a 4-coloring: $$\begin{aligned}
&F_{6,1}\cup F_{5,6}\cup W\cup \{3\},\\
&F_{3,4}\cup D_{3,4}\cup \{6,1\}, \\
&D_{1,2}\cup D_{2,3}\cup \{4,5\}, \\
&D_{6,1}\cup D_{5,6}\cup \{2\}. \\ \end{aligned}$$
If $D_{5,6}\cup D_{6,1}= \emptyset$, then $G$ has a 4-coloring: $$\begin{aligned}
&F_{6,1}\cup F_{5,6}\cup W\cup \{3\},\\
&F_{3,4}\cup D_{3,4}\cup \{6\}\cup T_3, \\
&D_{1,2}\cup D_{2,3}\cup \{4,5\}\cup T_2, \\
&\{1,2\}\cup T_4. \\ \end{aligned}$$
Suppose now that $D_{3,4}$ and $F_{3,4}$ are not anti-complete and that $D_{5,6}$ and $F_{5,6}$ are anti-complete. By \[itm:DT\] and \[itm:TF\], $D_{3,4}\cup F_{3,4}$ are anti-complete to $T_3\cup T_4$. Since $G$ is $2P_2$-free, it follows that $T_3$ and $T_4$ are anti-complete. Then $G$ has a 4-coloring: $$\begin{aligned}
&F_{6,1}\cup F_{3,4}\cup W,\\
&F_{5,6}\cup D_{5,6}\cup \{2,3\}, \\
&D_{1,2}\cup D_{6,1}\cup \{4,5\}\cup T_2, \\
&D_{2,3}\cup D_{3,4}\cup \{6,1\}\cup T_3\cup T_4. \\ \end{aligned}$$
$\bullet$ Suppose that $F_{5,6}=\emptyset$. If $F_{6,1}=\emptyset$, then $G$ has a 4-coloring as above. So, we can assume that $F_{6,1}\neq \emptyset$. Let $f_{61}\in F_{6,1}$. If $d\in D_{2,3}$ and $f\in F_{2,3}$ are adjacent, then $\{2,f_{61},d,f\}$ induces a $K_4$ by \[itm:FiFj\] and \[itm:DF\]. So, $D_{2,3}$ and $F_{2,3}$ are anti-complete. By \[itm:TF\] and \[itm:TFextra\], $F_{6,1}$ and $T_2\cup T_3$ are complete. Since $G$ is $K_4$-free, $T_2$ and $T_3$ are anti-complete. Then $G$ has a 4-coloring: $$\begin{aligned}
&F_{3,4}\cup F_{6,1}\cup W,\\
&F_{2,3}\cup D_{1,2}\cup D_{2,3}\cup \{5,6\}\cup T_2\cup T_3, \\
&D_{3,4}\cup \{1,2\}\cup T_4, \\
&D_{5,6}\cup D_{6,1}\cup \{3,4\}. \\ \end{aligned}$$
$\bullet$ Suppose that $F_{3,4}=\emptyset$. If $F_{2,3}=\emptyset$, then $G$ has a 4-coloring as above. So, we can assume that $F_{2,3}\neq \emptyset$. Let $f_{23}\in F_{2,3}$. If $d\in D_{6,1}$ and $f\in F_{6,1}$ are adjacent, then $\{1,f_{23},d,f\}$ induces a $K_4$ by \[itm:FiFj\] and \[itm:DF\]. So, $D_{6,1}$ and $F_{6,1}$ are anti-complete.
If $D_{5,6}\cup D_{6,1}\neq \emptyset$, then $G$ has a 4-coloring: $$\begin{aligned}
&F_{5,6}\cup F_{2,3}\cup W,\\
&F_{6,1}\cup D_{1,2}\cup D_{6,1}\cup \{3,4\}, \\
&D_{5,6}\cup \{1,2\}, \\
&D_{3,4}\cup D_{2,3}\cup \{5,6\}. \\ \end{aligned}$$
If $D_{5,6}\cup D_{6,1}\neq \emptyset$, then $G$ has a 4-coloring: $$\begin{aligned}
&F_{5,6}\cup F_{6,1}\cup W\cup \{3\},\\
&F_{2,3}\cup D_{1,2}\cup \{6\}\cup T_3, \\
&D_{2,3}\cup \{4,5\}\cup T_2, \\
&D_{3,4}\cup \{1,2\}\cup T_4. \\ \end{aligned}$$
[[**Case 3.**]{}]{} The set $F_{1,2}=\emptyset$ but the set $F_{4,5}\neq \emptyset$. By , either $F_{3,4}=\emptyset$ or $F_{5,6}=\emptyset$. By \[itm:DiDj\], \[itm:DF\], \[itm:FiFj\] and $K_4$-freeness of $G$, either $D_{2,3}$ and $F_{2,3}$ are anti-complete or $D_{6,1}$ and $F_{6,1}$ are anti-complete.
$\bullet$ Suppose that $F_{5,6}=\emptyset$.
If $D_{6,1}$ and $F_{6,1}$ are anti-complete, then $G$ has a 4-coloring: $$\begin{aligned}
&F_{2,3}\cup F_{3,4}\cup W\cup \{6\}\cup T_3,\\
&F_{6,1}\cup D_{1,2}\cup D_{6,1}\cup \{3,4\},\\
&F_{4,5}\cup D_{5,6}\cup \{1,2\}\cup T_4, \\
&D_{2,3}\cup D_{3,4}\cup \{5\}\cup T_2. \\ \end{aligned}$$
Now assume that $D_{2,3}$ and $F_{2,3}$ are anti-complete.
If $D_{5,6}\cup D_{6,1}\neq \emptyset$, then $G$ has a 4-coloring: $$\begin{aligned}
&F_{3,4}\cup F_{6,1}\cup W,\\
&F_{2,3}\cup D_{1,2}\cup D_{2,3}\cup \{5,6\}, \\
&F_{4,5}\cup D_{3,4}\cup \{1,2\}, \\
&D_{5,6}\cup D_{6,1}\cup \{3,4\}. \\ \end{aligned}$$
If $D_{5,6}\cup D_{6,1}= \emptyset$, then $G$ has a 4-coloring: $$\begin{aligned}
&F_{3,4}\cup W\cup \{6\}\cup T_3,\\
&F_{2,3}\cup D_{1,2}\cup D_{2,3}\cup \{5\}\cup T_2, \\
&F_{4,5}\cup D_{3,4}\cup \{1,2\}\cup T_4, \\
&F_{6,1}\cup \{3,4\}. \\ \end{aligned}$$
$\bullet$ Suppose that $F_{3,4}=\emptyset$. Suppose first that $D_{2,3}$ and $F_{2,3}$ are anti-complete.
If $D_{5,6}\cup D_{6,1}\neq \emptyset$, then $G$ has a 4-coloring: $$\begin{aligned}
&F_{5,6}\cup F_{6,1}\cup W\cup \{3\},\\
&F_{2,3}\cup D_{1,2}\cup D_{2,3}\cup \{5,6\}, \\
&F_{4,5}\cup D_{3,4}\cup \{1,2\}, \\
&D_{5,6}\cup D_{6,1}\cup \{4\}. \\ \end{aligned}$$
If $D_{5,6}\cup D_{6,1}= \emptyset$, then $G$ has a 4-coloring: $$\begin{aligned}
&F_{5,6}\cup F_{6,1}\cup W\cup \{3\},\\
&F_{2,3}\cup D_{1,2}\cup D_{2,3}\cup \{6\}\cup T_3, \\
&F_{4,5}\cup D_{3,4}\cup \{1,2\}\cup T_4, \\
&\{4,5\}\cup T_2. \\ \end{aligned}$$
Now suppose that $D_{2,3}$ and $F_{2,3}$ are not anti-complete and that $D_{6,1}$ and $F_{6,1}$ are anti-complete. Then $T_2$ and $T_3$ are anti-complete for otherwise an edge between $T_2$ and $T_3$ and an edge between $D_{2,3}$ and $F_{2,3}$ induce a $2P_2$ by \[itm:DT\] and \[itm:TF\]. Then $G$ has a 4-coloring: $$\begin{aligned}
&F_{5,6}\cup F_{2,3}\cup W,\\
&F_{6,1}\cup D_{1,2}\cup D_{6,1}\cup \{3,4\}, \\
&F_{4,5}\cup D_{5,6}\cup \{1,2\}\cup T_4, \\
&D_{2,3}\cup D_{3,4}\cup \{5,6\}\cup T_2\cup T_3. \\ \end{aligned}$$
[[**Case 4.**]{}]{} The set $F_{4,5}=\emptyset$ but the set $F_{1,2}\neq \emptyset$. By , either $F_{2,3}=\emptyset$ or $F_{6,1}=\emptyset$. By \[itm:DF\] and \[itm:FiFj\], $F_{3,4}$ is complete to $D_{5,6}\cup F_{5,6}$. So, if $F_{3,4}\neq \emptyset$, then $D_{5,6}$ and $F_{5,6}$ are anti-complete for otherwise $G$ would contain a $K_4$. By symmetry, if $F_{5,6}\neq \emptyset$, then $D_{3,4}$ and $F_{3,4}$ are anti-complete. Moreover, either $D_{3,4}$ and $F_{3,4}$ are anti-complete or $D_{5,6}$ and $F_{5,6}$ are anti-complete. Similarly, either $D_{2,3}$ and $F_{3,4}$ are anti-complete or $D_{6,1}$ and $F_{5,6}$ are anti-complete.
$\bullet$ Suppose that $F_{6,1}=\emptyset$. If both $F_{3,4}$ and $F_{5,6}$ are not empty, then consider the following 4-coloring of $G-(D_{2,3}\cup D_{6,1})$: $$\begin{aligned}
I_1&=F_{2,3}\cup D_{1,2}\cup W\cup \{6\}\cup T_3,\\
I_2&=F_{3,4}\cup D_{3,4}\cup \{1\}\cup T_4, \\
I_3&=F_{5,6}\cup D_{5,6}\cup \{2,3\}, \\
I_4&=F_{1,2}\cup \{4,5\}\cup T_2. \\ \end{aligned}$$ If $D_{2,3}$ and $F_{3,4}$ are anti-complete, then $G$ has a 4-coloring: $I_1$, $I_2\cup D_{2,3}$, $I_3$ and $I_4\cup D_{6,1}$. If $D_{6,1}$ and $F_{5,6}$ are anti-complete, then $G$ has a 4-coloring: $I_1$, $I_2$, $I_3\cup D_{6,1}$ and $I_4\cup D_{2,3}$. It reamains to consider the case where at least one of $F_{3,4}$ and $F_{5,6}$ is empty.
Suppose that $F_{5,6}=\emptyset$. Recall that no vertex in $D_{1,2}$ can have a neighbor in both $F_{1,2}$ and $F_{3,4}$. Let $D'_{1,2}$ be the set of vertices in $D_{1,2}$ that are anti-complete to $F_{1,2}$ and $D''_{1,2}=D_{1,2}\setminus D'_{1,2}$. Then $G$ has a 4-coloring: $$\begin{aligned}
&F_{1,2}\cup D'_{1,2}\cup \{4,5\}\cup T_2,\\
&F_{2,3}\cup F_{3,4}\cup D''_{1,2}\cup W\cup \{6\}\cup T_3, \\
&D_{2,3}\cup D_{3,4}\cup \{1\}\cup T_4, \\
&D_{5,6}\cup D_{6,1}\cup\{2,3\}. \\ \end{aligned}$$
Suppose now that $F_{5,6}\neq \emptyset$ and $F_{3,4}=\emptyset$. Note that no vertex in $D_{1,2}$ can have a neighbor in both $F_{1,2}$ and $F_{5,6}$. Let $D'_{1,2}$ be the set of vertices in $D_{1,2}$ that are anti-complete to $F_{1,2}$ and $D''_{1,2}=D_{1,2}\setminus D'_{1,2}$. Moreover, recall that since $F_{5,6}\neq \emptyset$, $T_3$ and $T_4$ are anti-complete. Then $G$ has a 4-coloring: $$\begin{aligned}
&F_{1,2}\cup D_{2,3}\cup D'_{1,2}\cup \{4,5\}\cup T_2,\\
&F_{2,3}\cup F_{5,6}\cup D''_{1,2}\cup W,\\
&D_{3,4}\cup \{6,1\}\cup T_3\cup T_4, \\
&D_{5,6}\cup D_{6,1}\cup \{2,3\}.\\ \end{aligned}$$
$\bullet$ Suppose that $F_{2,3}=\emptyset$. If both $F_{3,4}$ and $F_{5,6}$ are not empty, then consider the following 4-coloring of $G-(D_{2,3}\cup D_{6,1})$: $$\begin{aligned}
I_1&=F_{6,1}\cup D_{1,2}\cup W\cup \{3\},\\
I_2&=F_{5,6}\cup D_{5,6}\cup \{2\}, \\
I_3&=F_{3,4}\cup D_{3,4}\cup \{6,1\}\cup T_3\cup T_4, \\
I_4&=F_{1,2}\cup \{4,5\}\cup T_2. \\ \end{aligned}$$ If $D_{2,3}$ and $F_{3,4}$ are anti-complete, then $G$ has a 4-coloring: $I_1$, $I_2$, $I_3\cup D_{2,3}$ and $I_4\cup D_{6,1}$. If $D_{6,1}$ and $F_{5,6}$ are anti-complete, then $G$ has a 4-coloring: $I_1$, $I_2\cup D_{6,1}$, $I_3$ and $I_4\cup D_{2,3}$. So, one of $F_{3,4}$ and $F_{5,6}$ is empty.
Suppose that $F_{5,6}\neq \emptyset$. So, $F_{3,4}=\emptyset$. Recall that no vertex in $D_{1,2}$ can have a neighbor in both $F_{1,2}$ and $F_{5,6}$. Let $D'_{1,2}$ be the set of vertices in $D_{1,2}$ that are anti-complete to $F_{1,2}$ and $D''_{1,2}=D_{1,2}\setminus D'_{1,2}$. Moreover, $T_3$ and $T_4$ are anti-complete. Then $G$ has a 4-coloring: $$\begin{aligned}
&F_{1,2}\cup D'_{1,2}\cup \{4,5\}\cup T_2,\\
&F_{6,1}\cup F_{5,6}\cup D''_{1,2}\cup W\cup \{3\},\\
&D_{6,1}\cup D_{5,6}\cup\{2\}, \\
&D_{2,3}\cup D_{3,4}\cup \{6,1\}\cup T_3\cup T_4.\\ \end{aligned}$$
Suppose now that $F_{5,6}=\emptyset$. Recall that no vertex in $D_{1,2}$ can have a neighbor in both $F_{1,2}$ and $F_{3,4}$. Let $D'_{1,2}$ be the set of vertices in $D_{1,2}$ that are anti-complete to $F_{1,2}$ and $D''_{1,2}=D_{1,2}\setminus D'_{1,2}$.
If $D_{5,6}\cup D_{6,1}\neq \emptyset$, then $G$ has a 4-coloring: $$\begin{aligned}
&F_{1,2}\cup D_{6,1}\cup D'_{1,2}\cup \{4,5\},\\
&F_{6,1}\cup F_{3,4}\cup D''_{1,2}\cup W,\\
&D_{5,6}\cup\{2,3\}, \\
&D_{2,3}\cup D_{3,4}\cup \{6,1\}.\\ \end{aligned}$$
If $D_{5,6}\cup D_{6,1}= \emptyset$, then $G$ has a 4-coloring: $$\begin{aligned}
&F_{1,2}\cup D_{2,3}\cup D'_{1,2}\cup \{4,5\}\cup T_2,\\
&F_{3,4}\cup D''_{1,2}\cup W\cup \{6\}\cup T_3,\\
&F_{5,6}\cup \{3\}, \\
&D_{3,4}\cup \{1,2\}\cup T_4.\\ \end{aligned}$$
In each case we have found a 4-coloring of $G$. This completes our proof.
Eliminate $H_2$ {#sec:F2}
===============
In this section we show that our main theorem, , holds when $G$ is connected, has no pair of comparable vertices, does not contain $H_1$ as an induced subgraph, but contains $H_2$ as an induced subgraph.
\[lem:F2\] Let $G$ be a connected $(2P_2,K_4, H_1)$-free graph with no pair of comparable vertices. If $G$ contains an induced $H_2$, then $\chi(G)\le 4$.
Let $H=C\cup \{f\}$ be an induced $H_2$ where $C=12345$ induces a $C_5$ and $f$ is adjacent to $1$, $2$, $3$ and $4$. We partition $V\setminus C$ into subsets of $Z$, $R_i$, $Y_i$, $F_i$ and $U$ as in . By the fact that $G$ is $H_1$-free and \[itm:FiFi+2\], it follows that $F_i=\emptyset$ for $i\neq 5$. Note that $f\in F_5$. We choose $H$ such that
$\bullet$ $|U|$ is minimum, and
$\bullet$ $|F_5|$ is minimum subject to the previous condition.
[ $U$ is complete to $R_i$ for $1\le i\le 5$.]{}
\[itm:URi\]
Suppose not. Let $u\in U$ be nonadjacent to $r_i\in R_i$ for some $i$. Suppose first that $1\le i\le 4$. Note that $C'=C\setminus \{i\}\cup \{r_i\}$ induces a $C_5$ and $H'=C'\cup \{u\}$ induces an $H_2$. Since $5\in C'$, it follows that $F_5\cap U'=\emptyset$ and $U'\subseteq U$. Moreover, $u\in U$ is not in $U'$ since $u$ is not adjacent to $r_i$. This implies that $|U'|<|U|$, contradicting the choice of $H$.
Now suppose that $i=5$. Note that $C'=C\setminus \{5\}\cup \{r_5\}$ induces a $C_5$ and $H'=C'\cup \{u\}$ induces an $H_2$. Note that $U'\subseteq F_5\cup U$ and $u\notin U'$ since $u$ is not adjacent to $r_i$. By the chocie of $H$, there exists a vertex $f'\in F_5$ such that $f'$ is adjacent to $r_5$. By \[itm:UYF\], $u$ and $f$ are not adjacent. But then $fr_5$ and $5u$ indcue a $2P_2$.
[ If $U\neq \emptyset$, then $R_i$ and $R_{i+2}$ are anti-complete.]{}
\[itm:URiRi+2\]
Let $u\in U$. If $r_i\in R_i$ and $r_{i+2}\in R_{i+2}$ are not adjacent, then $\{r_i,r_{i+2}, i+1,u\}$ induces a $K_4$, since $u$ is adjacent to $r_i$ and $r_{i+2}$ by \[itm:URi\].
Suppose first that $U\neq \emptyset$. By \[itm:URiRi+2\], $R_i$ and $R_{i+2}$ are anti-complete. Recall that $Y_i$ and $Y_{i+2}$ are anti-complete by \[itm:YiYi+2\]. By \[itm:Ri+1YiYi+2\], $R_1$ is anti-complete to $Y_5\cup Y_2$ and $R_4$ is anti-complete to $Y_5\cup Y_3$. By \[itm:FY\], $F_5$ is anti-complete to $Y_1\cup Y_4$. By \[itm:RiYi+1Ri+1Yi\], either $Y_3$ and $R_2$ are anti-complete or $Y_2$ and $R_3$ are anti-complete.
If $Y_3$ and $R_2$ are anti-complete, then $G$ admits the following $4$-coloring: $$\begin{aligned}
& Y_1\cup Y_4\cup U\cup F_5 &\ref{itm:YiYi+2} \ref{itm:UYF} \ref{itm:FY} \\
& Y_2\cup Y_5\cup R_1\cup \{1\} &\ref{itm:YiYi+2} \ref{itm:Ri+1YiYi+2}\\
& Y_3\cup R_2\cup R_4\cup \{2,4\} &\ref{itm:URiRi+2} \ref{itm:Ri+1YiYi+2}\\
& R_3\cup R_5\cup Z\cup \{3,5\} &\ref{itm:URiRi+2} \ref{itm:UYF}\end{aligned}$$
If $Y_2$ and $R_3$ are anti-complete, then $G$ admits the following $4$-coloring: $$\begin{aligned}
& Y_1\cup Y_4\cup U\cup F_5 &\ref{itm:YiYi+2} \ref{itm:UYF} \ref{itm:FY} \\
& Y_3\cup Y_5\cup R_4\cup \{4\} &\ref{itm:YiYi+2} \ref{itm:Ri+1YiYi+2}\\
& Y_2\cup R_1\cup R_3\cup \{1,3\} &\ref{itm:URiRi+2} \ref{itm:Ri+1YiYi+2}\\
& R_2\cup R_5\cup Z\cup \{2,5\} &\ref{itm:URiRi+2} \ref{itm:UYF}\end{aligned}$$
This shows that if $U\neq \emptyset$, then $G$ has a 4-coloring. Therefore, we can assume in the following that $U=\emptyset$.
[ Each vertex in $R_2\cup R_3$ is either complete or anti-complete to $F_5$.]{}
\[itm:FR2R3\]
Suppose not. Let $r\in R_2\cup R_3$ be adjacent to $f\in F_5$ and not adjacent to $f'\in F_5$. By symmetry, we may assume that $r\in R_2$. Note that $C'=C\setminus \{2\}\cup \{r\}$ induces a $C_5$ and $H'=C'\cup \{f\}$ induces an $H_2$. Clearly, $f'\notin F'_5$. By the choice of $H$, there exists a vertex $y\in Y$ such that $y\in F'_5$. This means that $y$ is not adjacent to $5$ but adjacent to $1$, $3$, $4$ and $r_2$. This implies that $y\in Y_1$. By \[itm:FY\], $f'$ and $y$ are not adjacent. But now $f'2$ and $yr_2$ induce a $2P_2$.
By \[itm:FY\], \[itm:FR\] and \[itm:FR2R3\], only vertices in $R_5\cup Z$ can distinguish two vertices in $F_5$. By \[itm:ZR\], $R_5\cup Z$ is an independent set and so $(F_5,R_5\cup Z)$ is a $2P_2$-free bipartite graph. This implies that $F_5=\{f\}$ since any two vertices in $F$ are comparable. Let $R'_i=N(f)\cap R_i$ and $R''_i=R_i\setminus R'_i$ for $i=2,3,5$. We now prove properties of $R'_i$ and $R''_i$.
[ $R'_5$ is anti-complete to $R'_2\cup R'_3$.]{}
\[itm:R’iR’j\]
Suppose that $r'_5\in R'_5$ and $r'_2\in R'_2$ are adjacent. Then $\{r'_5,r'_2,1,f\}$ induces a $K_4$.
[ $R'_5$ is anti-complete to $Y_2\cup Y_3$.]{}
\[itm:R’5Y\]
Suppose that $r'_5\in R'_5$ and $y_2\in Y_2$ are adjacent. By \[itm:FY\], $f$ and $y_2$ are adjacent. Then $\{r'_5,4,y_2,f\}
$ induces a $K_4$.
[ $R'_2$ is anti-complete to $R_4$. By symmetry, $R'_3$ is anti-complete to $R_1$.]{}
\[itm:R’2R4\]
Suppose that $r'_2\in R'_2$ and $r_4\in R_4$ are adjacent. By \[itm:FR\], $f$ and $r_4$ are adjacent. Then $\{r'_2,r_4,3,f\} $ induces a $K_4$.
[ $R''_5$ is anti-complete to $R''_2\cup R''_3$.]{}
\[itm:R”iR”j\]
Suppose that $r''_5\in R''_5$ and $r''_2\in R''_2$ are adjacent. Then $r_5''r''_2$ and $f2$ induce a $2P_2$.
[ $Y_5$ is anti-complete to $R''_2\cup R''_3$.]{}
\[itm:Y5R”2R”3\]
Suppose that $y_5\in Y_5$ and $r''_2\in R''_2$ are adjacent. By \[itm:FY\], $f$ and $y$ are not adjacent. Then $y_5r''_2$ and $f4$ induce a $2P_2$.
[ $R''_5$ is anti-complete to $Y_1\cup Y_4$.]{}
\[itm:R”5Y1Y4\]
Suppose that $r''_5\in R''_5$ and $y_4\in Y_4$ are adjacent. By \[itm:FY\], $f$ and $y_4$ are not adjacent. Then $r''_5y_4$ and $f2$ induce a $2P_2$.
[ $R''_2$ is anti-complete to $Y_1$. By symmetry, $R''_3$ is anti-complete to $Y_4$.]{}
\[itm:R”2Y1\]
Suppose that $r''_2\in R''_2$ and $y_1\in Y_1$ are adjacent. By \[itm:FY\], $f$ and $y_1$ are not adjacent. Then $r''_2y_1$ and $f2$ induce a $2P_2$.
[ $R'_2$ is anti-complete to $Y_3$. By symmetry, $R'_3$ is anti-complete to $Y_2$.]{}
\[itm:R’2Y3\]
Suppose that $r'_2\in R'_2$ and $y_3\in Y_3$ are adjacent. By \[itm:FR\], $f$ and $y_3$ are adjacent. Then $\{r'_2,y_3,3,f\} $ induces a $K_4$.
[ $Y_5$ is complete to $R'_2\cup R'_3$.]{}
\[itm:Y5R’2R’3\]
Suppose that $y_5\in Y_5$ and $r'_2\in R'_2$ are not adjacent. By \[itm:FY\], $f$ and $y_5$ are not adjacent. Then $fr'_2$ and $5y_5$ induce a $2P_2$.
We now prove properties of $Z$.
[ Any vertex in $Z$ is anti-complete to either $Y_2$ or $Y_3$.]{}
\[itm:ZY2Y3\]
Suppose not. Then there exists a vertex $z\in Z$ that is adjacent to a vertex $y_i\in Y_i$ for $i=2,3$. By \[itm:FY\], $f$ is adjacent to $y_2$ and $y_3$. Moreover, $y_2$ and $y_3$ are adjacent by \[itm:YiYi+1\]. This implies that $f$ and $z$ are not adjacent for otherwise $\{f,z,y_i,y_{i+1}\}$ would induce a $K_4$.
We now show that $z$ is anti-complete to $Y_1\cup Y_4\cup Y_5$. Suppose not. Let $z$ be adjacent to a vertex $y\in Y_1\cup Y_4\cup Y_5$. Note that there exists a vertex $i\in N_C(f)$ such that $i$ is not adjacent to $y$. Moreover, $f$ and $y$ are not adjacent by \[itm:FY\]. Then $zy$ and $if$ induce a $2P_2$. This shows that $z$ is anti-complete to $Y_1\cup Y_4\cup Y_5$. Recall that $Z$ is anti-complete to $R_i$ for each $i$ by \[itm:ZR\]. Therefore, $N(z)\subseteq Y_2\cup Y_3\subseteq N(f)$, contradicting the assumption that $G$ has no pair of comparable vertices.
[ If $z\in Z$ is not adjacent to $y_i\in Y_i$, then $y_i$ is complete to $N(z)\setminus Y_i$.]{}
\[itm:ZYi\]
It suffices to prove for $i=1$ by symmetry. Note that $N(z)\setminus Y_1=(N(z)\cap (Y_2\cup Y_5))\cup (N(z)\cap (Y_3\cup Y_4))$. By \[itm:YiYi+1\], $y_1$ is complete to $N(z)\cap (Y_2\cup Y_5)$. It remains to show that $y_1$ is complete to $N(z)\cap (Y_3\cup Y_4)$. Suppose not. Let $y\in N(z)\cap (Y_3\cup Y_4)$ be nonadjacent to $y_1$. By symmetry, we may assume that $y\in Y_3$. Then $zy$ and $y_14$ induce a $2P_2$.
[ If $z$ is anti-complete to $Y_i$ for some $i\in \{2,3\}$, then $Y_i=\emptyset$.]{}
\[itm:Y2Y3empty\]
Suppose that $z$ is anti-complete to $Y_2$ and $Y_2$ contains a vertex $y_2$. It follows from \[itm:ZYi\] that $N(z)\subseteq N(y_2)$, contradicting the assumption that $G$ contains no pair of comparable vertices.
If $Y_5=\emptyset$, then $N(5)=\{1,4\}\cup R_1\cup R_4\cup Y_2\cup Y_3\subseteq N(f)$ by \[itm:FY\] and \[itm:FR\]. This contradicts the assumption that $G$ contains no pair of comparable vertices. So, we assume in the following that $Y_5$ contains a vertex $y_5$. We claim now that either $R''_2$ or $R''_3$ is empty. Suppose not. Let $r''_i\in R''_i$ for $i=2,3$. By \[itm:RiRi+1\], $r''_2$ and $r''_3$ are adjacent. Moreover, $y_5$ is not adjacent to $r''_2$ and $r''_3$ by \[itm:Y5R”2R”3\]. Then $r''_2r''_3$ and $5y_5$ induce a $2P_2$. This proves that either $R''_2$ or $R''_3$ is empty. We consider two cases depending on whether $f$ has a neighbor in $R_5$.
[**Case 1.**]{} $R'_5=\emptyset$, i.e., $f$ has no neighbor in $R_5$. Therefore, $R_5=R''_5$. Recall that either $R''_2$ or $R''_3$ is empty. By symmetry, we may assyme that $R''_2=\emptyset$. Then $R_2=R'_2$ and so $R_2$ and $R_4$ are anti-complete by \[itm:R’2R4\]. Let $Y'_2=\{y\in Y_2: y \textrm{ is anti-complete to } Y_5\}$ and $Y''_2=Y_2\setminus Y'_2$. Note that each vertex in $Y''_2$ has a neighbor in $Y_5$ by the definition and so is anti-complete to $Y_4$ by \[itm:YiYi-2Yi+2\]. Then the following is a $4$-coloring $\phi$ of $G-(R_3\cup Z)$: $$\begin{aligned}
I_1&= Y'_2\cup Y_5\cup R_1 \cup \{1\} & \ref{itm:Ri+1YiYi+2} \\
I_2&= Y''_2\cup Y_4\cup R_3\cup \{3\} & \textrm{Definition of $Y''_2$}\\
I_3&= R_2(=R'_2)\cup R_4\cup Y_3\cup \{2,4\} & \ref{itm:Ri+1YiYi+2} \ref{itm:R'2Y3}\\
I_4&= Y_1\cup R_5(=R''_5)\cup \{f,5\} & \ref{itm:FY} \ref{itm:R''5Y1Y4} \end{aligned}$$
We now extend $\phi$ to $R_3$ as follows. Since $R_3$ is an independent set by \[itm:ZR\], it suffices to explain how to extend $\phi$ to each vertex in $R_3$ independently. Let $r_3\in R_3$ be an arbitrary vertex. Suppose first that $r_3\in R'_3$. By \[itm:R’2R4\] and \[itm:R’2Y3\], $r_3$ is anti-complete to $R_1\cup Y_2$. By \[itm:RiYi+1Yi+2\], $r_3$ is anti-complete to either $Y_4$ or $Y_5$. Therefore, we can add $r_3$ to either $I_1$ or $I_2$. Now suppose that $r_3\in R''_3$. By \[itm:R”iR”j\] and \[itm:R”2Y1\], $r_3$ is anti-complete to $Y_4\cup R_5$. By \[itm:RiYi+1Yi+2\], $r_3$ is anti-complete to either $Y_1$ or $Y_2$. Therefore, we can add $r_3$ to either $I_2$ or $I_4$. This shows that $G-Z$ admits a $4$-coloring $\phi'=(I'_1,I'_2,I'_3,I'_4)$ with $I_i\subseteq I'_i$ for each $1\le i\le 4$.
We now obtain a 4-coloring of $G$ by either extending $\phi'$ to $Z$ or by finding another 4-coloring of $G$. If $Z$ is anti-complete to $Y_3$, then we can extend $\phi'$ by adding $Z$ to $I'_3$. So, we assume that there is a vertex $z\in Z$ that is adjacent to a vertex in $Y_3$. It then follows from \[itm:ZY2Y3\] and \[itm:Y2Y3empty\] that $Y_2=\emptyset$. If each vertex in $Z$ is anti-complete to one of $Y_3$, $Y_4$ and $Y_5$, then we can extend $\phi'$ to $Z$ by adding each vertex in $Z$ to $I'_1$, $I'_2$ or $I'_3$ (since $Y_2=\emptyset$). Therefore, let $z\in Z$ be adjacent to $y_i\in Y_i$ for $i\in \{3,4,5\}$. We prove some additional properties using the existence of $y_3$, $y_4$ and $y_5$. First of all, $R_1$ and $R_4$ are anti-complete. Suppose not. Let $r_1\in R_1$ and $r_4\in R_4$ be adjacent. By \[itm:Ri+1YiYi+2\], $y_5$ is not adjacent to $r_1$ and $r_4$. Then $r_1r_4$ and $zy_5$ induce a $2P_2$. Secondly, $y_3$ and $y_5$ are not adjacent for otherwise $\{y_3,y_4,y_5,z\}$ induces a $K_4$. Thirdly, $Y_1$ and $Y_4$ are anti-complete to each other. Suppose not. Then $Y_1$ contains a vertex $y_1$ that is not anit-complete to $Y_4$. By \[itm:YiYi-2Yi+2\], $y_1$ is anti-complete to $Y_3$. Then $fy_3$ and $y_1y_5$ induce a $2P_2$. Now $G$ admits the following $4$-coloring: $$\begin{aligned}
& Y_1\cup R''_5 (=R_5)\cup Y_4 \cup \{f,5\} & \ref{itm:R''5Y1Y4} \\
& Y_3\cup R'_2 (=R_2)\cup \{2\} & \ref{itm:R'2Y3}\\
& R_1\cup R_4\cup Y_5\cup \{1,4\} & \ref{itm:Ri+1YiYi+2} \\
& R_3\cup Z\cup \{3\} & \ref{itm:ZR} \end{aligned}$$
[**Case 2.**]{} $R'_5\neq \emptyset$. Let $r'_5\in R'_5$. If $r_1\in R_1$ and $r_4\in R_4$ are adjacent, then $\{r_1,r_4,r'_5,f\}$ induces a $K_4$ by \[itm:RiRi+1\] and \[itm:FR\]. So, $R_1$ and $R_4$ are anti-complete. We now consider two subcases.
[**Case 2.1.**]{} $R''_2$ and $Y_3$ are not anti-complete. Let $r''_2\in R''_2$ and $y_3\in Y_3$ be adjacent. We claim first that $Y_1$ and $Y_4$ are anti-complete. Suppose not. Let $y_1\in Y_1$ and $y_4\in Y_4$ be adjacent. Then $y_3$ and $y_4$ are adjacent by \[itm:YiYi+1\]. By \[itm:YiYi-2Yi+2\], $y_1$ is not adjacent to $y_3$. Moreover, $y_1$ is not adjacent to $r''_2$ by \[itm:R”2Y1\]. But now $4y_1$ and $y_3r_2''$ induce a $2P_2$. This shows that $Y_1$ and $Y_4$ are anti-complete. Moreover, $Y_2$ and $R_3$ are anti-complete by \[itm:RiYi+1Ri+1Yi\]. Therefore, the following is a $4$-coloring $\phi$ of $G-(R''_2\cup Z)$. $$\begin{aligned}
I_1&= R_4\cup Y_5 \cup R_1 \cup \{1,4\} & \ref{itm:Ri+1YiYi+2}\\
I_2&= Y_1\cup R''_5\cup Y_4 \cup \{f,5\} & \ref{itm:R''5Y1Y4}\\
I_3&= R_3\cup Y_2\cup \{3\} & \ref{itm:RiYi+1Ri+1Yi} \\
I_4&= Y_3\cup R'_2\cup R'_5\cup \{2\} & \ref{itm:R'iR'j} \ref{itm:R'5Y} \ref{itm:R'2Y3}\end{aligned}$$
We now explain how to extend $\phi$ to each vertex in $R''_2\cup Z$. Since $R''_2\cup Z$ is an independent set by \[itm:ZR\], this will give a $4$-coloring of $G$. By \[itm:ZY2Y3\], we can add each vertex in $Z$ to either $I_3$ or $I_4$. Let $s''\in R''_2$ be an arbitrary vertex. Then $s''$ is anti-complete to $R''_5\cup Y_1$ by \[itm:R”iR”j\] and \[itm:R”2Y1\]. If $s''$ is not anti-complete to $Y_3$, then $s''$ is anti-complete to $Y_4$ by \[itm:RiYi+1Yi+2\] and thus we can add $s''$ to $I_2$. Now $s''$ is anti-complete to $Y_3$. We claim that $s''$ is anti-complete to $R'_5$. Suppose not. Then $s''$ is adjacent to some vertex $r'\in R'_5$. Note that $y_3$ is not adjacent to $s''$ by our assumption. Moreover, $y_3$ is not adjacent to $r'$ by \[itm:R’5Y\]. Then $s''r'$ and $5y_3$ induce a $2P_2$. This shows that $s''$ is anti-complete to $R'_5$ and thus we can add $s''$ to $I_4$.
[**Case 2.2.**]{} $R''_2$ and $Y_3$ are anti-complete. By symmetry, $R''_3$ and $Y_2$ are anti-complete. It follows from \[itm:R’2Y3\] that $R_2$ and $Y_3$ are anti-complete and $R_3$ and $Y_2$ are anti-complete. Recall that either $R''_2$ or $R''_3$ is empty. By symmetry, we may assume that $R''_2=\emptyset$. Then $R_2=R'_2$. We now claim that $R'_3$ is anti-complete to $Y_4$. Suppose not. Let $r'_3\in R'_3$ be adjacent to $y_4\in Y_4$. By \[itm:Y5R’2R’3\], $r'_3$ is adjacent to $y_5$. But this contradicts \[itm:RiYi+1Yi+2\]. So, $R'_3$ is anti-complete to $Y_4$. By symmetry, $R'_2$ is anti-complete to $Y_1$. This together with \[itm:R”2Y1\] implies that $R_3$ and $R_2$ are anti-complete to $Y_4$ and $Y_1$, respectively. Let $Y'_4=\{y\in Y_4: y \textrm{ is anti-complete to } Y_1\}$ and $Y''_4=Y_4\setminus Y'_4$. Note that each vertex in $Y''_4$ has a neighbor in $Y_1$ and so is anti-complete to $Y_2$ by \[itm:YiYi-2Yi+2\]. Now $G-Z$ admits a $4$-coloring $\phi$: $$\begin{aligned}
I_1&= R_4\cup Y_5 \cup R_1 \cup \{1,4\} & \ref{itm:Ri+1YiYi+2}\\
I_2&= Y_1\cup R''_5\cup Y_4' \cup \{f,5\} & \ref{itm:R''5Y1Y4}\\
I_3&= R_3\cup Y_2\cup Y''_4\cup \{3\} & \ref{itm:RiYi+1Ri+1Yi} \\
I_4&= Y_3\cup R'_2\cup R'_5\cup \{2\} & \ref{itm:R'iR'j} \ref{itm:R'5Y} \ref{itm:R'2Y3}\end{aligned}$$
We now explain how to obtain a $4$-coloring of $G$ based on $\phi$. If $Z$ is anti-complete to $Y_3$, then we can add $Z$ to $I_4$. So, assume that there exists a vertex in $Z$ that is adjacent to some vertex in $Y_3$. It then follows from \[itm:ZY2Y3\] and \[itm:Y2Y3empty\] that $Y_2=\emptyset$. If each vertex in $Z$ is anti-complete to one of $Y_3$, $Y''_4$ and $Y_5$, then we can extend $\phi'$ to $Z$ by adding each vertex in $Z$ to $I_1$, $I_3$ or $I_4$ (since $Y_2=\emptyset$). Therefore, let $z\in Z$ be adjacent to $y_i\in Y_i$ for $i\in \{3,5\}$ and be adjacent to $y_4\in Y''_4$. Note that $y_3$ and $y_5$ are not adjacent for otherwise $\{y_3,y_4,y_5,z\}$ induces a $K_4$. We claim that $Y_1$ and $Y_4$ are anti-complete to each other. Suppose not. Then $Y_1$ contains a vertex $y_1$ that is not anit-complete to $Y_4$. By \[itm:YiYi-2Yi+2\], $y_1$ is anti-complete to $Y_3$. Then $fy_3$ and $y_1y_5$ induce a $2P_2$. Now $G$ admits the following $4$-coloring: $$\begin{aligned}
& R_4\cup Y_5 \cup R_1 \cup \{1,4\} & \ref{itm:Ri+1YiYi+2}\\
& Y_1\cup R''_5\cup Y_4\cup \{f,5\} & \ref{itm:R''5Y1Y4}\\
& R_3\cup Z\cup \{3\} & \ref{itm:ZR} \\
& Y_3\cup R'_2\cup R'_5\cup \{2\} & \ref{itm:R'iR'j} \ref{itm:R'5Y} \ref{itm:R'2Y3}\end{aligned}$$
This completes the proof.
Eliminate $W_5$ and $C_5$ {#sec:W5C5}
=========================
In this section we prove two lemmas. The fist one states that our main theorem, , holds when $G$ is connected, has no pair of comparable vertices, does not contain $H_1$ or $H_2$ as an induced subgraph, but contains the $5$-wheel as an induced subgraph. The second lemma then assumes that $G$ is $W_5$-free as well, but contains an induced $C_5$.
\[lem:W5\] Let $G$ be a $(2P_2,K_4, H_1, H_2)$-free graph with no pair of comparable vertices. If $G$ contains an induced $W_5$, then $\chi(G)\le 4$.
Let $W=C\cup \{u\}$ be an induced $W_5$ such that $C=12345$ induces a $C_5$ in this order and $u$ is complete to $C$. We partition $V\setminus C$ into subsets of $Z$, $R_i$, $Y_i$, $F_i$ and $U$ as in . Note that $u\in U$. Since $G$ is $H_2$-free, it follows that $F_i=\emptyset$ for each $i$. We prove the following properties.
[ $U$ is complete to $R$.]{}
\[itm:UcomR\]
If $u'\in U$ is not adjacent to $r_i\in R_i$, then $C\setminus \{i\}\cup \{r_i,u\}$ induces an $H_2$. This contradicts our assumption that $G$ is $H_2$-free.
[ $R_i$ and $R_{i+2}$ are anti-complete.]{}
\[itm:RianticRi+2\]
Suppose that $r_i\in R_i$ and $r_{i+2}\in R_{i+2}$ are not adjacent. By \[itm:UcomR\], $u$ is adjacent to both $r_i$ and $r_{i+2}$. This implies that $\{r_i,r_{i+2},i+1,u\}$ induces a $K_4$.
[ $R_i$ and $Y_{i+1}$ are anti-complere.]{}
\[itm:RiYi+1\]
It suffices to prove for $i=1$. If $r_1\in R_1$ and $y_2\in Y_2$ are adjacent, then $C\setminus \{1\}\cup \{r_1,y_2\}$ induces an $H_2$, a contradiction.
[ $Y_i$ and $Y_{i+2}$ are anti-complete.]{}
\[itm:YianticYi+2\]
Since $U\neq \emptyset$, \[itm:YianticYi+2\] follows directly from \[itm:YiYi+2\].
It follows from \[itm:RianticRi+2\]–\[itm:YianticYi+2\] and \[itm:ZR\]–\[itm:UYF\] that $G$ admits the following $4$-coloring: $$\begin{aligned}
& R_1\cup R_3\cup Z \cup \{1,3\} & \ref{itm:RianticRi+2} \ref{itm:ZR} \\
& R_2\cup Y_3\cup R_4\cup \{2,4\} & \ref{itm:RianticRi+2} \ref{itm:RiYi+1}\\
& Y_1\cup R_5\cup Y_4\cup \{5\} & \ref{itm:RiYi+1} \ref{itm:YianticYi+2}\\
& Y_2\cup Y_5\cup U & \ref{itm:YianticYi+2} \ref{itm:UYF}\end{aligned}$$ This completes our proof.
\[lem:C5\] Let $G$ be a connected $(2P_2,K_4, H_1,H_2,W_5)$-free graph with no pair of comparable vertices. If $G$ contains an induced $C_5$, then $\chi(G)\le 4$.
Let $C=12345$ be an induced $C_5$ in this order. We partition $V\setminus C$ into subsets of $Z$, $R_i$, $Y_i$, $F_i$ and $U$ as in . Since $G$ is $(H_2,W_5)$-free, both $U$ and $F_i$ are empty. It then follows from that $V(G)=C\cup Z\cup (\bigcup_{i=1}^{5}R_i)\cup (\bigcup_{i=1}^{5}Y_i)$. We first prove the following properties of $R_i$ and $Z$.
[ Each vertex in $R_i$ is anti-complete to either $R_{i-2}$ or $R_{i+2}$.]{}
\[itm:Ri-2Ri+2\]
It suffices to prove for $i=4$. Suppose that $r_4\in R_4$ is adjacent to a vertex $r_i\in R_i$ for $i=1,2$. By \[itm:RiRi+1\], $r_1$ and $r_2$ are adjacent. This implies that $\{r_1,r_2,3,4,5,r_4\}$ induces a subgraph isomorphic to $H_2$. This contradicts the assumption that $G$ is $H_2$-free.
[ $R_i$ and $Y_{i+1}$ are anti-complete.]{}
\[itm:RiYi+1antic\]
It suffices to prove for $i=1$. If $r_1\in R_1$ and $y_2\in Y_2$ are adjacent, then $C\setminus \{1\}\cup \{r_1,y_2\}$ induces an $H_2$.
[ Each vertex in $Z$ cannot have a neighbor in each of $Y_i$ for $1\le i\le 5$.]{}
\[itm:ZY\]
Suppose that $z\in Z$ has a neighbor $y_i\in Y_i$ for each $1\le i\le 5$. By \[itm:YiYi+1\], $y_i$ and $y_{i+1}$ are adjacent. This implies that $y_i$ and $y_{i+2}$ are not adjacent, for otherwise $\{y_i,y_{i+1},y_{i+2},z\}$ induces a $K_4$. But now $\{y_1,y_2,y_3,y_4,y_5,z\}$ induces a $W_5$.
[ If $z\in Z$ has a neighbor in each of $Y_i$, $Y_{i+1}$, $Y_{i+2}$ and $Y_{i+3}$, then $Y_{i+4}$ is anti-complete to $N(z)$.]{}
\[itm:ZYantic\]
It suffices to prove for $i=1$. Let $y_i\in Y_i$ be a neighbor of $z$ for $1\le i\le 4$. By \[itm:ZY\], $z$ is anti-complete to $Y_5$ and so $N(z)\subseteq Y_1\cup Y_2\cup Y_3\cup Y_4$ by \[itm:ZR\]. Let $y_5$ be an arbitrary vertex in $Y_5$. By \[itm:YiYi+1\], $y_5$ is complete to $Y_1\cup Y_4$. Therefore it remains to show that $y_5$ is complete to $N(z)\cap (Y_2\cup Y_3)$. If $y_5$ is not adjacent to a vertex $y\in N(z)\cap (Y_2\cup Y_3)$, then either $3y_5$ or $2y_5$ forms a $2P_2$ with $zy$ depending on whether $y\in Y_2$ or $y\in Y_3$.
[ If $Z$ contains a vertex that has a neighbor in $Y_i$, $Y_{i+1}$, $Y_{i+2}$ and $Y_{i+3}$, then $Y_{i+4}=\emptyset$.]{}
\[itm:Yempty\]
Let $z\in Z$ have neighbor in $Y_i$ for $1\le i\le 4$. By \[itm:ZY\], $z$ is anti-complete to $Y_5$. If $Y_5$ contains a vertex $y$, then $N(z)\subseteq N(y)$ by \[itm:ZYantic\]. This contradicts the assumption that $G$ contains no pair of comparable vertices.
Let $Y'_4=\{y\in Y_4: y \textrm{ is anti-complete to } Y_1\}$ and $Y''_4=Y_4\setminus Y'_4$. Note that each vertex in $Y''_4$ has a neighbor in $Y_1$ by the definition and so is anti-complete to $Y_2$ by \[itm:YiYi-2Yi+2\]. Similarly, let $R'_4=\{r\in R_4: r \textrm{ is anti-complete to } R_1\}$ and $R''_4=R_4\setminus R'_4$. By \[itm:Ri-2Ri+2\], $R''_4$ is anti-complete to $R_2$. We now consider the following two cases.
[**Case 1.**]{} $Z$ contains a vertex that has a neighbor in four $Y_i$. It then follows from \[itm:Yempty\] that $Y_j=\emptyset$ for some $j$. We may assume by symmetry that $j=5$. These facts and \[itm:RiYi+1antic\] imply that $G$ admits the following $4$-coloring: $$\begin{aligned}
& Y_1\cup R_5\cup Y'_4 \cup \{5\}, \\
& Y_2\cup R_3\cup Y''_4\cup \{3\}, \\
& R_1\cup Z\cup R'_4\cup \{1\}, \\
& R_2\cup Y_3\cup R''_4 \cup \{2,4\}.\\ \end{aligned}$$
[**Case 2.**]{} Each vertex in $Z$ has a neighbor in at most three $Y_i$. Note that $G-Z$ admits the following $4$-coloring $\phi$ by \[itm:RiYi+1antic\]: $$\begin{aligned}
I_1&= Y_1\cup R_5\cup Y'_4 \cup \{5\}, \\
I_2&= Y_2\cup R_3\cup Y''_4\cup \{3\}, \\
I_3&= R_1\cup Y_5\cup R'_4\cup \{1\}, \\
I_4&= R_2\cup Y_3\cup R''_4 \cup \{2,4\}.\\ \end{aligned}$$ We now explain how to extend $\phi$ to $Z$. For this purpose we partition $Z$ into the following two subsets: $$\label{eq1}
\begin{split}
Z_1 & = \{z\in Z: z \textrm{ is anti-complete to either } Y_3 \textrm{ or } Y_5\}, \\
Z_2 &=Z\setminus Z_1.
\end{split}$$
We first claim that each vertex in $Z_2$ has a neighbor in $Y_4$. Suppose not. Let $z\in Z_2$ be a vertex such that $z$ is anti-complete to $Y_4$. Since $z$ has a neighbor in both $Y_3$ and $Y_5$, $z$ is anti-complete to either $Y_1$ or $Y_2$ by the assumption that each vertex in $z$ has a neighbor in at most three $Y_i$. If $z$ is anti-complete to $Y_1$, then $N(z)\subseteq Y_2\cup Y_3\cup Y_5\subseteq N(5)$. If $z$ is anti-complete to $Y_2$, then $N(z)\subseteq Y_1\cup Y_3\cup Y_5\subseteq N(3)$. In either case, it contradicts the assumption that $G$ contains no pair of comparable veritces. This proves the claim. Consequently, $Z_2$ is anti-complete to $Y_1\cup Y_2$. We now claim that each vertex in $Z_2$ is anti-complete to either $Y'_4$ or $Y''_4$. Suppose not. Let $z\in Z_2$ have a neighbor $y'_4\in Y_4$ and a neighbor $y''_4\in Y''_4$. By the definition of $Y''_4$, it follows that $y''_4$ has a neighbor $y_1\in Y_1$. Then $3y_1$ and $y'_4z$ induce a $2P_2$ since $y'_4$ is not adjacent to $y_1$. Now we can extend $\phi$ to $Z$ by adding each vertex in $Z_1$ to $I_3$ or $I_4$ and by adding each vertex in $Z_2$ to $I_1$ or $I_2$.
#### Acknowledgments. {#acknowledgments. .unnumbered}
Serge Gaspers is the recipient of an Australian Research Council (ARC) Future Fellowship (FT140100048) and acknowledges support under the ARC’s Discovery Projects funding scheme (DP150101134).
[10]{}
M. Chudnovsky, N. Robertson, P. Seymour, and R. Thomas. -free graphs with no odd holes. , 100:313–331, 2010.
K. K. Dabrowski, V. V. Lozin, R. Raman, and B. Ries. Colouring vertices of triangle-free graphs without forests. , 312:1372–1385, 2012.
L. Esperet, L. Lemoine, F. Maffray, and G. Morel. The chromatic number of $\{{P}_5,{K}_4\}$-free graphs. , 313:743–754, 2013.
G. Fan, B. Xu, T. Ye, and X. Yu. Forbidden subgraphs and 3-colorings. , 28:1226–1256, 2014.
D. J. Fraser, A. M. Hamel, C. T. Hoàng, K. Holmes, and T. P. LaMantia. Characterizations of $(4{K_1, C_4, C_5})$-free graphs. , 231:166–174, 2017.
P. A. Golovach, M. Johnson, D. Paulusma, and J. Song. A survey on the computational complexity of coloring graphs with forbidden subgraphs. , 84:331–363, 2017.
M. C. Golumbic. . North-Holland Publishing Co., 2004.
S. Gravier, C. T. Ho[à]{}ng, and F. Maffray. Coloring the hypergraph of maximal cliques of a graph with no long path. , 272:285–290, 2003.
A. Gy[á]{}rf[á]{}s. On ramsey covering numbers. , 10:801–816, 1973.
A. Gy[á]{}rf[á]{}s. Problems from the world surrounding perfect graphs. , XIX:413–441, 1987.
C. T. Hoàng and D. A. Lazzarato. Polynomial-time algorithms for minimum weighted colorings of $({P}_5,\overline{P_5})$-free graphs and similar graph classes. , 186:106–111, 2015.
S. Huang, M. Johnson, and D. Paulusma. Narrowing the complexity gap for colouring [$(C_s, P_t)$]{}-free graphs. , 58:3074–3088, 2015.
T. Karthick, F. Maffray, and L. Pastor. Polynomial cases for the vertex coloring problem. , to appear, 2018.
D. Král, J. Kratochvíl, Z. Tuza, and G. J. Woeginger. Complexity of coloring graphs without forbidden induced subgraphs. In [*Proceedings of the 27th International Workshop on Graph-Theoretic Concepts in Computer Science*]{}, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2204, pages 254–262, 2001.
V. V. Lozin and D. S. Malyshev. Vertex coloring of graphs with few obstructions. , 216:273–280, 2017.
D. S. Malyshev. The coloring problem for classes with two small obstructions. , 8:2261–2270, 2014.
B. Randerath and I. Schiermeyer. Vertex colouring and forbidden subgraphs-a survey. , 20:1–40, 2004.
V. G. Vizing. On an estimate of the chromatic class of a $p$-graph. , 3:25–30, 1964.
S. Wagon. A bound on the chromatic number of graphs without certain induced subgraphs. , 29:345–346, 1980.
[^1]: School of Computer Science and Engineering, UNSW Sydney, Sydney 2052, Australia.
[^2]: Decision Sciences, Data61, CSIRO, Sydney 2052, Australia.
[^3]: Department of Mathematics, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo N2L3C5, Canada.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Empirically derived continuum models of collective behavior among large populations of dynamic agents are a subject of intense study in several fields, including biology, engineering and finance. We formulate and study a mean-field game model whose behavior mimics an empirically derived nonlocal homogeneous flocking model for agents with gradient self-propulsion dynamics. The mean-field game framework provides a *non-cooperative optimal control* description of the behavior of a population of agents in a distributed setting. In this description, each agent’s state is driven by optimally controlled dynamics that result in a Nash equilibrium between itself and the population. The optimal control is computed by minimizing a cost that depends only on its own state, and a mean-field term. The agent distribution in phase space evolves under the optimal feedback control policy. We exploit the low-rank perturbative nature of the nonlocal term in the forward-backward system of equations governing the state and control distributions, and provide a closed-loop linear stability analysis demonstrating that our model exhibits bifurcations similar to those found in the empirical model. The present work is a step towards developing a set of tools for systematic analysis, and eventually *design*, of collective behavior of non-cooperative dynamic agents via an inverse modeling approach.'
author:
- Piyush Grover
- Kaivalya Bakshi
- 'Evangelos A. Theodorou'
title: 'A mean-field game model for homogeneous flocking '
---
> [[While the analysis of emergent behavior in a large population of dynamic agents is a classical topic, the design of desired macroscopic behavior in such systems is a grand engineering challenge.]{}]{} Such systems are often studied using continuum models, involving empirically derived systems of nonlinear partial differential equations that govern the distribution of agents in the phase space. The various terms in these equations represent intrinsic dynamics of the agents, mutual attraction and/or repulsion, and noise. An important class of such models concern flocking, both in nature, and engineering applications such as bio-inspired control of multi-agent robotics, traffic modeling, power-grid synchronization etc. We take a mean-field game approach to derive a control system that mimics the behavior of one such class of models in the setting of non-cooperative agents. A mean-field game is a coupled system of partial differential equations that govern the state and optimal control distributions of a representative agent in a Nash equilibrium with the population. Using a linear stability analysis, we recover phase transitions that have been observed in the corresponding empirical model, as well as find some new ones, as the control penalty is changed.
Introduction
============
Continuum models of large populations of interacting dynamic agents are popular in mathematical biology[@resat2009kinetic], and also have been employed in numerous applications such as multi-agent robotics [@beni2004swarm], finance [@bonabeau2002agent] and traffic modeling [@whitham1955kinematic]. The aim of such models is to accurately represent the macroscopic dynamics of the population, and its dependence on parameters. Typically, such models are derived by starting with an empirical dynamical system for a representative agent. This system typically involves the intrinsic dynamics of the agent, a coupling function[@stankovski2017coupling] describing its interaction with the population, and noise. From this single agent dynamical system, a continuum description is obtained by deriving a macroscopic equation for the distribution of agents in the phase space. We call this class of models *uncontrolled*.
An alternative way of deriving continuum models of collective behavior is [[ ]{}]{} a corresponding variational principle. In this approach, the dynamical system for a representative agent includes its intrinsic dynamics, a control term and noise. The unknown control term is obtained as a solution to an optimization problem. Within this variational (or optimization) framework for large populations, there are multiple classes of modeling strategies [@nourian2013nash]. If one takes a centralized global optimization viewpoint, the corresponding problem is that of *mean-field control*, i.e. it is assumed that each agent is being controlled by a central entity whose goal is to optimize a macroscopic cost function[@elamvazhuthi2016optimal] that includes interaction among the population. In a distributed setting, there is no central entity, and the agents can either be *cooperative* or *non-cooperative*. In the former case, each agent choses its control to optimize a global sum of cost functions of the population.
On the other hand, in the *non-cooperative* mean field setting that we are interested in, each agent optimizes only its [[ ]{}]{} cost function. This cost function involves coupling with the population solely via a mean-field term. This is the setting of mean-field games (MFG)[@caines2015mean; @lasry2007mean; @huang2007large]. In this setting, a Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman (HJB) equation (posed backward in time) characterizes the optimal feedback control for a representative agent under the assumption that the (cost) coupling function depends only on its own state, and possibly time. A Fokker-Planck (FP) equation governs the evolution of agent density in phase space. A consistency principle [@huang2007large] requires that the coupling function used in the agent HJB equation is reproduced as its own average over the continuum of agents. Under fairly general conditions, solutions to MFG model can be shown to possess $\epsilon$-Nash property, i.e., unilateral benefit of any deviation from the computed control policy by a single agent vanishes rapidly as the population becomes large.
![The MFG framework[]{data-label="fig:mfg"}](mfg_pic){width="2.65in" height="2.2in"}
The classical (uncontrolled) Cucker-Smale (CS) flocking model[@cucker2007emergent] [[ ]{}]{} a system of finite population of coupled agents with trivial intrinsic dynamics, moving solely under the influence of an alignment force, and noise. This was followed by several continuum descriptions[@ha2009simple; @choi2017emergent], and was recently generalized to a continuum model with self-propulsion effects in the homogeneous case [@barbaro2016phase] (i.e., assuming spatial homogeneity). This latter generalization results in existence of non-zero mean velocity distribution resulting from symmetry breaking, a wide range of ‘disordered’ states consisting of multiple flocks, and other phase transitions.
A MFG model for a continuum of coupled Kuramoto oscillators[@kuramoto1975self] was described in a seminal work [@yin2012synchronization] that influences the development in the current paper. Building upon this work, a MFG model for the classical inhomogeneous CS was then proposed[@nourian2011mean]; the stability analysis was partially addressed. This was followed by a homogeneous flocking MFG model for coupled agents with trivial intrinsic dynamics, along with linear and nonlinear stability analysis[@nourian2014mean]. Also of interest is an approach [@degond2014large] where agents apply a gradient descent rather than solve an HJB equation, since the Nash equilibria of the MFG are recovered under certain conditions using this approach.
The contributions of this paper are as follows. We formulate a MFG model for homogeneous flocking of agents driven by self-propulsion and noise. In contrast to the earlier work on homogeneous MFG model with trivial intrinsic dynamics [@nourian2014mean], this model exhibits phase transitions (bifurcations) that mimic those present in the corresponding uncontrolled model [@barbaro2016phase]. We generalize the stability analysis developed in previous MFG models [@yin2012synchronization; @nourian2014mean; @huang2007large; @gueant2009reference] to agents with gradient nonlinear dynamics, and employ a method used to study reaction-diffusion equations[@anastasio2017geometric] to derive a semi-analytical stability criterion. Besides qualitatively explaining the phase transition phenomena, quantitative results useful in control design are obtained from the numerical analysis. Decreasing the control control penalty below a threshold causes the zero mean velocity steady state of the MFG model to lose stability via pitchfork bifurcation [@Wiggins1990]. This results in a pair of stable steady states with non-zero mean velocity. If the control is made even cheaper, a new stable regime (nonexistent in the uncontrolled model) emerges for zero mean velocity steady states in the small noise case via a subcritical pitchfork bifurcation.
Uncontrolled formulation {#sec:uncontrolled}
========================
We [[ ]{}]{} here the uncontrolled formulation from Ref. [[ ]{}]{} provides a homogeneous model for CS flocking with self-propulsion. Consider a population of $N$ agents moving in phase space [[ ]{}]{}, where each agent is acted upon by a gradient self-propulsion term, a CS coupling force with localization kernel $K$ in position space that aligns the agents’ velocity with the neighbors, and noise. The [[ ]{}]{} for $i$th agent are $$\begin{aligned}
dq_i=p_idt,\\
dp_i=a(p_i)dt+F(q_i,p_i,q_{-i},p_{-i})dt+\sigma d\omega_i,\label{eq:unc_v}\end{aligned}$$ where $a(p_i)=-\partial_pU(p_i)$, [[ ]{}]{}, $F(q_i,p_i,q_{-i},p_{-i})=\dfrac{1}{N}\dfrac{\sum_{j=1}^{N} K(q_i,q_j)(p_j-p_i)}{\sum_{j=1}^{N} K(q_i,q_j)},$ $\sigma>0$ is the noise intensity, $\alpha>0$ defines the strength of the self-propulsion term, $K(q,q') = K(q',q) \geq 0,$ and $K(q,q) = 1$, $q_{-i}=\{q_1,\dots ,q_{i-1}, q_{i+1}\dots\}$, $p_{-i}=\{p_1,\dots ,p_{i-1}, p_{i+1}\dots\}$.
In the continuum limit ($N\rightarrow\infty$), the agent density $f(q,p,t)$ in phase space is [[ ]{}]{} $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_tf+\partial_q(pf)+\partial_p(a(p)f+F[f]f)=\dfrac{\sigma^2}{2}\partial_{pp}f,\end{aligned}$$ where [[ ]{}]{} $$\begin{aligned}
{{\color{black} \text{$\bar{p}(q,t)=\dfrac{\int\int K(q,q')\:p\:f(q',p,t)dq'dp}{\int\int K(q,q')f(q',p,t)dq'dp}.$}}}\end{aligned}$$ [[We denote the action of the operator $F$ on a function $f$ by $F[f](.)$.]{}]{} From here onwards, we consider the homogeneous case by dropping dependence on $q$, and use $x$ to denote the velocity $p$. The uncontrolled [[ ]{}]{} for the velocity of agent $i$ are
dx\_i=a(x\_i)dt+ \_[j=1]{}\^[N]{} (x\_j-x\_i)dt+d\_i,\[eq:unc\_x\]
[[ ]{}]{} corresponding density evolution $$\partial_tf=\partial_x(\alpha(x^2-1)xf+(x-\bar{x})f)+\frac{\sigma^2}{2}\partial_{xx}f, \label{eq:kinetichom}$$ where $\bar{x}(t)=\dfrac{\int xf(x,t)dx}{\int f(x,t)dx}$.
Fixed Points and Stability Analysis {#sec:stab_fp}
-----------------------------------
It is known [@tugaut2014phase; @barbaro2016phase] that fixed points of Eq. (\[eq:kinetichom\]) are [[ ]{}]{}
&f\_(x;)=(), \[eq:solhom\]
where $\mu \in \mathbb{R}$ is the mean of the distribution, and $Z$ is the normalization [[ ]{}]{}. For all positive values of parameters [[ ]{}]{}, the zero mean velocity solution $f_{\infty}(\cdot,0)$ always exists. For a range of parameters, two additional stable non-zero mean velocity solutions are created via a supercritical bifurcation, resulting in loss of stability of the zero mean solution. In Ref. , these stability properties were inferred numerically [[ ]{}]{} a Monte-Carlo approach.
We take a different approach, and consider the spectral stability of steady state solutions of Eq. (\[eq:kinetichom\]). In addition to gaining additional insight into the properties of the uncontrolled system, this also sets the stage for stability analysis of the MFG system in the next section. We consider perturbations of the form $f(x,t)=f_{\infty}(x)(1+\epsilon\tilde f(x,t))$. Then, the linearization of Eq. (\[eq:kinetichom\]) is $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_t\tilde f(x,t)=L[\tilde f](x,t)=L_{loc}[\tilde f](x,t)+L_{nonloc}[\tilde f](x,t),\end{aligned}$$ where, $\hat U(x)=U(x)+x^2/2-\mu x$, $$\begin{aligned}
L_{loc}[\tilde f](x,t)=-\partial_x\hat U(x)\partial_x\tilde f(x,t)+(\sigma^2/2)\partial_{xx}\tilde f(x,t)\end{aligned}$$ is a local linear operator, and $$\begin{aligned}
L_{nonloc}[\tilde f](x,t)=\frac{2}{\sigma^2}\partial_x\hat U(x)\int y \tilde f(y,t)f_{\infty}(y)dy\end{aligned}$$ is a *nonlocal* linear operator. [[An operator $O$ is called nonlocal if $O[f](x_1)$ depends on $f(x_2)$ (or the derivatives $\partial_x f(x_2), \partial_{xx} f(x_2)$) for some $x_2\neq x_1$, and local otherwise.]{}]{} Let $q(x)\equiv\frac{2}{\sigma^2}\partial_x\hat U(x)$. Then, $\partial_xf_{\infty}(x)=-q(x)f_{\infty}(x)$. We define a Hilbert space $\mathbb{H}=L^2(\mathbb{R},f_{\infty}dx)$[[, i.e., the $f_\infty$-weighted inner-product space of square-integrable functions on the real line]{}]{}. Then we can write a general form of the full linearized operator as $$\begin{aligned}
L[\tilde f](x,t)=L_{loc}[\tilde f](x,t)+s_1(x)\langle g_1(\cdot),\tilde f(\cdot,t)\rangle\label{eq:Lgen},\end{aligned}$$ where $s_1(x)=q(x), g_1(x)=x$ for our case, and the inner product is understood to be $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle_\mathbb{H}$. We note that $L_{loc}$ is a self-adjoint operator[@pavliotis2014stochastic] on $\mathbb{H}$ which has a non-positive discrete real spectrum of the form $0=\lambda_1>\lambda_2>\lambda_3\dots$. It has a complete set of orthogonal eigenfunctions $\{\xi_i(x)\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$. The first eigenfunction $\xi_1$, spanning the kernel of $L_{loc}$, is a constant function. Following the approach presented in Refs. for nonlocal eigenvalue problems in reaction-diffusion equations [[(also see Ref. )]{}]{}, we consider the following eigenvalue problem
w=L\_[loc]{}w&+s\_1(x)g\_1,w\
&0=(L\_[loc]{}-I)w+s\_1(x)g\_1,w.&\[eq:eval\]
Note that an eigenfunction $w$ of $L$ satisfying $\langle w,g_1\rangle=0$ is also an eigenfunction of $L_{loc}$, i.e. $w=v_i$ for some $i$ with eigenvalue $\lambda=\lambda_i$. We search for eigenfunctions such that $\langle w,g_1\rangle$ is nonzero. The corresponding eigenvalues are called ‘moving’ eigenvalues in Ref. . Multiplying both sides of Eq. (\[eq:eval\]) with the resolvent $R_{\lambda}=(L_{loc}-\lambda I)^{-1}$, $$\begin{aligned}
0=w+R_{\lambda}s_1(x)\langle g_1,w\rangle.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ [[Taking the inner product of the above equation with $g_1$,]{}]{} $$\begin{aligned}
0=\langle g_1,w\rangle+\langle R_{\lambda}s_1(x),g_1\rangle\langle g_1,w\rangle.\label{eq:eval1}\end{aligned}$$
[[ ]{}]{} an arbitrary function $z(x), R_{\lambda}z=\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}\dfrac{\langle \xi_i,z\rangle}{\lambda_i-\lambda}\xi_i$. Evaluating the inner product in Eqs. \[eq:eval1\], $$\langle R_{\lambda}s_1(x),g_1\rangle=\langle R_{\lambda}q(x),x\rangle=\sum_{i=2}^{\infty}\dfrac{\langle \xi_i,q(x)\rangle}{\lambda_i-\lambda}\langle \xi_i,x\rangle.$$ Using this result in Eq. (\[eq:eval1\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\langle w,x\rangle (1+\sum_{i=2}^{\infty}\dfrac{\langle \xi_i,q(x)\rangle}{\lambda_i-\lambda}\langle \xi_i,x\rangle)=0. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Hence, either $\langle w,x\rangle=0$, or $1+\sum_{i=2}^{\infty}\dfrac{\langle \xi_i,q(x)\rangle}{\lambda_i-\lambda}\langle \xi_i,x\rangle=0$. But we are looking for moving eigenvalues, i.e. $w$ s.t. $\langle w,x\rangle\neq 0$, hence the eigenvalue equation reduces to: $$\begin{aligned}
h(\lambda)\equiv 1+\sum_{i=2}^{\infty}\dfrac{\langle \xi_i,q(x)\rangle}{\lambda_i-\lambda}\langle \xi_i,x\rangle=0.\label{eq:eval3}\end{aligned}$$
A sufficient condition for Eq. (\[eq:eval3\]) to have only real roots is that the function $h(\lambda)$ is Herglotz, or equivalently, the product $\langle \xi_i,q(x)\rangle\langle \xi_i,x\rangle$ has [[ ]{}]{} same sign for all $i$. Using integration by parts on eigenvalue equation for $L_{loc}$, one can show that $\langle \xi_i,x\rangle=-\dfrac{\sigma^2}{2\lambda_i}\langle \xi_i,q(x)\rangle$. Thus the Herglotz condition is satisfied since $\lambda_i< 0$ for all $i>1$.
#### **Numerical Results:** {#numerical-results .unnumbered}
We use Chebfun [@driscoll2014chebfun] to perform all computations. The non-zero mean steady state solutions to Eq. (\[eq:kinetichom\]) are computed using a simple fixed point iteration for $\mu$. The solutions are shown in Figure \[fig:un12\]. The supercritical pitchfork bifurcation that occurs as $\sigma$ is reduced below critical value $\sigma_c(\alpha)$, is shown for a range of $\alpha$ values. To evaluate $h(\lambda)$ in Eq. (\[eq:eval3\]), we compute the spectrum of $L_{loc}$ for $\mu=0$. The odd-numbered eigenfunctions are even functions of $x$, and hence $\langle \xi_{2k+1},g_1\rangle=0$. Therefore, eigenvalues $\lambda_{2k+1}$ of $L_{loc}$ are also eigenvalues of $L$, and the eigenvalues $\lambda_{2k}$ are moving eigenvalues. We find that at $\sigma=\sigma_c(\alpha)$, $h(0)=0$. Hence, as $\sigma$ is decreased below $\sigma_c(\alpha)$, the least stable eigenvalue $\lambda_2$ of $L_{loc}$ moves to the positive real axis due to the effect of the nonlocal term, resulting in instability of the zero mean solution.
MFG Formulation
===============
In this section we describe a MFG formulation for homogeneous equation Eq. (\[eq:kinetichom\]). The velocity of $i$th agent evolves via the following equation (compare with Eq (\[eq:unc\_x\])) $$\begin{aligned}
dx_i(t)=a(x_i)dt+u_i(t)dt+\sigma d\omega_i(t),\end{aligned}$$ where $u_i$ is the optimal control. Let $F[x_i,x_{-i}](t)\equiv (x_i-\dfrac{1}{N-1} \sum_{j\neq i}x_j)^2$, and $\beta=\dfrac{1}{r\sigma^2} $, where [[ ]{}]{} is the control [[ ]{}]{}. Here $x_{-i}\equiv \{x_1,x_2,\dots,x_{i-1},x_{i+1},\dots\}$. Then the $i$th agent is minimizing the following long time average cost $$\begin{aligned}
J=\limsup_{T\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{T} \hspace{-0.1cm} \left[ \hspace{-0.05cm} \int_0^T\hspace{-0.25cm} \beta F[x_i,x_{-i}](t)+\frac{1}{2\sigma^2}u_i(t)^2 \right] dt\nonumber,\end{aligned}$$ that depends on states of all other agents.
To derive the MFG equations (recall Fig. \[fig:mfg\]), we [[ ]{}]{} the single-agent cost in terms of $\hat F(x_i,t)$, the unknown coupling function with dependence on $x_i$ only $$\begin{aligned}
J=\limsup_{T\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{T} \left[ \int_0^T \beta \hat F(x_i,t) +\frac{1}{2\sigma^2}u_i(t)^2 \right] dt.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
The resulting single agent HJB equation [@borkar2006ergodic] is
\_tv\_i(x,t)=&c-F(x,t)-a(x)\_xv\_i(x,t)\
+&(\_xv\_i(x,t))\^2 - \_[xx]{}v\_i(x,t),
where $v_i(x,t)$ is the single-agent relative value function, $c$ is the minimum average cost, and $u_i(x,t)=-\sigma^2\partial_xv_i(x_i,t)$ given in feedback form. [[Note that the HJB equation is well-posed backward in time]{}]{}. The self-consistency principle yields the expression for $\hat F$ in terms of agent density $f(x,t)$ (in the limit $N\rightarrow\infty$): $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{F}[f](x,t)=\left[\int(x-y)f(y,t)dy\right]^2.\end{aligned}$$
Hence, the following set of FP-HJB MFG equations govern the density and value function evolution: $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_tf(x,t)+&\partial_x\left[\left(a(x)-\sigma^2\partial_xv(x,t)\right)f(x,t)\right]=\frac{\sigma^2}{2}\partial_{xx}f(x,t),\label{eq:fp1}\\
\partial_tv(x,t)&=c-\beta\hat{F}[f](x,t)-a(x)\partial_xv(x,t)\nonumber\\&+\frac{\sigma^2}{2}(\partial_xv(x,t))^2-\frac{\sigma^2}{2}\partial_{xx}v(x,t)\label{eq:hjb1}.\end{aligned}$$
[[ ]{}]{} $$\begin{aligned}
f_{\infty}(x)=\dfrac{1}{Z}\exp(-\frac{2}{\sigma^2} (U(x)+\sigma^2v_{\infty}(x))).\label{eq:finf}\end{aligned}$$ Inserting this expression into Eq. (\[eq:hjb1\]), and using the Cole-Hopf transformation [@todorov2009eigenfunction] $\phi(x)=\exp(-v_{\infty}(x))$, results in the following nonlinear nonlocal eigenvalue problem for $\phi(x)$
c(x)&={x-y(U(y))\^2(y)dy}\^2(x)\
&-a(x)(x)-\_[xx]{}(x),\[eq:noneig\]
with the constraint $\int \exp(\frac{-2}{\sigma^2}U(y))\phi^2(y) dy=1$ to ensure [[ ]{}]{}. The ground state of this problem yields the desired steady state solutions, with corresponding eigenvalue being the minimum cost $c$.
Stability Analysis
------------------
In this section we extend the resolvent based analysis from section \[sec:stab\_fp\] to the MFG system, and find conditions for *closed-loop* stability of an arbitrary steady state $(f_{\infty}(x),v_{\infty}(x))$ to an initial perturbation in density. We consider mass preserving perturbations in density of the form $f(x,t)=f_{\infty}(x)(1+\epsilon\tilde f(x,t))$, i.e., the initial conditions satisfy $\int f_{\infty}(x)\tilde f(x,0)dx=0$. The perturbed value function is taken to be of the form $v(x,t)=v_{\infty}(x)+\epsilon\tilde v(x,t)$. A given steady state is called linearly stable if any perturbation to the density decays to zero under the action of the control, where both the density and control evolution are computed using linearized MFG equations.
Linearization of MFG equations (\[eq:fp1\],\[eq:hjb1\]) yields the nonlocal system $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{bmatrix}
\partial_t{\tilde{f}}(x,t)\\
\partial_t{\tilde{v}}(x,t)
\end{bmatrix}
=
L^{FB}_{loc}
\begin{bmatrix}
\tilde{f}(x,t)\\
\tilde{v}(x,t)
\end{bmatrix},\label{eq:FB}\end{aligned}$$ where $L^{FB}=L^{FB}_{loc}+L^{FB}_{nonloc}$, $$\begin{aligned}
L^{FB}_{loc}
=
\begin{bmatrix}
L_{loc} & 2 L_{loc} \\
0 & -L_{loc}
\end{bmatrix},\nonumber
L^{FB}_{nonloc}
=
\begin{bmatrix}
0 & 0 \\
2\beta s_1\langle g_1,.\rangle & 0
\end{bmatrix},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
$s_1(x)=x-\mu, g_1(x)=x$, $L_{loc}=-\partial_x(\hat U)\partial_x+\dfrac{\sigma^2}{2}\partial_{xx}$, with eigenvalue/eigenfunction pairs denoted by $\{\lambda_i,\xi_i\}$, and $\hat U(x)= U(x)+\sigma^2v^{\infty}(x)$ in analogy with the definition of $L_{loc}$ in Section \[sec:uncontrolled\]. In addition to the Hilbert space $\mathbb{H}=L^2(\mathbb{R},f_{\infty}dx)$ and $R_{\lambda}$ as defined earlier, we also consider a subspace $\mathbb{\bar H}=\{f\in\mathbb{H}|\langle f,1\rangle=0\}$.
### Eigenspectrum of the linearized forward-backward operator {#subsec:spec}
We start off by noting that the characteristic equation of $L^{FB}_{loc}$ is $(L_{loc}-\lambda I)(L_{loc}+\lambda I)=0$. Hence, its eigenvalues are $\cup_{i\in\mathbb{N}}\{\pm\lambda_i\}$. Now consider the eigenvalue problem for $L^{FB}$ with eigenvalue $\lambda$ and eigenfunction $[w_f(x)\,\,w_v(x)]^T$: $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda\begin{bmatrix}
w_f\\
w_v
\end{bmatrix}
=
\begin{bmatrix}
L_{loc} w_f+2 L_{loc}w_v\label{eq:mfgeval1}\\
2\beta s_1\langle g_1,w_f\rangle -L_{loc}w_v
\end{bmatrix}.\end{aligned}$$
Assuming $\lambda\not\in\cup_{i\in\mathbb{N}}\{\pm\lambda_i\}$, $R_{\lambda}$ and $R_{-\lambda}$ are well defined. The second equation of Eq. (\[eq:mfgeval1\]) gives $$\begin{aligned}
w_v=2\beta R_{-\lambda} s_1\langle g_1,w_f\rangle.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Substituting this expression in the first equation of Eq. (\[eq:mfgeval1\]), and re-arranging, $$\begin{aligned}
w_f=-4\beta R_{\lambda}L_{loc}R_{-\lambda} s_1\langle g_1,w_f\rangle.\label{eq:mfgeval1a}\end{aligned}$$ Taking the inner product of the above equation with $g_1$, $$\begin{aligned}
\langle g_1,w_f\rangle(1+4\beta\langle g_1, R_{\lambda}L_{loc}R_{-\lambda}s_1\rangle)=0.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
The eigenvalue equation for the $\langle g_1,w_f\rangle\neq0$ case for moving eigenvalues (as in Section \[sec:stab\_fp\]) is $$\begin{aligned}
h({\lambda})\equiv 1+4\beta\langle g_1, R_{\lambda}L_{loc}R_{-\lambda}s_1\rangle=0.\label{eq:mfgeval2}\end{aligned}$$ Using the definition of resolvent in Eq. (\[eq:mfgeval2\]), $$\begin{aligned}
h({\lambda})=1+4\beta\sum_{i=2}^{\infty}\lambda_i\dfrac{\langle g_1,\xi_i\rangle\langle s_1,\xi_i\rangle}{\lambda_i^2-\lambda^2},\label{eq:mfgeval3}\end{aligned}$$ and hence, $$\begin{aligned}
h({\lambda})=1+4\beta\sum_{i=2}^{\infty}\lambda_i\dfrac{\langle x,\xi_i\rangle^2}{\lambda_i^2-\lambda^2}.\label{eq:mfgeval4}\end{aligned}$$ Since Eq. (\[eq:mfgeval4\]) is Herglotz in $\lambda^2$, this implies that the eigenvalues come in pairs, either real or purely imaginary.
Let $\omega\equiv h(0)=1+4\beta\sum_{i=2}^{\infty}\dfrac{\langle x,\xi_i\rangle^2}{\lambda_i}$.
\[lem:mono\] Consider the eigenvalue equation $h(\lambda)=0$ for moving eigenvalues.
- If $\langle x,\xi_i\rangle \neq 0$ for all $i\geq 2$, then there exists a pair of real roots $\pm\delta_i$ for each $i\geq 2$, such that $\lambda_{i+1}<\delta_i<\lambda_i$.
- Recall that $\lambda_1=0$. If $\langle x,\xi_2\rangle \neq 0$ and $\omega>0$, there exists a pair of real roots $\pm\delta_1$, such that $\lambda_2<\delta_1<0$.
- If $\langle x,\xi_2\rangle \neq 0$ and $\omega<0$, there exists a pair of purely imaginary roots $\pm i\gamma$.
<!-- -->
- Consider the interval $I_i=(\lambda_{i+1},\lambda_i)$. As $\lambda\rightarrow\lambda_i^-$, $h(\lambda)\rightarrow \infty$, and as $\lambda\rightarrow\lambda_{i+1}^+$, $h(\lambda)\rightarrow -\infty$. It is easy to check that $h(\lambda)$ is monotonic in $I_i$. By intermediate value theorem, a root $\delta_i$ exists in $I_i$, and by the monotonicity property, it is unique. The result for $-\delta_i$ follows by symmetry.
- Consider the interval $I_1=(\lambda_2,0)$. Note that as $\lambda\rightarrow\lambda_{2}^+$, $h(\lambda)\rightarrow -\infty$, and as $\lambda\rightarrow 0^-$, $h(\lambda)\rightarrow \omega$. Hence, if $w>0$, arguments similar to those in part (i) yield the existence of a real root $\delta_1$ between $\lambda_2$ and $0$.
- Consider the function $h(i\gamma)$ for real $\gamma>0$. Clearly, $h$ is monotonic in this interval. Furthermore, as $\gamma\rightarrow \infty$, $h(i\gamma)\rightarrow 0$, and as $\gamma\rightarrow 0^+$, $h(i\gamma)\rightarrow \omega$. By arguments similar to those in part (i), $\omega<0$ implies that there is a unique root $i\gamma$ of $h$.
### Contraction analysis of the linearized forward-backward operator
Since the MFG system has a forward-backward nature, spectral information alone is insufficient to derive conclusions about the stability of steady state solutions. [[A contraction analysis is therefore adopted following Refs. . Consider the linear dynamical system given by Eq. (\[eq:FB\]), with initial perturbation in density $f(x,0)=f_{\infty}(1+\epsilon\tilde f(x,0))$. Assuming that $\tilde v(x,T)\rightarrow 0 $ as $T\rightarrow \infty$, the conditions for existence of a unique solution satisfying this assumption are derived. These conditions also provide a stability criterion.]{}]{} Integrating the $\tilde{v}$ equation in Eq. (\[eq:FB\]) from $t$ to $T$,
(x,T)&=e\^[-L\_[loc]{}(T-t)]{}(x,t)\
&+2\_t\^Te\^[-L\_[loc]{}(T-s)]{}s\_1(x)g\_1,(.,s)ds.
Taking the limit $T\rightarrow\infty$,
(x,t)=-2e\^[-L\_[loc]{}t]{} \_t\^ e\^[L\_[loc]{}s]{}s\_1(x)g\_1(.),(.,s)ds.\[eq:vper\]
[[ ]{}]{},
\_t(x,t)&=L\_[loc]{}(x,t)\
&-4L\_[loc]{}e\^[-L\_[loc]{}t]{}\_t\^e\^[L\_[loc]{}s]{}s\_1(x)g\_1(.),(.,s)ds.
[[ ]{}]{},
(x,t)=e\^[L\_[loc]{}t]{}(x,0)+M(x,t),\[eq:fp\_M\]
where the operator $M$ acting on $\tilde{f}(x,t)$ is defined as
M(x,t)=-4e\^[L\_[loc]{}t]{}\_[r=0]{}\^[r=t]{} e\^[-L\_[loc]{}r]{}L\_[loc]{}e\^[-L\_[loc]{}r]{}\_[s=r]{}\^[s=]{}e\^[L\_[loc]{}s]{}s\_1(x)g\_1(.),(.,s)dsdr. \[eq:Mtime\]
Applying the Laplace transform in time to Eq. (\[eq:Mtime\]), $$\hat{M}(\lambda)=-4\beta R_{\lambda}L_{loc}R_{-\lambda}s_1\langle g_1,.\rangle. \label{eq:Mfreq}$$
The operator norm $\|M\|$ is given by
M=&\_\_[=1]{}()\[eq:Mnorm\],\
=&4\_\_[f=1]{} \_[i=2]{}\^\_i,
=&4\_\_[f=1]{} ,\
=&4g\_1 =4x .
Lemma \[lem:contract\] proved next implies that $\|M\|<1$ is a sufficient condition for a steady state $(f_{\infty}(x),v_{\infty}(x))$ of the nonlinear MFG system Eqs. (\[eq:fp1\],\[eq:hjb1\]) to be linearly stable to density perturbations.
\[lem:contract\] Consider the initial value problem for the linearized system in Eqs. \[eq:FB\], with mass-preserving initial condition $\tilde f(x,0)$ i.e., $\int f_{\infty}(x)\tilde f(x,0)dx=0$. If the operator $M$ is a contraction (i.e., $\|M\|<1$), then the perturbation in density, $\tilde f(.,t)$, decays to $0$ as $t\rightarrow \infty$. Moreover, $\tilde v(.,t)$ also decays to $0$ as $t\rightarrow\infty$.
If $M$ is a contraction, then we can (formally) invert the Eq. (\[eq:fp\_M\]), and write the unique solution $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{f}(x,t)=(\mathbf{I}-M)^{-1}e^{L_{loc}t}\tilde{f}(x,0)\nonumber\\=(\mathbf{I}+M+M^2+\dots)e^{L_{loc}t}\tilde{f}(x,0).\end{aligned}$$ We note that mass conservation property is equivalent to $\langle \tilde f(x,0),1\rangle=0$, i.e. $\tilde f(x,0) \in \mathbb{\bar{H}}$. Recall that $L_{loc}$ restricted to $\mathbb{\bar{H}}$ is a self-adjoint operator with negative eigenvalues $\lambda_i, i=2,3,\dots$. Then, $\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}\|e^{L_{loc}t}\|_{\mathbb{\bar{H}}}=\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}e^{\lambda_{2}t}=0$. This proves the decay of $\tilde f(.,t)$. [[The corresponding result for $\tilde v(.,t)$ is obtained by inserting the expression for $\tilde f(.,t)$ into Eq. (\[eq:vper\]).]{}]{}
Now consider a case where eigenvalue equation in Eq. (\[eq:mfgeval1a\]) has a pair of purely imaginary roots $\pm i\gamma (\neq 0)$. Then there is a eigenfunction $z_f$ s.t. $$\begin{aligned}
z_f=-4\beta R_{i\gamma}L_{loc}R_{-i\gamma}s_1\langle g_1,z_f\rangle\\
=\hat{M}(i\gamma)z_f,\end{aligned}$$ by noting Eq. (\[eq:Mfreq\]). But this implies that norm of $\hat{M}$ is at least $1$, hence it is not a contraction. This implies that a necessary condition for $M$ to be a contraction is the absence of non-zero spectra of $L^{FB}$ on the imaginary axis.
Numerical Results
-----------------
[[Recall that in the MFG problem described by Eqs. (\[eq:fp1\],\[eq:hjb1\]), the representative agent is minimizing a weighted sum of two costs: one penalizes deviation of its velocity from the mean velocity of the agent population, and the other penalizes the control action. In this section, we compute fixed points, and identify phase transitions of this system of equations as the problem parameters are varied.]{}]{} Rather than solving the resulting constrained nonlinear eigenvalue problem \[eq:noneig\] directly, we use an iterative algorithm to compute steady state solutions of the MFG system.
We note that the coupling term $\hat{F}[f](x,t)$ evaluated at any steady state density $f_{\infty}$ is $\hat{F}[f_{\infty}](x)=(x-\mu)^2$, where $\mu=\int yf_{\infty}(y)dy$. Again using Cole-Hopf transformation $\phi(x)=\exp(-v(x))$ on the HJB equation leads to a **linear** eigenvalue problem in $\phi$: $$\begin{aligned}
c\phi(x)=\mathcal{L}[\phi](x),\label{eq:lineig}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{L}[\phi]=\beta(x-\mu)^2\phi(x)-a(x)\partial_x\phi(x)-\frac{\sigma^2}{2}\partial_{xx}\phi(x)$. We solve Eq. (\[eq:lineig\]) iteratively along with Eq. (\[eq:finf\]) to find zero mean MFG steady states ($f_{\infty},v_{\infty})$ for a range of $r$, keeping $\sigma$ and $\alpha$ fixed (See Fig. \[fig:mfgfp1\]).These solutions are stable (i.e., $\|M\|<1$) for large $r$, [[implying that when control is expensive, the agents use minimal control action. The resulting steady state distribution is bi-modal due to dominance of the self-propulsion force, and dispersion via noise]{}]{}.
These zero mean solutions lose stability (i.e., $\|M\|>1$) via a supercritical bifurcation as $r$ is reduced below a critical value $r_{sup}$. The Eq. (\[eq:mfgeval4\]) for moving eigenvalues of $L^{FB}$ has a double zero root at $r=r_{sup}$, and a pair of purely imaginary roots emerges as $r$ is reduced below $r_{sup}$. This implies that the pair of symmetric eigenvalues of $L^{FB}$ closest to the imaginary axis reaches $0$ at the critical parameter, and then moves up/down the imaginary axis. The stable non-zero mean MFG steady state solutions on the supercritical branch are computed by combining fixed point iteration in $\mu$ with a continuation step. [[This bifurcation provides a MFG interpretation to the pitchfork bifurcation observed in the uncontrolled system, i.e., cheaper control makes it economical to compensate for noise. Hence, the agents apply larger control action to flock together (and reduce the cost of deviation from the population mean), resulting in symmetry breaking non-zero mean solutions.]{}]{}
When noise strength $\sigma$ is fixed below a critical value, the zero mean solution branch undergoes a *subcritical* bifurcation as control penalty $r$ is further reduced, i.e, at $r=r_{sub}< r_{sup}$ (See Fig. \[fig:mfgfp2\]). The corresponding non-zero mean solutions were computed using bisection method. This bifurcation is not seen in the uncontrolled system. For instance, when ($\sigma=0.5, \alpha=1.5$), it results in creation of uni-modal stable zero mean solutions in the case of cheap control, $r<r_{sub}$, as compared to the bi-modal stable zero mean solution that exist for expensive control, $r>r_{sup}$. Hence, we conclude that for $r<r_{sub}$, the control is cheap enough to counteract the intrinsic dynamics, and make zero mean uni-modal solution stable.
Conclusions
===========
We have presented a MFG formulation for homogeneous flocking of agents with gradient nonlinearity in their intrinsic dynamics. We have employed tools from theory of reaction-diffusion equations, and exploited the low rank nature of the nonlocal coupling term to study the linear stability of the MFG equations. The explicit formulae for verifying the stability of steady state solutions of the nonlocal forward-backward MFG system require relatively simple numerical computation of spectra of the local self-adjoint Fokker-Planck operators. The MFG system shows rich nonlinear behavior, such as supercritical and subcritical pitchfork bifurcations that result in wide range of collective behaviors, some of which are not present in the uncontrolled model.
Much of the analysis in the current work can be generalized to higher dimensional state space for homogeneous flocking with self-propulsion, similar in spirit to the generalization[@barbaro2016phase] of one-dimensional *uncontrolled* flocking model. Furthermore, the abstract results presented in this work apply to models other than homogeneous flocking, e.g. nonlocally coupled agents with arbitrary first order gradient dynamics. Extension to non-homogeneous flocking would be a natural next step; the resulting second-order dynamics could require more sophisticated tools [@alexander1990topological] for stability analysis. [[Implementation of the MFG control laws in an engineered large population system requires the control to be provided in a causal form. Algorithms that can learn the MFG laws can be used to convert the control laws obtained by solving the FP-HJB equations into an implementable form [@cardaliaguet2017learning].]{}]{}
The use of bifurcation and singularity theory to develop bio-inspired control and decision making algorithms for multi-agent systems has been explored recently[@leonard2014multi; @srivastava2017bio; @gray2015honeybee]. Our work adds to the toolbox for systematic analysis of collective behavior of non-cooperative dynamic agents via an inverse modeling approach. [[The qualitative and quantitative insight provided by the stability analysis can be exploited in *mechanism design*, i.e., design of penalties or incentives to drive the population to asymptotic states with desirable characteristics. We believe that a systematic study of bifurcations in MFG models can lead to progress in tackling the grand challenge of designing or manipulating collective behavior of a large population of non-cooperative dynamic agents.]{}]{}
We wish to thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments, especially regarding Lemma \[lem:mono\] and its proof.
[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 (, ) pp. in @noop [**]{} (, ) pp. @noop [****, ()]{} in @noop [**]{}, Vol. (, ) pp. @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [**** ()]{} @noop [ ()]{} @noop [ ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} in @noop [**]{} (, ) pp. @noop [****, ()]{} in @noop [**]{} (, ) pp. @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [**]{}, , Vol. (, , ) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [**]{}, Vol. (, ) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [“,” ]{} () in @noop [**]{} () in @noop [**]{} (, ) pp. @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} in @noop [**]{} (, ) pp. @noop [ ()]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Searches for mass-3 component in the electron neutrino flavor state $\sin{\theta}_{13}$ and for sterile neutrinos can be carried out in the same small mixing angle antineutrino oscillation experiment at a reactor. As an example we consider a layout, which involves several movable antineutrino spectrometers, stationed at distances 1700 m $-$ 50 m from a reactor. The experiment can scan neutrino mass parameter interval $\sim$(0.5$-$0.001) eV$^{2}$ and have there typical sensitivity to $\sin^{2}2{\theta}$ at a level of 0.015$-$0.02. The signature for sterile neutrino is disappearance observed at mass parameter ${\Delta}m^{2}_{new}$ different from ${\Delta}m^{2}_{atm} \approx 2\times 10^{-3}$ eV$^{2}$. In any case existing constraints both on $\sin{\theta}_{13}$ and on sterile neutrinos can considerably be improved.'
author:
- 'V. Kopeikin[^1], L. Mikaelyan[^2], V. Sinev[^3]'
date: 'Russian Research Centre “Kurchatov Institute”, Moscow, Russia'
title: 'Search for sterile neutrinos as another research objective of ${\theta}_{13}$ experiments at reactors'
---
Talk given at II Workshop on Future low energy neutrino experiment, Munich, October 9-11, 2003
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
Discovery of sterile neutrinos would have a revolutionary impact on neutrino and particle physics.
Sterile neutrinos can hide, mimic or distort reactor antineutrino disappearance pattern in the atmospheric oscillation channel.
The notion of sterile neutrinos ${\nu}_s$ was originally introduced by B. Pontecorvo in 1967 y \[1\] and later has been considered by many authors: D. Caldwell and R. Mohapatra \[2\], S. Bilenky, C. Giunti and W. Grimus \[3\], K. Benakli and A. Smirnov \[4\], B. Kayser \[5\]. Information on theory of sterile (and mirror) neutrinos and references can be found in the recent paper by V. Berezinsky, M. Narayan, F. Vissani \[6\].
An experimental hint in favor of sterile neutrinos comes from unconfirmed observations of LSND collaboration \[7\] on ${\nu}_{\mu} \rightarrow {\nu}_e$ transitions.
An idea how to look for sterile neutrinos at reactors along with $\sin{\theta}_{13}$ was proposed in Kurchtov Institute in 1998 y \[8\].
While solar, atmospheric, and laboratory (Super Kamiokande, SNO, KamLAND…) studies are understood as only 3-active neutrino mixing (see however de Holanda, A. Smirnov, hep-ph/0307266) they some admixture of sterile neutrinos.
How to search for sterile neutrios at reactors
==============================================
there are 3 masses and 3 mass parameters: $$\begin{aligned}
{\Delta}m^{2}_{12} = {\Delta}m^{2}_{solar} \sim (6-8)\times 10^{-5} {\rm eV}^{2}, \nonumber \\
{\Delta}m^{2}_{atm} = {\Delta}m^{2}_{13} \approx {\Delta}m^{2}_{23}\approx 2\times 10^{-3} {\rm eV}^{2} >> {\Delta}m^{2}_{solar}. \nonumber \end{aligned}$$
Antineutrino disappearance at distances $L$ = 1000-2000 m from reactor source is governed by mass parameter ${\Delta}m^{2}_{atm}$ and by mixing parameter $\sin^{2}2{\theta}_{13}$: $$P({\nu}_{e} \rightarrow {\nu}_{e}) = 1 - \sin^{2}2{\theta}_{13}\sin^{2}\left(\frac{1.27L{\Delta}m^{2}_{atm}}{E}\right).$$
there are 6 masses, 15 (!) mass parameters and a great number of mixing parameters.
It can quite happen that at least one of 12 new mass parameters ${\Delta}m^{2}_{new}$ fells into the region ${\Delta}m^{2}_{new} \sim (0.5-1.0\times 10^{-3})$ eV$^2$.
It can be found there in the experiment of Kr2Det type \[9\] or its modification (some of them were discussed in 2002$-$2003 yy in Paris, Alabama and here at TUM), provided the associated mixing parameter $\sin^{2}2{\theta}_{s}$ is not too small.
[**Antineutrino disappearance, found in a new channel ${\Delta}m^{2}_{new}$ would mean existence of sterile neutrino(s).**]{}
Some part of the $\sin^{2}2{\theta}-{\Delta}m^{2}$ plane is already excluded by the CHOOZ, Palo-Verde and Bugey experiments (shaded area in Fig. 1), vast left region is still to be explored.
Example of layout
==================
Imagine that a tunnel is built near one 3.2 GW thermal power reactor. We consider five identically designed 30 ton target scintillator (movable) detectors, four of them stationed in the far position at a distance of 1700 m from the reactor, one 30 ton detector is stationed in the near position at 300 m from the reactor. To expand the explored mass parameter region towards larger values two small detectors are considered at 300 m and 50 m from the reactor.
Expected neutrino detection rates per 300 days are shown in Table 1
---------- ------------- ----------------------------
Distance Target mass $\bar{{\nu}_e}$rate/300day
m ton
50 5 1 100 000
300 5 30 000
300 30 190 000
1700 4 x 30 24 000
---------- ------------- ----------------------------
: Detector positions, scintillator target masses and $\bar{{\nu}_e}$ detection rates per 300 days.
Analysis
========
Now instead of Eq. (1) we write:
$$\begin{aligned}
P({\nu}_{e} \rightarrow {\nu}_{e}) = 1 - \sin^{2}2{\theta}_{13}\sin^{2}\left(\frac{1.27L{\Delta}m^{2}_{atm}}{E}\right) \nonumber \\
- \sin^{2}2{\theta}_{s} \sin^{2}\left(\frac{1.27L{\Delta}m^{2}_{new}}{E}\right),\end{aligned}$$
where ${\theta}_s$ and ${\Delta}m^{2}_{new}$ refer to the sterile neutrino. We consider two types of data analysis: SHAPE and RATE. With ONE reactor as ${\bar{\nu}_e}$ source the SHAPE analysis (as we already know) is independent of exact knowledge of:
- Reactor power,
- Energy spectrum of ${\bar{\nu}_e}$ and its time variations,
- Target volumes and Proton concentrations,
- Absolute efficiencies of ${\bar{\nu}_e}$ detection.
- Backgrounds can periodically be measured.
The analysis based on comparison of the far/near ${\bar{\nu}_e}$ detection RATES requires good knowledge of Ratios of the target volumes and of Antineutrino detection efficiencies.
In both cases NO exact information from the reactor services on reactor power and fissile fuel composition is needed for data analysis.
Expected sensitivity
====================
With 3 years of data taking (300 days/year) most part of the ${\Delta}m^{2}$ range (0.5-0.001) eV$^2$ can be searched for ${\theta}_{13}$ and sterile neutrinos with a sensitivity of $\sin^{2}2{\theta}_{13}(\sin^{2}2{\theta}_{s}) \sim 0.01-0.015-0.02$ which is in general agreement with the analysis performed by P.Huber, M.Lindner, T.Schwetz and W.Winter \[10\].
The limits shown in Fig. 3 were obtained assuming energy resolution ${\sigma}_{E} = 0.08 \sqrt{E}$ and the systematics: ${\sigma}_{shape} = 0.5\%, {\sigma}_{rate} = 1\%$.
As can be seen in Fig. 3 the CHOOZ limit on $\sin^{2}2{\theta}_{13}$ at ${\Delta}m^{2}_{atm} = 2\times 10^{-3}$ eV$^2$ can be improved by a factor 10.
Instead of discussions
=======================
Question: Should we look for sterile neutrinos in the ${\theta}_{13}$ experiments?
Probability $P$ that we find them is low: $P \sim0.001$
Importance $I$ of finding steriles is very high: $I \sim 1000$
Argument in favor $A$:
$$A = P \times I \approx 0.001\times 1000 = 1 (!)$$
Answer: Yes, no doubt, we should look for sterile neutrinos.
Conclusions
===========
Search for sterile neutrinos at reactors do NOT require much additional effort and can be done along with ${\theta}_{13}$
With ONE Reactor and a number of detectors high sensitivity to ${\theta}_{13}$ and steriles can be reached.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We are grateful to Prof. Yu. Kamyshkov for fruitful discussions of ${\theta}_{13}$ problems. We thank Profs. M. Lindner and L. Oberauer for hospitality and beautiful organization of Munich workshop.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
1\. B. Pontecorvo, J. Exp. Theor. Phys. 53 1717 (1967). \[Sov. Phys. JETP 26 984 (1968)\].\
2. D. Caldwell and R. Mohapatra, Phys. Rev. D 46, 3259 (1993).\
3. S. Bilenky, C. Giunti and W. Grimus, Eur. Pys. J. C1, 247 (1998).\
4. K. Benakli and A. Smirnov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 4314 (1997).\
5. B. Kayser, hep-ph/9810513.\
6. V. Berezinsky, M. Narayan, F. Vissani, Nucl. Phys. B 658 (2003) 254.\
7. LSND Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998) 1774.\
8. L. Mikaelyan, V. Sinev, Phys. At. Nucl. 62 (1999) 2008, hep-ph/9811228.\
9. 4. L. Mikaelyan, V. Sinev, Phys. Atom. Nucl. 63 1002 (2000), (hep-ex/9908047); L. Mikaelyan, Nucl. Phys.B (Proc. Suppl.) 87 284 (2000); hep-ex/9910042; Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) 91 120 (2001), (hep-ex/0008046); V.Martemyanov et al., hep-ex/0211070.\
10. P.Huber, M.Lindner, T.Schwetz and W.Winter in hep-ph/0303232.
[^1]: [email protected]
[^2]: [email protected]
[^3]: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We prove a duality theorem for quantum groupoid (weak Hopf algebra) actions that extends the well-known result for usual Hopf algebras obtained in [@BM] and [@vdB].'
address: 'Department of Mathematics, UCLA, 405 Hilgard Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1555'
author:
- Dmitri Nikshych
title: '**A Duality Theorem for Quantum Groupoids**'
---
[Introduction]{}
By [*(finite) quantum groupoids*]{} we understand weak Hopf algebras introduced in [@BNSz], [@BSz] as a generalization of ordinary Hopf algebras providing a good framework for studying symmetries of certain quantum field theories. These objects also generalize both ordinary groupoid algebras and their duals. A special case of quantum groupoids with involutive antipode was studied in [@NV1], [@N].
Finite quantum groupoids naturally arise in the theory of von Neumann algebras : it was shown in [@NV2] that finite index II${}_{1}$ subfactors of depth $\leq 2$ can be characterized as $C^*$-quantum groupoid smash products. This result was extended in [@NV3], where a uniform description of all finite depth subfactors was obtained via a Galois correspondence. In fact, one can use subfactors in order to construct interesting concrete examples of quantum groupoids such as Temperley-Lieb algebras [@NV2], [@NV3].
Another motivation to study quantum groupoids comes from the fact that their representation theory provides examples of monoidal categories that can be used for constructing invariants of links and 3-manifolds [@NVT].
In this paper we prove the following duality theorem for smashed products : if $H$ is a finite quantum groupoid and $A$ is an $H$-module algebra, then $(A\#H)\#H^* \cong {\mbox{End}}(A\#H)_A$, where $H^*$ acts on $A\#H$ in a dual way and $A\#H$ is viewed as a right $A$-module via multiplication. For usual Hopf algebras this result was proved in [@BM] (where infinite dimensional case was considered) and [@vdB]. For weak Kac algebras (i.e., finite $C^*$-quantum groupoids with an involutive antipode) it was established in [@N].
The note is organized as follows.
In Preliminaries (Section $2$) we recall definitions and basic facts concerning finite quantum groupoids (weak Hopf algebras) and prove identities we need for later computations.
In Section $3$ we prove the main result by writing down explicit formulas for isomorphism between $(A\#H)\#H^*$ and ${\mbox{End}}(A\#H)_A$. As a corollary we obtain that $H\#H^*$ is always a semisimple algebra.
The results of this paper were presented by the author at the Colloquium on Quantum Groups and Hopf Algebras held in La Falda, Argentina in August, 1999 and he would like to thank N. Andruskiewitsch, W. Ferrer Santos, and H.-J. Schneider for inviting him. The author is also grateful to L. Vainerman for numerous discussions on quantum groupoids and his comments on the present work.
[Preliminaries]{}
Let $k$ be a field.
Throughout this paper we use Sweedler’s notation for comultiplication, writing $\Delta(b) = b{_{(1)}}\otimes b{_{(2)}}$.
\[basic definition\] By a [*weak Hopf algebra*]{} [@BNSz], or [*finite quantum groupoid*]{} we understand a finite dimensional $k$-vector space $H$ that has structures of algebra $(H,\,m,\,1)$ and coalgebra $(H,\,\Delta,\,{\varepsilon})$ related as follows:
1. $\Delta$ is a (not necessarily unit-preserving) homomorphism : $$\Delta(hg) = \Delta(h)\Delta(g),$$
2. The unit and counit satisfy the identities $$\begin{aligned}
{\varepsilon}(hgf) &=& {\varepsilon}(hg{_{(1)}}){\varepsilon}(g{_{(2)}}f) = {\varepsilon}(hg{_{(2)}}){\varepsilon}(g{_{(1)}}f), \\
(\Delta \otimes {\mbox{id}}) \Delta(1) &=&
(\Delta(1)\otimes 1)(1\otimes \Delta(1)) =
(1\otimes \Delta(1))(\Delta(1)\otimes 1), \end{aligned}$$
3. There is a linear map $S: H \to H$, called an [*antipode*]{}, such that $$\begin{aligned}
m({\mbox{id}}\otimes S)\Delta(h) &=&({\varepsilon}\otimes{\mbox{id}})(\Delta(1)(h\otimes 1)),\\
m(S\otimes {\mbox{id}})\Delta(h) &=& ({\mbox{id}}\otimes {\varepsilon})((1\otimes h)\Delta(1)),\\
S(h{_{(1)}})h{_{(2)}}S(h{_{(2)}}) &=& S(h),\end{aligned}$$
for all $h,g,f\in H$.
The antipode is unique and invertible [@BNSz], moreover it is an anti-algebra and anti-coalgebra map. The right-hand sides of two first formulas in $(3)$ are called [*target*]{} and [*source counital maps*]{} and denoted ${\varepsilon}_t$, ${\varepsilon}_s$ respectively : $$\begin{aligned}
{\varepsilon}_t(h) = ({\varepsilon}\otimes{\mbox{id}})(\Delta(1)(h\otimes 1)),\\
{\varepsilon}_s(h) = ({\mbox{id}}\otimes {\varepsilon})((1\otimes h)\Delta(1)).\end{aligned}$$ The counital maps ${\varepsilon}_t$ and ${\varepsilon}_s$ are idempotents in ${\mbox{End}}_k(H)$, we also have relations $S\circ {\varepsilon}_t = {\varepsilon}_s \circ S$ and $S\circ {\varepsilon}_s = {\varepsilon}_t \circ S$.
The main difference between quantum groupoids and Hopf algebras is that the ranges of counital maps are, in general, separable subalgebras of $H$ not necessarily equal to $k$. They are called [*target*]{} and [*source counital subalgebras*]{} and play a role of “non-commutative bases” (cf. Example \[examples\] below) : $$\begin{aligned}
H_t &=& \{h\in H \mid {\varepsilon}_t(h) =h \}
= \{h\in H \mid \Delta(h) = 1{_{(1)}}h\otimes 1{_{(2)}}= h 1{_{(1)}}\otimes 1{_{(2)}}\}, \\
H_s &=& \{h\in H \mid {\varepsilon}_s(h) =h \}
= \{h\in H \mid \Delta(h) = 1{_{(1)}}\otimes h 1{_{(2)}}= 1{_{(1)}}\otimes 1{_{(2)}}h \}.\end{aligned}$$ The counital subalgebras commute, the restriction of the antipode gives an anti-isomorphism between $B_t$ and $B_s$, moreover, $B_t$ (resp. $B_s$) is a left (resp. right) coideal subalgebra of $B$. We also have $S\circ {\varepsilon}_t = {\varepsilon}_s \circ S$, $S^2\vert_{B_t} ={\mbox{id}}_{B_t}$, and $S^2\vert_{B_s} ={\mbox{id}}_{B_s}$.
Note that $H$ is an ordinary Hopf algebra if and only if $\Delta(1)=1\otimes 1$ if and only if ${\varepsilon}$ is a homomorphism if and only if $H_t=H_s =k$.
The dual vector space $H^*$ has a natural structure of a quantum groupoid with the structure operations dual to those of $H$ : $$\begin{aligned}
& & {{<}}\phi\psi,\,h{{>}}= {{<}}\phi\otimes\psi,\,\Delta(h) {{>}}, \\
& & {{<}}\Delta(\phi),\,h \otimes g {{>}}= {{<}}\phi,\,hg {{>}}, \\
& & {{<}}S(\phi),\,h{{>}}= {{<}}\phi,\,S(h) {{>}}, \end{aligned}$$ for all $\phi,\psi \in H^*,\, h,g\in H$. The unit of $H^*$ is ${\varepsilon}$ and counit is $\phi \mapsto {{<}}\phi,\, 1{{>}}$.
\[examples\] Let $G$ be a finite [*groupoid*]{} (a category with finitely many morphisms, such that each morphism is invertible) then the groupoid algebra $kG$ (generated by morphisms $g\in G$ with the product of two morphisms being equal to their composition if the latter is defined and $0$ otherwise) is a quantum groupoid via : $$\Delta(g) = g\otimes g,\quad {\varepsilon}(g) =1,\quad S(g)=g^{-1},\quad g\in G.$$ The dual quantum groupoid $(kG)^*$ is generated by idempotents $p_g,\, g\in G$ such that $p_g p_h= \delta_{g,h}p_g$ and $$\Delta(p_g) =\sum_{uv=g}\,p_v\otimes p_v,\quad {\varepsilon}(p_g)= \delta_{g,gg^{-1}},
\quad S(p_g) =p_{g^{-1}}.$$
It is known that any group action on a set gives rise to a finite groupoid [@R]. Similarly, in the “quantum” situation, one can associate a weak Hopf algebra (quantum groupoid) with every action of a usual Hopf algebra on a separable algebra, see [@NVT] for details.
Finally, the most non-trivial examples of quantum groupoids known so far come from the theory of von Neumann II${}_1$ subfactors [@GHJ] : in [@NV2] finite index subfactors of depth $\leq 2$ were characterized as quantum groupoid smash products and it was explained in [@NV3] that it is possible to construct concrete examples of quantum groupoids from subfactors of arbitrary finite depth.
An algebra $A$ is a left [*$H$-module algebra*]{} [@NSzW] if $A$ is a left $H$-module via $h\otimes x \mapsto h\cdot x$ and $$h\cdot (xy) = (h{_{(1)}}\cdot x)(h{_{(2)}}\cdot y), \qquad h\cdot 1 ={\varepsilon}_t(h)\cdot 1,$$ for all $h\in H,\,x,y\in A$.
A [*smash product*]{} algebra $A\#H$ of $A$ and $H$ is defined on a $k$-vector space $A \otimes_{H_t} H$ (relative tensor product), where $H$ is a left $H_t$-module via multiplication and $A$ is a right $H_t$-module via $$x\cdot z = S(z)\cdot x = x(z\cdot 1) \qquad x\in A, z\in H_t.$$ Let $x\#h$ be the class of $x\otimes h$ in $A \otimes_{H_t} H$, then the multiplication of $A\#H$ is given by the familiar formula : $$(x\#h)(y\#g) = x(h{_{(1)}}\cdot y)\#h{_{(2)}}g, \qquad x,y\in A,\, h,g\in H$$ and the unit of $A\#H$ is $1\#1$.
\[actions\] The target counital subalgebra $H_t$ is a [*trivial $H$-module*]{} algebra with the action of $H$ given by $h\cdot z = {\varepsilon}_t(hz)$, where $h\in H,\, z\in H_t$.
The dual quantum groupoid $H^*$ is an $H$-module algebra via $$h{\rightharpoonup}\phi = \phi{_{(1)}}{{<}}\phi{_{(2)}},\, h{{>}},$$ for all $h\in H,\, \phi\in H^*$.
In the following Lemma we collect the identities we will use in what follows. They can be found in [@BNSz] and [@NV1], we include them here for the convenience of the reader.
\[a lemma\] For every quantum groupoid $H$ and elements $h\in H,\,z\in H_t$ the following identities hold true :
1. $h{_{(1)}}\otimes {\varepsilon}_t(h{_{(2)}}) =1{_{(1)}}h \otimes 1{_{(2)}}\quad$ and $\quad{\varepsilon}_s(h{_{(1)}}) \otimes h{_{(2)}}= 1{_{(1)}}\otimes h 1{_{(2)}}$,
2. $1{_{(1)}}S(z) \otimes 1{_{(2)}}= 1{_{(1)}}\otimes 1{_{(2)}}z$,
3. $h{_{(2)}}S^{-1}(h{_{(1)}})\otimes h{_{(3)}}= S({\varepsilon}_t(h{_{(1)}})\otimes h{_{(2)}}= 1{_{(1)}}\otimes 1{_{(2)}}h$.
\(i) We have : $$\begin{aligned}
h{_{(1)}}\otimes {\varepsilon}_t(h{_{(2)}})
&=& h{_{(1)}}{\varepsilon}(1{_{(1)}}h{_{(2)}}) \otimes 1{_{(2)}}\\
&=& 1{_{(1)}}h{_{(1)}}{\varepsilon}(1{_{(2)}}h{_{(2)}}) \otimes 1{_{(3)}}= 1{_{(1)}}h \otimes 1{_{(2)}},\end{aligned}$$ where we used the definition of ${\varepsilon}_t$ and the axiom (2) of Definition \[basic definition\]. The second identity is similar. (ii) Since $S(z) \in H_s$ we can compute : $$\begin{aligned}
1{_{(1)}}S(z) \otimes 1{_{(2)}}&=& S(z){_{(1)}}\otimes {\varepsilon}_t(S(z){_{(2)}}) \\
&=& 1{_{(1)}}\otimes {\varepsilon}_t(1{_{(2)}}S(z)) \\
&=& 1{_{(1)}}\otimes {\varepsilon}_t(1{_{(2)}}z) = 1{_{(1)}}\otimes 1{_{(2)}}z,\end{aligned}$$ using part (i), definition of the source counital subalgebra, and the identity ${\varepsilon}_t(hg) = {\varepsilon}_t(h {\varepsilon}_t(g))$ that follows from axiom (2) of Definition \[basic definition\]. Observe that $S(1{_{(1)}}) \otimes 1{_{(2)}}$ is a separability idempotent [@P] of $H_t$. (iii) Using part (ii) and the fact that $H_s$ and $H_t$ commute, we have $$\begin{aligned}
h{_{(2)}}S^{-1}(h{_{(1)}})\otimes h{_{(3)}}&=& S({\varepsilon}_t(h{_{(1)}})) \otimes h{_{(2)}}\\
&=& S({\varepsilon}_t(1{_{(1)}}h{_{(1)}})) \otimes 1{_{(2)}}h{_{(2)}}\\
&=& 1{_{(1)}}S({\varepsilon}_t(h{_{(1)}})) \otimes 1{_{(2)}}h{_{(2)}}\\
&=& 1{_{(1)}}\otimes 1{_{(2)}}{\varepsilon}_t(h{_{(1)}}) h{_{(2)}}= 1{_{(1)}}\otimes 1{_{(2)}}h.\end{aligned}$$
[Main result]{}
Let $H$ be a finite quantum groupoid and $A$ be a left $H$-module algebra. Then the smash product $A\#H$ is a left $H^*$-module algebra via $$\phi\cdot (a\#h) = a\#(\phi{\rightharpoonup}h), \quad
\phi\in H^*,\,h\in H,\,a\in A.$$ In the case when $H$ is an ordinary finite dimensional Hopf algebra, it follows from [@BM] that there is an isomorphism $(A\#H)\#H^* \cong M_n(A)$, where $n=\dim H$ and $M_n(A)$ is an algebra of $n$-by-$n$ matrices over $A$.
We will show that this result extends to quantum groupoid action in the form $(A\#H)\#H^* \cong {\mbox{End}}(A\#H)_A$, where $A\#H$ is a right $A$-module via multiplication (note that $A\#H$ is not necessarily a free $A$-module, so that we have ${\mbox{End}}(A\#H)_A\not\cong M_n(A)$ in general; see ([@NV2], 7) for an example when $H$ is not free over $H_t$). We will explicitly write down canonical isomorphisms between $(A\#H)\#H^*$ and ${\mbox{End}}(A\#H)_A$.
\[alpha\] The map $\alpha : (A\#H)\#H^* \to {\mbox{End}}(A\#H)_A$ defined by $$\alpha((x\#h)\#\phi)(y\#g) = (x\#h)(y\#(\phi{\rightharpoonup}g))
= x(h{_{(1)}}\cdot y) \#h{_{(2)}}(\phi{\rightharpoonup}g)$$ for all $x,y\in A,\, h,g\in H,\,\phi\in H^*$ is a homomorphism of algebras.
First, we need to check that $\alpha$ is well defined. For all $z\in H_t$ and $\xi\in H_t^*$ we have : $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha((x\#zh)\#\phi)(y\#g)
&=& x(zh{_{(1)}}\cdot b)\#h{_{(2)}}(\phi{\rightharpoonup}g) \\
&=& x(z\cdot 1)(h{_{(1)}}\cdot b)\#h{_{(2)}}(\phi{\rightharpoonup}g) \\
&=& \alpha( (x\cdot z)\#h)\#\phi )(y\#g), \\
\alpha((x\#h)\#\xi\phi)(y\#g)
&=& x(h{_{(1)}}\cdot b)\#h{_{(2)}}(\xi{\rightharpoonup}1)(\phi{\rightharpoonup}g) \\
&=& \alpha( (x\#h(\xi{\rightharpoonup}1))\#\phi )(y\#g) \\
&=& \alpha( (x\#(S(\xi){\rightharpoonup}h))\#\phi )(y\#g)\\
&=& \alpha( (x\# (h\cdot \xi)) \# \phi )(y\#g)\end{aligned}$$ where we used definition of the target counital subalgebra, Lemma \[a lemma\](ii), and that $(\xi{\rightharpoonup}1)\in H_s$ for all $\xi\in H_t^*$.
Next, we verify that $\alpha((x\#h)\#\phi) \in {\mbox{End}}(A\#H)_A$ for all $x\in A,\,h\in H,\,\phi\in H^*$. For all $z\in H_t$ we have : $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha((x\#h)\#\phi) (y\#zg)
&=& x(h{_{(1)}}\cdot y)\# h{_{(2)}}z(\phi{\rightharpoonup}g) \\
&=& x(h{_{(1)}}S(z) \cdot y)\# h{_{(2)}}(\phi{\rightharpoonup}g) \\
&=& \alpha((x\#h)\#\phi)((y \cdot z) \# g),\end{aligned}$$ using the identity $\phi{\rightharpoonup}zg = z(\phi{\rightharpoonup}g)$ and Lemma \[a lemma\] (ii).
The following computation shows that $\alpha$ commutes with the right action of all $w\in A$ : $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha((x\#h)\#\phi) ((y\#g)\cdot w)
&=& \alpha((x\#h)\#\phi)(y(g{_{(1)}}\cdot w)\# g{_{(2)}}) \\
&=& (x\#h)(y(g{_{(1)}}\cdot w) \# (\phi{\rightharpoonup}g{_{(2)}}) \\
&=& (x\#h)(y\# (\phi{\rightharpoonup}g))(w\# 1) \\
&=& (\alpha((x\#h)\#\phi)(y\#g) )\cdot w.\end{aligned}$$ Finally, $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{
\alpha(\, ((x\#h)\#\phi) ((x'\#h')\#\phi') \,)(y\#g) = } \\
&=& \alpha((x\#h)(x'\# (\phi{_{(1)}}{\rightharpoonup}h')) \# \phi{_{(2)}}\phi') (y\#g) \\
&=& (x\#h) (x'\# (\phi{_{(1)}}{\rightharpoonup}h')) (y\# (\phi{_{(2)}}\phi'{\rightharpoonup}g)) \\
&=& (x\#h) ( \phi \cdot ( (x'\#h') (y\# (\phi'{\rightharpoonup}g)) ) )\\
&=& \alpha(((x\#h)\#\phi) ( (x'\#h')(y\# (\phi'{\rightharpoonup}g)) ) \\
&=& \alpha(((x\#h)\#\phi) \circ \alpha((x'\#h')\#\phi') (y\#g),\end{aligned}$$ for all $x,x',y\in A,\,h,h',g\in H,\, \phi,\phi'\in H^*$, therefore, $\alpha$ is a homomorphism.
Let $\{ f_i\}$ be a basis of $H$ and $\{ \psi_i\}$ be the dual basis of $H^*$, i.e., such that ${{<}}f_i,\, \psi_j {{>}}=\delta_{ij}$ for all $i,j$. Then we have identities $$\sum_i\, f_i {{<}}h,\,\psi_i {{>}}= h,\qquad
\sum_i\, {{<}}f_i ,\, \phi {{>}}\psi_i =\phi,$$ for all $h\in H$ and $\phi\in H^*$, moreover the element $\Sigma_i\, f_i\otimes \psi_i \in H\otimes H^*$ does not depend on the choice of $\{ f_i\}$.
Let us define a linear map $\beta : {\mbox{End}}(A\# H)_A \to (A\# H)\# H^*$ by $$\beta : T \mapsto \sum_i\, T(1\# {f_i}{_{(2)}})(1\# S^{-1}({f_i}{_{(1)}})) \# \psi_i.$$
\[inverses\] The maps $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are inverses of each other.
We need to check that $$\beta\circ \alpha = {\mbox{id}}_{(A\# H)\# H^*}
\quad \mbox{ and } \quad
\alpha \circ \beta = {\mbox{id}}_{{\mbox{End}}(A\# H)_A}.$$ For all $x\in A,\, h\in H$, and $\phi\in H^*$ we compute $$\begin{aligned}
\beta\circ \alpha((x\#h)\#\phi)
&=& \Sigma_i\,(x(h{_{(1)}}\cdot 1) \# h{_{(2)}}(\phi{\rightharpoonup}{f_i}{_{(2)}})S^{-1}{f_i}{_{(1)}}) \# \psi_i\\
&=& \Sigma_i\,(x\# h {{<}}\phi,\, {f_i}{_{(3)}}{{>}}{f_i}{_{(2)}}S^{-1}{f_i}{_{(1)}}) \# \psi_i\\
&=& \Sigma_i\,(x \# h{{<}}\phi,\,1{_{(2)}}f_i{{>}}1{_{(1)}}) \# \psi_i\\
&=& (x \# h (\phi{_{(1)}}{\rightharpoonup}1)) \# \phi{_{(2)}}\\
&=& (x \# h) \# {\varepsilon}_t(\phi{_{(1)}}) \phi{_{(2)}}= (x \# h)\# \phi,\end{aligned}$$ where we used Lemma \[a lemma\] (iii) and the properties of the element $\Sigma_i\,f_i\otimes \psi_i$.
Also, for every $T\in {\mbox{End}}(A\# H)_A$ we have : $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha\circ\beta(T)(y\# g)
&=& \Sigma_i\, \alpha( T(1\# {f_i}{_{(2)}})(1\# S^{-1}({f_i}{_{(1)}})) \# \psi_i)(y\# g)\\
&=& \Sigma_i\, T(1\# {f_i}{_{(2)}})(1\# S^{-1}({f_i}{_{(1)}})) (y\# (\psi_i{\rightharpoonup}g) ) \\
&=& \Sigma_i\, T(1\# {f_i}{_{(3)}})( (S^{-1}({f_i}{_{(2)}}) \cdot y) \#
S^{-1}({f_i}{_{(1)}}) g{_{(1)}}) {{<}}\psi_i,\, g{_{(2)}}{{>}}\\
&=& T(1\# g{_{(4)}})( (S^{-1}(g{_{(3)}}) \cdot y) \# S^{-1}(g{_{(2)}}) g{_{(1)}}) \\
&=& T(1\# g{_{(3)}})( (S^{-1}(g{_{(2)}}) \cdot y) ({\varepsilon}_s(g{_{(1)}})\cdot 1) \# 1)\\
&=& T(1\# g{_{(2)}}) ((S^{-1}(g{_{(1)}}1{_{(2)}}) \cdot y)(1{_{(1)}}\cdot 1) \# 1) \\
&=& T(1\# g{_{(2)}}) ((S^{-1}(g{_{(1)}}) \cdot y) \# 1) \\
&=& T( (g{_{(2)}}S^{-1}(g{_{(1)}}) \cdot y) \# g{_{(3)}}) \\
&=& T((1{_{(1)}}\cdot y) \# 1{_{(2)}}g) = T( y\# g), \end{aligned}$$ where we used that $T$ commutes with the right multiplication by elements from $A$ and identities from Lemma \[a lemma\](i) and (iii).
\[duality\] For any $H$-module algebra $A$ there is a canonical isomorphism between the algebras $(A\# H)\# H^*$ and ${\mbox{End}}(A\# H)_A$.
Follows from Lemmas \[alpha\] and \[inverses\]
$H\# H^* \cong {\mbox{End}}(H)_{H_t}$, in particular, $H\# H^*$ is a semisimple algebra.
We know that $H \cong H_t \# H$, where $H_t$ is the trivial $H$-module algebra, therefore applying Theorem \[duality\] to $A=H_t$ we see that $H$ is a projective generating $H_t$-module such that ${\mbox{End}}(H)_{H_t} \cong H\# H^*$. Therefore, $H_t$ and $H\# H^*$ are Morita equivalent. Since $H_t$ is always semisimple (as a separable algebra), $H\# H^*$ is semisimple.
[A]{}
M. van den Bergh, *A duality theorem for Hopf algebras*, Methods in ring theory, (Antwerp, 1983), 517–522.
R. Blattner, S. Montgomery, *A duality theorem for Hopf module algebras*, J. Algebra, **95** (1985), no. 1, 153–172.
G. Böhm, F. Nill and K. Szlachányi, *Weak Hopf algebras I: Integral theory and $C^*$-structure*, math.QA/ **9805116** (1998).
G. Böhm, K. Szlachányi, *A coassociative $C^*$-quantum group with nonintegral dimensions*, Lett. in Math. Phys, **35**, (1996), 473–456.
F.M. Goodman, P. de la Harpe, and V.F.R. Jones, *Coxeter graphs and towers of algebras. MSRI Publ. 14*, Springer-Verlag, (1989).
D. Nikshych. *Duality for actions of weak Kac algebras and crossed product inclusions of II${}_1$ factors*, *math.QA*/**9810049** (1998).
D. Nikshych, L. Vainerman. *Algebraic versions of a finite dimensional quantum groupoid*, to appear in Lecture Notes in Pure and Appl. Math. (1998), *math.QA*/**9808054**.
D. Nikshych, L. Vainerman. *A characterization of depth $2$ subfactors of II${}_1$ factors*, to appear in J. Func. Analysis (1998), *math.QA*/**9810028**.
D. Nikshych, L. Vainerman. *A Galois correspondence for $II_{1}$ factors*, preprint (1999).
D. Nikshych, L. Vainerman, and V. Turaev. *Quantum groupoids and invariants of knots and 3-manifolds*, preprint (1999).
F. Nill, K. Szlachányi, H.-W. Wiesbrock. *Weak Hopf algebras and reducible Jones inclusions of depth 2*, I : From crossed products to Jones towers. *math.QA*/**9806130** (1998).
R. Pierce. *Associative algebras*, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 88. Springer Verlag, (1982).
J. Renault. *A groupoid approach to $C^*$-algebras*, Lecture Notes in Math. **793**, Springer-Verlag, 1980.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Let $\mathcal{P}_{K} (^{n}E; F)$ (resp. $\mathcal{P}_{w} (^{n}E; F)$) denote the subspace of all $P\in \mathcal{P}(^{n}E; F)$ which are compact (resp. weakly continuous on bounded sets). We show that if $\mathcal{P}_{K} (^{n}E; F)$ contains an isomorphic copy of $c_{0}$, then $\mathcal{P}_{K} (^{n}E; F)$ is not complemented in $\mathcal{P}(^{n}E; F)$. Likewise we show that if $\mathcal{P}_{w} (^{n}E; F)$ contains an isomorphic copy of $c_{0}$, then $\mathcal{P}_{w}(^{n}E; F)$ is not complemented in $\mathcal{P}(^{n}E; F)$. [**Keywords:** Banach space, linear operator, compact operator, homogeneous polynomial, complemented subspace, unconditional basis.]{}'
author:
- |
[[Sergio A. Pérez]{}[[^1]]{}]{}\
[IMECC, UNICAMP]{}\
\
[`Email:[email protected]`]{}\
title: Complemented subspaces of homogeneous polynomials
---
Introduction
============
The problem of establishing sufficient conditions for the complementation of the subspace of compact linear operators $\mathcal{L}_{K}(E;F)$ in the space $\mathcal{L}(E;F)$ of all continuous linear operators, has been widely studied by many authors. For example, see Kalton [@KALTON], Emmanuelle [@EM], John [@KA], Bator and Lewis [@LEW] and Ghenciu [@IOANA], among others.
Emmanuele [@EM] and John [@KA] showed that if $c_{0}$ embeds in $\mathcal{L}_{K}(E;F)$ then $\mathcal{L}_{K}(E;F)$ is not complemented in $\mathcal{L}(E;F)$ for every $E$ and $F$ infinite dimensional Banach spaces.
John [@KA] proved that if $E$ and $F$ are arbitrary Banach spaces and $T: E\rightarrow F$ is a non compact operator which admits a factorization $T = A\circ B$ through a Banach space $G$ with an unconditional basis, then the subspace $\mathcal{L}_{K}(E;F)$ of compact operators contains an isomorphic copy of $c_{0}$ and thus $\mathcal{L}_{K}(E;F)$ is not complemented in $\mathcal{L}(E;F)$. John [@KA] also proved that if $E$ and $F$ are infinite dimensional Banach spaces, such that each non compact operator $T \in \mathcal{L}(E;F)$ factors through a Banach space $G$ with an unconditional basis, then the following conditions are equivalent:
1. $\mathcal{L}_{K} (E; F)=\mathcal{L} (E;F)$.
2. $\mathcal{L} (E; F)$ contains no copy of $\ell_{\infty}$.
3. $\mathcal{L}_{K} (E; F)$ contains no copy of $c_{0}$.
4. $\mathcal{L}_{K} (E; F)$ is complemented in $\mathcal{L} (E; F)$.
Ghenciu [@IOANA] obtained the following result: Let $E$ and $F$ be Banach spaces, and let $G$ be a Banach space with an unconditional basis $(g_{n})$ and coordinate functionals $(g^{\prime}_{n})$.
1. If there exist operators $R\in\mathcal{L}(G; F)$ and $S\in\mathcal{L}(E; G)$ such that $(R(g_{n}))$ is a seminormalized basic sequence in $F$ and $(S^{\prime}(g^{\prime}_{n}))$ is not relatively compact in $E^{\prime}$, then $\mathcal{L}_{K}(E; F)$ is not complemented in $\mathcal{L}(E; F)$.
2. If there exist operators $R\in\mathcal{L}(G; F)$ and $S\in\mathcal{L}(E; G)$ such that $(R(g_{n}))$ is a seminormalized basic sequence in $F$ and $(S^{\prime}(g^{\prime}_{n}))$ is not relatively weakly compact in $E^{\prime}$, then $\mathcal{L}_{wK}(E; F)$ is not complemented in $\mathcal{L}(E; F)$.
This result generalizes results of several authors [@EMA],[@LEW], [@FEDER]. In this paper, we obtain polynomial versions of the preceding results.
This paper is based on part of the author’s doctoral thesis at the Universidade Estadual de Campinas. This research has been supported by CAPES and CNPq. The author is grateful to his thesis advisor, Professor Jorge Mujica, for his advice and help.
Preliminaries
=============
Let $E$ and $F$ denote Banach spaces over $ \mathbb{K}$, where $ \mathbb{K}$ is $ \mathbb{R}$ or $\mathbb{C}$. Let $E^{\prime}$ denote the dual of $E$. Denote by $ \mathcal{L}(E;F)$, $\mathcal{L}_{K}(E;F)$ and $\mathcal{L}_{wK}(E;F)$, respectively, the spaces of all bounded, all compact and all weakly compact linear operators of $E$ into $F$. Let $\mathcal{P}(^{n}E; F)$ denote the Banach space of all continuous $n$-homogeneous polynomials from $E$ into $F$. We omit $F$ when $F = \mathbb{K}$. Let $\mathcal{P}_{w}(^{n}E; F)$ denote the subspace of all $P\in\mathcal{P}(^{n}E; F)$ which are weakly continuous on bounded sets, that is the restriction $P|_{B}: B \rightarrow F $ is continuous for each bounded set $B\subset E$, when $B $ and $F$ are endowed with the weak topology and the norm topology, respectively. Let $\mathcal{P}_{K}(^{n}E; F)$ denote the subspace of all $P\in \mathcal{P}(^{n}E; F)$ which map bounded sets onto relatively compact sets. Let $\mathcal{P}_{wK}(^{n}E; F)$ denote the subspace of all $P\in \mathcal{P}(^{n}E; F)$ which map bounded sets onto relatively weakly compact sets. We always have the inclusions $$P_{w}(^{n}E; F)\subset \mathcal{P}_{K}(^{n}E; F)\subset\mathcal{P}_{wK}(^{n}E; F)\subset \mathcal{P}(^{n}E; F).$$ We refer to [@SEAN] or [@LMUJICA] for background information on the theory of polynomials on Banach spaces.
$E$ is isomorphic to a complemented subspace of $F$ if and only if there are $A \in
\mathcal{L}(E; F)$ and $B\in \mathcal{L}(F;E)$ such that $B\circ A = I$. $E$ is said to have an unconditional finite dimensional expansion of the identity if there is a sequence of bounded linear operators $A_{n}:E\rightarrow E$ of finite rank, such that for $x\in E$ $$\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}A_{n}(x)=x$$ unconditionally.
We will say that the series $\displaystyle\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}x_{n}$ of elements of $X$ is weakly unconditionally Cauchy if $\displaystyle\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}|x^{\prime}(x_{n})|<\infty$ for all $x^{\prime}\in X^{\prime}$ or, equivalently if $$\sup\bigg\{\bigg\|\sum_{n\in F}x_{n}\bigg\| ; F\subset \mathbb{N}, F finite\bigg\}<\infty.$$
A sequence $(x_{n})\subset E$ is a semi-normalized basic sequence if $(x_{n})$ is a Schauder basis for the closed subspace $M =
\overline{[x_{n} : n\in \mathbb{N}]}$, and moreover there are constant $a$ and $b$ such that $0< a<\|x_{n}\|<b$ for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$. We denote by $(e_{n})$ the canonical basis of $c_{0}$. If $\Sigma$ is an algebra of subsets of a set $\Omega$, then a finitely additive vector measure $\mu:\Sigma\rightarrow E$ is said to be strongly additive if the series $\displaystyle\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\mu(A_{n})$ converges in norm for each sequence $(A_{n})$ of pairwise disjoint members of $\Sigma$. The Diestel-Faires theorem (see [@DIESTEL p.20, Theorem 2]) asserts that if $\Sigma$ is a $\sigma-$ algebra and $\mu:\Sigma\rightarrow E$ is not strongly additive, then $E$ contains an isomorphic copy of $\ell_{\infty}$.
The main results
================
The proof of our main results rests mainly on the following theorem of Ghenciu [@IOANA], which generalizes results of several authors [@EMA],[@LEW], [@FEDER].
\[thm:(Teorema 10)\]([@IOANA Theorem 1]) Let $E$ and $F$ be Banach spaces, and let $G$ be a Banach space with an unconditional basis $(g_{n})$ and coordinate functionals $(g^{\prime}_{n})$.
1. If there exist operators $R\in\mathcal{L}(G; F)$ and $S\in\mathcal{L}(E; G)$ such that $(R(g_{n}))$ is a seminormalized basic sequence in $F$ and $(S^{\prime}(g^{\prime}_{n}))$ is not relatively compact in $E^{\prime}$, then $\mathcal{L}_{K}(E; F)$ is not complemented in $\mathcal{L}(E; F)$.
2. If there exist operators $R\in\mathcal{L}(G; F)$ and $S\in\mathcal{L}(E; G)$ such that $(R(g_{n}))$ is a seminormalized basic sequence in $F$ and $(S^{\prime}(g^{\prime}_{n}))$ is not relatively weakly compact in $E^{\prime}$, then $\mathcal{L}_{wK}(E; F)$ is not complemented in $\mathcal{L}(E; F)$.
Emmanuele [@EM] and John [@KA] independently proved that if $\mathcal{L}_{K}(E; F)$ contains a copy of $c_{0}$, then $\mathcal{L}_{K}(E; F)$ is not complemented in $\mathcal{L}(E; F)$ (see [@EM Theorem 2] and [@KA Theorem 1]). They also proved that if there exists a noncompact operator $T\in \mathcal{L}(E; F)$ which factors through a Banach space with an unconditional basis, then $\mathcal{L}_{K}(E; F)$ contains a copy of $c_{0}$. Clearly Theorem \[thm:(Teorema 10)\] $(a)$ follows from these results.
\[thm:(Teorema 11)\] Let $E$ and $F$ be Banach spaces, and let $G$ be a Banach space with an unconditional basis $(g_{n})$ and coordinate functionals $(g^{\prime}_{n})$.
1. If there exist operators $R\in\mathcal{L}(G; F)$ and $S\in\mathcal{L}(E; G)$ such that $(R(g_{n}))$ is a seminormalized basic sequence in $F$ and $(S^{\prime}(g^{\prime}_{n}))$ is not relatively compact in $E^{\prime}$, then $\mathcal{P}_{K}(^{n}E; F)$ is not complemented in $\mathcal{P}(^{n}E; F)$ for every $n\in\mathbb{N}$.
2. If there exist operators $R\in\mathcal{L}(G; F)$ and $S\in\mathcal{L}(E; G)$ such that $(R(g_{n}))$ is a seminormalized basic sequence in $F$ and $(S^{\prime}(g^{\prime}_{n}))$ is not relatively weakly compact in $E^{\prime}$, then $\mathcal{P}_{wK}(^{n}E; F)$ is not complemented in $\mathcal{P}(^{n}E; F)$ for every $n\in\mathbb{N}$.
$(a)$ The case $n=1$ follows from Theorem \[thm:(Teorema 10)\] $(a)$. If $n\in\mathbb{N}$, then by a result of Ryan [@RYAN] there exists an isomorphism $$P\in\mathcal{P}(^{n}E; F)\rightarrow T_{P}\in\mathcal{L}(\hat{\otimes}_{n,s,\pi}E; F).$$ Furthermore $P\in \mathcal{P}_{K}(^{n}E; F)$ if and only if $T_{P}\in\mathcal{L}_{K}(\hat{\otimes}_{n,s,\pi}E; F)$. Suppose that $\mathcal{P}_{K}(^{n}E; F)$ is complemented in $\mathcal{P}(^{n}E; F)$. Then $\mathcal{L}_{K}(\hat{\otimes}_{n,s,\pi}E; F)$ is complemented in $\mathcal{L}(\hat{\otimes}_{n,s,\pi}E; F)$. Let $\pi:\mathcal{L}(\hat{\otimes}_{n,s,\pi}E; F)\rightarrow \mathcal{L}_{K}(\hat{\otimes}_{n,s,\pi}E; F)$ be a projection. By a result of Blasco [@BLASCO Theorem 3] $E$ is isomorphic to a complemented subspace of $\hat{\otimes}_{n,s,\pi}E$. Hence there exist operators $A\in\mathcal{L}(E;\hat{\otimes}_{n,s,\pi}E)$ and $B\in\mathcal{L}(\hat{\otimes}_{n,s,\pi}E; E)$ such that $B\circ A=I$. Consider the operator $$\rho: T\in\mathcal{L}(E;F)\rightarrow \pi(T\circ B)\circ A\in \mathcal{L}_{K}(E; F).$$ If $T\in\mathcal{L}_{K}(E; F)$, then $T\circ B\in\mathcal{L}_{K}(\hat{\otimes}_{n,s,\pi}E; F)$ and therefore $\pi(T\circ B)\circ A=T\circ B\circ A=T$. Thus $\rho: \mathcal{L}(E;F)\rightarrow \mathcal{L}_{K}(E; F)$ is a projection, contradicting the case $n=1$.
$(b)$ The proof of $(b)$ is almost identical to the proof of $(a)$, but using that $P\in \mathcal{P}_{wK}(^{n}E; F)$ if and only if $T_{P}\in \mathcal{L}_{wK}(\hat{\otimes}_{n,s,\pi}E; F)$, a result which is also due to Ryan [@RYAN].
\[thm:(Teorema 12)\] Let $E$ and $F$ be Banach spaces, and let $G$ be a Banach space with an unconditional basis $(g_{n})$ and coordinate functionals $(g^{\prime}_{n})$. If there exist operators $R\in \mathcal{L}(G; F)$ and $S\in\mathcal{L}(E; G)$ such that $(R(g_{n}))$ is a seminormalized basic sequence in $F$ and $(S^{\prime}(g^{\prime}_{n}))$ is not relatively compact in $E^{\prime}$, then $\mathcal{P}_{w}(^{n}E; F)$ is not complemented in $\mathcal{P}(^{n}E; F)$ for every $n\in \mathbb{N}$.
The method of proof of Theorem \[thm:(Teorema 11)\] does not work here, since it is not true in general that $P\in\mathcal{P}_{w}(^{n}E; F)$ if and only if $T_{P}\in \mathcal{L}_{w}(\hat{\otimes}_{n,s,\pi}E; F)$. Thus we have to proceed differently. It follows from results of Aron and Prolla [@ARON] and Aron, Hervés and Valdivia [@VALDIVIA] that $\mathcal{P}_{w}(^{n}E; F)\subset \mathcal{P}_{K}(^{n}E; F)$ for every $n\in \mathbb{N}$, and it is easy to see that $\mathcal{P}_{w}(^{n}E; F)=\mathcal{P}_{K}(^{n}E; F)$ when $n=1$. Thus the case $n=1$ follows from Theorem \[thm:(Teorema 10)\] $(a)$. To prove the theorem by induction on $n$ it suffices to prove that if $\mathcal{P}_{w}(^{n+1}E; F)$ is complemented in $\mathcal{P}(^{n+1}E; F)$, then $\mathcal{P}_{w}(^{n}E; F)$ is complemented in $\mathcal{P}(^{n}E; F)$. Aron and Schottenloher [@AR Proposition 5.3] proved that $\mathcal{P}(^{n}E; F)$ is isomorphic to a complemented subspace of $\mathcal{P}(^{n+1}E; F)$ when $F$ is the scalar field, but their proof works equally well when $F$ is an arbitrary Banach space. Thus there exist operators $A\in\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{P}(^{n}E; F); \mathcal{P}(^{n+1}E; F))$ and $B\in\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{P}(^{n+1}E; F);\mathcal{P}(^{n}E; F))$ such that $B\circ A=I$. The operator $A$ is of the form $$A(P)(x)=\varphi_{0}(x)P(x)$$ for every $P\in\mathcal{P}(^{n}E; F)$ and $x\in E$, where $\varphi_{0}\in E^{\prime}$ verifies that $\|\varphi_{0}\|=1=\varphi_{0}(x_{0})$, where $x_{0}\in E$ and $\|x_{0}\|=1$. It is clear that if $P\in \mathcal{P}_{w}(^{n}E; F)$, then $A(P)\in \mathcal{P}_{w}(^{n+1}E; F)$. Let us assume that $\mathcal{P}_{w}(^{n+1}E; F)$ is complemented in $\mathcal{P}(^{n+1}E; F)$, and let $\pi: \mathcal{P}(^{n+1}E; F)\rightarrow \mathcal{P}_{w}(^{n+1}E; F)$ be a projection. Consider the operator $$\rho=B\circ \pi\circ A: \mathcal{P}(^{n}E; F)\rightarrow \mathcal{P}_{w}(^{n}E; F).$$ If $P\in \mathcal{P}_{w}(^{n}E; F)$, then $A(P)\in \mathcal{P}_{w}(^{n+1}E; F)$, and therefore $$\rho(P)=B\circ \pi\circ A(P)=B\circ A(P)=P.$$ Thus $\rho:\mathcal{P}(^{n}E; F)\rightarrow \mathcal{P}_{w}(^{n}E; F)$ is a projection, and therefore $\mathcal{P}_{w}(^{n}E; F)$ is complemented in $\mathcal{P}(^{n}E; F)$. This completes the proof.
Ghenciu [@IOANA] derived as corollaries of Theorem \[thm:(Teorema 10)\] results of several authors [@EMA], [@LEW], [@FEDER], [@KALTON] and [@KA]. We now apply Theorems \[thm:(Teorema 11)\] and \[thm:(Teorema 12)\] to obtain polynomials versions of those corollaries.
\[thm:(Teorema 13)\] If $F$ contains a copy of $c_{0}$ and $E^{\prime}$ contains a weak-star null sequence which is not weakly null, then $\mathcal{P}_{wK}(^{n}E; F)$ is not complemented in $\mathcal{P}(^{n}E; F)$ for every $n\in \mathbb{N}$.
\[thm:(Teorema 14)\] If $F$ contains a copy of $c_{0}$ and $E$ contains a complemented copy of $c_{0}$, then $\mathcal{P}_{wK}(^{n}E; F)$ is not complemented in $\mathcal{P}(^{n}E; F)$ for every $n\in \mathbb{N}$.
\[thm:(Teorema 15)\] If $F$ contains a copy of $\ell_{1}$ and $\mathcal{L}(E; \ell_{1})\neq \mathcal{L}_{K}(E; \ell_{1})$, then $\mathcal{P}_{wK}(^{n}E; F)$ is not complemented in $\mathcal{P}(^{n}E; F)$ for every $n\in\mathbb{N}$.
When $n=1$ Corollaries \[thm:(Teorema 13)\], \[thm:(Teorema 14)\] and \[thm:(Teorema 15)\] correspond to [@IOANA Corollaries 2,3 and 5]. Ghenciu derived those corollaries by observing that $E$ and $F$ satisfy the hypothesis of Theorem \[thm:(Teorema 10)\] $(b)$. Since the hypothesis of Theorem \[thm:(Teorema 10)\] $(b)$ coincide with the hypothesis of Theorem \[thm:(Teorema 11)\] $(b)$, we see that Corollaries \[thm:(Teorema 13)\], \[thm:(Teorema 14)\] and \[thm:(Teorema 15)\] follow from Theorem \[thm:(Teorema 11)\] $(b)$.
\[cor 33\] If $F$ contains a copy of $c_{0}$ and $E$ is infinite dimensional, then:
1. $\mathcal{P}_{K}(^{n}E; F)$ is not complemented in $\mathcal{P}(^{n}E; F)$ for every $n\in \mathbb{N}$.
2. $\mathcal{P}_{w}(^{n}E; F)$ is not complemented in $\mathcal{P}(^{n}E; F)$ for every $n\in \mathbb{N}$.
\[cor 34\] If $E$ contains a complemented copy of $\ell_{1}$ and $F$ is infinite dimensional, then:
1. $\mathcal{P}_{K}(^{n}E; F)$ is not complemented in $\mathcal{P}(^{n}E; F)$ for every $n\in \mathbb{N}$.
2. $\mathcal{P}_{w}(^{n}E; F)$ is not complemented in $\mathcal{P}(^{n}E; F)$ for every $n\in \mathbb{N}$.
When $n=1$ Corollaries \[cor 33\] and \[cor 34\] correspond to [@IOANA Corollaries 4 and 6]. Ghenciu derived those corollaries by observing that $E$ and $F$ satisfy the hypothesis of Theorem \[thm:(Teorema 10)\] $(a)$. Since the hypothesis of Theorem \[thm:(Teorema 10)\] $(a)$ coincide with the hypothesis of Theorems \[thm:(Teorema 11)\] $(a)$ and \[thm:(Teorema 12)\], we see that Corollaries \[cor 33\] and \[cor 34\] follow from Theorems \[thm:(Teorema 11)\] $(a)$ and \[thm:(Teorema 12)\].
\[cor 35\] If $E$ contains a copy of $\ell_{1}$ and $F$ contains a copy of $\ell_{p}$, with $2\leq p<\infty$, then:
1. $\mathcal{P}_{K}(^{n}E; F)$ is not complemented in $\mathcal{P}(^{n}E; F)$ for every $n\in \mathbb{N}$.
2. $\mathcal{P}_{w}(^{n}E; F)$ is not complemented in $\mathcal{P}(^{n}E; F)$ for every $n\in \mathbb{N}$.
We follow an argument of Emmanuele [@EM p. 334 ]. By a result of Pelczynski [@PELC], if $E$ contains a copy of $\ell_{1}$, then $E$ has a quotient isomorphic to $\ell_{2}$ (see also the proof of [@ARONLIBRO]). Let $S:E\rightarrow \ell_{2}$ be the quotient mapping, and let $R:\ell_{2}\hookrightarrow \ell_{p}\subset F$ be the natural inclusion. Since $S^{\prime}:\ell_{2}\rightarrow E^{\prime}$ is an embedding, the hypothesis of Theorems \[thm:(Teorema 11)\] $(a)$ and \[thm:(Teorema 12)\] are clearly satisfied.
\[cor 366\] Let $E$ and $F$ be infinite dimensional Banach spaces. If $\mathcal{P}_{K} (^{n}E; F)$ contains a copy of $c_{0}$, then $\mathcal{P}_{K} (^{n}E; F)$ is not complemented in $\mathcal{P} (^{n}E; F)$.
By an aforementioned result of Ryan [@RYAN] we have that $P\in \mathcal{P}_{K}(^{n}E; F)$ if and only if $T_{P}\in\mathcal{L}_{K}(\hat{\otimes}_{n,s,\pi}E; F)$. Thus the result follows from [@EM Theorem 2] or [@KA Theorem 1].
The next proposition is a polynomial version of [@EM Theorem 2] and [@KA Theorem 1]. The proof is based in ideas of [@LEWIS Corollary 11 ].
\[cor 36\] Let $E$ be an infinite dimensional Banach space and $n>1$. If $\mathcal{P}_{w} (^{n}E; F)$ contains a copy of $c_{0}$, then $\mathcal{P}_{w} (^{n}E; F)$ is not complemented in $\mathcal{P} (^{n}E; F)$.
By Corollary \[cor 33\] and [@GONZALEZ; @M Lemma 5 ] we may suppose without loss of generality that $F$ contains no copy of $c_{0}$ and $E$ contains no complemented copy of $\ell_{1}$. By [@GONZALEZ; @M Theorem 3 ] $\mathcal{P}_{w} (^{n}E; F)$ contains no copy of $\ell_{\infty}$. Let $(P_{i})$ be a copy of the unit vector basis $(e_{i})$ of $c_{0}$ in $\mathcal{P}_{w} (^{n}E; F)$. Then $$\sup\bigg\{\bigg\|\sum_{i\in F}e_{i}\bigg\| ; F\subset\mathbb{N}, F finite\bigg\}=1.$$ By a result of Bessaga and Pelczynski [@BES] (see also [@DIESTELL p.44, Theorem 6]) the series $\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{\infty} e_{i}$ is weakly unconditionally Cauchy in $c_{0}$. This implies that the series $\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{\infty} P_{i}$ is weakly unconditionally Cauchy in $\mathcal{P}_{w} (^{n}E; F)$. For every $\varphi\in F^{\prime}$ and $x\in E$ we consider the continuous linear functional $$\psi: P\in\mathcal{P}_{w} (^{n}E; F)\rightarrow \varphi(P(x))\in \mathbb{C}.$$ Since the series $\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{\infty} P_{i}$ is weakly unconditionally Cauchy in $\mathcal{P}_{w} (^{n}E; F)$, $\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}|\psi( P_{i})|=\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}|\varphi( P_{i}(x))|<\infty$ for every $\varphi\in F^{\prime}$ and $x\in E$. This shows that $\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{\infty} P_{i}(x)$ is weakly unconditionally Cauchy in $F$ for each $x\in E$. Finally since $F$ contains no copy of $c_{0}$, an application of [@DIESTELL p.45, Theorem 8 ] shows that $\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{\infty} P_{i}(x)$ converges unconditionally in $F$ for each $x\in E$. Let $\mu: \wp(\mathbb{N})\rightarrow \mathcal{P} (^{n}E; F)$ be the finitely additive vector measure defined by $\mu(A)(x)=\displaystyle\sum_{i\in A}P_{i}(x)$ for each $x\in E$ and $A\subset \mathbb{N}$. Suppose there is a projection $\pi:\mathcal{P}(^{n}E; F)\rightarrow \mathcal{P}_{w} (^{n}E; F)$. Then $\pi(P_{i})=P_{i}$ for each $i\in \mathbb{N}$. If the sequence $(\|P_{i}\|)$ does not converge to zero, then there is $\epsilon>0$ and a subsequence $(i_{k})$ of $\mathbb{N}$, such that $\|P_{i_{k}}\|>\epsilon$ for each $k\in \mathbb{N}$. But this implies that the measure $\pi\circ\mu:\wp(\mathbb{N})\rightarrow \mathcal{P}_{w}(^{n}E; F)$ is not strongly additive. Then the Diestel-Faires Theorem would imply that $\mathcal{P}_{w} (^{n}E; F)$ contains a copy of $\ell_{\infty}$. Therefore $\|P_{i}\|\rightarrow 0$, but this is absurd too, because $(P_{i})$ is a copy of $(e_{i})$. This complete the proof.
The following theorem is a polynomial version of [@KA Theorem 2 ].
\[thm:(Teorema 17)\] Let $E$ and $F$ be Banach spaces and $P\in \mathcal{P}(^{n}E; F)$ such that $P\notin \mathcal{P}_{w}(^{n}E; F)$. Suposse that $P$ admits a factorization $P=Q\circ T$ through a Banach space $G$ with an unconditional finite dimensional expansion of the identity, where $T\in \mathcal{L}(E;G)$ and $Q\in \mathcal{P}(^{n}G;F)$. Then $\mathcal{P}_{w} (^{n}E;F)$ contains a copy of $c_{0}$ and thus $\mathcal{P}_{w} (^{n}E;F)$ is not complemented in $\mathcal{P}(^{n}E;F)$.
The case $n=1$ follows from [@KA Theorem 2 ].
Case $n> 1$: Since $G$ has an unconditional finite dimensional expansion of the identity, by [@GONZALEZ; @M Lemma 6 ] there is a sequence $(Q_{i})\subset \mathcal{P}_{w} (^{n}G; F)$ so that $Q(z)=\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}Q_{i}(z)$ unconditionally for each $z\in G$, hence $P(x)=\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}Q_{i}(T(x))$ unconditionally for each $x\in E$. Since $Q_{i}\in \mathcal{P}_{w} (^{n}G; F)$ for every $i\in \mathbb{N}$, it follows that $Q_{i}\circ T\in \mathcal{P}_{w} (^{n}E; F)$ for every $i\in \mathbb{N}$. By the uniform boundedness principle, we have $$\sup\bigg\{\bigg\|\sum_{i\in F}Q_{i}\circ T\bigg\| ; F\subset\mathbb{N}, F finite\bigg\}<\infty.$$ Again by [@DIESTELL p.44, Theorem 6] the series $\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}Q_{i}\circ T$ é weakly unconditionally Cauchy in $\mathcal{P}_{w} (^{n}E; F)$. Since $P\notin \mathcal{P}_{w} (^{n}E; F)$, an application of [@DIESTELL p.45, Theorem 8] shows that $\mathcal{P}_{w} (^{n}E; F)$ contains a copy of $c_{0}$, and therefore by Proposition \[cor 36\] $\mathcal{P}_{w} (^{n}E;F)$ is not complemented in $\mathcal{P}(^{n}E;F)$.
\[cor 300\] Let $E$ and $F$ be Banach spaces, with $E$ infinite dimensional, and let $n>1$. If each $P\in \mathcal{P}(^{n}E; F)$ such that $P\notin \mathcal{P}_{w}(^{n}E; F)$ admits a factorization $P=Q\circ T$, where $T\in \mathcal{L}(E;G)$, $Q\in \mathcal{P}(^{n}G;F)$ and $G$ is a Banach space with an unconditional finite dimensional expansion of the identity, then the following conditions are equivalent:
1. $\mathcal{P}_{w} (^{n}E; F)$ contains a copy of $c_{0}$,
2. $\mathcal{P}_{K} (^{n}E; F)$ contains a copy of $c_{0}$,
3. $\mathcal{P}_{w} (^{n}E; F)$ is not complemented in $\mathcal{P} (^{n}E; F)$,
4. $\mathcal{P}_{K} (^{n}E; F)$ is not complemented in $\mathcal{P} (^{n}E; F)$,
5. $\mathcal{P}_{w} (^{n}E; F)\neq \mathcal{P} (^{n}E; F)$,
6. $\mathcal{P}_{K} (^{n}E; F)\neq \mathcal{P} (^{n}E; F)$,
7. $\mathcal{P}(^{n}E; F)$ contains a copy of $c_{0}$,
8. $\mathcal{P}(^{n}E; F)$ contains a copy of $\ell_{\infty}$.
$(1)\Rightarrow (2)$ by Proposition \[cor 36\].
$(2)\Rightarrow (3)$ is obvious.
$(3)\Rightarrow (1)$ by Theorem \[thm:(Teorema 17)\]. $(1)\Rightarrow (4)$ is obvious.
$(4)\Rightarrow (3)$ suppose $(4)$ holds and $(3)$ does not hold. Then $\mathcal{P}_{w} (^{n}E; F)=\mathcal{P}(^{n}E; F)\supset c_{0}$. Thus $(1)$ holds, and therefore $(3)$ holds, a contradiction.
$(5)\Rightarrow (4)$ is obvious.
$(4)\Rightarrow (5)$ by a result of Ryan [@RYAN] $\mathcal{P}(^{n}E; F)$ is isometrically isomorphic to $\mathcal{L}(\widehat{\otimes}_{n,s,\pi}E; F)$. Thus the result follows from ([@KA Remark 3 e) ] part $2\Rightarrow 3$).
Thus $(1)$, $(2)$, $(3)$, $(4)$ and $(5)$ are equivalent.
$(1)\Rightarrow(1^{\prime})$ is obvious.
$(1^{\prime})\Rightarrow (2^{\prime})$ by Proposition \[cor 366\]. $(2^{\prime})\Rightarrow (3^{\prime})$ is obvious.
$(3^{\prime})\Rightarrow (3)$ is obvious.
Since $(3)\Rightarrow (1)$ and $(1)\Rightarrow (1^{\prime})$, the proof of the corollary is complete.
In particular if $E$ has an unconditional finite dimensional expansion of the identity we obtain [@GONZALEZ; @M Theorem 7]. The assumptions of this corollary apply also if $F$ is a complemented subspace of a space with an unconditional basis.
[99]{}
R.M.Aron, J.Diestel, A.K.Rajappa, [*Weakly continuous functions on Banach spaces containing $\ell_{1}$, in: Banach spaces,*]{} edited by N.Kalton and E.Saab, pp.1-3, Lectures Notes in Math. 1166, Springer, Berlin, 1985.
R.M.Aron, C.Hervés, M.Valdivia, [*Weakly continuous mappings on Banach spaces,*]{} J. Funct. Anal. 52 (1983), 189–204.
R.M.Aron, J.B.Prolla, [*Polynomial approximation of differentiable functions on Banach spaces,*]{} J. Reine Angew. Math. 313 (1980), 195–216.
R.M. Aron, M. Schottenloher, [*Compact holomorphic mappings on Banach spaces and the approximation property .*]{} J. Funct. Anal. 21 (1976), 7–30.
E. Bator and P. Lewis, [*Complemented spaces of operators,*]{} Bull. Pol. Acad. Sci. Math. 50 (4) (2002), 413-416.
C. Bessaga, A. Pelczynski, [*On bases and unconditional convergence of series in Banach spaces,*]{} Studia Math. 17 (1958), 151-164.
F. Blasco, [*Complementation of symmetric tensor products and polynomials,* ]{} Studia Math. 123 (1997), 165-173.
J. Diestel, [*Sequences and Series in Banach Spaces,*]{} Springer, New York, 1984.
J. Diestel, J. Uhl, [*Vector measures,*]{} Mathematical Surveys Number 15, American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island, 1977.
S. Dineen, [*Complex Analysis on Infinite Dimensional Spaces,* ]{} Springer, London 1999.
G. Emmanuele, [*Remarks on the uncomplemented subspace $W(E;F)$,*]{} J. Funct. Anal. 99 (1991), 125-130.
G. Emmanuele, [*A remark on the containment of $c_{0}$ in spaces of compact operators,*]{} Math. Proc. Cambridge Phil. Soc., 111 (1992), 331–335.
M. Feder, [*On the non-existance of a projection onto the space of compact Operators,*]{} Canad. Math. Bull. 25 (1982), 78-81.
I. Ghenciu, [*Complemented spaces of operators,*]{} Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 133 (9) (2005), 2621–2623.
I. Ghenciu and P. Lewis, [*Unconditional convergence in the strong operator topology and $\ell_{\infty}$,*]{} Glasg. Math. J. 53 (2011), 583–598.
G. González, Manuel; Gutiérrez, Joaquín M. [*The polynomial property (V),*]{}Arch. Math. (Basel) 75 (2000), no. 4, 299–306
K. John, [*On the uncomplemented subspace $K(X;Y)$,*]{} Czechoslovak Math. J. 42 (1992), 167–173.
N. Kalton, [*Spaces of compact operators,*]{}Math. Ann. 208 (1974), 267-278.
J. Mujica, [*Complex Analysis in Banach Spaces. Holomorphic Functions and Domains of Holomorphy in Finite and Infinite Dimensions.*]{}North-Holland Math. Stud. 120. Notas de Matemática 107, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1986.
A.Pelczynski, [*On Banach spaces containing $L_{1}(\mu)$,*]{} Studia Math. 30(1968), 231–246.
R. Ryan, [*Applications of topological tensor products to infinite dimensional holomorphy*]{}, Ph. D. Thesis, Trinity College, Dublin, 1980.
[^1]: S.Pérez was supported by CAPES and CNPq, Brazil. (corresponding author)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'At a critical finite chemical potential and low temperature QCD undergoes the chiral restoration phase transition. The folklore tradition is that simultaneously hadrons are deconfined and there appears the quark matter. We demonstrate that it is possible to have confined but chirally symmetric hadrons at a finite chemical potential and hence beyond the chiral restoration point at a finite chemical potential and low temperature there could exist a chirally symmetric matter consisting of chirally symmetric but confined hadrons. If it does happen in QCD, then the QCD phase diagram should be reconsidered with obvious implications for heavy ion programs and astrophysics.'
address:
- |
Institute for Physics, Theoretical Physics branch, University of Graz\
Universitätsplatz 5, A-8010 Graz, Austria\
[email protected]
- |
Institute for Physics, Theoretical Physics branch, University of Graz\
Universitätsplatz 5, A-8010 Graz, Austria
author:
- 'L. Ya. GLOZMAN'
- 'R. F. WAGENBRUNN'
title: CHIRALLY SYMMETRIC BUT CONFINED HADRONS AT FINITE DENSITY
---
It is generally believed that chiral and deconfinement phase transitions in QCD coincide and hence beyond the semi-circle in the $T-\mu$ plane one obtains a deconfining and chirally restored matter. At zero temperature and density the ’t Hooft anomaly matching conditions require that in the confining phase chiral symmetry must be broken in the vacuum. However, there is no such a restriction at a finite chemical potential. Typically models that give us information about the phase structure in QCD are of the Nambu and Jona-Lasinio type. These models are not confining, however, and consequently there is no basis to conclude that above the chiral restoration point at finite chemical potential one obtains a chirally symmetric and deconfining quark matter.
Recently McLerran and Pisarski presented qualitative large $N_c$ arguments showing that at reasonably large chemical potential and low temperature there might exist a confining but chirally symmetric phase [@pisarski]. This suggestion is in conflict with the naive intuition that once the hadrons are confined chiral symmetry should be broken. Here we demonstrate that it is not so and that it is possible to have confined but chirally symmetric hadrons at finite density and low temperature [@GW].
There exists only one known manifestly chirally-symmetric and confining model in four dimensions that is solvable [@Orsay]. This model can be considered as a generalization of the 1+1 dimensional ’t Hooft model, that is QCD in the large $N_c$ limit. Once the gauge is properly chosen in 1+1 dimensions the Coulomb interaction becomes a linear confining potential. Then this potential properly represents gluonic degrees of freedom in 1+1 dimensions. It is postulated that there exists a linear confining potential of the Coulomb type in four dimensions either. This model represents a simplification of large $N_c$ QCD in four dimensions. The model is exactly solvable.
Consider first chiral symmetry breaking in the vacuum. The Dirac operator for the dressed quark is $$D(p_0,\vec{p})= i S^{-1}(p_0,\vec{p}) = D_0(p_0,\vec{p})-\Sigma(p_0,\vec{p}),
\label{SAB}$$
where $D_0$ is the bare Dirac operator. Parametrising the self-energy operator in the form
$$\Sigma(\vec p) =A_p +(\vec{\gamma}\hat{\vec{p}})[B_p-p],
\label{SE}$$
where functions $A_p$ and $B_p$ are yet to be found, the Schwinger-Dyson equation for the self-energy operator in the rainbow approximation,which is valid in the large $N_c$ limit for the instantaneous interaction, is reduced to the nonlinear gap equation for the chiral angle $\varphi_p$,
$$A_p \cos \varphi_p - B_p \sin \varphi_p = 0,
\label{gap}$$
where
$$\begin{aligned}
A_p & = & \frac{1}{2}\int\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3}V
(\vec{p}-\vec{k})\sin \varphi_k,\quad \\
B_p & = & p+\frac{1}{2}\int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3}\;(\hat{\vec{p}}
\hat{\vec{k}})V(\vec{p}-\vec{k})\cos \varphi_k.
\label{AB} \end{aligned}$$
Here $V(\vec p)$ is the Fourier transform of the linear confining potential with the string tension $\sigma$ with a proper infrared regularisation. The functions $A_p,B_p,$ i.e. the quark self-energy, are divergent in the infrared limit, which implies that the single quark cannot be observed and the system is confined. However, the infrared divergence cancels exactly in the gap equation so this equation can be solved directly in the infrared limit. The chiral symmetry breaking is signalled by the nonzero quark condensate and by the dynamical momentum-dependent mass of quarks
$$\langle\bar{q}q\rangle=-\frac{N_C}{\pi^2}\int^{\infty}_0 dp\;p^2\sin\varphi_p,
~~~~~~~
M(p) = p \tan \varphi_p.
\label{dyna}$$
The dynamical mass is finite at small momenta and vanishes at large momenta. Both these quantities were first obtained in ref. [@Adler:1984ri] and repetedly reconfirmed in all subsequent works on this model. The numerical value of the quark condensate is $\langle\bar{q}q\rangle=(-0.231\sqrt{\sigma})^3$.
Now we are in position to include into this model a finite quark chemical potential $\mu$ at zero temperature. Denoting the Fermi momentum of quarks as $p_f$ one has to remove from the integration in the gap equation all quark momenta below $p_f$ since they are Pauli-blocked. This is similar to what is done within the NJL type models or within the ’t Hooft model [@Thies]. At the critical quark chemical potential one observes a chiral restoration phase transition, as depicted in Fig. 1.
What crucially distinguishes this model from the NJL model is that the system is still confined, even in the chirally restored phase. This is because the self-energy integral $B_p$ is still infrared-divergent, even when the chiral angle $\varphi_p$ and dynamical mass $M(p)$ identically vanish. Hence the single quark is removed from the spectrum at any chemical potential.
To demonstrate this explicitly one has to solve the Bethe-Salpeter equation for the quark-antiquark bound states applying the quark Green function obtained from the gap equation. The infrared divergence of the single-quark Green function cancels exactly in the color-singlet quark-antiquark system [@WG2] and the bound state mesons are finite and well defined quantities. The spectrum below the critical chemical potential is similar to the one previously obtained in the vacuum [@WG2]. The spectrum exhibits approximate restoration of the chiral symmetry in excited hadrons, for details we refer to [@WG2] and for a review to ref. [@GPR].
The spectrum above the critical chemical potential, i.e. for $\mu = 0.2\sqrt{\sigma}$, is shown in Fig. 2. This spectrum is qualitatively different. All the states are in [*exact*]{} chiral multiplets. Though the chiral symmetry is manifestly restored in the vacuum, one observes [*finite-energy well defined hadrons*]{}. Obviously the mass generation mechanism in these hadrons has nothing to do with the chiral symmetry breaking in the vacuum and is not related with the quark condensate. The mass generation mechanism for these chirally symmetric hadrons is similar to the high-lying states in the chiral symmetry broken phase.
We have demonstrated that it is possible to have a confining but chirally symmetric matter consisting of chirally symmetric hadrons at finite density. Whether such a chirally symmetric but confining phase exists in QCD or not is still an open question, but if it does, then it will imply dramatic modifications of the QCD phase diagram. It will also have significant implications for astrophysics: The interactions of these chirally-symmetric hadrons can be only of short-range as they decouple from the Goldstone bosons and their weak decay rate is quite different since their axial charge vanishes [@gl].
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
L. Ya. G. acknowledges suppoort of the Austrian Science Fund through the grant P19168-N16.
[0]{} L. McLerran and R. D. Pisarski, [*Nucl. Phys. A*]{} [**796**]{}, 83 (2007).
L. Ya. Glozman and R. F. Wagenbrunn, arXiv:0709.3080 \[hep-ph\].
A. Le Yaouanc, L. Oliver, O. Pene, and J. C.Raynal, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**29**]{}, 1233 (1984); [**31**]{}, 137 (1985).
S. L. Adler and A. C. Davis, [*Nucl. Phys. B*]{} [**244**]{}, 469 (1984).
V. Schön and M. Thies, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D 62**]{}, 096002 (2000).
R. F. Wagenbrunn and L. Ya. Glozman, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**75**]{}, 036007 (2007).
L. Ya. Glozman, [*Phys. Rep.*]{} [**444**]{}, 1 (2007).
L. Ya. Glozman, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.* ]{} [**99**]{}, 191602 (2007).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Upper bounds on the secret-key-agreement capacity of a quantum channel serve as a way to assess the performance of practical quantum-key-distribution protocols conducted over that channel. In particular, if a protocol employs a quantum repeater, achieving secret-key rates exceeding these upper bounds is a witness to having a working quantum repeater. In this paper, we extend a recent advance \[Liuzzo-Scorpo *et al*., Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 120503 (2017)\] in the theory of the teleportation simulation of single-mode phase-insensitive Gaussian channels such that it now applies to the relative entropy of entanglement measure. As a consequence of this extension, we find tighter upper bounds on the non-asymptotic secret-key-agreement capacity of the lossy thermal bosonic channel than were previously known. The lossy thermal bosonic channel serves as a more realistic model of communication than the pure-loss bosonic channel, because it can model the effects of eavesdropper tampering and imperfect detectors. An implication of our result is that the previously known upper bounds on the secret-key-agreement capacity of the thermal channel are too pessimistic for the practical finite-size regime in which the channel is used a finite number of times, and so it should now be somewhat easier to witness a working quantum repeater when using secret-key-agreement capacity upper bounds as a benchmark.'
author:
- Eneet Kaur
- 'Mark M. Wilde'
bibliography:
- 'Ref.bib'
title: Upper bounds on secret key agreement over lossy thermal bosonic channels
---
Introduction
============
One of the main goals of quantum information theory [@H13book; @H06; @W15book] is to establish bounds on communication rates for various information-processing tasks. An important application lies in the domain of secret communication, following the development of quantum key distribution [@bb84; @E91]. In recent years, there has been a growing interest in establishing bounds on the secret-key-agreement capacity of a quantum channel, which is the highest rate at which communicating parties can use the channel and public classical communication to distill a secret key [@TGW14IEEE; @TGW14Nat; @STW16; @PLOB15; @Goodenough2015; @TSW16; @AML16; @WTB16; @Christandl2017; @Wilde2016; @BA17; @RGRKVRHWE17; @TSW17]. Such bounds have been proven by exploiting the methods of quantum information theory and can be interpreted as setting the fundamental limitations of quantum key distribution whenever a quantum repeater is not available [@L15].
An important development occurred in [@TGW14Nat], in which it was established that there is a fundamental rate-loss trade-off that any repeaterless quantum key distribution protocol cannot overcome. That is, without a quantum repeater, the rate of secret key that can be distilled from a pure-loss bosonic channel (lossy optical fiber or a free-space channel) decreases exponentially with increasing distance [@TGW14Nat].
Later, this bound was improved to establish that the secret-key-agreement capacity of a pure-loss bosonic channel of transmissivity $\eta\in(0,1)$ is equal to $-\log_{2}(1-\eta)$. This bound was claimed in [@PLOB15] and rigorously proven in [@WTB16]. In particular, let $P_{\mathcal{L}_{\eta}}^{\leftrightarrow}(n,\varepsilon)$ denote the highest rate at which $\varepsilon$-close-to-ideal secret key can be distilled by making $n$ invocations of a pure-loss channel $\mathcal{L}_{\eta}$ of transmissivity $\eta$, along with the assistance of public classical communication [@WTB16]. In [@WTB16], $P_{\mathcal{L}_{\eta}}^{\leftrightarrow
}(n,\varepsilon)$ is called the non-asymptotic secret-key-agreement capacity of the channel $\mathcal{L}_{\eta}$. One of the results of [@WTB16] is the following fundamental upper bound:$$P_{\mathcal{L}_{\eta}}^{\leftrightarrow}(n,\varepsilon)\leq-\log_{2}(1-\eta)+\frac{C(\varepsilon)}{n}, \label{eq:SC-bound}$$ where $C(\varepsilon)=\log_{2}6+2\log_{2}(\left[ 1+\varepsilon\right]
/\left[ 1-\varepsilon\right] )$. The bound in is known as a strong converse bound because it converges to the secret-key-agreement capacity $-\log_{2}(1-\eta)$ in the limit as $n\rightarrow\infty$. We suspect that there is little room for improvement of the bound in and discuss this point further in Appendix \[sec:disp-rev-coh-info\]. The bound in is to be contrasted with the following weak-converse bound:$$P_{\mathcal{L}_{\eta}}^{\leftrightarrow}(n,\varepsilon)\leq\frac
{1}{1-\varepsilon}\left[ -\log_{2}(1-\eta)+\frac{h_{2}(\varepsilon)}{n}\right] , \label{eq:WC-bound}$$ which follows as a direct consequence of [@WTB16 Section 8] and [@WR12 Eq. (2)] (see also [@MW12 Eq. (134)]). For the benefit of the reader, we explain how to arrive at this weak-converse bound in more detail in Appendix \[sec:weak-converse-bnds\]. In the above,$$h_{2}(\varepsilon)=-\varepsilon\log_{2}\varepsilon-(1-\varepsilon)\log
_{2}(1-\varepsilon)$$ denotes the binary entropy. The bound in is a weak-converse bound because it requires the extra limit as $\varepsilon
\rightarrow0$ after taking the limit as $n\rightarrow\infty$, in order to arrive at the capacity upper bound of $-\log_{2}(1-\eta)$. The significance of the bounds in and is that they apply for any finite number $n$ of channel uses and key-quality parameter$~\varepsilon$. As such, these bounds can be used to assess the performance of any practical secret-key-agreement protocol conducted over a pure-loss channel$~\mathcal{L}_{\eta}$.
The pure-loss channel is somewhat of an ideal model for a communication channel, even if it does have a strong physical underpinning in the context of free-space communication [@YS78; @S09]. In particular, a working assumption of the model is that the channel input interacts with an environment prepared in the vacuum state. However, in practical setups, we might expect the environment to be modeled as a thermal state of a fixed mean photon number $N_{B}>0$ [@S09], and in such a case, the channel is called a thermal channel and denoted by $\mathcal{L}_{\eta,N_{B}}$ (also called thermal-lossy channel, as in [@RGRKVRHWE17]). This added thermal noise is often called excess noise [@NH04; @LDTG05], which can serve as a simple model of tampering by an eavesdropper. Additionally, there are realistic effects in communication schemes, such as dark counts of photon detectors that can be modeled as arising from thermal photons in the environment [@S09; @RGRKVRHWE17]. As such, it is an important goal to establish upper bounds on the secret-key-agreement capacity of the thermal channel in order to assess the performance of practical secret-key-agreement protocols, and the main contribution of the present paper is to establish upper bounds on the non-asymptotic secret-key-agreement capacity $P_{\mathcal{L}_{\eta,N_{B}}}^{\leftrightarrow}(n,\varepsilon)$ of the thermal channel $\mathcal{L}_{\eta,N_{B}}$, which improve upon the prior known bounds from [@PLOB15; @WTB16] in certain regimes.
Prior works established that$$-\log_{2}(\left[ 1-\eta\right] \eta^{N_{B}})-g(N_{B})
\label{eq:rel-ent-thermal}$$ is an upper bound on the secret-key-agreement capacity of a thermal channel $\mathcal{L}_{\eta,N_{B}}$ with transmissivity $\eta\in(0,1)$ and thermal mean photon number $N_{B}>0$. This bound was claimed in [@PLOB15] and rigorously proven in [@WTB16]. In this expression,$$g(N_{B})=(N_{B}+1)\log_{2}(N_{B}+1)-N_{B}\log_{2}N_{B}$$ is the entropy of a thermal state of mean photon number $N_{B}$. In particular, the following bound was given in [@WTB16 Section 8]$$\begin{gathered}
P_{\mathcal{L}_{\eta,N_{B}}}^{\leftrightarrow}(n,\varepsilon)\leq-\log
_{2}(\left[ 1-\eta\right] \eta^{N_{B}})-g(N_{B})\label{eq:SC-thermal}\\
+\sqrt{\frac{2V_{\eta,N_{B}}}{n\left( 1-\varepsilon\right) }}+\frac
{C(\varepsilon)}{n},\end{gathered}$$ where$$V_{\eta,N_{B}}=N_{B}(N_{B}+1)\log_{2}^{2}(\eta\left[ N_{B}+1\right] /N_{B}),$$ and the following weak-converse bound is a direct consequence of [@WTB16 Section 8] and [@WR12; @MW12] (explained also in Appendix \[sec:weak-converse-bnds\]):$$\begin{gathered}
P_{\mathcal{L}_{\eta,N_{B}}}^{\leftrightarrow}(n,\varepsilon)\leq
\label{eq:WC-thermal}\\
\frac{1}{1-\varepsilon}\left[ -\log_{2}(\left[ 1-\eta\right] \eta^{N_{B}})-g(N_{B})+\frac{h_{2}(\varepsilon)}{n}\right] .\end{gathered}$$ Again, the value of these bounds is that they apply for any finite number $n$ of channel uses and key-quality parameter $\varepsilon$. However, by inspecting , we see that the order $1/\sqrt{n}$ and lower terms are strictly positive.
The main contribution of the present paper is to improve the bound in in such a way that the order $1/\sqrt{n}$ term is negative whenever $\varepsilon<1/2$, representing the backoff from capacity incurred by using the channel a finite number of times while allowing for non-zero error. In fact, we find the following improved bound for several realistic values of $\eta$ and $N_{B}$:$$\begin{gathered}
P_{\mathcal{L}_{\eta,N_{B}}}^{\leftrightarrow}(n,\varepsilon)\leq-\log
_{2}(\left[ 1-\eta\right] \eta^{N_{B}})-g(N_{B})\label{eq:new-bound}\\
+\sqrt{\frac{V_{\eta,N_{B}}^{\prime}}{n}}\Phi^{-1}(\varepsilon)+\frac{O(\log
n)}{n},\end{gathered}$$ where $V_{\eta,N_{B}}^{\prime}$ is a channel-dependent parameter that we discuss later and $\Phi^{-1}$ denotes the inverse of the cumulative normal distribution function (see ), for which we have that $\Phi^{-1}(\varepsilon)<0$ whenever $\varepsilon<1/2$. We should note that the bound in applies only for $n$ sufficiently large (such that $n$ is proportional to $1/\varepsilon^{2}$), as it relies on the Berry–Esseen theorem [@KS10; @S11], but many prior works have shown that first- and second-order terms like the above one serve as an excellent approximation for non-asymptotic capacities even for small $n$ [@polyanskiy10; @P10; @MW12; @P13; @TBR15]. The main new tool that we use to establish this result, beyond those used and introduced in [@WTB16], is a recent development in [@LMGA17] regarding teleportation simulation of single-mode phase-insensitive bosonic channels using finite-energy resource states. Figure \[fig:results\] plots this bound for several realistic values of the distance $L$ (related to transmissivity $\eta$) and thermal mean photon number $N_{B}$, and we point to Section \[sec:results\] for a more detailed discussion of these figures.
In the remainder of the paper, we argue how to arrive at the bound in . In what follows, we review the formalism of quantum Gaussian states and channels [@adesso14; @S17], and we also review information quantities needed, such as quantum relative entropy and relative entropy variance. We then review the critical tool of teleportation simulation of a quantum channel [@BDSW96; @WPG07; @NFC09; @Mul12] and how it can be used with [@WTB16 Eq. (4.34)] and ideas from [@LMGA17] in order to arrive at . We finally close with a summary and some open questions.
Preliminaries
=============
Quantum Gaussian states and channels
------------------------------------
The main class of quantum states in which we are interested in this paper are quantum Gaussian states [@adesso14; @S17]. In our brief review, we consider $m$-mode Gaussian states, where $m$ is some fixed positive integer. Let $\hat{x}_{j}$ denote each quadrature operator ($2m$ of them for an $m$-mode state), and let $\hat{x}\equiv\left[ \hat{q}_{1},\ldots,\hat{q}_{m},\hat
{p}_{1},\ldots,\hat{p}_{m}\right] \equiv\left[ \hat{x}_{1},\ldots,\hat
{x}_{2m}\right] $ denote the vector of quadrature operators, so that the first $m$ entries correspond to position-quadrature operators and the last $m$ to momentum-quadrature operators. The quadrature operators satisfy the following commutation relations:$$\left[ \hat{x}_{j},\hat{x}_{k}\right] =i\Omega_{j,k},\quad\mathrm{where}\quad\Omega=\begin{bmatrix}
0 & 1\\
-1 & 0
\end{bmatrix}
\otimes I_{m}\text{,} \label{eq:symplectic-form}$$ and $I_{m}$ is the $m\times m$ identity matrix. We also take the annihilation operator $\hat{a}=\left( \hat{q}+i\hat{p}\right) /\sqrt{2}$. Let $\rho$ be a Gaussian state, with the mean-vector entries $\left\langle \hat{x}_{j}\right\rangle ^{\rho}=\mu_{j}^{\rho}$, and let $\mu^{\rho}$ denote the mean vector. The entries of the covariance matrix $V^{\rho}$ of $\rho$ are given by $$V_{j,k}^{\rho}\equiv\left\langle \left\{ \hat{x}_{j}-\mu_{j}^{\rho},\hat
{x}_{k}-\mu_{k}^{\rho}\right\} \right\rangle ^{\rho}.
\label{eq:covariance-matrices}$$ A $2m\times2m$ matrix $S$ is symplectic if it preserves the symplectic form: $S\Omega S^{T}=\Omega$. According to Williamson’s theorem [@W36], there is a diagonalization of the covariance matrix $V^{\rho}$ of the form, $$V^{\rho}=S^{\rho}\left( D^{\rho}\oplus D^{\rho}\right) \left( S^{\rho
}\right) ^{T},$$ where $S^{\rho}$ is a symplectic matrix and $D^{\rho}\equiv\operatorname{diag}(\nu_{1},\ldots,\nu_{m})$ is a diagonal matrix of symplectic eigenvalues such that $\nu_{i}\geq1$ for all $i\in\left\{ 1,\ldots,m\right\} $. We say that a quantum Gaussian state is faithful if all of its symplectic eigenvalues are strictly greater than one (this also means that the state is positive definite). Faithfulness of Gaussian states is required to ensure that $G^{\rho}$ is non-singular. We can write the density operator $\rho$ of a faithful state in the following exponential form [@PhysRevA.71.062320; @K06; @H10] (see also [@H13book; @S17]): $$\begin{aligned}
& \rho=(Z^{\rho})^{-1/2}\exp\left[ -\frac{1}{2}(\hat{x}-\mu^{\rho})^{T}G^{\rho}(\hat{x}-\mu^{\rho})\right] ,\label{eq:exp-form}\\
& \mathrm{with}\quad Z^{\rho}\equiv\det(\left[ V^{\rho}+i\Omega\right]
/2)\\
& \mathrm{and}\quad G^{\rho}\equiv-2\Omega S^{\rho}\left[
\operatorname{arcoth}(D^{\rho})\right] ^{\oplus2}\left( S^{\rho}\right)
^{T}\Omega, \label{eq:G_rho}$$ where $\operatorname{arcoth}(x)\equiv\frac{1}{2}\ln\!\left( \frac{x+1}{x-1}\right) $ with domain $\left( -\infty,-1\right) \cup\left(
1,+\infty\right) $. Note that we can also write$$G^{\rho}=2i\Omega\operatorname{arcoth}(iV^{\rho}\Omega),
\label{eq:more-compact-G-rho}$$ so that $G^{\rho}$ is represented directly in terms of the covariance matrix $V^{\rho}$. By inspection, the $G$ and $V$ matrices are symmetric. In what follows, we adopt the same notation for quantities associated with a density operator $\sigma$, such as $\mu^{\sigma}$, $V^{\sigma}$, $S^{\sigma}$, $D^{\sigma}$, $Z^{\sigma}$, and $G^{\sigma}$.
A two-mode Gaussian state $\rho$ with covariance matrix in standard form has a covariance matrix as follows [@DGCZ00; @S00]:$$V^{\rho}=\begin{bmatrix}
a & c\\
c & b
\end{bmatrix}
\oplus\begin{bmatrix}
a & -c\\
-c & b
\end{bmatrix}
. \label{eq:CM-standard-form}$$ The symplectic diagonalization of the covariance matrix $V$ simplifies as well [@SIS04]:$$V=S\left( D\oplus D\right) S^{T},$$ where$$\begin{aligned}
S & =\left( I_{2}\oplus\sigma_{Z}\right) S_{0}^{\oplus2}\left(
I_{2}\oplus\sigma_{Z}\right) ,\\
S_{0} & =\begin{bmatrix}
\omega_{+} & \omega_{-}\\
\omega_{-} & \omega_{+}\end{bmatrix}
,\qquad\omega_{\pm} =\sqrt{\frac{a+b\pm\sqrt{y}}{2\sqrt{y}}},\\
D & =\begin{bmatrix}
\nu_{-} & 0\\
0 & \nu_{+}\end{bmatrix}
,\qquad\nu_{\pm} =\left[ \sqrt{y}\pm\left( b-a\right) \right] /2,\\
y & =\left( a+b\right) ^{2}-4c^{2},\end{aligned}$$ and $\sigma_{Z}$ denotes the standard Pauli $Z$ matrix. Given a two-mode state with covariance matrix in standard form as in , it is a separable state if$$c\leq c_{\text{sep}}\equiv\sqrt{\left( a-1\right) \left( b-1\right) },
\label{eq:c_sep}$$ which can be determined from the condition given in [@AI05 Eq. (14)]. We return to this condition when we discuss the relative entropy of entanglement for quantum Gaussian states.
A quantum Gaussian channel is one that preserves Gaussian states [@CEGH08; @adesso14; @S17]. The action of a quantum Gaussian channel on an input state $\rho$ is characterized by two matrices $X$ and $Y$, which transform the covariance matrix $V^{\rho}$ of $\rho$ as follows:$$V^{\rho}\rightarrow XV^{\rho}X^{T}+Y, \label{eq:Gaussian-channel}$$ where $X^{T}$ is the transpose of the matrix $X$. In this formalism, the thermal channel $\mathcal{L}_{\eta,N_{B}}$ with transmissivity $\eta\in(0,1)$ and thermal mean photon number $N_{B}>0$ is given by$$X=\sqrt{\eta}I_{2},\qquad Y=(1-\eta)(2N_{B}+1)I_{2},
\label{eq:thermal-ch-Gaussian}$$ where $I_{2}$ is the $2\times2$ identity matrix. Our principal focus in this paper is on the thermal channel.
Teleportation simulation and reduction by teleportation {#sec:tp-simulation}
-------------------------------------------------------
Teleportation simulation of a channel [@BDSW96; @WPG07; @NFC09; @Mul12] is a key tool used to establish the upper bounds in , , , and . The basic idea behind this tool is that channels with sufficient symmetry can be simulated by the action of a teleportation protocol [@PhysRevLett.70.1895; @prl1998braunstein; @Werner01] on a resource state $\omega_{AB}$ shared between the sender $A$ and receiver $B$. More generally, a channel $\mathcal{N}_{A^{\prime}\rightarrow B}$ with input system $A^{\prime}$ and output system $B$ is defined to be teleportation simulable with associated resource state $\omega_{AB}$ if the following equality holds for all input states $\rho_{A^{\prime}}$:$$\mathcal{N}_{A^{\prime}\rightarrow B}(\rho_{A^{\prime}})=\mathcal{T}_{A^{\prime}AB}(\rho_{A^{\prime}}\otimes\omega_{AB}),\label{eq:TP-simulable-channel}$$ where $\mathcal{T}_{A^{\prime}AB}$ is a quantum channel consisting of local operations and classical communication between the sender, who has systems $A^{\prime}$ and $A$, and the receiver, who has system $B$ ($\mathcal{T}_{A^{\prime}AB}$ can also be considered a generalized teleportation protocol, as in [@Werner01]). The definition in was first given in [@WTB16arxiv], based on many earlier developments [@BDSW96; @Werner01; @WPG07; @NFC09; @Mul12]. The implication of channel simulation via teleportation is that the performance of a general protocol that uses the channel $n$ times, with each use interleaved by local operations and classical communication (LOCC), can be bounded from above by the performance of a protocol with a much simpler form: the simplified protocol consists of a single round of LOCC acting on $n$ copies of $\omega_{AB}$ [@BDSW96; @NFC09; @Mul12]. This is called reduction by teleportation. Of course, a secret-key-agreement protocol is one particular kind of protocol of the above form, as considered in [@PLOB15; @WTB16], and so the general reduction method of [@BDSW96; @NFC09; @Mul12] applies.
For continuous-variable bosonic systems, the teleportation simulation of a single-mode bosonic Gaussian channels was considered in [@NFC09], and the simulation therein only simulates the channel exactly in the limit in which the resource state is the result of transmitting one share of an infinitely-squeezed, two-mode squeezed vacuum state [@S17] through the channel (this resource state is sometimes called the Choi state of the channel [@S17], and we use this terminology in what follows). Thus, when applying this argument to bound the rates of secret-key-agreement protocols as discussed above, one must take care with an appropriate limiting argument, as pointed out in [@N16] and handled already in [@WTB16]. This teleportation simulation argument with an infinitely-squeezed resource state is one of the core steps used to establish the bounds in , , , and .
Recently, an important development in the theory of the teleportation simulation of quantum Gaussian channels has taken place [@LMGA17]. In particular, the authors of [@LMGA17] have shown that all single-mode, phase-insensitive quantum Gaussian channels other than the pure-loss channel can be simulated via the action of teleportation on a finite-energy Gaussian resource state that has the same amount of entanglement as the Choi state of the channel. In [@LMGA17], the authors quantified the amount of entanglement in the resource state using an entanglement monotone [@H42007] called logarithmic negativity, which is the same entanglement measure considered in [@NFC09]. In our paper, we show how the main idea of their paper leads to strengthened bounds on the performance of secret-key-agreement protocols conducted over single-mode phase-insensitive bosonic Gaussian channels.
To describe the result of [@LMGA17] in more detail, let $X=\sqrt{\tau
}I_{2}$ and $Y=yI_{2}$ be the matrices representing the action of a single-mode phase-insensitive Gaussian channel on an input state, as in . In what follows and as in [@LMGA17], we exclusively consider the case when $\tau\geq0$. In order for the map to be a completely positive, trace-preserving map (i.e., a legitimate quantum channel), the following inequality should hold [@S17]$$y\geq\left\vert 1-\tau\right\vert .$$ The main contribution of [@LMGA17] is that every single-mode phase-insensitive Gaussian channel in the above class, besides the pure-loss channel, can be simulated by the action of a continuous-variable teleportation protocol on a finite-energy, two-mode resource state with the same amount of entanglement as the Choi state of the channel. An additional contribution of [@LMGA17] is a converse bound: it is not possible to use a resource state with logarithmic negativity smaller than that of the Choi state, in order to simulate the channel. This follows directly from the facts that the teleportation simulation protocol should simulate the channel, teleportation is an LOCC, and logarithmic negativity is an entanglement monotone (it is non-increasing with respect to an LOCC). This converse bound holds, by the same argument, for all measures of entanglement (such as relative entropy of entanglement).
In more detail, the teleportation simulation of [@LMGA17] begins with the sender and receiver of the channel sharing a two-mode Gaussian state in the standard form in . The sender mixes the input of the channel and her share of the resource state on a 50-50 beam splitter. The sender then performs ideal homodyne detection of the position quadrature of the first mode and ideal homodyne detection of the momentum quadrature of the second mode, leading to measurement outcomes $Q_{+}$ and $P_{-}$. The sender communicates these real values over ideal classical communication channels to the receiver, and the receiver performs displacement operations of his mode by $g\sqrt{2}Q_{+}$ and $g\sqrt{2}P_{-}$, for some $g\in\mathbb{R}$. The result of all of these operations is to implement a quantum Gaussian channel of the following form on the input state:$$\begin{aligned}
X & =gI_{2},\\
Y & =\left[ g^{2}a+2gc+b\right] I_{2},\end{aligned}$$ where we note the different sign convention from [@LMGA17 Eq. (7)], due to our slightly different convention for the standard form in . If $g>0$, then the channel implemented is a single-mode phase-insensitive Gaussian channel with$$\tau=g^{2},\qquad y=g^{2}a+2gc+b. \label{eq:TP-simulation-1-mode-G}$$ If $g<0$, then one can postprocess the output according to a unitary Gaussian channel with $X=-I_{2}$ and $Y=0$ (a phase flip channel), such that the overall channel is a single-mode phase-insensitive Gaussian channel with $\tau$ and $y$ as in . A generalization of these steps beyond two-mode states is given in [@WPG07].
Where [@LMGA17] departs from prior works is to solve an inverse problem regarding teleportation simulation. Given values of $\tau$ and $y$ corresponding to a physical channel different from the pure-loss channel, the authors of [@LMGA17] proved that there exists a finite-energy, two-mode Gaussian state in standard form satisfying , having its smaller symplectic eigenvalue equal to one, and having its logarithmic negativity equal to that of the Choi state of the channel. It should be stressed that the states found in [@LMGA17] have an analytical form, which has to do with the form of the above constraints.
Information quantities and bounds for secret-key-agreement protocols
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The basic information quantities that we need in this paper are the quantum relative entropy [@U62; @Lindblad1973], the relative entropy variance [@li12; @TH12], and the hypothesis testing relative entropy [@BD10; @WR12]. For two states $\rho$ and $\sigma$ defined on a separable Hilbert space with the following spectral decompositions:$$\begin{aligned}
\rho & =\sum_{x}\lambda_{x}|\phi_{x}\rangle\langle\phi_{x}|,\label{eq:spec-decomp-rho}\\
\sigma & =\sum_{y}\mu_{y}|\psi_{y}\rangle\langle\psi_{y}|,
\label{eq:spec-decomp-sigma}$$ the quantum relative entropy $D(\rho\Vert\sigma)$ [@Lindblad1973] and the relative entropy variance $V(\rho\Vert\sigma)$ [@li12; @TH12] are defined as $$\begin{aligned}
D(\rho\Vert\sigma) & =\sum_{x,y}\left\vert \left\langle \psi_{y}|\phi
_{x}\right\rangle \right\vert ^{2}\lambda_{x}\log_{2}(\lambda_{x}/\mu_{y}),\\
V(\rho\Vert\sigma) & =\sum_{x,y}\left\vert \left\langle \psi_{y}|\phi
_{x}\right\rangle \right\vert ^{2}\lambda_{x}\left[ \log_{2}(\lambda_{x}/\mu_{y})-D(\rho\Vert\sigma)\right] ^{2}.\end{aligned}$$
For quantum Gaussian states, the quantities $D(\rho\Vert\sigma)$ [@PhysRevA.71.062320], [@PLOB15] and $V(\rho\Vert\sigma)$ [@BLTW16] can be expressed in terms of their first and second moments. For simplicity, let us suppose that $\rho$ and $\sigma$ are zero-mean quantum Gaussian states. Then Refs. [@PhysRevA.71.062320], [@PLOB15] established that$$D(\rho\Vert\sigma)=\log_{2}(Z^{\sigma}/Z^{\rho})/2-\operatorname{Tr}\{\Delta
V^{\rho}\}/4\ln2, \label{eq:rel-ent-G}$$ where $\Delta=G^{\rho}-G^{\sigma}$, and Ref. [@BLTW16] established that$$V(\rho\Vert\sigma)=\frac{1}{8\ln^{2}2}\left[ \operatorname{Tr}\{\Delta
V^{\rho}\Delta V^{\rho}\}+\operatorname{Tr}\{\Delta\Omega\Delta\Omega
\}\right] . \label{eq:rel-ent-var-G}$$ In the above, we should note that our convention for normalization of covariance matrices is what leads to the different constant prefactors when compared to the expressions in [@PhysRevA.71.062320; @PLOB15; @BLTW16].
The hypothesis testing relative entropy is defined as [@BD10; @WR12]$$\begin{gathered}
D_{H}^{\varepsilon}(\rho\Vert\sigma)=\\
-\log_{2}\inf_{\Lambda}\{\operatorname{Tr}\{\Lambda\sigma\}:0\leq\Lambda\leq
I\wedge\operatorname{Tr}\{\Lambda\rho\}\geq1-\varepsilon\}\end{gathered}$$ By the reasoning in [@DPR15] and Appendix \[sec:AEP-hypo\], we have the following bound holding for faithful states $\rho$ and $\sigma$ such that $D(\rho\Vert\sigma),V(\rho\Vert\sigma),T(\rho\Vert\sigma)<\infty$ and $V(\rho\Vert\sigma)>0$:$$\begin{gathered}
D_{H}^{\varepsilon}(\rho^{\otimes n}\Vert\sigma^{\otimes n})\leq\\
nD(\rho\Vert\sigma)+\sqrt{nV(\rho\Vert\sigma)}\Phi^{-1}(\varepsilon)+O(\log
n), \label{eq:upper-bnd-hypo}$$ where [@li12; @TH12]$$T(\rho\Vert\sigma)=\sum_{x,y}\left\vert \left\langle \psi_{y}|\phi
_{x}\right\rangle \right\vert ^{2}\lambda_{x}\left\vert \log_{2}\left(
\lambda_{x}/\mu_{y}\right) -D(\rho\Vert\sigma)\right\vert ^{3},$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi(a) & =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\int_{-\infty}^{a} dx \ \exp\!\left(
\frac{-x^{2}}{2}\right) \\
\Phi^{-1}(\varepsilon) & =\sup\left\{ a\in\mathbb{R} \ |\ \Phi(a)
\leq\varepsilon\right\} . \label{eq:Phi-inv}$$ We note here that the finiteness of $T(\rho\Vert\sigma)$ for finite-energy, faithful Gaussian states is essential to the main result of our paper. Inspecting the proof given in Appendix \[sec:AEP-hypo\], we see that the condition $T(\rho\Vert\sigma) < \infty$ allows us to invoke the Berry-Esseen theorem [@KS10; @S11], which in turn leads to the improved upper bound in .
The relative entropy of entanglement of a bipartite state $\rho_{AB}$ is defined as follows [@VP98]:$$E_{R}(A;B)_{\rho}=\inf_{\sigma_{AB}\in\operatorname{SEP}(A:B)}D(\rho_{AB}\Vert\sigma_{AB}),$$ where $\operatorname{SEP}(A\!:\!B)$ denotes the set of separable (unentangled) states [@W89]. Analogously, we have the $\varepsilon$-relative entropy of entanglement [@BD11]:$$E_{R}^{\varepsilon}(A;B)_{\rho}=\inf_{\sigma_{AB}\in\operatorname{SEP}(A:B)}D_{H}^{\varepsilon}(\rho_{AB}\Vert\sigma_{AB}).
\label{eq:eps-rel-entr-enta}$$ For a two-mode Gaussian state $\rho_{AB}$ in standard form, one can always choose the separable state $\sigma_{AB}^{\prime}$ to be in standard form with the same values for $a$ and $b$ but with $c$ chosen to saturate the inequality in , such that $c=c_{\text{sep}}$ [@PLOB15]. By definition, for this suboptimal choice, we have that$$\begin{aligned}
E_{R}(A;B)_{\rho} & \leq D(\rho_{AB}\Vert\sigma_{AB}^{\prime}),\\
E_{R}^{\varepsilon}(A;B)_{\rho} & \leq D_{H}^{\varepsilon}(\rho_{AB}\Vert\sigma_{AB}^{\prime}),\end{aligned}$$ and this is the choice made in [@PLOB15; @WTB16] to arrive at various upper bounds on secret-key-agreement capacity. In what follows, we refer to $D(\rho_{AB}\Vert\sigma_{AB}^{\prime})$ as the suboptimal relative entropy of entanglement of $\rho_{AB}$.
In [@WTB16 Eq. (4.34)], the following bound was established on the non-asymptotic secret-key-agreement capacity of a channel $\mathcal{N}$ that is teleportation simulable with associated resource state $\omega_{AB}$:$$\label{eqn:hyptest}P_{\mathcal{N}}^{\leftrightarrow}(n,\varepsilon)\leq
\frac{1}{n}E_{R}^{\varepsilon}(A^{n};B^{n})_{\omega^{\otimes n}}\leq\frac
{1}{n}D_{H}^{\varepsilon}(\omega_{AB}^{\otimes n}\Vert\sigma_{AB}^{\otimes
n}).$$ The argument for the first inequality critically relies upon the connection between secret-key-agreement protocols and private-state distillation protocols established in [@HHHO05; @HHHO09] and some other results contained therein, in addition to the teleportation reduction argument discussed in Section \[sec:tp-simulation\]. The second inequality follows from the definition in , with $\sigma_{AB}$ being an arbitrary separable state. Thus, any resource state for the teleportation simulation of a channel can be used to give an upper bound on its non-asymptotic secret-key-agreement capacity. In particular, if $\omega_{AB}$ and $\sigma_{AB}$ are faithful quantum Gaussian states of finite energy such that $\omega_{AB}\neq\sigma_{AB}$, then the conditions $D(\omega_{AB}\Vert\sigma_{AB}),V(\omega_{AB}\Vert\sigma_{AB}),T(\omega_{AB}\Vert\sigma
_{AB})<\infty$ and $V(\omega_{AB}\Vert\sigma_{AB})>0$ hold, such that applies and we find that$$\begin{gathered}
P_{\mathcal{N}}^{\leftrightarrow}(n,\varepsilon)\leq D(\omega_{AB}\Vert
\sigma_{AB})+\sqrt{\frac{V(\omega_{AB}\Vert\sigma_{AB})}{n}}\Phi
^{-1}(\varepsilon)\label{eq:tp-simul-bound}\\
+O\!\left( \frac{\log n}{n}\right) .\end{gathered}$$ The quantities $D(\omega_{AB}\Vert\sigma_{AB})$ and $V(\omega_{AB}\Vert
\sigma_{AB})$ are finite for faithful quantum Gaussian states of finite energy, which holds by inspecting and , and in Appendix \[sec:finiteness\], we argue that the quantity $T(\omega_{AB}\Vert\sigma_{AB})$ is finite as well.
Note that both and can be derived from . The point of deviation in the two derivations is that it is possible, on the one hand, to invoke the Berry–Esseen theorem [@KS10; @S11] in order to arrive at , due to the results of [@LMGA17] and our arguments in Appendices \[sec:AEP-hypo\] and \[sec:finiteness\]. That is, [@LMGA17] showed how to perform teleportation simulation of a single-mode phase-insensitive thermal bosonic channel using a finite-energy resource state, and our Appendix \[sec:finiteness\] argues how $T(\omega_{AB}\Vert\sigma_{AB})$ is finite for finite-energy Gaussian states. Thus, the Berry–Esseen theorem can be invoked as shown in Appendix \[sec:AEP-hypo\] and so applies. On the other hand, for the derivation of , the ideal infinite-energy Choi state of the channel is used as the resource state, but it is not known if $T(\omega_{AB}\Vert
\sigma_{AB})$ is finite in such a scenario. Hence, unless this is proven, we cannot invoke . Therefore, other techniques, such as the Chebyshev inequality, were used in [@WTB16] to arrive at .
Methods
=======
Given the background reviewed above, we are now in a position to discuss the main contribution of our paper. We modify the finite-energy teleportation simulation approach of [@LMGA17] in the following way: Given a thermal channel with $\tau=\eta$ and $y=(1-\eta)(2N_{B}+1)$, we find a finite-energy, two-mode Gaussian state in standard form such that
1. it satisfies ,
2. its smaller symplectic eigenvalue is just larger than one, and
3. its suboptimal relative entropy of entanglement is equal to the suboptimal relative entropy of entanglement of the Choi state of the channel, the latter of which is given by .
Any resource state that simulates the channel should satisfy the first constraint. We impose the second constraint to ensure that the state we find is a faithful Gaussian state, such that its relative entropy and relative entropy variance to a separable Gaussian state can be easily evaluated using the formulas in and . As discussed above, the relative entropy of entanglement of the resource state should at least be equal to that of the Choi state, in order to simulate a channel. In order to ensure that we find a good upper bound on the secret-key-agreement capacity, we have imposed the third constraint on suboptimal relative entropy of entanglement. We find these states by numerically solving the above constraints with the aid of a computer program [^1], and we remark that finding an analytical solution in this case appears to be far more complicated than for the case from [@LMGA17], due to the fact that the suboptimal relative entropy of entanglement is a much more complicated function of the covariance matrix elements. In some cases, it is possible to find multiple solutions for the states that satisfy these constraints. For our purpose, any of these states can be chosen. We also note that the flexibility afforded by having a teleportation simulation with negative gain $g$, as discussed in Section \[sec:tp-simulation\], is critical for us to solve these constraints by numerical search. With these finite-energy states in hand, we then numerically compute the relative entropy variance in and can apply the bound in .
Results {#sec:results}
=======
In Figure \[fig:results\], we plot upper bounds on the asymptotic secret-key-agreement capacity of the thermal channel given by (dashed line) and upper bounds on the non-asymptotic secret-key-agreement capacity given by (solid line) versus the number of channel uses. It is important to stress that the latter bound is only an approximation (known as the normal approximation) if $n$ is not sufficiently large (i.e., $n$ should be proportional to $1/\varepsilon^{2}$ in order for the bounds to really apply). At the same time, many prior works have shown that the normal approximation is an excellent approximation for non-asymptotic capacities even for small $n$ [@polyanskiy10; @P10; @MW12; @P13; @TBR15]. In each case, we choose the key-quality parameter $\varepsilon$ to be $10^{-10}$, in accordance with the same conservative value chosen in [@TCGR12]. In the plots, we select $\eta\in(0,1)$, (hence the corresponding distance $L$) and the thermal mean photon number $N_{B}>0$ as indicated above each figure. The distance $L$ can be related to the transmissivity $\eta$ of the thermal channel as $\eta
=\exp[-L/L_{0}]$, where $L_{0}$ is the fiber attenuation length [@RGRKVRHWE17]. In the plots, we consider $L_{0}=0.542$ km [@RGRKVRHWE17]. The thermal mean photon number $N_{B}$ relevant in experimental contexts, whenever thermal noise is due exclusively to dark counts, is given by the dark counts per second times the integration period $t_{\mathrm{int}}$. In the plots, the lowest $N_{B}$ we consider corresponds to a dark count rate of $10$ per second and $t_{\mathrm{int}}=30$ ns [RGRKVRHWE17]{}. For completeness, we also consider higher values of $N_{B}$, which could occur due to excessive background thermal radiation or tampering by an eavesdropper.
As noted in the introduction of our paper, these upper bounds can be interpreted to serve as benchmarks for quantum repeaters [@L15]. That is, the upper bounds on secret-key-agreement capacity hold for any protocol that uses the channel and LOCC but is not allowed to use a quantum repeater. As such, exceeding these upper bounds constitutes a demonstration of a quantum repeater [@L15]. What our results indicate is that the previous upper bounds from [@PLOB15; @WTB16] on the asymptotic secret-key-agreement capacity are too pessimistic of a benchmark for protocols that are only using the channel a finite number of times. As such, the burden of demonstrating a quantum repeater is now somewhat relieved in comparison to what was previously thought would be necessary.
From an experimental perspective, it could be of interest to perform a test using the results of our paper in order to demonstrate a working quantum repeater. A convincing approach for doing so would be to conduct an actual secret-key-distillation protocol over some finite number of uses of the channel and determine what secret-key rates can be achieved. [RGRKVRHWE17]{} details methods for determining secret-key rates that are achievable in particular physical setups. For a given rate and number of channel uses, one can then compare the results with our plots (or other plots generated via the same method for different parameter values) to determine if the rate is achieved is larger than the upper bounds in our plots; if it is the case, then one can claim a working quantum repeater, albeit with the understanding that our upper bounds are the normal approximations of the true finite-length upper bounds (as discussed previously). This approach is to be contrasted with those that estimate the quantum bit-error rate from just a few channel uses and then use this parameter to calculate an asymptotic key rate (see the review in [@SBCDLP09] for discussions of such approaches).
Conclusion
==========
In this paper, we showed how to extend the teleportation simulation method of [@LMGA17] to the relative entropy of entanglement measure. By combining with prior results in [@WTB16] regarding non-asymptotic secret-key-agreement capacity, this extension leads to improved bounds on the non-asymptotic secret-key-agreement capacity of a thermal bosonic channel, in certain parameter regimes. Given that upper bounds on secret-key-agreement capacity have been advocated as a way to assess the performance of a quantum repeater, our results indicate that previous bounds from [@PLOB15; @WTB16] are too pessimistic, and it should be somewhat easier to demonstrate a working quantum repeater in the realistic regime of a finite number of channel uses.
We remark that our approach can be extended to quantum amplifier channels, but we did not discuss these channels in any detail because they appear to be most prominently physically relevant in exotic relativistic communication scenarios [@bradler2012quantum; @bradler2015black; @QW16]. Our approach also applies to single-mode additive-noise Gaussian channels.
Going forward from here, it would be interesting to generalize our results to multimode bosonic communication channels [@CEGH08] or channels that are not phase-insensitive. As discussed previously [@TSW16; @TSW17; @WTB16], it would also be good to determine bounds on performance when there is an average energy constraint at the input of each channel use. One should expect to find improved upper bounds due to this extra constraint.
We are grateful to Gerardo Adesso, Boulat Bash, Mario Berta, Zachary Dutton, Jens Eisert, Saikat Guha, Jonathan P. Dowling, Jeffrey H. Shapiro, and Marco Tomamichel for discussions. We also thank the anonymous referees for their constructive comments that helped to improve our paper. We acknowledge support from the Office of Naval Research.
Little room for improving the strong converse bound in {#sec:disp-rev-coh-info}
=======================================================
Here we argue why we think it will not be possible to improve upon the upper bound in , up to lower-order terms. Before proceeding, recall that the conditional quantum entropy and conditional entropy variance [@TH12] are defined for a bipartite state $\rho_{AB}$ as$$\begin{aligned}
H(A|B)_{\rho} & \equiv-D(\rho_{AB}\Vert I_{A}\otimes\rho_{B}),\\
V(A|B)_{\rho} & \equiv V(\rho_{AB}\Vert I_{A}\otimes\rho_{B}).\end{aligned}$$ The coherent information is defined as $I(A\rangle B)_{\rho}\equiv
-H(A|B)_{\rho}$ [@PhysRevA.54.2629] and its corresponding variance is $V(A\rangle B)_{\rho}\equiv V(A|B)_{\rho}$. In [@WTB16 Section 6.2], the following achievability bound was established for $\mathcal{N}$ a finite-dimensional channel:$$P_{\mathcal{N}}^{\leftrightarrow}(n,\varepsilon)\geq I_{\operatorname{rev}}(\mathcal{N})+\sqrt{\frac{V_{\operatorname{rev}}^{\varepsilon}(\mathcal{N)}}{n}}\Phi^{-1}(\varepsilon)+O\!\left( \frac{\log n}{n}\right)
\label{eq:rev-low-bound}$$ where $I_{\operatorname{rev}}(\mathcal{N})$ is the following quantity [@DJKR06 Section 5.3] (sometimes called the channel’s reverse coherent information):$$I_{\operatorname{rev}}(\mathcal{N})\equiv\max_{|\psi\rangle_{AA^{\prime}}\in\mathcal{H}_{AA^{\prime}}}I(B\rangle A)_{\theta}, \label{eq:rev-coh-info}$$ $\theta_{AB}\equiv\mathcal{N}_{A^{\prime}\rightarrow B}(\psi_{AA^{\prime}})$, and $V_{\operatorname{rev}}^{\varepsilon}(\mathcal{N)}$ is the channel’s reverse conditional entropy variance:$$V_{\operatorname{rev}}^{\varepsilon}(\mathcal{N)\equiv}\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{cc}\min_{\psi_{AA^{\prime}}\in\Pi_{\operatorname{rev}}}V(B\rangle A)_{\theta} &
\text{for }\varepsilon<1/2\\
\max_{\psi_{AA^{\prime}}\in\Pi_{\operatorname{rev}}}V(B\rangle A)_{\theta} &
\text{for }\varepsilon\geq1/2
\end{array}
\right. .$$ The set $\Pi_{\operatorname{rev}}\subseteq\mathcal{D}(\mathcal{H}_{AA^{\prime
}})$ is the set of all states achieving the maximum in .
The inequality in follows from a one-shot coding theorem [@WTB16 Proposition 21], followed by an expansion of the hypothesis testing relative entropy as [@li12; @TH12]$$\begin{gathered}
D_{H}^{\varepsilon}(\rho^{\otimes n}\Vert\sigma^{\otimes n})\geq\\
nD(\rho\Vert\sigma)+\sqrt{nV(\rho\Vert\sigma)}\Phi^{-1}(\varepsilon)+O(\log
n).\end{gathered}$$ A critical step employed in the above expansion is the Berry–Esseen theorem [@KS10; @S11]. Rather than employing the Berry–Esseen theorem, we can modify the proof of Theorem 2 in [@li12] (therein instead picking $L_{n}=\exp( nD(\rho\Vert\sigma)-\sqrt{n V(\rho\Vert\sigma)/\varepsilon}) $) to employ the Chebyshev inequality and instead find the following expansion:$$D_{H}^{\varepsilon}(\rho^{\otimes n}\Vert\sigma^{\otimes n})\geq nD(\rho
\Vert\sigma)-\sqrt{\frac{nV(\rho\Vert\sigma)}{\varepsilon}}.
\label{eq:chebyshev-expand}$$ For these theorems to hold in separable infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces, it remains to show how to connect the coding theorem in [WTB16]{} to the inequality in , but we strongly suspect that this should be possible. If everything holds, we would obtain the following achievability theorem for an infinite-dimensional channel $\mathcal{N}$:$$P_{\mathcal{N}}^{\leftrightarrow}(n,\varepsilon)\geq I_{\operatorname{rev}}(\mathcal{N})-\sqrt{\frac{V_{\operatorname{rev}}^{\varepsilon}(\mathcal{N)}}{n\varepsilon}}+O\!\left( \frac{1}{n}\right) .$$ The above would hold for all finite-energy two-mode, squeezed vacuum states passed through the channel, and one could then take a limit as the photon number approaches infinity. The term $I_{\operatorname{rev}}(\mathcal{N})$ converges to $-\log_{2}(1-\eta)$ [@PLOB15]. Below we show that the relative entropy variance $V_{\operatorname{rev}}^{\varepsilon}(\mathcal{N)}$ term converges to zero. This would then give the following bound $$P_{\mathcal{L}_{\eta}}^{\leftrightarrow}(n,\varepsilon)\geq-\log_{2}(1-\eta)+O\!\left( \frac{1}{n}\right) ,$$ leading us to our conclusion that there is little room for improving the upper bound in . We stress that this remains to be worked out in detail.
We now evaluate the variance for the reverse coherent information when sending in a two-mode squeezed vacuum to a pure-loss channel of transmissivity $\eta\in(0,1)$. Recall that the quantity of interest is$$\begin{aligned}
& V(B\rangle A)\nonumber\\
& =\operatorname{Tr}\{\rho_{AB}\left[ \log\rho_{AB}-\log\rho_{A}\right]
^{2}\}\\
& \qquad-\left[ H(AB)_{\rho}-H(A)_{\rho}\right] ^{2}\\
& =\operatorname{Tr}\{\rho_{AB}\left[ \log\rho_{AB}\right] ^{2}\}\nonumber\\
& \qquad-2\operatorname{Tr}\{\rho_{AB}\log\rho_{AB}\log\rho_{A}\}+\operatorname{Tr}\{\rho_{AB}\left[ \log\rho_{A}\right] ^{2}\}\nonumber\\
& \qquad-\left[ H(AB)_{\rho}-H(A)_{\rho}\right] ^{2}\\
& =\operatorname{Tr}\{\rho_{AB}\left[ \log\rho_{AB}\right] ^{2}\}-H(AB)_{\rho}^{2}\nonumber\\
& \qquad-2\left[ \operatorname{Tr}\{\rho_{AB}\log\rho_{AB}\log\rho
_{A}\}-H(A)_{\rho}H(AB)_{\rho}\right] \nonumber\\
& \qquad+\operatorname{Tr}\{\rho_{A}\left[ \log\rho_{A}\right]
^{2}\}-H(A)_{\rho}^{2}.\end{aligned}$$ The first and last terms we can evaluate easily using the following formula for the entropy variance of a thermal state with mean photon number $N_{S}$ [@WRG15 Appendix A]:$$V(N_{S})=N_{S}\left( N_{S}+1\right) \left[ \log\left( 1+\frac{1}{N_{S}}\right) \right] ^{2}.$$ For the first, using the notion of purification, purifying with $\psi_{ABE}$, and observing that $\psi_{E}$ is a thermal state with mean photon number $\left( 1-\eta\right) N_{S}$, we find that$$\begin{aligned}
& \operatorname{Tr}\{\rho_{AB}\left[ \log\rho_{AB}\right] ^{2}\}-H(AB)_{\rho}^{2}\nonumber\\
& =\operatorname{Tr}\{\psi_{E}\left[ \log\psi_{E}\right] ^{2}\}-H(E)_{\psi
}^{2}\\
& =\left( 1-\eta\right) N_{S}\left( \left( 1-\eta\right) N_{S}+1\right)
\left[ \log\left( 1+\frac{1}{\left( 1-\eta\right) N_{S}}\right) \right]
^{2}.\end{aligned}$$ For the last term, we observe that $\rho_{A}$ is a thermal state with mean photon number $N_{S}$, which implies that$$\begin{gathered}
\operatorname{Tr}\{\rho_{A}\left[ \log\rho_{A}\right] ^{2}\}-H(A)_{\rho}^{2}\\
=N_{S}\left( N_{S}+1\right) \left[ \log\left( 1+\frac{1}{N_{S}}\right)
\right] ^{2}.\end{gathered}$$ So it remains to handle the middle term. Consider that$$\begin{aligned}
& \operatorname{Tr}\{\rho_{AB}\log\rho_{AB}\log\rho_{A}\}\nonumber\\
& =\operatorname{Tr}\{\psi_{ABE}\log\rho_{AB}\log\rho_{A}\}\\
& =\operatorname{Tr}\{\psi_{ABE}\log\psi_{E}\log\rho_{A}\}\\
& =\operatorname{Tr}\{\psi_{AE}\log\psi_{E}\log\rho_{A}\}.\end{aligned}$$ Consider that we can write$$\begin{aligned}
\psi_{E} & =\left[ \left( 1-\eta\right) N_{S}+1\right] ^{-1}\left(
1+\frac{1}{\left( 1-\eta\right) N_{S}}\right) ^{-\hat{n}_{E}},\\
\rho_{A} & =\left[ N_{S}+1\right] ^{-1}\left( 1+\frac{1}{N_{S}}\right)
^{-\hat{n}_{A}},\end{aligned}$$ where $\hat{n}_{E}$ and $\hat{n}_{A}$ are the number operators. This means that$$\begin{aligned}
& \operatorname{Tr}\{\psi_{AE}\log\psi_{E}\log\rho_{A}\}\nonumber\\
& =\operatorname{Tr}\Bigg\{\psi_{AE}\log\left[ \left[ \left(
1-\eta\right) N_{S}+1\right] ^{-1}\left( 1+\frac{1}{\left( 1-\eta\right)
N_{S}}\right) ^{-\hat{n}_{E}}\right] \nonumber\\
& \qquad\times\log\left[ \left[ N_{S}+1\right] ^{-1}\left( 1+\frac
{1}{N_{S}}\right) ^{-\hat{n}_{A}}\right] \Bigg\}\\
& =\operatorname{Tr}\Bigg\{\psi_{AE}\log\left[ \left[ \left(
1-\eta\right) N_{S}+1\right] \left( 1+\frac{1}{\left( 1-\eta\right)
N_{S}}\right) ^{\hat{n}_{E}}\right] \nonumber\\
& \qquad\times\log\left[ \left[ N_{S}+1\right] \left( 1+\frac{1}{N_{S}}\right) ^{\hat{n}_{A}}\right] \Bigg\}\end{aligned}$$$$\begin{gathered}
=\log\left[ \left( 1-\eta\right) N_{S}+1\right] \log\left[ N_{S}+1\right]
\\
+\log\left[ \left[ \left( 1-\eta\right) N_{S}+1\right] \right]
\log\left[ \left( 1+\frac{1}{N_{S}}\right) \right] \operatorname{Tr}\left\{ \psi_{AE}\hat{n}_{A}\right\} \\
+\log\left[ 1+\frac{1}{\left( 1-\eta\right) N_{S}}\right] \log\left[
N_{S}+1\right] \operatorname{Tr}\left\{ \psi_{AE}\hat{n}_{E}\right\} \\
+\log\left[ 1+\frac{1}{\left( 1-\eta\right) N_{S}}\right] \log\left[
1+\frac{1}{N_{S}}\right] \operatorname{Tr}\left\{ \psi_{AE}\left( \hat
{n}_{A}\otimes\hat{n}_{E}\right) \right\}\end{gathered}$$$$\begin{gathered}
=\log\left[ \left( 1-\eta\right) N_{S}+1\right] \log\left[ N_{S}+1\right]
\\
+N_{S}\log\left[ \left[ \left( 1-\eta\right) N_{S}+1\right] \right]
\log\left[ \left( 1+\frac{1}{N_{S}}\right) \right] \\
+\left( 1-\eta\right) N_{S}\log\left[ 1+\frac{1}{\left( 1-\eta\right)
N_{S}}\right] \log\left[ N_{S}+1\right] \\
+\log\left[ 1+\frac{1}{\left( 1-\eta\right) N_{S}}\right] \log\left[
1+\frac{1}{N_{S}}\right]\times\\ \operatorname{Tr}\left\{ \psi_{AE}\left( \hat
{n}_{A}\otimes\hat{n}_{E}\right) \right\} .\end{gathered}$$ We note that the third equality follows by applying the identity $\log(a
b^{\hat{x}}) = \log(a) + \hat{x}\log(b)$ for positive scalars $a$ and $b$ and a positive operator $\hat{x}$. So we need to evaluate the term $\operatorname{Tr}\left\{ \psi_{AE}\left( \hat{n}_{A}\otimes\hat{n}_{E}\right) \right\} $. Consider that sending a number state $|n\rangle
\langle n|$ through a beamsplitter of transmissivity $1-\eta$ leads to the following transformation:$$|n\rangle\langle n|_{A^{\prime}}\rightarrow\sum_{k=0}^{n}\binom{n}{k}\left(
1-\eta\right) ^{k}\eta^{n-k}|k\rangle\langle k|_{E}.$$ The two-mode squeezed vacuum at the input has the following form:$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{N_{S}+1}}\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\sqrt{\left( \frac{N_{S}}{N_{S}+1}\right) ^{n}}|n\rangle_{A}|n\rangle_{A^{\prime}}.$$ However since we are evaluating $\operatorname{Tr}\left\{ \psi_{AE}\left(
\hat{n}_{A}\otimes\hat{n}_{E}\right) \right\} $, and $\hat{n}_{A}$ and $\hat{n}_{E}$ are diagonal in the number basis, this is equivalent to the following:$$\begin{aligned}
& \frac{1}{N_{S}+1}\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\sum_{k=0}^{n}\left( \frac{N_{S}}{N_{S}+1}\right) ^{n}\binom{n}{k}\left( 1-\eta\right) ^{k}\eta^{n-k}\times\nonumber\\
& \qquad\operatorname{Tr}\{\left( |n\rangle\langle n|_{A}\otimes
|k\rangle\langle k|\right) \left( \hat{n}_{A}\otimes\hat{n}_{E}\right)
\}\nonumber\\
& =\frac{1}{N_{S}+1}\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\sum_{k=0}^{n}\left( \frac{N_{S}}{N_{S}+1}\right) ^{n}\binom{n}{k}\left( 1-\eta\right) ^{k}\eta^{n-k}nk\\
& =\frac{1}{N_{S}+1}\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}n\left( \frac{N_{S}}{N_{S}+1}\right)
^{n}\sum_{k=0}^{n}\binom{n}{k}\left( 1-\eta\right) ^{k}\eta^{n-k}k.\end{aligned}$$ Consider that the expression $\sum_{k=0}^{n}\binom{n}{k}\left( 1-\eta\right)
^{k}\eta^{n-k}k$ is equal to the mean of a binomial random variable with parameter $1-\eta$, and so$$\sum_{k=0}^{n}\binom{n}{k}\left( 1-\eta\right) ^{k}\eta^{n-k}k=n\left(
1-\eta\right) ,$$ implying that the last line above is equal to$$\left( 1-\eta\right) \frac{1}{N_{S}+1}\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}n^{2}\left(
\frac{N_{S}}{N_{S}+1}\right) ^{n}.$$ This is then equal to the second moment of a geometric random variable with parameter $p=1/\left( N_{S}+1\right) $, so that$$\begin{aligned}
& \left( 1-\eta\right) \frac{1}{N_{S}+1}\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}n^{2}\left(
\frac{N_{S}}{N_{S}+1}\right) ^{n}\nonumber\\
& =\left( 1-\eta\right) \left( N_{S}\left( N_{S}+1\right) +N_{S}^{2}\right) \\
& =\left( 1-\eta\right) N_{S}\left( 2N_{S}+1\right) .\end{aligned}$$ Plugging into the above, we find the reduction$$\begin{gathered}
=\log\left[ \left( 1-\eta\right) N_{S}+1\right] \log\left[ N_{S}+1\right]
\\
+N_{S}\log\left[ \left[ \left( 1-\eta\right) N_{S}+1\right] \right]
\log\left[ \left( 1+\frac{1}{N_{S}}\right) \right] \\
+\left( 1-\eta\right) N_{S}\log\left[ 1+\frac{1}{\left( 1-\eta\right)
N_{S}}\right] \log\left[ N_{S}+1\right] \\
+\left( 1-\eta\right) N_{S}\left( 2N_{S}+1\right) \log\left[ 1+\frac
{1}{\left( 1-\eta\right) N_{S}}\right] \log\left[ 1+\frac{1}{N_{S}}\right] .\end{gathered}$$ From this we should subtract the following quantity$$\begin{aligned}
& H(A)_{\rho}H(AB)_{\rho}\nonumber\\
& =g(N_{S})g(\left( 1-\eta\right) N_{S})\\
& =\left[ \left( N_{S}+1\right) \log\left( N_{S}+1\right) -N_{S}\log
N_{S}\right] \times\nonumber\\
& \left[
\begin{array}
[c]{c}\left( \left( 1-\eta\right) N_{S}+1\right) \log\left( \left(
1-\eta\right) N_{S}+1\right) \\
-\left( 1-\eta\right) N_{S}\log\left( 1-\eta\right) N_{S}\end{array}
\right] \\
& =\left[ N_{S}\log\left( 1+\frac{1}{N_{S}}\right) +\log\left(
N_{S}+1\right) \right] \times\nonumber\\
& \left[ \left( 1-\eta\right) N_{S}\log\left( 1+\frac{1}{\left(
1-\eta\right) N_{S}}\right) +\log\left( \left( 1-\eta\right)
N_{S}+1\right) \right]\end{aligned}$$$$\begin{gathered}
=\left( 1-\eta\right) N_{S}^{2}\log\left( 1+\frac{1}{N_{S}}\right)
\log\left( 1+\frac{1}{\left( 1-\eta\right) N_{S}}\right) \\
+\left( 1-\eta\right) N_{S}\log\left( N_{S}+1\right) \log\left(
1+\frac{1}{\left( 1-\eta\right) N_{S}}\right) \\
+N_{S}\log\left( 1+\frac{1}{N_{S}}\right) \log\left( \left( 1-\eta\right)
N_{S}+1\right) \\
+\log\left( N_{S}+1\right) \log\left( \left( 1-\eta\right) N_{S}+1\right) ,\end{gathered}$$ leading to$$\begin{aligned}
& \operatorname{Tr}\{\rho_{AB}\log\rho_{AB}\log\rho_{A}\}-H(A)_{\rho
}H(AB)_{\rho}\nonumber\\
& =\left( 1-\eta\right) N_{S}\left( 2N_{S}+1\right) \log\left[
1+\frac{1}{\left( 1-\eta\right) N_{S}}\right] \log\left[ 1+\frac{1}{N_{S}}\right] \nonumber\\
& \qquad-\left( 1-\eta\right) N_{S}^{2}\log\left( 1+\frac{1}{N_{S}}\right) \log\left( 1+\frac{1}{\left( 1-\eta\right) N_{S}}\right) \\
& =\left( 1-\eta\right) N_{S}\left( N_{S}+1\right) \log\left[ 1+\frac
{1}{\left( 1-\eta\right) N_{S}}\right] \log\left[ 1+\frac{1}{N_{S}}\right] .\end{aligned}$$ Putting everything together, we find that the variance of the reverse coherent information is given by$$\begin{gathered}
\left( 1-\eta\right) N_{S}\left( \left( 1-\eta\right) N_{S}+1\right)
\left[ \log\left( 1+\frac{1}{\left( 1-\eta\right) N_{S}}\right) \right]
^{2}\\
-2\left( 1-\eta\right) N_{S}\left( N_{S}+1\right) \log\left[ 1+\frac
{1}{\left( 1-\eta\right) N_{S}}\right] \log\left[ 1+\frac{1}{N_{S}}\right]
\\
+N_{S}\left( N_{S}+1\right) \left[ \log\left( 1+\frac{1}{N_{S}}\right)
\right] ^{2}.\end{gathered}$$ For large $N_{S}$, we have that $\left( \left( 1-\eta\right) N_{S}+1\right) \approx\left( 1-\eta\right) N_{S}$ and $\left( N_{S}+1\right)
\approx N_{S}$, so that the above reduces to$$\approx\left[ \left( 1-\eta\right) N_{S}\log\left( 1+\frac{1}{\left(
1-\eta\right) N_{S}}\right) -N_{S}\log\left( 1+\frac{1}{N_{S}}\right)
\right] ^{2},$$ which converges to zero as $N_{S}\rightarrow\infty$.
Weak converse bounds for secret-key-agreement capacities {#sec:weak-converse-bnds}
========================================================
Here we argue for the weak-converse bounds given in and , and even more general weak-converse bounds. The weak-converse bounds are a direct consequence of the bounds in [@WTB16] and [@WR12 Eq. (2)] (see also [MW12]{}).
First, recall from [@WR12 Eq. (2)] and [@MW12 Eq. (134)] that the following bound holds for hypothesis testing relative entropy for $\varepsilon\in(0,1)$:$$D_{H}^{\varepsilon}(\rho\Vert\sigma)\leq\frac{1}{1-\varepsilon}\left[
D(\rho\Vert\sigma)+h_{2}(\varepsilon)\right] . \label{eq:WR-bound-to-rel-ent}$$ To see this, consider that the definition of $D_{H}^{\varepsilon}(\rho
\Vert\sigma)$ can be further constrained as$$\begin{gathered}
D_{H}^{\varepsilon}(\rho\Vert\sigma)=\label{eq:hypo-rewrite}\\
-\log_{2}\inf_{\Lambda}\{\operatorname{Tr}\{\Lambda\sigma\}:0\leq\Lambda\leq
I\wedge\operatorname{Tr}\{\Lambda\rho\}=1-\varepsilon\}.\end{gathered}$$ That is, it suffices to optimize over measurement operators that meet the constraint $\operatorname{Tr}\{\Lambda\rho\}\geq1-\varepsilon$ with equality. This follows because for any measurement operator $\Lambda$ such that $\operatorname{Tr}\{\Lambda\rho\}>1-\varepsilon$, we can modify it by scaling it by a positive number $\lambda\in(0,1)$ such that $\operatorname{Tr}\{\left( \lambda\Lambda\right) \rho\}=1-\varepsilon$. The new operator $\lambda\Lambda$ is a legitimate measurement operator and the error probability $\operatorname{Tr}\{(\lambda\Lambda)\sigma\}$ only decreases under this scaling (i.e., $\operatorname{Tr}\{(\lambda\Lambda)\sigma
\}<\operatorname{Tr}\{\Lambda\sigma\}$), which allows us to conclude . Now for any measurement operator $\Lambda$ such that $\operatorname{Tr}\{\Lambda\rho\}=1-\varepsilon$, the monotonicity of quantum relative entropy [@Lindblad1975] with respect to quantum channels implies that$$\begin{aligned}
& D(\rho\Vert\sigma)\nonumber\\
& \geq D(\{1-\varepsilon,\varepsilon\}\Vert\{\operatorname{Tr}\{\Lambda
\sigma\},1-\operatorname{Tr}\{\Lambda\sigma\}\})\\
& =(1-\varepsilon)\log_{2}\left( \frac{1-\varepsilon}{\operatorname{Tr}\{\Lambda\sigma\}}\right) +\varepsilon\log_{2}\!\left( \frac{\varepsilon
}{1-\operatorname{Tr}\{\Lambda\sigma\}}\right) \\
& =-\left( 1-\varepsilon\right) \log_{2}\operatorname{Tr}\{\Lambda
\sigma\}-h_{2}(\varepsilon)\nonumber\\
& \qquad\qquad+\varepsilon\log_{2}\!\left( \frac{1}{1-\operatorname{Tr}\{\Lambda\sigma\}}\right) \\
& \geq-\left( 1-\varepsilon\right) \log_{2}\operatorname{Tr}\{\Lambda
\sigma\}-h_{2}(\varepsilon).\end{aligned}$$ Rewriting this gives$$-\log\operatorname{Tr}\{\Lambda\sigma\}\leq\frac{1}{1-\varepsilon}\left[
D(\rho\Vert\sigma)+h_{2}(\varepsilon)\right] .$$ Since this bound holds for all measurement operators $\Lambda$ satisfying $\operatorname{Tr}\{\Lambda\rho\}=1-\varepsilon$, we can conclude .
To conclude the desired weak-converse bounds, we then invoke the above and [@WTB16 Eq. (4.34)] to get that the following bound holds for any teleportation simulable channel with associated resource state $\omega_{AB}$:$$\begin{aligned}
P_{\mathcal{N}}^{\leftrightarrow}(n,\varepsilon) & \leq\frac{1}{n}E_{R}^{\varepsilon}(A^{n};B^{n})_{\omega^{\otimes n}}\\
& \leq\frac{1}{n(1-\varepsilon)}\left[ E_{R}(A^{n};B^{n})_{\omega^{\otimes
n}}+h_{2}(\varepsilon)\right] \\
& \leq\frac{1}{(1-\varepsilon)}\left[ E_{R}(A;B)_{\omega}+\frac
{h_{2}(\varepsilon)}{n}\right] .\end{aligned}$$ If the channel requires an infinite-energy resource state to become teleportation simulable, then one must take care as in the case of the proofs in [@WTB16 Section 8], and then one finally arrives at the weak-converse bounds in and .
Asymptotic equipartition property for hypothesis testing relative entropy {#sec:AEP-hypo}
=========================================================================
In this appendix, we prove that the inequality in holds whenever the states $\rho$ and $\sigma$ involved act on a separable Hilbert space. Here we take the convention, for convenience, that all logarithms are with respect to the natural base, but we note that the bound applies equally well for the binary logarithm just by rescaling.
The following proposition is available as [@JOPS12 Eq. (6.5)] and restated as [@DPR15 Corollary 2]:
\[[[@JOPS12 Eq. (6.5)]]{}\]\[prop:jaksic\]Let $\rho$ and $\sigma$ be faithful states acting on a separable Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$, let $\Lambda$ be a measurement operator acting on $\mathcal{H}$ and such that $0\leq\Lambda\leq I$, and let $v,\theta\in\mathbb{R}$. Then$$e^{-\theta}\operatorname{Tr}\{(I-\Lambda)\rho\}+\operatorname{Tr}\{\Lambda\sigma\}\geq\frac{e^{-\theta}}{1+e^{v-\theta}}\Pr\{X\leq v\},$$ where $X$ is a random variable taking values $\log(\lambda_{x}/\mu_{y})$ with probability $\left\vert \left\langle \psi_{y}|\phi_{x}\right\rangle
\right\vert ^{2}\lambda_{x}$, where these quantities are defined in and .
The following proposition is based on ideas given in [@DPR15]:
Let $\rho$ and $\sigma$ be faithful states acting on a separable Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$, such that $$\begin{aligned}
D(\rho\Vert\sigma),\ V(\rho\Vert\sigma),\ T(\rho\Vert\sigma) &
<\infty,\nonumber\\
V(\rho\Vert\sigma) & >0. \label{eq:DTV-assumps}$$ Then the following bound holds for all $\varepsilon\in(0,1)$ and sufficiently large $n$:$$\begin{gathered}
D_{H}^{\varepsilon}(\rho^{\otimes n}\Vert\sigma^{\otimes n})\leq
\label{eq:hypo-expand}\\
nD(\rho\Vert\sigma)+\sqrt{nV(\rho\Vert\sigma)}\Phi^{-1}(\varepsilon)+O(\log
n).\end{gathered}$$
We follow the justification for Theorem 3 given in [@DPR15] closely, but we do make some slight changes after the first few steps. Let $\Lambda^{n}$ be any measurement operator satisfying $\operatorname{Tr}\{\left( I^{\otimes
n}-\Lambda^{n}\right) \rho^{\otimes n}\}\leq\varepsilon$. By applying the above proposition (making the replacements $\rho\rightarrow\rho^{\otimes n}$ and $\sigma\rightarrow\sigma^{\otimes n}$, so that $X_{n}$ is a sum of $n$ i.i.d. random variables, each having mean $D(\rho\Vert\sigma)$, variance $V(\rho\Vert\sigma)$, and third absolute central moment $T(\rho\Vert\sigma)$), we find that$$\begin{aligned}
& \operatorname{Tr}\{\Lambda^{n}\sigma^{\otimes n}\}\nonumber\\
& \geq e^{-\theta_{n}}\left( \frac{\Pr\{X_{n}\leq v_{n}\}}{1+e^{v_{n}-\theta_{n}}}-\operatorname{Tr}\{(I-\Lambda^{n})\rho^{\otimes n}\}\right) \\
& \geq e^{-\theta_{n}}\left( \frac{\Pr\{X_{n}\leq v_{n}\}}{1+e^{v_{n}-\theta_{n}}}-\varepsilon\right) . \label{eq:start-point-CLT-bnd}$$ The Berry–Esseen theorem [@KS10; @S11] implies for any real number $a$ that$$\Pr\left\{ \frac{ X_{n}-nD(\rho\Vert\sigma)}{\sqrt{nV(\rho\Vert\sigma)}}\leq
a\right\} \geq\Phi(a) - K_{\rho,\sigma} \, n^{-1/2} ,$$ where $$K_{\rho,\sigma}\equiv\frac{C \, T(\rho\Vert\sigma)}{ [V(\rho\Vert
\sigma)]^{3/2}}$$ and $C \in(0,0.4748)$ [@KS10; @S11]. It is clear that $K_{\rho,\sigma}$ is a strictly positive constant $>C$ due to the assumption in and the fact that $T(\rho\Vert\sigma) \geq[V(\rho
\Vert\sigma)]^{3/2}$ [@S11]. Let us set $$\begin{gathered}
v_{n}=nD(\rho\Vert\sigma)+\\
\sqrt{nV(\rho\Vert\sigma)}\Phi^{-1}(\varepsilon+ (2 + K_{\rho,\sigma})
n^{-1/2}),\end{gathered}$$ and note that we require sufficiently large $n$ here, so that the argument to $\Phi^{-1}$ is $\in(0,1)$. We then find that$$\operatorname{Tr}\{\Lambda^{n}\sigma^{\otimes n}\}\geq e^{-\theta_{n}}\left(
\frac{\varepsilon+ 2 n^{-1/2}}{1+e^{v_{n}-\theta_{n}}}-\varepsilon\right) .$$ Now choosing $\theta_{n}=v_{n}+\frac{1}{2}\log n$, we get that$$\begin{gathered}
\operatorname{Tr}\{\Lambda^{n}\sigma^{\otimes n}\}\geq\\
\left[ e^{-nD(\rho\Vert\sigma)-\sqrt{nV(\rho\Vert\sigma)}\Phi^{-1}(\varepsilon+ (2+ K_{\rho,\sigma}) n^{-1/2} )-\frac{1}{2}\log n}\right]
\times\\
\left( \frac{1}{1+n^{-1/2}}\right) ,\end{gathered}$$ so that the following inequality holds for sufficiently large $n$:$$\begin{gathered}
-\log\operatorname{Tr}\{\Lambda^{n}\sigma^{\otimes n}\}\leq\\
nD(\rho\Vert\sigma)+\sqrt{nV(\rho\Vert\sigma)}\Phi^{-1}(\varepsilon)+O(\log
n).\end{gathered}$$ In the last line, we have invoked [@TH12 Footnote 6], which in turn is an invocation of Taylor’s theorem: for $f$ continuously differentiable, $c$ a positive constant, and $n \geq n_{0}$, the following equality holds $$\sqrt{n} f(x + c/\sqrt{n}) = \sqrt{n}f(x) + c f^{\prime}(a)$$ for some $a \in[x,x+c/\sqrt{n_{0}}]$.
Finiteness of the third absolute central moment of the log likelihood ratio for quantum Gaussian states {#sec:finiteness}
=======================================================================================================
We argue in this final appendix that $T(\rho\Vert\sigma)$, the third absolute central moment of the log-likelihood ratio of two finite-energy, zero-mean Gaussian states $\rho$ and $\sigma$, is finite. By definition, we have that$$T(\rho\Vert\sigma)=\sum_{x,y}\left\vert \left\langle \psi_{y}|\phi
_{x}\right\rangle \right\vert ^{2}\lambda_{x}\left\vert \log_{2}\left(
\lambda_{x}/\mu_{y}\right) -D(\rho\Vert\sigma)\right\vert ^{3},$$ where the spectral decompositions of $\rho$ and $\sigma$ are given by$$\rho=\sum_{x}\lambda_{x}|\phi_{x}\rangle\langle\phi_{x}|,\qquad\sigma=\sum
_{y}\mu_{y}|\psi_{y}\rangle\langle\psi_{y}|.$$ By concavity of $x^{3/4}$ for $x\geq0$, it follows that$$\begin{gathered}
T(\rho\Vert\sigma)\\
= \sum_{x,y}\left\vert \left\langle \psi_{y}|\phi_{x}\right\rangle
\right\vert ^{2}\lambda_{x}
\left[
\left\vert \log_{2}\left( \lambda_{x}/\mu
_{y}\right) -D(\rho\Vert\sigma)\right\vert ^{4}\right] ^{3/4}\\
\leq\left[ \sum_{x,y}\left\vert \left\langle \psi_{y}|\phi_{x}\right\rangle
\right\vert ^{2}\lambda_{x}\left\vert \log_{2}\left( \lambda_{x}/\mu
_{y}\right) -D(\rho\Vert\sigma)\right\vert ^{4}\right] ^{3/4}\\
=\left[ \sum_{x,y}\left\vert \left\langle \psi_{y}|\phi_{x}\right\rangle
\right\vert ^{2}\lambda_{x}\left( \log_{2}\left( \lambda_{x}/\mu_{y}\right)
-D(\rho\Vert\sigma)\right) ^{4}\right] ^{3/4},\label{eq:fourth-moment-bound}$$ and so we aim to show that this latter quantity is finite. For zero-mean, $m$-mode faithful Gaussian states, the Williamson theorem [@W36] implies that their spectral decompositions are as follows:$$\begin{aligned}
\rho & =U_{\rho}\left( \bigotimes\limits_{i=1}^{m}\theta(N_{\rho}^{i})\right) U_{\rho}^{\dag},\\
\sigma & =U_{\sigma}\left( \bigotimes\limits_{i=1}^{m}\theta(N_{\sigma}^{i})\right) U_{\sigma}^{\dag},\end{aligned}$$ where $U_{\rho}$ and $U_{\sigma}$ denote Gaussian unitaries that can be generated by a Hamiltonian no more than quadratic in the position- and momentum-quadrature operators, $N_{\rho}^{i},N_{\sigma}^{i}>0$ for all $i$, and $\theta(N)$ denotes a thermal state of mean photon number $N$:$$\theta(N)=\frac{1}{N+1}\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\left( \frac{N}{N+1}\right)
^{n}|n\rangle\langle n|,$$ with $|n\rangle$ denoting a photonic number state. Introducing the multi-index notation $|\vec{n}\rangle=|n_{1}\rangle\cdots|n_{m}\rangle$, we can then write the overlap $\left\vert \left\langle \psi_{y}|\phi_{x}\right\rangle
\right\vert ^{2}$ as $\left\vert \langle\vec{l}|U_{\sigma}^{\dag}U_{\rho}|\vec{n}\rangle\right\vert ^{2}$. This conditional probability distribution represents the probability of detecting the photon numbers $\vec{l}$ if the photon number state $|\vec{n}\rangle$ is prepared and transmitted through the Gaussian unitary $U_{\sigma}^{\dag}U_{\rho}\equiv V$. This distribution has well defined (finite) higher moments with respect to photon number. Setting $\hat{n}_{i}$ to be the photon number operator for the $i$th mode, this claim follows because the $k$th moment of the conditional probability distribution $\left\vert \langle\vec{l}|U_{\sigma}^{\dag}U_{\rho}|\vec{n}\rangle\right\vert
^{2}$ is given by$$\begin{gathered}
\operatorname{Tr}\left\{ V|\vec{n}\rangle\langle\vec{n}|V^{\dag}\left(
\sum_{i=1}^{m}\hat{n}_{i}\right) ^{k}\right\} \label{eq:bounded-moments}\\
=\operatorname{Tr}\left\{ |\vec{n}\rangle\langle\vec{n}|\left( \sum
_{i=1}^{m}V^{\dag}\hat{n}_{i}V\right) ^{k}\right\} .\end{gathered}$$ Since $V$ is a Gaussian unitary generated by a Hamiltonian no more than quadratic in the position and momentum-quadrature operators [@S17], each $V^{\dag}\hat{n}_{i}V$ is a bounded linear combination of position and momentum-quadrature operators and so $\left( \sum_{i=1}^{m}V^{\dag}\hat
{n}_{i}V\right) ^{k}$ is as well since $k$ is finite. Given that the photon number states have bounded moments, we can conclude that is finite. The eigenvalues $\lambda_{x}$ and $\mu_{y}$ in this case are given by$$\begin{aligned}
& \prod\limits_{i=1}^{m}\left[ \frac{1}{N_{\rho}^{i}+1}\left( \frac
{N_{\rho}^{i}}{N_{\rho}^{i}+1}\right) ^{n_{i}}\right] ,\label{eq:rho-dist}\\
& \prod\limits_{i=1}^{m}\left[ \frac{1}{N_{\sigma}^{i}+1}\left(
\frac{N_{\sigma}^{i}}{N_{\sigma}^{i}+1}\right) ^{l_{i}}\right] ,\end{aligned}$$ and indexed by the multi-indices $\vec{n}$ and $\vec{l}$, respectively. The distribution in has well defined (finite) higher moments with respect to photon number because it is a product of geometric distributions. We can then write $\log_{2}\!\left( \lambda_{x}/\mu_{y}\right)
=\log_{2}\!\left( \lambda_{x}\right) -\log_{2}\!\left( \mu_{y}\right) $ as$$\begin{gathered}
\sum_{i=1}^{m}\log_{2}\!\left( \frac{N_{\sigma}^{i}+1}{N_{\rho}^{i}+1}\right)
+n_{i}\log_{2}\!\left( \frac{N_{\rho}^{i}}{N_{\rho}^{i}+1}\right) \\
-l_{i}\log_{2}\!\left( \frac{N_{\sigma}^{i}}{N_{\sigma}^{i}+1}\right) .\end{gathered}$$ Thus, after expanding, the last quantity in brackets in is equal to an expression involving no more than the fourth moments of photon numbers, but we have already argued that this is finite for the distributions under question. As a consequence, we can conclude that $T(\rho\Vert\sigma)$ is finite whenever $\rho$ and $\sigma$ are zero-mean, finite-energy, faithful Gaussian states.
[^1]: Mathematica files are available in the source files of our arXiv post.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We solve the quantum version of the $A_1$ $T$-system by use of quantum networks. The system is interpreted as a particular set of mutations of a suitable (infinite-rank) quantum cluster algebra, and Laurent positivity follows from our solution. As an application we re-derive the corresponding quantum network solution to the quantum $A_1$ $Q$-system and generalize it to the fully non-commutative case. We give the relation between the quantum $T$-system and the quantum lattice Liouville equation, which is the quantized $Y$-system.'
address:
- ' Institut de Physique Théorique du Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique, Unité de Recherche associée du CNRS, CEA Saclay/IPhT/Bat 774, F-91191 Gif sur Yvette Cedex, FRANCE. e-mail: [email protected]'
- 'Department of Mathematics, University of Illinois MC-382, Urbana, IL 61821, U.S.A. e-mail: [email protected]'
author:
- Philippe Di Francesco
- Rinat Kedem
title: 'The solution of the quantum $A_1$ $T$-system for arbitrary boundary'
---
Introduction
============
The $T$-systems [@KR; @KNS] satisfied by the transfer matrices of the generalized Heisenberg model or the $q$-characters of quantum affine algebras [@FR] can be considered as discrete dynamical systems with special initial conditions. More generally, the equations of these systems can be shown [@DFK08] to be mutations in an infinite-rank cluster algebra [@FZI]. As such, their solutions under general boundary conditions [@DKTsys; @DF] are expected to satisfy special properties such as the Laurent property and positivity.
Among discrete dynamical systems, the cluster algebras of Fomin and Zelevinsky [@FZI] hold a special place. These describe the evolution of data vectors (clusters) attached to the nodes of an infinite regular tree via mutations along the edges. Mutations are defined in such a way that the following Laurent property is guaranteed: any cluster data may be expressed as a Laurent polynomial of the cluster variables at any node of the tree. It was conjectured in [@FZI] and proved in several particular cases (in particular in the so-called acyclic cases [@POSIT; @FZIV; @FRISES], or that of clusters arising from surfaces [@MSW]) that these polynomials always have non-negative integer coefficients (Laurent positivity), a property that still awaits a good general combinatorial interpretation.
Cluster algebras turn out to be quite universal, and have found applications in various fields, such as the study of non-linear recursions, the geometry of Teichmüller space, quiver representations, wall crossing formulas etc.
The relation between the recursion satisfied by the ($q$-) characters of KR-modules of quantum affine algebras on the one hand, and cluster algebras on the other, was found in [@Ke07; @DFK08]. Such systems are known as $Q$-sytems or $T$-systems when they are supplemented by special boundary conditions. It is known that such equations can be interpreted as discrete integrable systems: In the case of an $A_r$ type algebra, the $T$-system was identified as the discrete Hirota equation [@KLWZ]. It is also known as the tetrahedron equation in combinatorics, and arises in the context of the Littlewood-Richardson coefficients for tensor products of irreducible representations of $A_r$ [@KT] and domino tilings of the Aztec diamond [@SPY].
Solutions to the $Q$ and $T$-systems have been constructed by various authors [@KLWZ]. Recently, a transfer matrix solution was given for the $A_1$ $T$-system in the case of arbitrary boundary conditions. The latter is also known in the combinatorics literature as frieze equation [@FRISES]. This solution was generalized to the case of $A_r$ in [@DF]. It amounts to representing general solutions of the system as partition functions for paths on a positively weighted graph or network. The graph is determined solely by the initial conditions.
The connection to cluster algebras is as follows [@Ke07; @DFK08]: One shows that the admissible initial data for the $T$-systems form a subset of the clusters a cluster algebra, and that the mutations in this algebra are local transformations which are the $T$-system equations. Thus the expression of the solutions as partition functions for positively weighted paths implies the Laurent positivity for these particular clusters.
An important question is how to quantize such evolution equations [@FV; @FKV]. The quantization in the case of cluster algebras generally was given by Berenstein and Zelevinsky [@BZ]. Quantum cluster algebras are non-commutative algebras where the cluster variables obey special commutation relations depending on a deformation parameter $q$. Mutations are defined in such a way that the Laurent property is preserved, and a positivity conjecture is also expected to hold: That is, any cluster variable may be expressed as a Laurent polynomial of the variables in any other cluster seed, with coefficients in ${{\mathbb Z}}_+[q,q^{-1}]$. Quantum cluster algebras were used in [@DFK10] to define quantum $Q$-systems for $A_r$.
In the present paper, we focus on the $T$ system for $A_1$, and construct its quantum version via the cluster algebra connection. We gather a few definitions in Section \[definitions\] and construct the quantum $A_1$ $T$-system in Section \[section3\]. We then express the general solution in Section \[section5\] by use of a non-commutative transfer matrix, quantizing the solution of [@DF]. The main result of the paper is Theorem \[solq\], which implies an interpretation of the solution as a partition function for “quantum paths" with step weights which are non-commutative Laurent monomials in the initial data, thereby proving Laurent positivity for the relevant clusters.
The $2$-periodic solutions of the $T$-systems satisfy $Q$-system equations, and this generalizes to the quantum case. The $A_1$ $Q$-system has a fully non-commutative generalization introduced by Kontsevich in the framework of wall-crossing phenomena in non-commutative Donaldson-Thomas invariant theory. The solution was given in [@DFK09b] for this system using the method of [@DFK3]. We revisit this system in Section \[section6\] and formulate a fully non-commutative (as opposed to $q$-commutative) version of the network transfer matrices used in Section 4 to solve the $T$-system. This gives an alternative solution for the non-commutative $A_1$ $Q$-system. Finally in Section \[conclusion\] we give the relation between the quantum $A_1$ $T$-system and the discrete quantum Liouville equation of Faddeev et al [@FV; @FKV]. This equation can also be viewed as a non-commutative $Y$-system.
[**Acknowledgments.**]{} We thank L. Faddev for illuminating remarks, and the organizers of the MSRI semester program on “Random Matrix Theory, Interacting Particle Systems and Integrable Systems" where this work was completed. PDF received partial support from the ANR Grant GranMa. The work of RK is supported by NSF grant DMS-0802511.
Definitions
===========
Cluster algebras and quantum cluster algebras
---------------------------------------------
We use a simplified version of the definition of Fomin and Zelevinsky [@FZI] of cluster algebras of geometric type with trivial coefficients.
### Cluster algebras of geometric type
A cluster algebra is the commutative ring generated by the union of commutative variables called cluster variables. The generators are related by rational transformations called [*mutations*]{} determined by an [*exchange matrix*]{}, which governs the discrete dynamics of the system.
For the purposes of his paper, it is sufficient to consider a cluster algebra of rank $n$, with a seed cluster consisting of $n$ cluster variables ${{\mathbf x}}=(x_1,...,x_n)$ and an $n\times n$ skew-symmetric exchange matrix $B$. (We will also have occasion to consider cluster algebras of infinite rank ($n\to\infty$). It will be clear from our solution that when such algebras occur they are well-defined as a completion of the finite rank case.)
Clusters are pairs $({{\mathbf x}}(t),B(t))$ where $t$ is a label of a node of a complete $n$-tree. Each node is associated with a cluster. The edges of the tree are labeled in such a way that each node is connected to exactly one edge with label $k$ where $k\in [1,...,n]$.
The clusters at nodes $t$ and $t'$ connected by an edge labeled $k$ are related to each other by a [*mutation*]{}, which acts as a rational transformation on the component $x_k(t)$: ${{\mathbf x}}(t')=\mu_k ({{\mathbf x}}(t))$ where $$\label{mutation}
x_j(t')= \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} x_j(t), & k\neq j,\\
(x_k(t))^{-1}\left(\displaystyle{\prod_{B_{j,k}>0} x_j(t)^{B_{j,k}} + \prod_{B_{j,k}<0} x_j(t)^{-B_{j,k}}}\right),&k=j.
\end{array} \right.$$ A mutation also acts on the exchange matrix $B(t)$, such that $B(t')=\mu_k(B(t))$ if $t$ and $t'$ are connected by an edge labeled $k$, and $$\label{Bmutation}
B_{i,j}(t')=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} -B_{i,j}(t) & \hbox{if $i=k$ or $j=k$, }\\
B_{i,j}(t) + {\rm sign}(B_{i,k}(t))[B_{i,k}(t)B_{k,j}(t)]_+ & \hbox{otherwise}.
\end{array}\right.$$ with the notation $[x]_+={\rm Max}(x,0)$. To define a cluster algebra, it is sufficient to give the seed $({{\mathbf x}},B)$ at one single node. This then determines the cluster variables at all other nodes via iterated mutations.
### Quantum cluster algebras
It is interesting to consider whether there exist non-commutative generalizations of cluster algebras, which maintain some of the properties of cluster algebras. In particular, the Laurent property [@FZLaurent] and the (conjectured in general) positivity of a cluster variable at any node as an expression in terms of the cluster variables at any other node. We considered some possible candidates in [@DFK10] motivated by our consideration of the integrable subcluster algebras described by $Q$-systems and $T$-systems, as well as the Kontsevich wall-crossing formula. We also considered the specialization of these non-commutative systems to the simplest type of non-commutativity, the $q$-deformation. Such systems were first considered by Berenstein and Zelevinsky in Ref.[@BZ], where they defined “quantum cluster algebras”. We give here a simplified version of their definition which is sufficient for this paper.
A quantum cluster algebra is the skew field of rational functions generated by the non-commutative cluster variables $\{{{\mathbf X}}(t)=(X_1(t),...,X_n(t))\}$ where $t$ are the labels of the complete $n$-tree as above. At a node $t$ we have the cluster $({{\mathbf X}},B):=({{\mathbf X}}(t),B(t))$ where the exchange matrix is the same as for the usual cluster algebra. The cluster variables at this node $q$-commute: $$\label{qcommute}
X_i X_j = q^{\lambda_{ij}} X_j X_i.$$ Here $\lambda_{ij}$ are the entries of an $n\times n$ skew-symmetric matrix $\Lambda$. Up to a scalar multiple, we can take $\Lambda$ to be the inverse of the exchange matrix $B$. According to the definitions of [@FZI] such a matrix $\Lambda$ is “compatible” with the exchange matrix $B$.
Equivalently, we can define $X_j=e^{a_j}$, where $a_j$ are also non-commuting variables and the exponential is taken formally. Then the commutation relations above correspond to $[a_i,a_j]=h \lambda_{i,j}$ where $q=e^h$.
Clusters at tree nodes $t$ and $t'$ connected by an edge labeled $k$ are related by a mutation. Let ${{\mathbf X}}^{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}={\rm
exp}(\sum_j \alpha_j a_j)$. Then we define ${{\mathbf X}}(t') = \mu_k
({{\mathbf X}}(t))$ to be $$\label{qmutation}
X_j(t') = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
X_j(t) & \hbox{if $j\neq k$}; \\
{{\mathbf X}}^{-e_k + \sum_i [B_{ik}]_+ e_i} + {{\mathbf X}}^{-e_k + \sum_i [-B_{ik}]_+e_i}& j=k.\end{array}\right.$$ The exchange matrix $B(t')=\mu_k(B(t))$ is the same as in the commutative case.
The $A_1$ $T$-system
--------------------
The $T$-systems appear in the solution of exactly solvable models in statistical mechanics, in the Bethe ansatz of generalized Heisenberg quantum spin chains based on representations of Yangians of each simple Lie algebra [@KR; @KNS]. The transfer matrices of the model satisfy a recursion relation in the highest ${{\mathfrak{g}}}$-weight of the $Y({{\mathfrak{g}}})$-modules corresponding to the auxiliary space. These relations are called $T$-systems. In the context of representation theory, these relations are the equations satisfied by the $q$-characters [@FR] of Kirillov-Reshetikhin modules of the Yangians, or the associated quantum affine algebra.
### The $T$-system associated to $A_1$
These systems provide examples of discrete integrable systems which are part of a suitable cluster algebra structure [@DFK08]. However, in the representation-theoretical context, a special initial condition is placed on the variables (corresponding to the fact that the $q$-character of the trivial representation is 1). Here, we dispense with this special value. Moreover, we renormalize the variables so that the solutions are positive Laurent polynomials of the initial data for any initial data. This corresponds to normalizing the cluster variables of the cluster algebras so that all coefficients are trivial.
Thus, with slight abuse of notation, we call the following system the $A_1$ $T$-system: $$\label{clatsys}
T_{i,j+1}T_{i,j-1}=T_{i+1,j}T_{i-1,j}+1\qquad (i,j \in {{\mathbb Z}}).$$ Here, we consider the set $\{T_{i,j}\vert i,j\in{{\mathbb Z}}\}$ as commutative variables. Solutions of the equation are given as functions of a choice of initial variables.
Upon a simple change of coordinates, this system is also known as “frieze" equation in combinatorics [@Cox; @FRISES].
### Initial conditions
Equations split into two independent sets of recursion relations, since the parity of $i+j$ is preserved by the equations. Without loss of generality, let us restrict to the relations for $\{T_{i,j}\vert i,j\in{{\mathbb Z}},\ i+j\equiv0\! \mod 2\}$.
An admissible initial data set for the $T$-system is a set $$\label{initial}
{{\mathbf x}}_{\mathbf j}:=\{T_{i,j_i}\vert i\in {{\mathbb Z}},\
i+j_i\equiv 0\!\! \mod 2,\ |j_i-j_{i+1}|=1\}.$$
The solutions of Equation are determined by iterations of the evolution equations starting from any admissible initial data set.
The fundamental initial data (the “staircase”) is the set $$\label{fundamental}
{{\mathbf x}}_0 := \{T_{i,i \,{\rm mod}\, 2}\vert i\in {{\mathbb Z}}\}$$
The boundary corresponding to the initial condition ${{\mathbf x}}_{\mathbf j}$ is the set of points in the lattice $\{(i,j_i)\vert i\in {{\mathbb Z}},\ i+j_i\equiv 0\!\! \mod 2\}$.
A solution of the $T$-system is an expression for $T_{i,j}$ in terms of ${{\mathbf x}}_{\mathbf j}$ for each $(i,j)$. A general solution of the $A_1$ $T$-system for arbitrary boundary was given in [@FRISES] and generalized to the case of the $A_r$ algebra, $r\geq 2$, in [@DF]. The solution is given in terms of a matrix representation and is interpreted as partition functions of networks.
In the present paper, we will introduce a quantum version of the $A_1$ $T$-system and derive its solutions in terms of quantum networks.
### The cluster algebra for the $A_1$ $T$-system
The formulation of the $T$-systems as sub-cluster algebras was given in [@DFK08]. In the case of $A_1$ the cluster algebra is given as follows.
Let $A$ be the cluster algebra of infinite rank generated by the fundamental seed $({{\mathbf x}}_0,B_0)$, where ${{\mathbf x}}_0$ is given by , and the exchange matrix $B_0$ has entries $$\label{bzero}
(B_0)_{i,i'}= (-1)^i (\delta_{i',i+1}+\delta_{i',i-1})$$ where the indices refer to the first index of the $T_{i,j}$’s.
Each equation in the $T$-system corresponds to a mutation in the cluster algebra $A$ (but not vice versa). All solutions of the $T$-system are contained in a subset of the clusters corresponding to $x_{\mathbf j}$ defined in . They are obtained from $({{\mathbf x}}_0,B_0)$ via iterated cluster mutations of the form $\mu_{a}^{\pm}: {{\mathbf x}}_{{\mathbf j}}\to
{{\mathbf x}}_{{{\mathbf j}}'}$: $$\mu_a^+ :{\epsfxsize 3.cm \epsfbox{mutaplus.eps}}\qquad\qquad
\mu_a^{-} :{\epsfxsize 3.cm \epsfbox{mutamoins.eps}}$$ with $j'_b=j_b\pm 2\delta_{b,a}$, where $\mu_{a}^{\pm}$ leaves all cluster variables unchanged apart from: $$\begin{aligned}
T_{a,j_a\pm2}:=\mu_a^{\pm}(T_{a,j_a})=(T_{a+1,j_a\pm1}T_{a-1,j_a\pm1}+1)/T_{a,j_a}
$$ in the case where all three terms on the right hand side are cluster variables in ${{\mathbf x}}_{{{\mathbf j}}}$.
The quantum $A_1$ $T$-system {#section3}
============================
Commutation relations in the initial seed
-----------------------------------------
In this note, we consider the non-commuting “quantum" version of the $A_1$ $T$-system. Recall that for any cluster algebra of finite rank $n$, a quantum cluster algebra is obtained by producing a “compatible pair" $(B_0,\Lambda)$ of skew-symmetric $n\times n$ integer matrices, with $B_0\Lambda= d$, where $d$ is a diagonal matrix with positive integer entries. In turn, $\Lambda$ encodes the $q$-commutation relations between the cluster variables of the initial cluster ${{\mathbf x}}_0=(x_i)_{i\in [1,n]}$ via $x_i x_j =q^{\Lambda_{i,j}}x_j x_i$.
![The commutations between $T_{2i-1,1}$ and the other variables of the fundamental cluster ${{\mathbf x}}_0$. Vertices $a$ and $b=(2i-1,1)$ are connected by an arrow $a\to b$ iff $T_aT_b =q T_bT_a$ and $b\to a$ iff $T_aT_b =q^{-1} T_bT_a$, while $T_aT_b=T_bT_a$ otherwise.[]{data-label="fig:qcomz"}](qcomz){width="10.cm"}
However, the $A_1$ $T$-system comes from an infinite rank cluster algebra with ${{\mathbf x}}_0=(x_i)_{i\in {{\mathbb Z}}}$. We adapt the above condition, based on the quantization of the $A_1$ $Q$-system [@DFK10; @BZ], which is a specialization of the $T$-system.
Let $\Lambda$ be an infinite, skew-symmetric matrix such that $$(B_0\Lambda)_{i,j}=(-1)^i(\Lambda_{i+1,j}+\Lambda_{i-1,j})=2\delta_{i,j},
\quad i,j\in{{\mathbb Z}},$$ and such that $\Lambda_{i+m,i}=\Lambda_{i-m,i},\ (m>0)$. Then $$\label{initlambda}
\Lambda_{i,j}= {1-(-1)^{i+j}\over 2} \times \left\{ \begin{matrix} (-1)^{i+j-1\over 2} & {\rm if} \ i\geq j\\
(-1)^{i+j+1\over 2} & {\rm if} \ i<j \end{matrix} \right.$$
The second condition on $\Lambda$ is a choice, a reflection symmetry imposed on the matrix $\Lambda$ which determines the matrix entries completely.
The matrix $\Lambda$ encodes the commutation relations among the elements of the fundamental cluster variable ${{\mathbf x}}_0$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{qcomzero}
T_{2i-2k,0}T_{2i+1,1}&=&q^{(-1)^k}\, T_{2i+1,1}T_{2i-2k,0},\nonumber\\
T_{2i+2k,0}T_{2i-1,1}&=&q^{(-1)^k}\, T_{2i-1,1}T_{2i+2k,0}, \quad i\in{{\mathbb Z}}, k\geq0,\end{aligned}$$ These commutation relations are depicted graphically in Figure \[fig:qcomz\].
The quantum $A_1$ $T$-system {#the-quantum-a_1-t-system}
----------------------------
![The q-commutations between $T_{i,j}$ and $T_{i+r+s,j-r}$ or $T_{i-r-s,j-r}$ for $r,s\geq 0$ are illustrated as follows: vertices $a$ and $b$ are connected by an arrow $a\to b$ iff $T_aT_b =q T_bT_a$. Note that only vertices $a,b$ with heights $j$ of opposite parity give rise to non-trivial commutations. The interior of the shaded cone below $(i,j)$ corresponds to the values $(k,\ell)$ such that $T_{k,\ell}$ cannot belong to the same cluster as $T_{i,j}$.[]{data-label="fig:qcom"}](qcom){width="10.cm"}
We define the quantum $A_1$ $T$-system for the variables $T_{i,j}$ subject to the commutation relations to be: $$\label{qtsys}
q\,T_{i,j+1}T_{i,j-1}=T_{i+1,j}T_{i-1,j}+1\qquad (i,j \in {{\mathbb Z}})$$ As in the commuting system , this is a “three-term” recursion relation in the variable $j$: All the variables $\{T_{i,j}\vert
i,j\in{{\mathbb Z}},\ i\equiv j\! \!\mod 2\}$ are determined via these equations in terms of the initial data ${{\mathbf x}}_{{\mathbf j}}=(T_{a,j_a})_{a\in{{\mathbb Z}}}$ with $|j_a-j_{a-1}|=1$.
Mutations $\mu_a^\pm$ are now implemented by using the relations in the forward direction $T_{a,j_a}\to
T_{a,j_a+2}$ or backward direction $T_{a,j_a}\to T_{a,j_a-2}$.
Using Equations and , the commutation relations between cluster variables within the same seed ${{\mathbf x}}_{{{\mathbf j}}}$ are determined for any ${{\mathbf j}}$.
Within each admissible initial data set of the quantum $A_1$ $T$-system, we have the commutation relations (see Fig.\[fig:qcom\]): $$\begin{aligned}
T_{i-2k-m,j-m}T_{i,j}&=&q^{(-1)^k{1-(-1)^m\over 2}} \,T_{i,j}T_{i-2k-m,j-m}\nonumber \\
T_{i+2k+m,j-m}T_{i,j}&=&q^{(-1)^k{1-(-1)^m\over 2}} \,T_{i,j}T_{i+2k+m,j-m}\label{qcomm}\end{aligned}$$ for all $i,j\in {{\mathbb Z}}$ and $k,m\in {{\mathbb Z}}_+$, with $i+j=0$ mod 2.
By induction under mutation. The relations reduce to for ${{\mathbf x}}_0$ under the specialization $j=m=1$.
Suppose the variables in the admissible data set ${{\mathbf x}}_{{\mathbf m}}$ satisfy and that $m_{a-1}=m_{a+1}=m_a+1=m$ for some fixed value of $a\in{{\mathbb Z}}$. Let us apply to perform a mutation $\mu_a^+:{{\mathbf m}}\to {{\mathbf m}}'$ with $m'_b=m_b+2\delta_{b,a}$. We must check that all the commutation relations between any $(T_{b,m_b})$ for $b\neq a$ and $T_{a,m_a'}$ hold. Writing $i=a$, $j=m_a+1$, the new cluster variable is $T_{i,j+1}$, given by $qT_{i,j+1}T_{i,j-1}=T_{i+1,j}T_{i-1,j}+1$. Let $k=b$, $\ell=m_b$ for some $b\neq a$. Without loss of generality, let’s assume that $k=i+r+s$ and $\ell=j-r$, $r\geq 0,s\geq 1$. Then by the commutation relations , we have $$T_{i+r+s,j-r}(T_{i+1,j}T_{i-1,j})=(T_{i+1,j}T_{i-1,j})T_{i+r+s,j-r}$$ Henceforth, $T_{i+r+s,j-r}$ must commute with $T_{i,j+1}T_{i,j-1}$, and we obtain $$T_{i+r+s,j-r}T_{i,j+1}=T_{i,j+1}T_{i+r,j-r-s} q^{-(-1)^{s}{1-(-1)^{r-1}\over 2}}$$ in agreement with . The Lemma follows.
Note that $T_{i,j}$ and $T_{i',j'}$ in the same cluster ${{\mathbf x}}_{{\mathbf j}}$ commute if $j\equiv j'\mod 2$. From the definition of admissible data sets, we see that $T_{i,j}$and $T_{i',j'}$ do not belong to the same cluster if $|i-i'|<|j-j'|$.
\[barinv\] Equation satisfies a “bar invariance" property in the following sense. Let $*$ denote an algebra antiautomorphism of ${\mathcal A}$, where $q^*=q^{-1}$ and $T_{i,i\!\!\mod 2}^*=q T_{i,i\!\!\mod 2}$ for $i\in{{\mathbb Z}}$. Then $T_{i,j}^*=q T_{i,j}$ for all $i,j\in{{\mathbb Z}}$, $i+j=0$ mod 2. This result is obtained by conjugating the quantum $T$-system by $T_{i,j-1}$ and using the commutation relations .
Using these commutation relations, we see that the $T$-system relation is exactly of the form of the quantum cluster mutation , upon the renormalization of variables $X_{i,j} =
q^{1/2} T_{i,j}$. We note that the subset of mutations which we consider in the infinite rank cluster algebra makes sense, because the product on the right hand side of a mutation has only a finite number of factors (at most three).
A finite-rank quantum cluster algebra has a Laurent property [@BZ], that is, cluster variables are Laurent polynomials as functions of any cluster seed, as in the case of a commutative cluster algebra. In the quantum case, the coefficients are in ${{\mathbb Z}}[q,q^{-1}]$. It is not completely obvious that this carries over to the current case, which has infinite rank. However we will show that the solutions of the quantum $A_1$ $T$-system have the Laurent property, by constructing explicit formulas for the solutions $T_{i,j}$ of the $A_1$ quantum $T$-system in terms of any initial data $x_{{\mathbf j}}$. The coefficients are in ${{\mathbb Z}}_+[q,q^{-1}]$, which is the analog of the positivity property of cluster algebras [@FZI].
Quantum networks and the general solution {#section5}
=========================================
Here, we generalize the results of [@DF] for the network solution of the $T$-system in terms of arbitrary admissible initial data to the non-commutative case. The solution of in terms of any given admissible data ${{\mathbf x}}_j$ is expressed as a quantum network partition function.
$U$ and $V$ matrices
--------------------
Let $a,b$ be elements of $\mathcal A$. Define the matrices $$\label{dumat}
U(a,b)=\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0\\ q^{-1}b^{-1} & a b^{-1}\end{pmatrix}, \qquad
V(a,b)=\begin{pmatrix}a b^{-1} & b^{-1}\\ 0 & 1\end{pmatrix}.$$
These are interpreted as an elementary transfer matrix or “chip", along a lattice with two rows, going from left to right: $U_{i,j}(a,b)$ or $V_{i,j}(a,b)$ is the weight of the edge connecting the dot (entry connector) in row $i$ on the left to the dot (exit connector) in row $j$ on the right in those elementary chips: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{udnet}
&&\epsfxsize=8cm \epsfbox{UDnetwork.eps} \nonumber \\
&& \qquad \qquad \ U(a,b) \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad
V(a,b)\end{aligned}$$ Note that we have represented the variables $a,b$ as attached to the [*faces*]{} of the chips, separated by their edges.
A [*quantum network*]{} is obtained by the concatenation of such chips, forming a chain where the exit connectors $1,2$ of each chip in the chain are identified with the entry connectors of the next chip in the chain, while face labels are well-defined. The latter condition imposes that $U$ and $V$ arguments themselves form a chain $a_1,a_2,...$, for instance: $$\label{duex}
W=V(a_1,a_2)V(a_2,a_3)U(a_3,a_4)V(a_4,a_5)U(a_5,a_6)$$ corresponds to the network: $$\epsfxsize=7cm \epsfbox{network.eps}$$ The partition function of a quantum network with matrix of weights $W$ with entry connector $i$ and exit connector $j$ is $W_{i,j}$. It the sum over paths from entry $i$ to exit $j$ of the product on the edges, taken in the order they are traversed.
\[prealem\] Let $a,b,c\in \mathcal A$ be invertible elements with relations $ba=q ab$ , $bc=qcb$ and $ac=ca$ in $\mathcal A$, then $$\begin{aligned}
V(a,b)U(b,c)&=&U(a,b')V(b',c),
$$ where $b'$ is defined by the relation $q\, b' b=ac+1$. This definition implies that $cx=q b' c$ and $a x=q b' a$.
Direct calculation: $$V(a,b)U(b,c)=
\begin{pmatrix} (a+c^{-1})b^{-1} & c^{-1}\\ q^{-1}c^{-1} & b
c^{-1}\end{pmatrix}$$ and $$U(a,b')V(b',c)
=\begin{pmatrix} {b'}c^{-1}& c^{-1}\\ q^{-1}c^{-1} & q^{-1}{b'}^{-1}
c^{-1}+a {b'}^{-1}\end{pmatrix}$$ Setting the two expressions equal, we find $q {b'} b=1+a c$ from the $(1,1)$ element, $q {b'} b= 1+q {b'} a {b'}^{-1} c$ from the $(2,2)$ one. Since $a$ commutes with $c$, it commutes with $1+ac$, and the first identity implies that $a{b'}b={b'}ba=q {b'} ab$, i.e. $a{b'}=q{b'}a$, and $c{b'}=q {b'} c$. The Lemma follows.
Let ${{\mathbf x}}_{{{\mathbf j}}}$ be admissible data. Then $j_i=j_{i+1}\pm1$. We associate $V^{(i)}({{\mathbf x}}_{{\mathbf j}}) = V(T_{i,j_i},T_{i+1,j_{i+1}})$ if $j_{i+1}-j_i=-1$ and $U^{(i)}({{\mathbf x}}_{{\mathbf j}}) = U(T_{i,j_i},T_{i+1,j_{i+1}})$ if $j_{i+1}-j_i=1$. Thus for the boundary path $(i,j_i)_{i\in{{\mathbb Z}}}$ on the lattice, $V$ is associated with a down step and $U$ is associated with an up step.
Therefore Lemma \[prealem\] has a graphical representation in terms of a local mutation of admissible data, $$\raise -.5truecm \hbox{${\epsfxsize 2.cm \epsfbox{downup.eps}}$}=
\raise -.5truecm \hbox{${\epsfxsize 2.cm \epsfbox{updown.eps}}$} \nonumber \\$$ In other words, Lemma \[prealem\] is an implementation of a mutation of an admissible boundary, using the $A_1$ $T$-system. That is, we have the relation $$\label{mutmat}
V^{(i-1)}({{\mathbf x}}_{{{\mathbf j}}})U^{(i)}({{\mathbf x}}_{{\mathbf j}}) = U^{(i-1)}({{\mathbf x}}_{{{\mathbf j}}'})V^{(i)}({{\mathbf x}}_{{{\mathbf j}}'})$$ where ${{\mathbf x}}_{{{\mathbf j}}'}=\mu_i^+({{\mathbf x}}_{{\mathbf j}})$.
Main Theorem
------------
Let $(i,j)\in{{\mathbb Z}}^2$ ($i+j=0 \mod 2$) above a fixed admissible boundary ${{\mathbf j}}$, that is, with $j\geq j_i$.
![The projection of a point $(i,j)$ onto a given boundary $s_{{\mathbf m}}$.[]{data-label="fig:proj"}](proj){width="12.cm"}
The projection of the point $(i,j)$ onto the boundary ${{\mathbf j}}$ is the set of points $(i_0,j_{i_0}),(i_0+1,j_{i_0+1}),\ldots,(i_1,j_{i_1})$, the portion of boundary between the lines $(i+k,j+k)_{k\in{{\mathbb Z}}}$ and $(i+k,j-k)_{k\in{{\mathbb Z}}}$, with endpoints $P_0=(i_0,j_{i_0})$ and $Q_1=(i_1,j_{i_1})$ such that $j_{i_0}-i_0=j-i$ with $i_0$ maximal and $j_{i_1}+i_1=j+i$ with $i_1$ minimal.
Figure \[fig:proj\] is an example of such a projection. It is a path along the boundary points $(i,j_i)$ from the vertex $P_0$ to the vertex $Q_1$ formed by a succession of down (SE) steps $d=(1,-1)$ and up (NE) steps $u=(1,1)$. By definition such a path, if non-empty, starts with a down step and ends up with an up step.
To any path $p=(P_0,P_1,P_2,...,P_n=Q_1)$ made of steps $S_k= P_k-P_{k-1}\in \{ d,u\}$, $k=1,2,...,n$, we associate a matrix product as follows. We define $M_k(d,p)=V(T_{P_{k-1}},T_{P_k})=V^{(i_{k-1})}({{\mathbf x}}_{{\mathbf j}})$ and $M_k(u,p)=U(T_{P_{k-1}},T_{P_k})=U^{(i_{k-1})}({{\mathbf x}}_{{\mathbf j}})$, with the matrices $V$ and $U$ as in and where for any point of the form $P=(x,y)$ we denote by $T_P:=T_{x,y}$. Define $$\label{matprod}
M(p)=M_1(S_1,p)M_2(S_2,p) \cdots M_n(S_n,p).$$ This product is the weight matrix of the network made up of a concatenation of the basic network chips of the form determined by $p$. Let $N(p)$ be the corresponding quantum network.
The quantum network $N(p)$ in Equation with weight matrix $M(p)=W$ corresponds to the path $$p= \quad \raise -1.truecm \hbox{${\epsfxsize=5cm \epsfbox{pathwork.eps}}$}$$ made of a succession of steps $ddudu$, and with a set of vertices of the form $P_{i-1}=(x_i,y_i)\in {{\mathbb Z}}^2$ with $x_i+y_i=0$ mod 2, $i=1,2,...,6$, with $a_i=T_{x_i,y_i}$.
The main theorem of this section is the following:
\[solq\] Let $p$ be the projection of $(i,j)$ onto the boundary ${{\mathbf j}}$, with endpoints $(i_0,j_0)\equiv (i_0,j_{i_0})$ and $(i_1,j_1)\equiv (i_1,j_{i_1})$. As a function of the admissible data set ${{\mathbf x}}_{{{\mathbf j}}}$, $$\label{qsol}
T_{i,j}=M(p)_{1,1} T_{i_1,j_1}$$
This is proved by induction under mutations of initial data. Let ${{\mathbf x}}_{{\mathbf j}}$ be some initial data whose boundary contains the point $(i,j)$. For such a case, we have $(i,j)=(i_0,j_{0})=(i_1,j_{1})$, $T_{i,j}=1\times
T_{i,j}=({\mathbf I})_{1,1} T_{i_1,j_1}$, and is trivially satisfied.
Assume holds for some boundary ${{\mathbf x}}_{{\mathbf j}}$, let us show it also holds for the boundary ${{\mathbf x}}_{{{\mathbf j}}'}$ with ${{\mathbf j}}'=\mu_a^\pm({{\mathbf j}})$, that is, $j_a$ is changed for one value of $a\in{{\mathbb Z}}$, and all other values of $j_i$ remain unchanged.
If $a>i_1$ or $a<i_0$, then the mutation does not affect the formula , as the boundary ${{\mathbf j}}'$ is modified outside of the projection of $(i,j)$ onto it, whereas $M(p)$ and hence $T_{i,j}$ only depends on the boundary values within the projection.
![The five cases to be considered in the proof of Theorem \[solq\]: (a) $a=i_0$ (b) $a=i_0+1$ (c) $a=i_1$ (d) $a=i_1-1$ (e) $i_0+1<a<i_1-1$. For each case, we indicate the mutation by an arrow. The projection of $(i,j)$ onto the boundary is modified by the mutation only in the first four cases.[]{data-label="fig:fivecases"}](fivecases){width="16.cm"}
If $i_0\leq a \leq i_1$, five situations may occur, as sketched in Fig.\[fig:fivecases\] (a-e). Let $p$ the projection of $(i,j)$ onto ${{\mathbf j}}$, and $p'$ the projection of $(i,j)$ onto ${{\mathbf j}}'$, and $j_0'\equiv j_{i_0'}$, $j_1'\equiv j_{i_1'}$.
(a)
: If $a=i_0$ and $\mu=\mu_{a}^-$, then $(i_0',j_{0}')=(i_0-1,j_{0}-1)$. The first step of $p$ is must be $d$ for this mutation to be one of the $T$-system equations. Separating out the contribution of this first step of $p$, we write $M(p)=V^{(i_0)}({{\mathbf j}}){\tilde M}(p)$. Using the fact that $(U)_{1,j}=\delta_{j,1}$: $$\begin{aligned}
M(p)_{1,1}&=&(U^{(i_0-1)}({{\mathbf x}}_{{\mathbf j}}) M(p))_{1,1}\\
&=&(U^{(i_0-1)}({{\mathbf x}}_{{\mathbf j}})V^{(i_0)}({{\mathbf x}}_{{\mathbf j}}){\tilde M}(p))_{1,1}\\
&=&(V^{(i_0-1)}({{\mathbf x}}_{{{\mathbf j}}'})U^{(i_0)}({{\mathbf x}}_{{{\mathbf j}}'}){\tilde M}(p))_{1,1}=M(p')_{1,1}\end{aligned}$$ where in the last line, we applied Eq. . Equation follows, as $T_{i_1,j_{1}}=T_{i'_1,j'_{1}}$.
(b)
: If $a=i_0+1$ and the first two steps of $p$ are $d$, $u$, then $\mu=\mu_{a}^+$, $(i_0',j_{0}')=(i_0+1,j_{0}+1)$. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
M(p)_{1,1}&=&(V^{(i_0)}({{\mathbf x}}_{{\mathbf j}})U^{(i_0+1)}({{\mathbf x}}_{{\mathbf j}}){\tilde M}(p))_{1,1}\\
&=&(U^{(i_0)}({{\mathbf x}}_{{{\mathbf j}}'})V^{(i_0+1)}({{\mathbf x}}_{{{\mathbf j}}'}){\tilde M}(p))_{1,1}=M(p')_{1,1}\end{aligned}$$ by application of Eq. . Equation follows, as $T_{i_1,j_{1}}$ is unchanged by the mutation.
(c)
: If $a=i_1$ and $\mu=\mu_{a}^-$, then $(i_1',j_1')=(i_1+1,j_1-1)$. The last step of $p$ is $u$, so $M(p)={\tilde M}(p) U^{(i_1-1)}({{\mathbf x}}_{{\mathbf j}})$. Since $(V(a,b))_{i,1}=\delta_{i,1}a b^{-1}$, $$\begin{aligned}
M(p)_{1,1} T_{i_1,j_1}&=&
\big( {\tilde M}(p) U^{(i_1-1)}({{\mathbf x}}_{{\mathbf j}})V^{(i_1)}({{\mathbf x}}_{{{\mathbf j}}})\big)_{1,1}
T_{i_1+1,j_1-1}\\
&=&
\big( {\tilde M}(p) V^{(i_1-1)}({{\mathbf x}}_{{{\mathbf j}}'}) U^{(i_1)}({{\mathbf x}}_{{{\mathbf j}}'})\big)_{1,1}
T_{i_1+1,j_1-1}\\
&=&M(p')_{1,1}T_{i_1',j'_1}.\end{aligned}$$
(d)
: If $a=i_1-1$ and $\mu=\mu_{a}^+$, then $(i_1',j_1')=(i_1-1,j_1+1)$ and the last two steps of $p$ are $d$, $u$. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
M(p)_{1,1}T_{i_1,j_1}&=&({\tilde M}(p)V^{(i_1-2)}({{\mathbf x}}_{{\mathbf j}})
U^{(i_1-1)}({{\mathbf x}}_{{{\mathbf j}}}))_{1,1}T_{i_1,j_1}\\
&=&({\tilde M}(p)U^{(i_1-2)}({{\mathbf x}}_{{{\mathbf j}}'})V^{(i_1-1)}({{\mathbf x}}_{{{\mathbf j}}'}))_{1,1}T_{i_1,j_1}\\
&=&({\tilde M}(p)U^{(i_1-2)}({{\mathbf x}}_{{{\mathbf j}}'}))_{1,1}T_{i_1-1,j_1+1}=M(p')_{1,1}T_{i_1',j_1'}\end{aligned}$$ again using $(V(a,b))_{i,1}=\delta_{i,1}a b^{-1}$.
(e)
: If $i_0+1<a<i_1-1$, the endpoints of the projection onto the boundary do not change and the mutation $\mu_a^\pm$ amounts to a change of ordering of one pair of factors within the product $M(p)$ of the form , which corresponds to writing it as $M(p')$, $p'=\mu_a^\pm(p)$ and follows.
Theorem \[solq\] may be rephrased in the language of a quantum network partition function:
The quantity $T_{i,j}T_{i_1,j_1}^{-1}$ is the partition function of the quantum network $N(p)$, with weight matrix $M(p)$, with entry and exit connector $1$, where $p$ is the projection of $(i,j)$ onto the boundary.
As all weights involved in the network $N(p)$ are Laurent monomials of the initial data ${{\mathbf x}}_{{{\mathbf j}}}$ with coefficients in ${{\mathbb Z}}_+[q,q^{-1}]$, we deduce the following positivity result, the quantum version of the Fomin-Zelevinsky positivity conjecture:
The expression for $T_{i,j}$ in terms of any initial data $x_{{\mathbf j}}$ is a Laurent polynomial with coefficients in ${{\mathbb Z}}_+[q,q^{-1}]$.
Consider the case where $(i,j)=(0,4)$, with a boundary projection of the form: $p=((-2,2),(-1,1),(0,0),(1,1),(2,2))$. Then $(i_0,j_0)=(-2,2)$, $(i_1,j_1)=(2,2)$. It consists of the steps $dduu$, hence $$M(p)=V^{(-2)}({{\mathbf x}}_{{\mathbf j}})V^{(-1)}({{\mathbf x}}_{{\mathbf j}})U^{(0)}({{\mathbf x}}_{{\mathbf j}})U^{(1)}({{\mathbf x}}_{{\mathbf j}})$$ which yields $$T_{0,4}=M(p)_{1,1}T_{2,2}= T_{-2,2}T_{0,0}^{-1}T_{2,2}+q^{-1}(T_{-2,2}T_{-1,1}^{-1}T_{0,0}^{-1}
+T_{-1,1}^{-1})(T_{1,1}^{-1}T_{2,2}+T_{0,0}T_{1,1}^{-1})$$ The five monomials forming $T_{0,4}T_{2,2}^{-1}$ are the weights of the five paths $1\to 1$ in the network $N(p)$ with weight matrix $M(p)$: $$\epsfxsize=8cm \epsfbox{dduu.eps}$$
![(a) The projection of a point $(i,j)$ onto a boundary ${{\mathbf j}}$, and the corresponding point $(k,l)$. (b) The action of the reflection $s:(i,j)\mapsto (i,-j)$.[]{data-label="fig:bigrect"}](bigrect){width="14.cm"}
Finally, we can use the symmetry of the $T$-system under the bar involution to compute $T_{k,\ell}$ with $\ell\leq j_k$. Given a boundary ${{\mathbf j}}$ and a point $(i,j)$ above it with $j\geq j_i$, let $p$ denote the projection of $(i,j)$ onto the boundary with endpoints $(i_0,j_0)$ and $(i_1,j_1)$. Then $$i={i_0+i_1+j_1-j_0\over 2}, \qquad j={j_0+j_1+i_1-i_0\over 2}.$$ Let $(k,l)$ be the point under the boundary such that $$\label{defkl}
k={i_0+i_1+j_0-j_1\over 2}, \qquad l={j_0+j_1+i_0-i_1\over 2}.$$ (See Fig.\[fig:bigrect\] (a) for an illustration.). Let $s: (i,j)\mapsto (i,-j)$ denote a reflection. Under $s$, the boundary ${{\mathbf j}}$ is sent to $-{{\mathbf j}}$ (see Fig.\[fig:bigrect\] (b)). The projection of $s(k,l)$ onto the reflected boundary $-{{\mathbf j}}$ is $s(p')$, a sub-path of $s(p)$, with endpoints $s(i_0',j_0')$ and $s(i_1',j_1')$, with $i_0-i_0'=j_0-j_0'\geq 0$ and $i_1'-i_1=j_1-j_1'\geq 0$. Note that $s(p)=u^{i_0-i_0'} s(p' )d^{i_1'-i_1}$. We have the following:
\[identwo\] Let ${{\mathbf j}}$, $(i,j)$, $p$ and $M(p)$ be as in Theorem \[solq\], and $(k,l)$ the point under the boundary ${{\mathbf j}}$ defined by . In terms of the initial data ${{\mathbf x}}_{{\mathbf j}}$, we have: $$T_{k,l}= \big( M(p)\big)_{2,2} T_{i_1,j_1}.$$
Note first that $S_{i,j}=qT_{i,-j}$ is a solution of the $A_1$ quantum $T$-system with $q\to q^{-1}$. Indeed, from , $q^{-1}S_{i,j-1}S_{i,j+1}=q^{-2} S_{i+1,j}S_{i-1,j}+1$, and upon applying the bar involution of Remark \[barinv\], $q^{-1}S_{i,j+1}S_{i,j-1}=S_{i+1,j}S_{i-1,j}+1$. Therefore with the initial data $q{{\mathbf x}}_{-{{\mathbf j}}}=(q T_{i,j_i})_{i\in{{\mathbb Z}}}$, we have $$q^{-1}S_{i,j}=T_{i,-j}=M(p,q{{\mathbf x}}_{-{{\mathbf j}}},q^{-1})_{1,1} q^{-1}S_{i_1,j_1}
=M(p,q{{\mathbf x}}_{-{{\mathbf j}}},q^{-1})_{1,1} T_{i_1,-j_1}$$ Here, we have made explicit the arguments of $M(p):=M(p,{{\mathbf y}},t)$, where ${{\mathbf y}}$ is the boundary data in the $V,U$ matrices, and the quantum parameter is $t$. Similarly, let $U^{(i)}({{\mathbf y}})=U^{(i)}({{\mathbf y}},t)$ and $V^{(i)}({{\mathbf y}})=V^{(i)}({{\mathbf y}},t)$ where $t$ is the quantum parameter. Then $M(p,q{{\mathbf x}}_{-{{\mathbf j}}},q^{-1})$ is obtained from $M(p,{{\mathbf x}}_{{\mathbf j}},q)$ upon substitution of the matrices $$U^{(i)}({{\mathbf x}}_{{\mathbf j}},q)\mapsto U^{(i)}(q{{\mathbf x}}_{-{{\mathbf j}}},q^{-1})\quad {\rm and} \quad
V^{(i)}({{\mathbf x}}_{{\mathbf j}},q) \mapsto V^{(i)}(q{{\mathbf x}}_{-{{\mathbf j}}},q^{-1})$$ We note that $$U(q a,q b;q^{-1}) =J V(a,b;q)J \quad {\rm and}\quad V(q a,q b;q^{-1}) =J U(a,b;q)J$$ where $J=\begin{pmatrix} 0 & 1\\ 1 &
0 \end{pmatrix}$ is the permutation matrix. Therefore, $$T_{i,-j}=(JM(s(p),{{\mathbf x}}_{-{{\mathbf j}}},q)J)_{1,1} T_{i_1,-j_1}=M(s(p),{{\mathbf x}}_{-{{\mathbf j}}},q)_{2,2}T_{i_1,-j_1}$$ where $s(p)$ is the reflected path with $d$ and $u$ steps interchanged. This last identity corresponds to the reflecting of the entire initial picture. Upon renaming $(i,-j)\to (k,l)$, $(i_1,-j_1)\to (i_1',j_1')$, $(i_0,-j_0)\to (i_0',j_0')$, $s(p)\to p'$, and ${{\mathbf x}}_{-{{\mathbf j}}}\to {{\mathbf x}}_{{\mathbf j}}$, we deduce that $$T_{k,l}=M(p')_{2,2} T_{i_1',j_1'}$$ Recalling finally that $p=d^{i_0-i_0'} p' u^{i_1'-i_1}$ and that, due to the particular triangular form of the $U,V$ matrices: $$\left(\prod_{i=i_0'}^{i_0-1}V^{(i)}({{\mathbf x}}_{{\mathbf j}})\right)_{2,m}=\delta_{m,2},\qquad
\left(\prod_{i=i_1}^{i_1'-1} U^{(i)}({{\mathbf x}}_{{\mathbf j}})\right)_{m,2}=\delta_{m,2} T_{i_1',j_1'}T_{i_1,j_1}^{-1},$$ the Theorem follows.
Conserved quantities and $V, U$ matrices
----------------------------------------
In this section we investigate the content of the full network matrix $M(p)$ of Theorems \[solq\] and \[identwo\], in the special case of the fundamental boundary ${{\mathbf j}}_0$, with heights $j_i=i\mod2$.
![The projection of a point $(i,j)$ onto the fundamental boundary ${{\mathbf j}}_0$.[]{data-label="fig:bigsquare"}](bigsquare){width="10.cm"}
Let $p$ be the projection of $(i,j)\in {{\mathbb Z}}^2$ with $j\geq (i\
{\rm mod}\ 2)$ onto the boundary ${{\mathbf j}}_0$, consisting of vertices $\{(a,j_a)\,:
\,i_0\leq a \leq i_1\}$ with $i_0,i_1$ odd (see Fig.\[fig:bigsquare\]).
We have $$M(p)=(V^{(i_0)}U^{(i_0+1)}
\cdots V^{(i_1-2)}U^{(i_1-1)})({{\mathbf x}}_{{\mathbf j}}).$$ Let $n=(i_1-i_0)/2$, then the length of $p$ is $2n$. We focus on the non-diagonal terms of $M(p) T_{i_1,1}$. These involve what we call (in analogy with the commutative case) the conserved quantities of the quantum $A_1$ $T$-system:
Let $(i,j)\in {{\mathbb Z}}^2$, and $T$ a solution of the quantum $A_1$ $T$-system . Then $$c_{i,j}=T_{i-1,j+1}T_{i,j}^{-1}+T_{i,j}^{-1}T_{i+1,j-1}$$ is independent of $i-j$ and $$d_{i,j}= T_{i-1,j-1}T_{i,j}^{-1}+T_{i,j}^{-1}T_{i+1,j+1}$$ is independent of $i+j$. That is, $$c_{i,j}=c_{i-1,j-1}=c_{i-j,0}:=c_{i-j}\qquad d_{i,j}=d_{i+1,j-1}=d_{i+j,0}:=d_{i+j}$$
We write the $T$-system equations: $$\left\{\begin{matrix}
qT_{i,j}T_{i,j-2}=T_{i+1,j-1}T_{i-1,j-1}+1 \hfill &\Rightarrow
T_{i-1,j-1}^{-1}T_{i,j-2}=T_{i,j}^{-1}T_{i+1,j-1}+T_{i,j}^{-1}T_{i-1,j-1}^{-1}\hfill \\
qT_{i-1,j+1}T_{i-1,j-1}=T_{i,j}T_{i-2,j}+1 \hfill &\Rightarrow
T_{i-1,j+1}T_{i,j}^{-1}=T_{i-2,j}T_{i-1,j-1}^{-1}+T_{i,j}^{-1}T_{i-1,j-1}^{-1}
\hfill \end{matrix}\right.$$ where in the first line we have used the $q$-commutation of $T_{i-1,j-1}^{-1}$ and $T_{i,j-2}$ and that of $T_{i-1,j+1}$ and $T_{i,j}^{-1}$ in the second. Subtracting these last two equations leads to $c_{i,j}=c_{i-1,j-1}$. The conservation of $d$ is proved in a similar manner.
We also define by induction the following polynomials of the conserved quantities: $$\left\{ \begin{matrix} \varphi^{(-1)}_m=0, & \varphi^{(0)}_m=1, &
\varphi^{(p)}_m= \varphi^{(p-1)}_m c_{m+2p-2} -q \, \varphi^{(p-2)}_m\hfill \\
\theta^{(-1)}_m=0, & \theta^{(0)}_m=1, &
\theta^{(p)}_m=d_{m+2-2p}\, \theta^{(p-1)}_m- q^{-1}\theta^{(p-2)}_m \hfill
\end{matrix}\right. \quad (p\geq 1, m\in{{\mathbb Z}})$$
Note that, while it is true that $[c_m,d_p]=0=[\varphi^{(i)}_m,\theta^{(j)}_p]$, for all $i,j,m,p$, neither the $c$’s nor the $d$’s commute among themselves.
We have:
Let $(i,j)$ be a point above the boundary ${{\mathbf j}}={{\mathbf j}}_0$ and $p$ be the projection of $(i,j)$ onto the boundary, $p$ a zig-zag path with endpoints $(i_0,1)$ and $(i_1,1)$ and length $2n=i_1-i_0$, as in Fig.\[fig:bigsquare\]. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\big( M(p)\big)_{1,2} \, T_{i_1,1}&=&\varphi^{(n-1)}_{i-j+2},\\
\big( M(p)\big)_{2,1} \, T_{i_1,1}&=&q^{-1}\, \theta^{(n-1)}_{i+j-2}.\end{aligned}$$
By induction on $n$. For $n=0$, $M(p)={\mathbf I}$, and the theorem holds, as $\varphi^{(-1)}_m=\theta^{(-1)}_m=0$.
Assume the theorem holds for paths $p'$ of length $2 n$. Let $p$ be a path of length $2n+2$, with $i_0=i-n-1$, $i_1=i+n+1$, $j=n+2$. Denote by $p'$ the truncated projection between the lines $i=i_0$ and $i=i_1-2$. For simplicity, we introduce the following notation: $U^{(i)}({{\mathbf x}}_{{\mathbf j}})=\langle i \vert
U \vert i+1 \rangle$ and $V^{(i)}({{\mathbf x}}_{{\mathbf j}})=\langle i \vert V \vert
i+1 \rangle$, with $\vert i \rangle\langle i \vert =I$ for all $i$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
(M(p))_{1,2}T_{i_1,1}&=&\big(\langle i_0|(VU)^{n+1}|i_1\rangle\big)_{1,2}T_{i_1,1}\nonumber \\
&=&\big(\langle i_0|(VU)^n|i_1-2\rangle\langle i_1-2|VU|i_1\rangle)\big)_{1,2}T_{i_1,1}\nonumber \\
&=&\big(M(p')\langle i_1-2|V|i_1-1\rangle)\big)_{1,2}T_{i_1-1,0}\nonumber \\
&=&(M(p'))_{1,2}T_{i_1-2,1}T_{i_1-2,1}^{-1}T_{i_1-1,0}+(M(p'))_{1,1}\nonumber \\
&=&\varphi^{(n-1)}_{i-j+2}T_{i_1-2,1}^{-1}T_{i_1-1,0}+T_{i-1,j-1} T_{i_1-2,1}^{-1} \label{interca}\end{aligned}$$ by applying Theorem \[solq\]. Repeating this calculation for $(M(p'))_{1,2}T_{i_1-2,1}=\varphi^{(n-1)}_{i-j+2}$ by the recursion hypothesis, we get analogously: $$\varphi^{(n-1)}_{i-j+2} =\varphi^{(n-2)}_{i-j+2}T_{i_1-4,1}^{-1}T_{i_1-3,0}+T_{i-2,j-2} T_{i_1-4,1}^{-1}$$ We may consider this identity with indices $i,j$ shifted by $+1$, while $n$ remains fixed, namely $$\varphi^{(n-1)}_{i-j+2} =\varphi^{(n-2)}_{i-j+2}T_{i_1-3,2}^{-1}T_{i_1-2,1}+T_{i-1,j-1} T_{i_1-3,2}^{-1}$$ from which we deduce: $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi^{(n-1)}_{i-j+2} T_{i_1-3,2}T_{i_1-2,1}^{-1}&=&
\varphi^{(n-2)}_{i-j+2}T_{i_1-3,2}^{-1}T_{i_1-2,1}T_{i_1-3,2}T_{i_1-2,1}^{-1}+T_{i-1,j-1} T_{i_1-2,1}^{-1}\\
&=& q\, \varphi^{(n-2)}_{i-j+2}+T_{i-1,j-1} T_{i_1-2,1}^{-1}\end{aligned}$$ by use of the $q$ commutation of $T_{i_1-2,1}$ and $T_{i_1-3,2}$. Comparing with , we finally get $$\begin{aligned}
(M(p))_{1,2}T_{i_1,1}&=&
\varphi^{(n-1)}_{i-j+2}(T_{i_1-3,2}T_{i_1-2,1}^{-1}+T_{i_1-2,1}^{-1}T_{i_1-1,0})-q\, \varphi^{(n-2)}_{i-j+2}\\
&=&
\varphi^{(n-1)}_{i-j+2}c_{i+n-2} -q\, \varphi^{(n-2)}_{i-j+2}=
\varphi^{(n-1)}_{i-j+2}c_{i-j+2n} -q\, \varphi^{(n-2)}_{i-j+2}=\varphi^{(n)}_{i-j+2}\end{aligned}$$ by the defining recursion relation for $\varphi^{(n)}_m$. The second statement of the theorem follows analogously.
Quantum $Q$-system for $A_1$ and its fully non-commutative version {#section6}
==================================================================
Quantum $Q$-system: from the path solution to the network solution
------------------------------------------------------------------
### $A_1$ $Q$-system
Closely related to the $A_1$ $T$-system is the $A_1$ $Q$-system: $$\label{aoneQsys} R_{j+1}R_{j-1}=R_j^2+1 \qquad (j\in {{\mathbb Z}})$$ which is satisfied by the 2-periodic solutions of the $A_1$ $T$-system in $i$, namely with $T_{i+2,j}=T_{i,j}=T_{j\, {\rm mod}\, 2,j}=R_j$. The admissible initial data are of the form ${{\mathbf x}}_n=(R_n,R_{n+1})$ and are the restrictions of the $2$-periodic initial data of the $T$-system with ${{\mathbf j}}$ such that $j_i=n$ if $i-n=0$ mod 2, and $j_i=n+1$ otherwise.
The $A_1$ $Q$-system has an associated cluster algebra [@Ke07] with fundamental seed made of the cluster ${{\mathbf x}}_0=(R_0,R_1)$ and of the exchange matrix $B_0=\begin{pmatrix} 0 & 2\\ -2 & 0\end{pmatrix}$. A forward mutation $\mu^+:{{\mathbf x}}_n\mapsto {{\mathbf x}}_{n+1}$ takes $R_n\to R_{n+2}=(R_{n+1}^2+1)/R_n$, while a backward one $\mu^-:{{\mathbf x}}_n\mapsto {{\mathbf x}}_{n-1}$ takes $R_{n+1}\to R_{n-1}=(R_n^2+1)/R_{n+1}$.
### Quantum $A_1$ $Q$-system from quantum cluster algebra
The quantum cluster algebra associated to the cluster algebra of the $A_1$ $Q$-system , is obtained by taking the admissible pair $(B_0,\Lambda)$ with $\Lambda=2(B_0)^{-1}=\begin{pmatrix} 0 & 1\\ -1 & 0\end{pmatrix}$ (see Ref.[@BZ; @DFK10]), which amounts to the commutation relation $R_0R_1=q\,R_1R_0$ for the fundamental initial data ${{\mathbf x}}_0=(R_0,R_1)$. The quantum $A_1$ $Q$-system [@BZ; @DFK10] expresses the mutations of the quantum cluster algebra, and reads: $$\label{qaoneQsys}
q R_{j+1}R_{j-1}=R_j^2+1 \qquad (j\in {{\mathbb Z}})$$ Together with the above fundamental initial data, compatibility implies the following commutation relation holds within each cluster ${{\mathbf x}}_n=(R_n,R_{n+1})$: $$\label{comQ} R_n R_{n+1}=q \, R_{n+1}R_n$$
Note that, like in the commuting case, the solutions of the quantum $A_1$ $Q$-system are the solutions of the quantum $A_1$ $T$-system that are $2$-periodic in the index $i$, namely with $R_j=T_{j\!\! \mod 2,j}$.
### Solution via quantum paths v/s quantum networks
The quantum $A_1$ $Q$-system was solved in [@DFK10] in terms of “quantum" paths as follows. Let us define weights $$\label{ys} y_1=R_1R_0^{-1} \qquad y_2=R_1^{-1}R_0^{-1} \qquad y_3=R_1^{-1}R_0$$ These weights satisfy the relations: $$y_1y_3=y_3y_1=q\qquad y_1y_2=q^2\,y_2y_1\qquad y_2y_3=q^2\,y_3y_2$$ We consider “quantum" paths on the integer segment $[0,3]$ from and to the origin $0$, with steps $\pm1$ with weight $1$ for $i\to i+1$, $i=0,1,2$ and $y_i$ for $i\to i-1$, $i=1,2,3$. The weight of a path $p$, $w(p)$ is the product of the step weights in the order in which they are taken. The partition function for quantum paths of length $2j$ is the sum over the paths $p$ from and to the origin, with $2j$ steps, of the weights $w(p)$. We have the following
([@DFK10]) For $j\in{{\mathbb Z}}_+$, the solution $R_j$ to the quantum $A_1$ $Q$-system is equal to the partition function for quantum paths of length $2j$, times $R_0$.
A reformulation of this result uses the “two-step" transfer matrix ${\mathcal T}$ whose entries are the weights of the paths of length $2$ that start (and end) at the even points $0$ and $2$: $$\label{transmat} {\mathcal T}=\begin{pmatrix} y_1 & 1 \\
y_2y_1 & y_2+y_3 \end{pmatrix} =\begin{pmatrix}
w\left(\raise -.2truecm \hbox{$ {\epsfxsize=1.cm \epsfbox{t11.eps}}$} \right) &
w\left( \raise -.4truecm \hbox{$ {\epsfxsize=1.cm \epsfbox{t12.eps}}$}\right) \\
w\left( \raise -.4truecm \hbox{$ {\epsfxsize=1.cm \epsfbox{t21.eps}}$}\right) &
w\left( \raise -.2truecm \hbox{$ {\epsfxsize=1.cm \epsfbox{t22.eps}}$}\right)
\end{pmatrix}$$ The theorem may be rephrased as the following identity: $$\label{rephrase}
R_j =({\mathcal T}^j)_{1,1}\, R_0 \qquad (j\in {{\mathbb Z}}_+)$$
We may now apply the Theorem \[solq\] above to obtain an alternative quantum network formulation of the $A_1$ $Q$-system solutions. We start with the fundamental initial data $x_0=(R_0,R_1)$, with $R_0R_1=qR_1R_0$. We have by Theorem \[solq\], for all $j\in{{\mathbb Z}}_{>0}$: $$\label{phrase}
R_j=T_{j\, {\rm mod}\, 2,j}=\big((VU)^{j-1}\big)_{1,1}R_1=\big((UV)^{j}\big)_{1,1}R_0$$ where, due to the periodicity property, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&&V=V(R_1,R_0)=\begin{pmatrix}
R_1R_0^{-1} & R_0^{-1} \\
0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}
\qquad U=U(R_0,R_1)=\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0\\
q^{-1}R_1^{-1} & R_0R_1^{-1}
\end{pmatrix}\\
&&
UV=\begin{pmatrix}
R_1R_0^{-1} & R_0^{-1} \\
q^{-1}R_0^{-1} & (R_0+R_0^{-1})R_1^{-1}
\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}
y_1 & R_0^{-1} \\
q^{-1}R_0^{-1} & q^{-1}(y_2+y_3)
\end{pmatrix}\end{aligned}$$ Comparing with eq., and noting that $y_2y_1=R_1^{-1}R_0^{-1}R_1R_0^{-1}=q^{-1}R_0^{-2}$, and that $R_0^{-1}(y_2+y_3)R_0=q^{-1}(y_2+y_3)$, we arrive at the relation: $$\label{ctud}
UV=\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0\\ 0 & R_0^{-1}\end{pmatrix} {\mathcal T}\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0\\ 0 & R_0\end{pmatrix}$$ from which we deduce that Eqns. and are equivalent, as the conjugation does not affect the $(1,1)$ matrix element.
Non-commutative $Q$-system: a solution via non-commutative networks
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The fully non-commutative version of the $A_1$ $Q$-system was studied and solved in [@DFK09b]. It reads: $$\label{konts} R_{n+1} R_n^{-1} R_{n-1}=R_n+R_n^{-1} \qquad (n\in{{\mathbb Z}})$$ for $R_n$ some formal non-commutative variables subject to the quasi-commutation relations $$\label{ncqcom} R_n R_{n+1}=R_{n+1}C R_n$$ where $C$ is another fixed non-commuting variable. The quantum case is recovered when $C=q$ is central.
Using the relations , the non-commutative $A_1$ $Q$-system may be rewritten as $$\label{ncqsys} R_{n+1}CR_{n-1}=R_n^2+1 \qquad (n\in {{\mathbb Z}})$$
Let us keep the definition for $y_1,y_2,y_3$, now in terms of the non-commutative initial data $R_0$ and $R_1$. The solution of [@DFK09b] involves “non-commutative paths" from and to the origin on $[0,3]$, with weights $1$ for the steps $i\to i+1$, $i=0,1,2$ and $y_i$ for the steps $i\to i-1$, $i=1,2,3$. We have:
([@DFK09b]) For $n\in{{\mathbb Z}}_+$, the solution $R_n$ of the non-commutative $A_1$ $Q$-system is the partition function for non-commutative paths from the origin to itself with $2n$ steps, times $R_0$.
As before, this is best expressed by use of the “two-step" transfer matrix ${\mathcal T}$, still given by the expression in terms of $R_0$ and $R_1$, and the identity still holds.
The network solution of the quantum $A_1$ $Q$-system may be adapted for the fully non-commutative one as follows. For non-commuting variables $a,b$, we introduce the matrices: $$\label{ncdu}
U(a,b)=\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0\\ C^{-1}b^{-1} & a b^{-1}\end{pmatrix} \qquad
V(a,b)=\begin{pmatrix}a b^{-1} & b^{-1}\\ 0 & 1\end{pmatrix}$$
We have the following generalization of Lemma \[prealem\].
\[usefulem\] Assume $a,b,c$ have the quasi-commutations $ba=aCb$, $bc=cCb$, and $ac=ca$, then we have the equation: $$\label{mutmatnc}
V(a,b)U(b,c)=U(a,b')V(b',c)$$ for $b'$ defined via $b'Cb=ac+1$. Moreover, with this definition, $cb'=b'C c$ and $a b'=b'C a$.
We compute directly $$V(a,b)U(b,c)=\begin{pmatrix}a b^{-1} & b^{-1}\\ 0 & 1\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0\\ C^{-1}c^{-1} & b c^{-1}\end{pmatrix}
= \begin{pmatrix} (a+c^{-1})b^{-1} & c^{-1}\\ C^{-1}c^{-1} & b c^{-1}\end{pmatrix}$$ and $$U(a,b')V(b',c)=\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0\\ C^{-1}b'^{-1} & a b'^{-1}\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}b' c^{-1} & c^{-1}\\ 0 & 1\end{pmatrix}
=\begin{pmatrix} b'c^{-1}& c^{-1}\\ C^{-1}c^{-1} & C^{-1}b'^{-1} c^{-1}+a b'^{-1}\end{pmatrix}$$ Identifying the two results, we obtain $b'c^{-1}bc=b'Cb=1+a c$ from the (1,1) element identification, and $b'C b= 1+b'C a b'^{-1} c$ from the $(2,2)$ one. But from the first identity we deduce that $ab'=b'Ca$ (as well as $cb'=b'C c$), and the Lemma follows.
\[NCmain\] For $n\in{{\mathbb Z}}_+$, $p\in{{\mathbb Z}}$, the solution $R_{n+p}$ of the non-commutative $A_1$ $Q$-system is expressed in terms of the initial data $x_p=(R_p,R_{p+1})$ as: $$R_{n+p}=\big((V_pU_p)^{n-1}\big)_{1,1}R_{p+1}=\big((U_pV_p)^n\big)_{1,1}R_p$$ where $V_p=V(R_{p+1},R_p)$ and $U_p=U(R_p,R_{p+1})$ in terms of the matrices of eq..
By induction on $n$. The result is clear for $n=1$. Assume that the Theorem holds for $n-1,p+1$. Applying the Lemma \[usefulem\] for $a=c=R_{p+1}$ and $b=R_{p}$, we get $x=R_{p+2}$ and $V_{p}U_{p}=U_{p+1}V_{p+1}$. We deduce that: $$\big((V_pU_p)^{n-1}\big)_{1,1}R_{p+1}=\big((U_{p+1}V_{p+1})^{n-1}\big)_{1,1}R_{p+1}=R_{(n-1)+(p+1)}=R_{n+p}$$ and the Theorem holds for $n,p$. Finally, the translational invariance of implies that $R_{n+p}$ is the same [*function*]{} of $(R_p,R_{p+1})$ as $R_n$ of $(R_0,R_1)$, independently of $p\in{{\mathbb Z}}$. The Theorem follows.
The direct connection between the non-commutative network formulation and the non-commutative path formulation is the same relation between $VU$ and ${\mathcal T}$ as in the quantum case. It is now a consequence of: $y_2y_1=R_1^{-1}R_0^{-1}R_1R_0^{-1}=R_0^{-1}C^{-1}R_0^{-1}$ and $R_0(y_2+y_3)R_0^{-1}=C^{-1}R_1^{-1}R_0^{-1}+R_0R_1^{-1}$, by use of the quasi-commutations .
Discussion: connection to the quantum lattice Liouville equation {#conclusion}
================================================================
In this paper, we have introduced and solved the quantum $A_1$ $T$-system in terms of an arbitrary admissible data, by means of a quantum path model. This system turns out to be closely related to the quantum lattice Liouville equation of [@FKV].
The $T$-systems in general are related to the so-called $Y$-systems via a birational transformation [@KNS]. The following is a quantum version of this transformation. Define $$\chi_{i,j}=\left( T_{i+1,j}T_{i-1,j}\right)^{-1}\qquad (i,j\in {{\mathbb Z}}).$$ Then $$\begin{aligned}
\chi_{i,j-1}\chi_{i,j+1}&=&T_{i+1,j-1}^{-1}(T_{i-1,j+1}T_{i-1,j-1})^{-1} T_{i+1,j+1}^{-1}\\
&=&qT_{i+1,j-1}^{-1} (1+T_{i,j}T_{i-2,j})^{-1}T_{i+1,j+1}^{-1}\\
&=&q (T_{i+1,j+1}T_{i+1,j-1})^{-1}(1+T_{i,j}T_{i-2,j})^{-1}\\
&=&q^2 \chi_{i+1,j}(1+\chi_{i+1,j})^{-1}\chi_{i-1,j}(1+\chi_{i-1,j})^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that all the factors in the last line commute.
This system may be called quantum $Y$-system for $A_1$: If we set $q=1$ and denote $Y_i(j/2)=\chi_{i,j}$ it coincides with the $A_1$ $Y$-system [@Zam; @RTV]. In the non-commuting case, it coincides (upon a reordering of the left hand side and a renormalization of the variables, $\chi\mapsto q \chi$) with the quantum lattice Liouville equations of [@FKV].
The variables $\chi_{i,j}$ have local commutation relations within each cluster.
$$\chi_{k\pm 1,l+1}\chi_{k,l}=q^2 \chi_{k,l}\chi_{k\pm 1,l+1},$$ while all other pairs of variables commute.
Let $j\geq l$. If $(i,j)\neq (k,l+1)$, then the commutation relations imply that $T_{i,j}\chi_{k,l}=\chi_{k,l}T_{i,j}.$ Otherwise, $$T_{k,l+1} \chi_{k,l}=T_{k,l+1}T_{k+1,l}^{-1}T_{k-1,l}^{-1}=q^2\chi_{k,l}T_{k,l+1},$$ and the Lemma follows.
Note that here we do not impose the periodicity condition of [@FKV], that $\chi_{i+2N,j}=\chi_{i,j}$. Here it would be implemented by a periodicity condition of the form $T_{i+2N,j}=T_{i,j}$. The solution of this paper holds for any choice of boundary conditions, and may therefore be [*restricted*]{} to these special periodicity conditions on $T_{i,j}$.
[10]{}
I. Assem, C. Reutenauer, and D. Smith [*Frises*]{}, [arXiv:0906.2026 \[math.RA\]]{}.
A. Berenstein, A. Zelevinsky, *Quantum Cluster Algebras*, Adv. Math. [**195**]{} (2005) 405–455. [arXiv:math/0404446 \[math.QA\]]{}.
P. Caldero and M. Reineke, *On the quiver Grassmannian in the acyclic case*. J. Pure Appl. Algebra **212** (2008), no. 11, 2369–2380. [arXiv:math/0611074 \[math.RT\]]{}.
H.S.M. Coxeter, [*Frieze Patterns, Triangulated Polygons and Dichromatic Symmetry*]{}, in [*The Lighter Side of Mathematics*]{}, R.K. Guy and E. Woodrow (eds.), John Wiley $\&$ Sons, NY, (1961) pp 15-27.
P. Di Francesco, [*The solution of the $A_r$ T-system for arbitrary boundary*]{}, Elec. Jour. of Comb. Vol. [**17(1)**]{} (2010) R89. [arXiv:1002.4427 \[math.CO\]]{}.
P. Di Francesco and R. Kedem, *Q-systems as cluster algebras II*, Lett. Math. Phys. [**89**]{} No 3 (2009) 183-216. [arXiv:0803.0362 \[math.RT\]]{}.
P. Di Francesco and R. Kedem, *Q-systems, heaps, paths and cluster positivity*, Comm. Math. Phys. [**293**]{} No. 3 (2009) 727–802, DOI 10.1007/s00220-009-0947-5. [arXiv:0811.3027 \[math.CO\]]{}. P. Di Francesco and R. Kedem, *Positivity of the $T$-system cluster algebra*, Elec. Jour. of Comb. Vol. [**16(1)**]{} (2009) R140, Oberwolfach preprint OWP 2009-21, [arXiv:0908.3122 \[math.CO\]]{}. P. Di Francesco and R. Kedem, *Discrete non-commutative integrability: proof of a conjecture by M. Kontsevich*, Int. Math. Res. Notices (2010), doi:10.1093/imrn/rnq024. [arXiv:0909.0615 \[math-ph\]]{}.
P. Di Francesco and R. Kedem, [*Noncommutative integrability, paths and quasi-determinants*]{}, preprint [arXiv:1006.4774 \[math-ph\]]{}.
L.D. Faddeev and A.Y. Volkov [*Discrete evolution for the zero modes of the quantum Liouville model.*]{} J. Phys. A [**41**]{} (2008), no. 19, 194008, 12 pp. [arXiv:0803.0230 \[hep-th\]]{}.
L. Faddeev, R. Kashaev and V. Volkov, [*Strongly coupled quantum discrete Liouville theory. I: Algebraic approach and duality*]{}, Comm. Math. Phys. [**219**]{} No 1 (2001) 199-219. [arXiv:hep-th/0006156]{}.
S. Fomin and A. Zelevinsky Cluster Algebras I. J. Amer. Math. Soc. **15** (2002), no. 2, 497–529 [ arXiv:math/0104151 \[math.RT\]]{}.
S. Fomin And A. Zelevinsky *The Laurent phenomenon*. Adv. in Appl. Math. **28** (2002), no. 2, 119–144. [arXiv:math/0104241 \[math.CO\]]{}.
S. Fomin and A. Zelevinsky Cluster Algebras IV: coefficients. Compos. Math. **143** (2007), 112–164. [ arXiv:math/0602259 \[math.RA\]]{}.
E. Frenkel and N. Reshetikhin, [*The $q$-characters of representations of quantum affine algebras and deformations of $W$-algebras*]{}. In [ Recent developments in quantum affine algebras and related topics (Raleigh, NC 1998)]{}, Contemp. Math. [ **248**]{} (1999), 163–205.
R. Kedem, *$Q$-systems as cluster algebras*. J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. **41** (2008) 194011 (14 pages). [ arXiv:0712.2695 \[math.RT\]]{}.
A. N. Kirillov and N. Yu. Reshetikhin, *Representations of Yangians and multiplicity of occurrence of the irreducible components of the tensor product of representations of simple [L]{}ie algebras*, J. Sov. Math. [**52**]{} (1990) 3156-3164.
A. Knutson, T. Tao, and C. Woodward, *A positive proof of the Littlewood-Richardson rule using the octahedron recurrence*, Electr. J. Combin. **11** (2004) RP 61. [arXiv:math/0306274 \[math.CO\]]{}
I. Krichever, O. Lipan, P. Wiegmann and A. Zabrodin, [*Quantum Integrable Systems and Elliptic Solutions of Classical Discrete Nonlinear Equations*]{}, Comm. Math. Phys. [**188**]{} (1997), 267–304. [arXiv:hep-th/9604080]{}.
A. Kuniba, A. Nakanishi and J. Suzuki, [*Functional relations in solvable lattice models. I. Functional relations and representation theory.*]{} International J. Modern Phys. A [**9**]{} no. 30, pp 5215–5266 (1994). [arXiv:hep-th/9310060]{}.
G. Musiker, R. Schiffler and L. Williams, [*Positivity for cluster algebras from surfaces*]{}, preprint [arXiv:0906.0748 \[math.CO\]]{}.
D. Speyer, *Perfect matchings and the octahedron recurrence*, J. Algebraic Comb. **25** No 3 (2007) 309-348. [arXiv:math/0402452 \[math.CO\]]{}.
F. Ravanini, R. Tateo, and A. Valleriani, [A new family of diagonal [$ADE$]{}-related scattering theories]{}, [*Phys. Lett.*]{}[**B 293**]{} (1992), [361–366]{}.
Al. B. Zamolodchikov, [On the thermodynamic [B]{}ethe ansatz equations for reflectionless [$ADE$]{} scattering theories]{}, [*Physics Letters*]{} [**B 253**]{}, [1991]{}, [391–394]{}.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
Elliptic Ruijsenaars–Schneider\
and Calogero–Moser hierarchies\
are governed by the same $r$–matrix
[Yuri B. SURIS]{}
Centre for Complex Systems and Visualization, University of Bremen,\
Postfach 330 440, 28334 Bremen, Germany\
e-mail: suris @ mathematik.uni-bremen.de
[ We demonstrate that in a certain gauge the elliptic Ruijsenaars–Schneider models admit Lax representation governed by the same dynamical $r$–matrix as their non–relativistic counterparts (Calogero–Moser models). This phenomenon was previously observed for the rational and hyperbolic models.]{}
Introduction
============
In the recent years the interest in the Calogero–Moser type of models [@OP]–[@R] is considerably revitalized. One of the directions of this recent development was connected with the notion of the dynamical $r$–matrices and their interpretation in terms of Hamiltonian reduction [@AT]–[@N]. Very recently [@BB],[@AR], [@S], [@N], this line of research included also the so–called Ruijsenaars–Schneider models [@RS],[@R] which may be seen as relativistic generalizations of the Calogero–Moser ones [@OP], [@KKS].
In the paper [@BB] a [*quadratic*]{} (dynamical) $r$–matrix Poisson structure was found for the dynamical system describing the motion of the solitons of the sine–Gordon model. This system turns out to be a particular case of the hyperbolic Ruijsenaars–Schneider model corresponding to a particular value of the parameter $\gamma$ of the model (cf. (\[L rel\]) below), namely $\gamma=i\pi/2$, when the Lax matrix becomes symmetric in some gauge,
The case of general hyperbolic Ruijsenaars–Schneider model, admitting also the rational model as a limiting case, was considered in [@AR]. There was found a [*linear*]{} $r$–matrix structure for this model, with the linear dependence of the $r$–matrix on the elements of the Lax matrix. However, as it stands, the structure found in [@AR] cannot be cast into a quadratic form.
This drawback was overcome in [@S], where the quadratic $r$–matrix Poisson bracket was found for the general rational and hyperbolic models. Moreover, this bracket turned out to posess several remarkable properties.
- First, the $r$–matrix objects turned out to be independent on the relativistic parameter $\gamma$ of the model.
- Second, and more important, the $r$–matrix object governing the whole hierarchy of the Lax equations attached to the Ruijsenaars–Schneider model turned out to be [*identical*]{} with the corresponding object governing the non–relativistic Calogero–Moser hierarchy.
A geometric interpretation of this intriguing property was also provided in [@S]. Several open problems were formulated in [@S], the first of them being the generalization of these findings to the case of elliptic Ruijsenaars–Schneider model.
Soon after [@S] there appeared the paper [@N] where an $r$–matrix quadratic Poisson bracket for the elliptic Ruijsenaars–Schneider model was found, thus partly solving the mentioned problem. However, despite the fact that this bracket has the same general structure as the one found in [@S], it turns out not to generalize the latter. It fails to have the two remarkable properties pointed out above, and moreover it does not reduce to the bracket found in [@S] in the corresponding (rational or hyperbolic) limit.
In the present paper we give a proper generalization of the results in [@S] for the elliptic case. Namely, we present a quadratic $r$–matrix structure for this model enjoying the two properties listed above. An existence of two different $r$–matrix Poisson brackets for one and the same model is not contradictory, because of the well–known non–uniqueness of an $r$–matrix. So in principle both can coexist on their own rights. We hope, however, that the two remarkable properties pointed out above indicate on some deeper geometric meaning to be clarified in the future, so that the result reported here will be accepted as [*the*]{} $r$–matrix for the elliptic Ruijsenaars–Schneider model.
Elliptic models of the Calogero–Moser type.
===========================================
The elliptic non–relativistic Calogero–Moser hierarchy is described in terms of the [*Lax matrix*]{} $$\label{L nr}
L=L(x,p,\lambda)=\sum_{k=1}^Np_kE_{kk}+\gamma\sum_{k\neq j}\Phi(x_k-x_j,\lambda)E_{kj}.$$ Here the function $\Phi(x,\lambda)$ is defined as $$\label{Phi}
\Phi(x,\lambda)=\frac{\sigma(x+\lambda)}{\sigma(x)\sigma(\lambda)},$$ where $\sigma(x)$ is the Weierstrass $\sigma$–function. Further, $\lambda$ is an auxiliary (so called spectral) parameter which does not enter the equations of motion of the model, but rather serves as a useful tool for its solution. On the contrary, $\gamma$ is an internal parameter of the model, usually supposed to be pure imaginary. The dynamical variables $x=(x_1,\ldots,x_N)^T$ and $p=(p_1,\ldots,p_N)^T$ are supposed to be canonically conjugated, i.e. to have canonical Poisson brackets: $$\label{can PB}
\{x_k,x_j\}=\{p_k,p_j\}=0,\quad \{x_k,p_j\}=\delta_{kj}.$$ The Hamiltonian function of the Calogero–Moser model proper (i.e. of the simplest representative of the Calogero–Moser hierarchy) is given by $$H(x,p)=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{k=1}^N p_k^2-
\frac{1}{2}\gamma^2\sum_{k\neq j}\wp(x_k-x_j)=\frac{1}{2}{\rm tr}L^2(x,p,\lambda)
+{\rm const},$$ where ${\rm const}=-N(N-1)\gamma^2\wp(\lambda)/2$, and $\wp(x)$ is the Weierstrass elliptic function.
The elliptic relativistic Ruijsenaars–Schneider hierarchy is also described in terms of the [*Lax matrix*]{} $$\label{L rel}
L(x,p,\lambda)=\sum_{k,j=1}^N \frac{\Phi(x_k-x_j+\gamma,\lambda)}
{\Phi(\gamma,\lambda)}b_jE_{kj}.$$ The notations are the same as above, and we use an additional abbreviation: $$\label{def b}
b_k=\exp(p_k)\prod_{j\neq k}\left(
\frac{\sigma(x_k-x_j+\gamma)\sigma(x_k-x_j-\gamma)}{\sigma^2(x_k-x_j)}
\right)^{1/2},$$ so that in the variables $(x,b)$ the canonical Poisson brackets (\[can PB\]) take the form $$\{x_k,x_j\}=0,\quad \{x_k,b_j\}=b_k\delta_{kj},$$ $$\label{rel PB}
\{b_k,b_j\}=b_kb_j\Big(\zeta(x_j-x_k+\gamma)-
\zeta(x_k-x_j+\gamma)+2(1-\delta_{kj})\zeta(x_k-x_j)\Big).$$ Here $\zeta(x)$ is, of course, the Weierstrass $\zeta$–function, i.e. $$\zeta(x)=\frac{\sigma'(x)}{\sigma(x)}.$$ The Hamiltonian function of the Ruijsenaars–Schneider model proper (i.e. of the simplest member of this hierarchy) is simply $$H(x,p)=\sum_{k=1}^N b_k={\rm tr}L(x,p,\lambda).$$
Let us note that the non–relativistic limit, leading from the Ruijsenaars–Schneider model to the Calogero–Moser one, is achieved by rescaling $p\mapsto\beta p$, $\gamma\mapsto\beta\gamma$ and subsequent sending $\beta\to 0$ (in this limit $L_{{\rm rel}}=
I+\beta L_{{\rm nonrel}}+O(\beta^2)$).
Let us also note that the evolution of either of the non–relativistic or the relativistic model is governed by the [*Lax equation*]{} of the form $$\label{Lax eq}
\dot{L}=[M,L],$$ where, for example, for the Ruijsenaars–Schneider model one has: $$\label{M kj}
M_{kj}=\Phi(x_k-x_j,\lambda)b_j,\;\;k\neq j,$$ $$\label{M kk}
M_{kk}=\Big(\zeta(\lambda)+\zeta(\gamma)\Big)b_k+
\sum_{j\neq k}\Big(\zeta(x_k-x_j+\gamma)-\zeta(x_k-x_j)\Big)b_j.$$ An $r$–matrix found below enables one to give a general formula for the matrix $M$ for an arbitrary flow of the corresponding hierarchy (cf. [@S] for such formulas in the rational and hyperbolic cases).
Dynamical $r$-matrix formulation
================================
An $r$–matrix formulation of the elliptic Calogero–Moser model was given in [@Skl], [@BS] as a generalization of the previous result obtained in [@AT] for the rational and hyperbolic cases. The result of [@Skl] may be presented in the following form: for the non–relativistic case the corresponding Lax matrices satisfy a linear $r$–matrix ansatz $$\label{r Anz}
\{L(\lambda)\stackrel{\otimes}{,}L(\mu)\}=
\left[I\otimes L(\mu),r(\lambda,\mu)\right]-\left[L(\lambda)\otimes I,
r^*(\lambda,\mu)\right],$$ where the $N^2\times N^2$ matrix $r(\lambda,\mu)$ may be decomposed into the sum $$\label{ras}
r(\lambda,\mu)=a(\lambda,\mu)+s(\lambda).$$ Here $a$ is a skew–symmetric matrix $$\label{a}
a(\lambda,\mu)=-\zeta(\lambda-\mu)\sum_{k=1}^N E_{kk}\otimes E_{kk}-
\sum_{k\neq j}\Phi(x_j-x_k,\lambda-\mu)E_{jk}\otimes E_{kj},$$ and $s$ is a non–skew–symmetric one: $$\label{s}
s(\lambda)=\zeta(\lambda)\sum_{k=1}^N E_{kk}\otimes E_{kk}+
\sum_{k\neq j}\Phi(x_j-x_k,\lambda)E_{jk}\otimes E_{kk}.$$ Here the ”skew–symmetry” is understood with respect to the operation $$r^*(\lambda,\mu)=\Pi r(\mu,\lambda)\Pi\;\;{\rm with}\;\;
\Pi=\sum_{k,j=1}^NE_{kj}\otimes E_{jk}.$$ So we have $$a^*(\lambda,\mu)=-a(\lambda,\mu),$$ and $$\label{s*}
s^*(\mu)=\zeta(\mu)\sum_{k=1}^N E_{kk}\otimes E_{kk}+
\sum_{k\neq j}\Phi(x_j-x_k,\mu)E_{kk}\otimes E_{jk}.$$
(Note that our $r$ is related to the objects $r_{12}$, $r_{21}$ in [@Skl] by means of $r=-r_{21}$ and $r^*=-r_{12}$).
We shall prove that in the relativistic case the corresponding Lax matrices satisfy the quadratic $r$–matrix ansatz: $$\begin{aligned}
\{L(\lambda)\stackrel{\otimes}{,}L(\mu)\} & = &
(L(\lambda)\otimes L(\mu))a_1(\lambda,\mu)-
a_2(\lambda,\mu)(L(\lambda)\otimes L(\mu))\nonumber\\
& + & (I\otimes L(\mu))s_1(\lambda,\mu)(L(\mu)\otimes I)-
(L(\lambda)\otimes I)s_2(\lambda,\mu)(I\otimes L(\mu))\nonumber\\
& &\label{as Anz}\end{aligned}$$ where the matrices $a_1,a_2,s_1,s_2$ satisfy the conditions $$\label{sym}
a_1^*(\lambda,\mu)=-a_1(\lambda,\mu),\quad a_2^*(\lambda,\mu)=-a_2(\lambda,\mu),
\quad s_2^*(\lambda,\mu)=s_1(\lambda,\mu),$$ and $$\label{sum}
a_1(\lambda,\mu)+s_1(\lambda,\mu)=a_2(\lambda,\mu)+s_2(\lambda,\mu)
=r(\lambda,\mu).$$ The first of these conditions assures the skew–symmetry of the Poisson bracket (\[as Anz\]), and the second one garantees that the Hamiltonian flows with invariant Hamiltonian functions $\varphi(L)$ have the Lax form (\[Lax eq\]) with the form of the $M$–matrix being governed by the same $r$–matrix as in the non–relativistic case.
Such general quadratic $r$-matrix structures were discovered several times independently [@FM], [@P], [@S2]. See [@S2] for an application to closely related, but much more simple systems of the Toda lattice type.
[**Theorem.**]{} [*For the Lax matrices of the relativistic model [(\[L rel\])]{} there holds a quadratic $r$–matrix ansatz [(\[as Anz\])]{} with the matrices $$a_1=a+w,\quad s_1=s-w,$$ $$a_2=a+s-s^*-w,\quad s_2=s^*+w,$$ and $w$ is an auxiliary matrix*]{} $$\label{w}
w=\sum_{k\neq j}\zeta(x_k-x_j)E_{kk}\otimes E_{jj}.$$
Note that all the objects $a$, $s$, $w$ entering these formula do not depend on $\gamma$, and that (\[sum\]) is fulfilled, which justifies the title of the present paper.
The [**proof**]{} of this Theorem is based on direct computations, presented in the Appendix.
Conclusions
===========
Now that the formal part of the results in [@S] is generalized, it is tempting to find a geometrical explanation of the phenomena behind it. To this end one should develop further the theory of Calogero–Moser type models as Hamiltonian reduced systems.
Certainly, this problem should be supplied with the whole list of open problems formulated in [@S], [@N].
Acknowledgements
================
The research of the author is financially supported by the DFG (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft). My pleasant duty is to thank warmly Professor Orlando Ragnisco (University of Rome) for organizing my visit to Rome, where this work was done, for useful discussions and collaboration, and his institution – for financial support during this visit.
Appendix: proof of the Theorem
==============================
Let us denote $$\{L_{ij}(\lambda),L_{km}(\mu)\}=\pi_{ijkm}L_{ij}(\lambda)L_{km}(\mu),$$ $$[L(\lambda)\otimes L(\mu),\,a(\lambda,\mu)]=
\sum_{i,j,k,m=1}^N \alpha_{ijkm}L_{ij}(\lambda)L_{km}(\mu)E_{ij}\otimes E_{km},$$ and analogously $$s(\lambda)(L(\lambda)\otimes L(\mu))=
\sum_{i,j,k,m=1}^N \sigma^{(1)}_{ijkm}L_{ij}(\lambda)L_{km}(\mu)E_{ij}\otimes
E_{km},$$ $$s^*(\mu)(L(\lambda)\otimes L(\mu))=
\sum_{i,j,k,m=1}^N \sigma^{(2)}_{ijkm}L_{ij}(\lambda)L_{km}(\mu)E_{ij}\otimes
E_{km},$$ $$(I\otimes L(\mu))s(\lambda)(L(\lambda)\otimes I)=
\sum_{i,j,k,m=1}^N \sigma^{(3)}_{ijkm}L_{ij}(\lambda)L_{km}(\mu)E_{ij}\otimes
E_{km},$$ $$(L(\lambda)\otimes I)s^*(\mu)(I\otimes L(\mu))=
\sum_{i,j,k,m=1}^N \sigma^{(4)}_{ijkm}L_{ij}(\lambda)L_{km}(\mu)E_{ij}\otimes
E_{km}.$$ The statement of the Theorem is equivalent to $$\label{form}
\pi_{ijkm}=\alpha_{ijkm}-\sigma^{(1)}_{ijkm}
+\sigma^{(2)}_{ijkm}+\sigma^{(3)}_{ijkm}-\sigma^{(4)}_{ijkm}+w_{ik}
+w_{jm}-w_{im}-w_{jk},$$ where $w_{jk}=(1-\delta_{jk})\zeta(x_j-x_k)$ are the coefficients of the auxiliary matrix $w=\sum_{j\neq k}w_{jk}E_{jj}\otimes E_{kk}$.
According to the Poisson brackets (\[rel PB\]) we have: $$\pi_{ijkm}=\zeta(x_m-x_j+\gamma)-
\zeta(x_j-x_m+\gamma)+2(1-\delta_{jm})\zeta(x_j-x_m)$$ $$+(\delta_{jk}-\delta_{jm})
\Big(\zeta(x_k-x_m+\gamma)-\zeta(x_k-x_m+\gamma+\mu)\Big)$$ $$\label{pi}
-(\delta_{im}-\delta_{jm})
\Big(\zeta(x_i-x_j+\gamma)-\zeta(x_i-x_j+\gamma+\lambda)\Big).$$
From the definitions of the matrices $a$ and $s$ we have: $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_{ijkm}
& = & (\delta_{ik}-\delta_{jm})\zeta(\lambda-\mu)\\
& & + (1-\delta_{ik})\frac{L_{kj}(\lambda)L_{im}(\mu)}
{L_{ij}(\lambda)L_{km}(\mu)}\Phi(x_i-x_k,\lambda-\mu)\\
& & - (1-\delta_{jm})\frac{L_{im}(\lambda)L_{kj}(\mu)}
{L_{ij}(\lambda)L_{km}(\mu)}\Phi(x_m-x_j,\lambda-\mu);\\ \\
\sigma^{(1)}_{ijkm}
& = & \delta_{ik}\zeta(\lambda)+
(1-\delta_{ik})\frac{L_{kj}(\lambda)}{L_{ij}(\lambda)}
\Phi(x_i-x_k,\lambda);\\ \\
\sigma^{(2)}_{ijkm}
& = & \delta_{ik}\zeta(\mu)+
(1-\delta_{ik})\frac{L_{im}(\mu)}{L_{km}(\mu)}
\Phi(x_k-x_i,\mu);\\ \\
\sigma^{(3)}_{ijkm}
& = & \delta_{im}\zeta(\lambda)+
(1-\delta_{im})\frac{L_{mj}(\lambda)}{L_{ij}(\lambda)}
\Phi(x_i-x_m,\lambda);\\ \\
\sigma^{(4)}_{ijkm}
& = & \delta_{jk}\zeta(\mu)+
(1-\delta_{jk})\frac{L_{jm}(\mu)}{L_{km}(\mu)}
\Phi(x_k-x_j,\mu).\\ \\\end{aligned}$$
Using the expressions for the elements of the matrix $L$, we get:
$$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_{ijkm}
& = & (\delta_{ik}-\delta_{jm})\zeta(\lambda-\mu)\\
& & + (1-\delta_{ik})\frac{\Phi(x_k-x_j+\gamma,\lambda)
\Phi(x_i-x_m+\gamma,\mu)\Phi(x_i-x_k,\lambda-\mu)}
{\Phi(x_i-x_j+\gamma,\lambda)\Phi(x_k-x_m+\gamma,\mu)};\\
& & -(1-\delta_{jm})\frac{\Phi(x_i-x_m+\gamma,\lambda)
\Phi(x_k-x_j+\gamma,\mu)\Phi(x_m-x_j,\lambda-\mu)}
{\Phi(x_i-x_j+\gamma,\lambda)\Phi(x_k-x_m+\gamma,\mu)};\\ \\
\sigma^{(1)}_{ijkm}
& = & \delta_{ik}\zeta(\lambda)+
(1-\delta_{ik})\frac{\Phi(x_k-x_j+\gamma,\lambda)\Phi(x_i-x_k,\lambda)}
{\Phi(x_i-x_j+\gamma,\lambda)};\\ \\
\sigma^{(2)}_{ijkm}
& = & \delta_{ik}\zeta(\mu)+
(1-\delta_{ik})\frac{\Phi(x_i-x_m+\gamma,\mu)\Phi(x_k-x_i,\mu)}
{\Phi(x_k-x_m+\gamma,\mu)};\\ \\
\sigma^{(3)}_{ijkm}
& = & \delta_{im}\zeta(\lambda)+
(1-\delta_{im})\frac{\Phi(x_m-x_j+\gamma,\lambda)\Phi(x_i-x_m,\lambda)}
{\Phi(x_i-x_j+\gamma,\lambda)};\\ \\
\sigma^{(4)}_{ijkm}
& = & \delta_{jk}\zeta(\mu)+
(1-\delta_{jk})\frac{\Phi(x_j-x_m+\gamma,\mu)\Phi(x_k-x_j,\mu)}
{\Phi(x_k-x_m+\gamma,\mu)}.\end{aligned}$$
The most laburous part of the further manipulations is the simplification of the expression for $\alpha_{ijkm}$. This was performed already in [@N], we give here slightly more details. Following two elliptic identities were used in [@N] to this aim: $$\frac{\Phi(X-A,\lambda)\Phi(Y+A,\mu)\Phi(A,\lambda-\mu)-
\Phi(Y+A,\lambda)\Phi(X-A,\mu)\Phi(X-Y+A,\lambda-\mu)}
{\Phi(X,\lambda)\Phi(Y,\mu)}=$$ $$\zeta(A)-\zeta(X-Y+A)+\zeta(X-A)-\zeta(Y+A),$$ and $$\frac{\Phi(Y,\lambda)\Phi(X,\mu)\Phi(X-Y,\lambda-\mu)}
{\Phi(X,\lambda)\Phi(Y,\mu)}=
\zeta(\lambda-\mu)+\zeta(X-Y)-\zeta(X+\lambda)+\zeta(Y+\mu).$$ One gets: $$\alpha_{ijkm}=(\delta_{ik}-\delta_{jm})\zeta(\lambda-\mu)$$ $$+(1-\delta_{ik})(1-\delta_{jm})\Big(\zeta(x_i-x_k)-\zeta(x_m-x_j)
+\zeta(x_k-x_j+\gamma)-\zeta(x_i-x_m+\gamma)\Big)$$ $$+(1-\delta_{ik})\delta_{jm}\Big(\zeta(\lambda-\mu)+\zeta(x_i-x_k)
-\zeta(x_i-x_j+\gamma+\lambda)+\zeta(x_k-x_m+\gamma+\mu)\Big)$$ $$-(1-\delta_{jm})\delta_{ik}\Big(\zeta(\lambda-\mu)+\zeta(x_m-x_j)
-\zeta(x_i-x_j+\gamma+\lambda)+\zeta(x_k-x_m+\gamma+\mu)\Big).$$ Further straightforward manipulations give: $$\alpha_{ijkm}=(1-\delta_{ik})\zeta(x_i-x_k)-(1-\delta_{jm})\zeta(x_m-x_j)$$ $$+\zeta(x_k-x_j+\gamma)-\zeta(x_i-x_m+\gamma)$$ $$+(\delta_{ik}-\delta_{jm})\Big(\zeta(x_k-x_m+\gamma)-
\zeta(x_k-x_m+\gamma+\mu)\Big)$$ $$\label{alfa}
-(\delta_{ik}-\delta_{jm})\Big(\zeta(x_i-x_j+\gamma)-
\zeta(x_i-x_j+\gamma+\lambda)\Big).$$
By simplifying the expressions for $\sigma_{ijkm}^{(1-4)}$ one uses systematically the identity $$\frac{\Phi(X,\lambda)\Phi(Y,\lambda)}{\Phi(X+Y,\lambda)}=
\zeta(\lambda)+\zeta(X)+\zeta(Y)-\zeta(X+Y+\lambda).$$
One gets following expressions: $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma^{(1)}_{ijkm}
& = & \zeta(\lambda)+(1-\delta_{ik})\Big(\zeta(x_i-x_k)+\zeta(x_k-x_j+\gamma)-
\zeta(x_i-x_j+\gamma+\lambda)\Big);\\ \\
\sigma^{(2)}_{ijkm}
& = & \zeta(\mu)+(1-\delta_{ik})\Big(\zeta(x_k-x_i)+\zeta(x_i-x_m+\gamma)-
\zeta(x_k-x_m+\gamma+\mu)\Big);\\ \\
\sigma^{(3)}_{ijkm}
& = & \zeta(\lambda)+(1-\delta_{im})\Big(\zeta(x_i-x_m)+\zeta(x_m-x_j+\gamma)-
\zeta(x_i-x_j+\gamma+\lambda)\Big);\\ \\
\sigma^{(4)}_{ijkm}
& = & \zeta(\mu)+(1-\delta_{jk})\Big(\zeta(x_k-x_j)+\zeta(x_j-x_m+\gamma)-
\zeta(x_k-x_m+\gamma+\mu)\Big).\end{aligned}$$
It follows after straightforward manipulations: $$-\sigma_{ijkm}^{(1)}+\sigma_{ijkm}^{(2)}+\sigma_{ijkm}^{(3)}
-\sigma_{ijkm}^{(4)}=$$ $$2(1-\delta_{ik})\zeta(x_k-x_i)+(1-\delta_{im})\zeta(x_i-x_m)-
(1-\delta_{jk})\zeta(x_k-x_j)$$ $$+\zeta(x_i-x_m+\gamma)-\zeta(x_k-x_j+\gamma)+\zeta(x_m-x_j+\gamma)
-\zeta(x_j-x_m=\gamma)$$ $$+(\delta_{ik}-\delta_{im})\Big(\zeta(x_i-x_j+\gamma)-\zeta(x_i-x_j+\gamma
+\lambda)\Big)$$ $$\label{sigmas}
-(\delta_{ik}-\delta_{jk})\Big(\zeta(x_k-x_m+\gamma)-\zeta(x_k-x_m+\gamma
+\mu)\Big).$$
Now it is easy to see that combining (\[alfa\]), (\[sigmas\]), and (\[pi\]), one gets (\[form\]), which proves the Theorem.
[10]{} M.A.Olshanetski, A.M.Perelomov. Classical integrable finite - dimensional systems related to Lie algebras. – [*Phys. Rep., 1981, v.71, p.313*]{}.
D.Kazhdan, B.Kostant, S.Sternberg. Hamiltonian group actions and dynamical systems of Calogero type. – [*Commun. Pure Appl. Math., 1978, v.31, p.491–508*]{}.
S.N.M.Ruijsenaars, H.Schneider. A new class of integrable systems and its relation to solitons. – [*Ann. Phys., 1986, v.170, p.370–405*]{}.
S.N.M.Ruijsenaars. Action–angle maps and scattering theory for some finite–dimensional integrable systems. – [*Commun. Math. Phys., 1988, v.115, p.127–165*]{}.
J.Avan, M.Talon. Classical $R$–matrix structure for the Calogero model. – [*Phys. Lett. B, 1993, v.303, p.33–37*]{}.
E.K.Sklyanin. Dynamical $r$–matrices for elliptic Calogero–Moser model. – [*Alg. i Anal., 1994, v.6, p.227*]{}.
H.W.Braden, T.Suzuki. $R$–matrices for elliptic Calogero–Moser models. – [*Lett. Math. Phys., 1994, v.30, p.147*]{}.
E.Billey, J.Avan, O.Babelon. The $r$–matrix structure of the Euler–Calogero–Moser model. – [*Phys. Lett. A, 1994, v.186, p.114*]{};\
Exact Yangian symmetry in the classical Euler–Calogero–Moser model. – [*Phys. Lett. A, 1994, v.188, p.263*]{}.
J.Avan, O.Babelon, M.Talon. Construction of the classical $R$–matrices for the Toda and Calogero models. – [*Alg. i Anal., 1994, v.6, p.67*]{}.
A.Gorsky, N.Nekrasov. Elliptic Calogero–Moser system from two dimensional current algebra – hep-th/9401021;\
Hamiltonian systems of Calogero type and two–dimensional Yang–Mills theory. – [*Nucl. Phys B , 1994, v.414, p.213–238*]{};\
Relativistic Calogero–Moser model as gauged WZW. –[*Nucl. Phys. B, 1995, v.436, p.582–608*]{}.
A.Gorsky. Integrable many–body systems in the field theories. – hep-th/9410228.
G.E.Arutyunov, P.B.Medvedev. Geometric construction of the classical $R$–matrices for the elliptic and trigonometric Calogero–Moser systems. – hep-th/9511070
O.Babelon, D.Bernard. The sine–Gordon solitons as an $N$–body problem. – [*Phys. Lett. B, 1993, v.317, p.363–368*]{}.
J.Avan, G.Rollet. The classical $r$–matrix for the relativistic Ruijsenaars–Schneider system. – [*Phys. Lett. A, 1996, v.212, p.50–54*]{}.
Yu.B.Suris. Why are the Ruijsenaars–Schneider and the Calogero–Moser hierarchies governed by the same $r$–matrix? – Preprint, February 1996, hep-th/9602160.
F.W.Nijhoff, V.B.Kuznetsov, E.K.Sklyanin, O.Ragnisco. Dynamical $r$–matrix for the elliptic Ruijsenaars–Schneider system. – Preprint, March 1996, solv-int/9603006.
A.Reyman, M.Semenov-Tian-Shansky. Group–theoretic methods in the theory of finite–dimensional integrable systems. – In: [*Encyclopaedia of mathematical sciences, v.16, dynamical systems VII. Springer, 1994, p.116–225*]{}.
L.Freidel, J.M.Maillet. Quadratic algebras and integrable systems. – [*Phys. Lett. B, 1991, v.262, p.278–284*]{}.
S.Parmentier. Twisted affine Poisson structures, decompositions of Lie algebras and the classical Yang–Baxter equations. – [*Preprint Inst. Max Plank, Bonn, 1991*]{}.
Yu.B.Suris. On the bi–Hamiltonian structure of Toda and relativistic Toda lattices. – [*Physics Letters A, 1993, v.180, p.419–429*]{}.
I.Krichever, A.Zabrodin. Spin generalization of the Ruijsenaars - Schneider model, non–abelian 2D Toda chain and representations of Sklyanin algebra. - hep-th/9505039.
Yu.B.Suris. Algebraic structure of discrete time and relativistic Toda lattices. – [*Phys. Lett. A, 1991, v.156, p.467–474*]{}.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Antal Jevicki,'
- 'Kewang Jin,'
- Junggi Yoon
title: '$1/N$ and Loop Corrections in Higher Spin AdS$_4$/CFT$_3$ Duality'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Recently, vector-like models with $O(N)$ and $U(N)$ symmetries at their critical points were seen to exhibit duality [@Klebanov:2002ja; @Sezgin:2002rt; @Giombi:2009wh] with higher spin gravitational theories of Vasiliev [@Vasiliev:1990en; @Vasiliev:1992av; @Bekaert:2005vh]. Typically in 3d vector field theory, there are two conformally invariant fixed points, the free UV fixed point and the interacting IR fixed point. The higher spin duals to these two fixed points are given by the same Vasiliev theory but with different boundary conditions in the quantization of the bulk scalar field. This Vector Model/Higher Spin correspondence was also extended to the supersymmetric case [@Leigh:2003gk; @Sezgin:2003pt], Chern-Simons theories [@Aharony:2011jz; @Giombi:2011kc] and de Sitter space [@Anninos:2011ui; @Das:2012dt]. Furthermore one also has the very rich and nontrivial lower dimensional dualities involving 2d Minimal Model CFTs and 3d Higher Spin Gravities [@Gaberdiel:2010pz; @Chang:2011mz; @Jevicki:2013kma]. All these dualities have received definite support based on evaluation of three-point correlation functions, finite temperature partition functions and study higher conservation laws.
In a series of papers [@Das:2003vw; @Koch:2010cy; @Jevicki:2011ss] an explicit operator construction of the (dual) Higher Spin AdS theory in terms of collective fields was developed. This approach provides a framework for a one-to-one reconstruction of AdS spacetime, higher spin fields in the bulk and their $1/N$ interactions. Higher order calculations that were performed concerned the 1-loop correction to the free energy [@Das:2003vw], correlation functions [@deMelloKoch:1996mj], and an investigation of the (non)triviality of the theory [@deMelloKoch:2012vc] based on free fields.
The purpose of this paper is to study further the question of loop corrections (i.e. $1/N$) in the higher spin duality. We follow up the earlier work of [@Das:2003vw] and the recent work of Giombi and Klebanov [@Giombi:2013fka]. These calculations concern the evaluation of partition functions at one loop in the collective and also in the AdS version of the theory. In both cases, the one-loop corrections follow from the quadratic Laplacians $${{\rm Tr}}\log\Box_{\text{bi-local}} \qquad \text{and} \qquad
{{\rm Tr}}\log\frac{\Box_{\text{hs}}}{\Box_{\text{gh}}} \ .$$ In the light-cone gauge the Laplacians can be shown to be equal $$\Box_{\text{bi-local}}=2\partial_+\partial_--\left(\frac{p_1^2}{p_1^+}+\frac{p_2^2}{p_2^+}\right)\left(p_1^++p_2^+\right)=2\partial_+\partial_--\left(\partial_x^2+\partial_z^2\right)=\nabla_{\text{hs}}$$ as a consequence of the spacetime mapping established in [@Koch:2010cy].[^1] Due to gauge invariance one could then expect identical results for their one-loop contributions in general. However, since one considers backgrounds which do not always easily fit into the light-cone gauge, explicit calculations are nevertheless worthwhile. They also serve as the purpose for understanding more completely the nature of loop corrections in higher spin duality. In particular in the heat-kernel AdS calculation the suggestion was made in [@Giombi:2013fka] that the identification of the gravitational coupling constant should be taken as $G=1/(N-1)$ for the dualities based on the $O(N)$ symmetry group (no such change was found for the $U(N)$ case). Our results shed some light on this identification. First of all collective theory shows that in addition to the determinant there is one further contribution of $O(1)$ associated with the measure appearing in the functional integration. The measure does provide the needed cancellation at one loop (as noticed originally in [@Das:2003vw]) allowing the standard identification of $G=1/N$. However collective field theory also indicates a freedom of a finite (re)normalization of $G$ into $1/(N-1)$ as we discuss in the text. These two expansion schemes are compatible, as one can re-expand results of one into another.
The content of this paper goes as follows. In section \[sec:collective\] we consider first the finite temperature case of the CFT reviewing an earlier work of [@Das:2003vw]. This example already contains some of the basic effects that will be observable in the rest of the calculations. We then present details of the bi-local calculation in the case of $S^3$ (the example of [@Giombi:2013fka; @Klebanov:2011gs]) and point out the role of the measure. In section \[sec:thermal\] we proceed to the other phase of the theory discussing the evaluation of the partition function in thermal AdS both by the heat-kernel method and in the bi-local collective field framework. Some conclusions are given in section \[sec:conclusions\].
Collective approach to the loop corrections {#sec:collective}
===========================================
The collective theory describes the large $N$ dynamics of bi-local collective fields. These fields have the property that they close under the Schwinger-Dyson equations. They represent a more general set than the conformal currents and contain an additional dimension. As such they are natural candidates for representing the bulk AdS$_4$ theory. This is supported by the fact that an effective, collective field action with the property that the associated functional integral exactly evaluates the $O(N)$ singlet partition function and correlation functions of bi-local operators. The diagramatics accomplished by this reformulation is that of Witten diagrams.
The exact partition function of the free vector model with $N$ components in terms of the bi-local field $\Phi\left(x,y\right)$ is given by [@Das:2003vw] $$Z=\int \mathcal{D}\Phi\left(x,y\right) J(x,y) e^{-S\left[\Phi\left(x,y\right)\right]}
=\int \mathcal{D}\Phi\left(x,y\right) \mu \, e^{-S_{\text{col}}\left[\Phi\left(x,y\right)\right]}
\label{partition}$$ where $J(x,y)$ is the Jacobian (generated from the change of variables from the fundamental vector fields to the bi-local fields), and the collective action reads $$S_{\text{col}}=N \int d^3x \left(-\left.\Delta_x\Phi\left(x,y\right)\right|_{x=y}\right)-\frac{1}{2} N {{\rm Tr}}\log \Phi \ .
\label{collaction}$$ The (integration) measure $\mu$ in (\[partition\]) is computed to be $$\mu=\left(\det\Phi\right)^{-\kappa}$$ where the power $\kappa$ depends on the underlying symmetry of the vector fields. For the $O(N)$ case, the bi-local field $\Phi\left(x,y\right)=\frac{1}{N} \vec{\phi}\left(x\right)\cdot\vec{\phi}\left(y\right)$ is symmetric and $\kappa=\frac{1}{2}\left(K+1\right)$ with $K=\sum_{k}1$ the ‘volume’ of the momentum space. While for the $U\left(N\right)$ case, the bi-local field $\Phi\left(x,y\right)=\frac{1}{N}\vec{\phi}^*(x)\cdot\vec{\phi}\left(y\right)$ is Hermitian and we have $\kappa=K$. The details of this derivation can be found in the appendix \[app:measure\]. In the Riemann zeta-function regularization (employed in [@Giombi:2013fka] and also here), we have set $K=0$ so that the measure is simplified to be $$\mu = \begin{cases}
1 & \text{for}~ U(N) \\
(\det \Phi)^{-1/2} & \text{for}~ O(N)
\end{cases} \ .$$
We mention that the action on this representation scales with $N$ and the interactions generated are consequently given in powers of $1/N$ and the measure would contribute in the subleading orders. It is also relevant to point out at the outset that the measure in this collective representation leads to a contribution of the same form as the ${{\rm Tr}}\log$ term in the action (\[collaction\]) (which sets the coupling constant). Consequently one can equivalently include the measure term into the action obtaining an effective coupling constant. We will return to this issue of interpretation in section \[sec:interpretation\] after presenting the one loop calculations.
Partition function on $S^1 \times \mathbb{R}^2$
-----------------------------------------------
We start by reviewing first the one-loop calculation performed in [@Das:2003vw] for the $S^1 \times \mathbb{R}^2$ partition function. This case already demonstrates some of the features of the one loop determinant that will be general and central to the issues raised in the Introduction.
One develops the expansion as usual by shifting the background bi-local field $$\Phi\left(x_1,x_2\right)=\Phi_0\left(x_1,x_2\right)+\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\eta\left(x_1,x_2\right)$$ where $\Phi_0\left(x_1,x_2\right)$ represents the stationary point of the collective action (\[collaction\]). In the momentum space representation one has the Fourier transformed field $\tilde{\Phi}_0(k_1,k_2)$ with the momenta $k_{1,2}=(\nu_n,\vec{k}_{1,2})$ where the Matsubara frequency is given by $\nu_n=\frac{2 \pi n}{\beta}$ and $\beta$ as the inverse of temperature $T$.
The zeroth-order collective action is now given by $$S_{\text{col}}^{\left(0\right)}=N \sum_{k} k^2 \tilde{\Phi}_{0}(k,-k)-\frac{1}{2} N {{\rm Tr}}\log \tilde{\Phi}_0 \ .$$ Translation invariance implies $\tilde{\Phi}_{0}(k_1,k_2)=\xi\left(k_1\right)\delta_{k_1,-k_2}$, and we get $$S_{\text{col}}^{(0)}=N\sum_{k} k^2 \xi\left(k\right) -\frac{1}{2}N \sum_{k}\log\left[\xi\left(k\right)\right] \ .$$ By the saddle point method one determines $\xi\left(k\right)= \frac{1}{2k^2}$, and the background field is $$\Phi_0\left(x,y\right)=\frac{1}{\left(2\pi\right)^2\beta}\sum_n\int d^2\vec{k} \frac{1}{2\left(\vec{k}^2+\left(\frac{2\pi n}{\beta}\right)^2\right)}e^{ik\cdot\left(x-y\right)}$$ which is nothing but the free two point function $\langle \phi^i (x) \phi^i (y)\rangle$ of the bi-local operators. Evaluating the action at the background value produces the leading contribution to the free energy $$F^{\left(0\right)}=S_{\text{col}}^{(0)}=\frac{N}{2}\sum_n\sum_{\vec{k}}\log \left[\vec{k}^2+\left(\frac{2\pi n}{\beta}\right)^2\right]$$ which is precisely the free energy of $N$ free bosons $F^{\left(0\right)}=\frac{N}{2} {{\rm Tr}}\log \partial^2$. At high temperature, the free energy scales as $F^{(0)} \sim - N \zeta(3) T^2$, producing the lower phase of [@Shenker:2011zf].
To evaluate the 1-loop contribution, one expands the collective action $S_{\text{col}}$ to the quadratic order in the fluctuations $\eta$ : $$\begin{aligned}
S_{\text{col}}^{\left(2\right)}&=&\frac{1}{4}{{\rm Tr}}\left(\eta\Phi_0^{-1}\eta\Phi_0^{-1}\right)\equiv{{\rm Tr}}\left(\eta\Box\eta\right)\cr
&=&2 \sum_{k_1>k_2} k_1^2k_2^2\eta_{k_1,-k_2}\eta_{k_2,-k_1}+\sum_{k}\left(k^2\right)^2\eta_{k,-k}\eta_{k,-k} \ .\end{aligned}$$ Then the one-loop free energy comes as the determinant of the generalized (bi-local) Laplacian. Because of the product form the determinant factorizes and one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
F^{\left(1\right)}&=&\frac{1}{2}{{\rm Tr}}\log\left(\Box\right)=\sum_{k_1>k_2}\frac{1}{2}\log\left(k_1^2k_2^2\right)+\sum_{k}\log (k^2)\cr
&=&\frac{1}{2}\left(K+1\right)\sum_{k}\log (k^2)
\label{oneloop}\end{aligned}$$ with a surprising finding that the bi-local determinant produces the local field contribution (with a factor $K+1$). This pre-factor is most significant as it is associated with the counting of bi-local degrees of freedom. With a zeta-function regularization the infinite ‘volume’ $K$ would be set to $0$ and the result corresponds to the $N=1$ single field expression. This is a prototype of the result that was also observed in [@Giombi:2013fka], namely the evaluation of the AdS higher spin determinant in the heat-kernel method using the zeta-function regularization gave the $N=1$ CFT result.
The collective representation however contains one other contribution of order $\mathcal{O}\left(N^0\right)$. It comes from the measure $\mu$ evaluated at the stationary point $$\Delta F^{\left(1\right)}=\frac{1}{2}\left(K+1\right){{\rm Tr}}\log \Phi_0=-\frac{1}{2}\left(K+1\right)\sum_{k}\log\left(k^2\right) \ .$$ Thus the total one-loop correction to the free energy is found to be $$F^{\left(1\right)}_{\text{total}}=F^{\left(1\right)}+\Delta F^{\left(1\right)}=0 \ .$$ This complete cancellation between the determinant and the measure contribution therefore assures the required result $0$.
To recapitulate, the one loop determinant of fluctuations produces an answer identical to that of $N$ free scalars in $d=3$ but with $N$ replaced by $K+1$. If $K$ (which is infinite) is set to $0$ by regularization the result then corresponds to $N=1$, i.e. to that of a single scalar field. This is what was also found in [@Giombi:2013fka] and will be the case in all the other examples that follow. One can trace its origin of this to the bi-local nature of degrees of freedom in this theory. In particular the appearance of $K+1$ in $O(N)$ theories (and $K$ in $U(N)$ theories) is associated with the fact that the fields can be encoded into a symmetric matrix appearing naturally in the bi-local description. Equally importantly in the collective higher spin representation, one also has a measure in the functional integral which leads to cancellation and the result $F_{\rm total}^{(1)}=0$ at one loop.
Partition function on $S^3$
---------------------------
We now consider the partition function on $S^3$, the example that was considered in [@Giombi:2013fka]. One follows the same procedure described in detail as in the previous section, the only difference being the explicit expressions for the eigenfunctions and eigenvalues.
Using spherical harmonics of $S^3$, the Fourier transformation of the bi-local field is $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi\left(x_1,x_2\right)=\sum_{\vec{k}_1,\vec{k}_2}\Phi_{\vec{k}_1,\vec{k}_2}Y_{\vec{k}_1}\left(x_1\right)Y_{\vec{k}_2}\left(x_2\right)\end{aligned}$$ where $\vec{k}$ denotes a full set of quantum numbers $\vec{k} \equiv (l,n,m)$ and $$\begin{aligned}
l&=&0,1,2,\cdots,\cr
n&=&0,1,2,\cdots,l \cr
m&=&-n,-\left(n-1\right),\cdots, n-1,n \ . \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Denoting the conjugate label of $\vec{k}$ as $\vec{k}^* \equiv (l,n,-m)$, the classical background field is now $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_0\left(x_1,x_2\right)=\sum_{\vec{k}}\frac{\left(-1\right)^m}{2\lambda(\vec{k})}Y_{\vec{k}}\left(x_1\right)Y_{\vec{k}^*}\left(x_2\right)\end{aligned}$$ where $\lambda(\vec{k})$ are the eigenvalues of the Laplacian on $S^3$ : $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda(\vec{k})=\left(l+\frac{3}{2}\right)\left(l+\frac{1}{2}\right) \ .\end{aligned}$$ From the background field, one can calculate the leading free energy $$\begin{aligned}
F^{\left(0\right)}=S_{\text{col}}^{(0)}\left(\Phi_0\right)=\frac{N}{2}\sum_{\vec{k}}\log \lambda(\vec{k})=N\left(\frac{1}{8}\log2-\frac{3\zeta\left(3\right)}{16\pi^2}\right) \ ,\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the Riemann zeta function regularization as in [@Klebanov:2011gs].
For the one-loop contribution, following the same procedure which leads to (\[oneloop\]), we have the result $$\begin{aligned}
F^{\left(1\right)}=\frac{1}{2}\left(K+1\right)\sum_{\vec{k}}\log \lambda(\vec{k}) \ .\end{aligned}$$ In the zeta function regularization, the constant $K$ gives $$\begin{aligned}
K=\sum_{\vec{k}}1=\sum_{l=0}^\infty\sum_{n=0}^l\sum_{m=-n}^n1=\zeta\left(-2\right)=0 \ .\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the one-loop contribution to free energy is $$\begin{aligned}
F^{\left(1\right)}=\frac{1}{8}\log2-\frac{3\zeta\left(3\right)}{16\pi^2}\end{aligned}$$ which is exactly the contribution from a single scalar field. Notice that a bi-local field in the $U\left(N\right)$ vector model is not symmetric, but Hermitian, the one-loop free energy of $U\left(N\right)$ is $F^{\left(1\right)}_{U\left(N\right)}=K\sum_{\vec{k}}\log\lambda(\vec{k})$. After regularization, the free energy of $U\left(N\right)$ vector model vanishes $F^{\left(1\right)}_{U\left(N\right)}=0$ as a result of $K=0$. This also agrees with [@Giombi:2013fka].
Remember there is another correction to the one-loop free energy from the measure $\mu$ by plugging in the background bi-local field $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta F^{\left(1\right)}=\frac{1}{2}\left(K+1\right){{\rm Tr}}\log \Phi_0=-\frac{1}{2}\left(K+1\right)\sum_{\vec{k}}\log \lambda(\vec{k}) \ .\end{aligned}$$ The total one-loop free energy is therefore $$\begin{aligned}
F^{\left(1\right)}_{\text{total}}=F^{\left(1\right)}+\Delta F^{\left(1\right)}=0 \ .\end{aligned}$$ The cancellation of one-loop free energy by the contribution of the measure also occurs in the case of $U\left(N\right)$.
Interpretation of the results {#sec:interpretation}
-----------------------------
Collective higher spin field theory based on bi-local fields realizes AdS/CFT duality in the bulk through the path integral $$\begin{aligned}
Z=\int d\Phi\left(x,y\right)\mu\left[\Phi\right]e^{-S_{\text{col}}[\Phi]}=Z\left(G=\frac{1}{N}\right)\end{aligned}$$ where the action is given by $$\begin{aligned}
S_{\text{col}}=S_0 - \frac{N}{2} {{\rm Tr}}\log \Phi \ .
\label{trlog}\end{aligned}$$ Compared with the original CFT action $S_0$, we have an extra $\mathcal{O}(N)$ term given by the ${{\rm Tr}}\log$ term in (\[trlog\]) responsible for the $G=1/N$ expansion, and a $\mathcal{O}\left(N^0\right)$ measure term $$\begin{aligned}
\mu=\left(\det \Phi\left(x,y\right)\right)^{-\kappa}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\kappa=\begin{cases}
K& \qquad \text{for}~ U\left(N\right) \\
\frac{1}{2}\left(K+1\right)&\qquad \text{for}~ O\left(N\right)\\
\end{cases} \ .\end{aligned}$$ These two terms both represent the quantum effects, they specifically come from the Jacobian arising in the change of variables from $N$-component scalar fields $\phi^i(x)$ to the singlet bi-local fields $\Phi(x,y)=\phi^i(x)\phi^i(y)$ : $$\begin{aligned}
\log J=\frac{1}{2}\left(N-2\kappa\right){{\rm Tr}}\log \Phi \ .\end{aligned}$$ Altogether the action (expandable in $1/N$) and the measure of lower order define the systematic $1/N$ expansion of the theory.
But the collective field representation offers another possibility. One notices the fact the measure term and the additional term contributing to the action have the same functional form. This then allows an alternative splitting for example with the whole $\log J$ added to the action $$\begin{aligned}
Z=\int d\Phi\left(x,y\right) e^{\partial^2\Phi+\frac{1}{2}\left(N-2\kappa\right){{\rm Tr}}\log\Phi}=Z\left(G^*\right) \ .\end{aligned}$$ This leads to a formulation without any measure and an effective coupling constant given by $$\begin{aligned}
G^*=\frac{1}{N-2\kappa} \ .\end{aligned}$$ One can be worried about this scheme considering the fact that this represents an infinite renormalization of the coupling constant. But in the case of $O\left(N\right)$ models where $2\kappa=K+1$ (and $K$ is infinite), we can include the $2 \kappa=1$ part into the coupling resulting in $$\begin{aligned}
Z=\int d\Phi (x,y) \, \mu' \left[\Phi\right] e^{-\left(N-1\right)S_{\text{col}}}=Z\left(G'=\frac{1}{N-1}\right)\end{aligned}$$ and an expansion based on the new coupling constant $$\begin{aligned}
G'=\frac{1}{N-1} \ .\end{aligned}$$ In this case, the measure is $\mu'=\left(\det \Phi \right)^{-\frac{1}{2}K}$. Employing a regularization which sets $K=0$ we have the expansion parameter $G'=1/(N-1)$ and no extra measure. This would be in agreement with the identification suggested in [@Giombi:2013fka].
In general, gravitational theories come with a nonzero measure [@Faddeev:1973zb]. For example, the functional measure in (quantized) general relativity was computed in [@Fradkin:1974df; @Kaku:1976xe] to be $$\begin{aligned}
\mu=\prod_x \Bigl[ g^{7/2}(x) g^{00}(x) \prod_{\sigma \le \lambda} dg^{\sigma\lambda}(x) \Bigr] \ ,\end{aligned}$$ where $g \equiv \det g_{\mu\nu}$. It contributes infinite $\delta^{(4)}(0)$ terms in perturbation theory canceling analogous divergences of Feynman diagrams. In dimensional or zeta function regularization, such terms are set to $0$.
In Vasiliev theory, one has not yet worked out the measure (evaluating it would require the use of an action). But, the existence of a collective representation for this theory would indicate that there will be an analogous measure. If what we have learned in the collective representation is telling, then in a regularization where such a measure is removed, one could define an effective coupling constant so that expansion would naturally become $G'=1/(N-1)$ for $O(N)$ theories as compared to $G=1/N$ for $U(N)$ duals. We mention however that for non-perturbative studies involving the Hilbert space (and entropy) it might not be appropriate to use a regularization which removes the measure. Such is for example the case of dS/CFT [@Das:2012dt]. In any case it is of interest to evaluate the one loop measure of higher spin theories.
Another possibility was suggested by Leigh and Petkou [@Leigh:2012mz]. On the field theory side, an explicit symmetry breaking from $O(N) \to O(N-1)$ can be triggered by adding a singleton deformation. Such deformation, in the bulk, can be absorbed by the higher spin fields with a shift of the parameter $N \to N+1$. Therefore, the singleton deformation breaks higher-spin symmetry and generates a $1/N$ correction to the free energy.
One loop partition functions in thermal AdS$_4$ {#sec:thermal}
===============================================
We now proceed to the study (and evaluation) of the free energy in the case of another geometry (thermal AdS$_4$). This actually represents a different phase of the theory, involving the phase transition described in [@Shenker:2011zf]. In this case we perform calculations both in the AdS heat-kernel version and the bi-local collective version. The purpose is first of all to observe an agreement between the two calculations and also to see that the phenomena put forward in section \[sec:collective\] persist in the case of a different background. This will happen even though the physics of the two phases (as emphasized in [@Shenker:2011zf]) is very different.
The Heat Kernel method
----------------------
Thermal AdS$_4$ is defined by periodicity conditions on the Euclidean time variable $\tau \in \left[0,\beta\right]$. One expands the metric $g$ around the AdS background which is taken the same (static) solution as the AdS vacuum $g=g_{\text{AdS}}+\eta$. In [@Gopakumar:2011qs; @Gupta:2012he], the partition functions of higher spin theories in odd dimensional AdS spaces are explicitly calculated using the heat kernel method. One can follow exactly the same method in performing the calculations in AdS$_4$. The partition function of massless spin-$s$ field is then $$\begin{aligned}
Z_{\left(s\right)} &=& \exp\left[-\frac{1}{2}{{\rm Tr}}\log\frac{\left(-\nabla^2+s^2-2s-2\right)}{\left(-\nabla^2+s^2-1\right)}\right] \cr
&=&\prod_{m=1}^\infty\left[\frac{\left(1-q^{s+m+1}\right)^{2s-1}}{\left(1-q^{s+m}\right)^{2s+1}}\right]^{\frac{m\left(m+1\right)}{2}}
=\prod_{m=1}^\infty\frac{1}{\left(1-q^{s+m}\right)^{m\left(m+2s\right)}} \ .\end{aligned}$$ The partition function of the massless scalar field is $$\begin{aligned}
\log Z_{\left(0\right)}&=&-\frac{1}{2}\log\det\left(-\bigtriangleup+M_{\left(0\right)}^2\right)=\sum_{m=1}^\infty \frac{1}{m\left(1-q^m\right)^{3}}q^{m\left(\frac{3}{2} \pm \sqrt{\frac{9}{4}+M_{\left(0\right)}^2}\right)} \cr
&\equiv&\sum_{m=1}^\infty \frac{q^{m\Delta_{\left(0\right)}}}{m\left(1-q^m\right)^{3}}=\sum_{m=1}^\infty\binom{m+1}{2}\log\frac{1}{1-q^{\Delta_{\left(0\right)}+m-1}}\end{aligned}$$ resulting in $$\begin{aligned}
Z_{\left(0\right)}=\prod_{m=1}^\infty \frac{1}{\left(1-q^{\Delta_{\left(0\right)}+m-1}\right)^{\frac{m\left(m+1\right)}{2}}}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta_{(0)}$ is the scaling dimension of the bulk scalar field.
For the UV fixed point, which corresponds to $\Delta_{(0)}=1$, we have the partition function for the scalar field as $$Z_{\left(0\right)}=\prod_{m=1}^\infty \frac{1}{\left(1-q^m\right)^{\frac{m\left(m+1\right)}{2}}} \ .$$ Multiplying with all the higher spin contributions, the total one loop partition function of higher spin gravity (which corresponds to the $U(N)$ vector model on the boundary) is $$\begin{aligned}
Z=\prod_{s=0}^\infty Z_{\left(s\right)}=\frac{1}{\left(1-q\right)\left(1-q^2\right)^3}\prod_{m=2}^\infty\frac{1}{\left(1-q^m\right)^{\binom{m+1}{2}}\left(1-q^{m+1}\right)^{3\binom{m+1}{2}+4\binom{m+1}{3}}} \ .\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the associated free energy is $$\begin{aligned}
F=-\log Z =\sum_{m=1}^\infty\left(\frac{2}{3}m^3+\frac{1}{3}m\right)\log\left(1-q^m\right)=-\sum_{k=1}^\infty\frac{1}{k}\frac{q^k\left(1+q^k\right)^2}{\left(1-q^k\right)^4}
\label{un}\end{aligned}$$ which agrees with eq. (10) of [@Shenker:2011zf].
Also, for the minimal higher spin theory which includes only the even higher spin fields, the free energy is then $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
F_{\rm min}=&-\log Z_{\rm min}=\sum_{m=1}^\infty\frac{m\left(m+1\right)}{2}\log\left(1-q^m\right)+\sum_{m,s=1}^\infty m\left(m+4s\right)\log\left(1-q^{2s+m}\right)\\
=&\sum_{m=1}^\infty\frac{m\left(m+1\right)}{2}\log\left(1-q^m\right)+\sum_{m=3}^\infty\sum_{s=1}^{\left[\frac{m-1}{2}\right]}\left(m^2-4s^2\right)\log\left(1-q^m\right)\\
=&-\sum_{k=1}^\infty\frac{q^k}{k}\frac{\left(1+q^k+4q^{2k}+q^{3k}+q^{4k}\right)}{\left(q^k+1\right)^2\left(q^k-1\right)^4}=-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{k=1}^\infty\frac{q^k}{k}\left[\frac{\left(1+q^k\right)^2}{\left(1-q^k\right)^4}+\frac{1+q^{2k}}{\left(1-q^{2k}\right)^2}\right] \ .
\label{on}
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ This result will be seen to agree with the singlet $O(N)$ model case using the collective field method.
The Hamiltonian method
----------------------
For completeness, let us describe how the heat kernel evaluations can be equivalently obtained by a Hamiltonian method as described in [@Gibbons:2006ij]. The one-particle partition function of a massless field in AdS$_4$ as a function of the temperature $T=\beta^{-1}$ and the chemical potential $\Omega$ is written as $$\begin{aligned}
Y\left(\beta,\Omega\right)=\sum_{E,j} e^{-(\beta E+\alpha j)} \ .\end{aligned}$$ For the representations which are relevant for the UV fixed point, we have $$\begin{aligned}
Y_{\left(1,0\right)}(\beta,\Omega=0)=&\frac{e^{2\beta}}{\left(e^\beta-1\right)^3}\\
Y_{\left(s+1,s\right)}(\beta,\Omega=0)=&\frac{e^{\left(1-s\right)\beta}\left[\left(2s+1\right)e^\beta+1-2s\right]}{\left(e^\beta-1\right)^3}\qquad (s \ge 1) \ .\end{aligned}$$ From the single-particle partition function, one deduces energy spectrum and the degeneracies $$\begin{aligned}
{5}
&D\left(1,0\right)\quad &&:\quad E_n=n,\quad&&d_n=\frac{1}{2}n\left(n+1\right),&&\qquad\left(n\ge 1\right)\\
&D\left(s+1,s\right)\quad &&:\quad E_n=n,\quad&&d_n=n^2-s^2,&&\qquad \left(n\ge s\ge 1\right) \ .\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, through the formula $$\begin{aligned}
F=\sum_{n} d_n\log\left(1-e^{-\beta E_n}\right)\end{aligned}$$ one can obtain free energies of massless particles in AdS$_4$ as $$\begin{aligned}
F_{\left(0\right)}=&\sum_{m=1}^\infty\frac{m\left(m+1\right)}{2}\log\left(1-q^{m}\right)\\
F_{\left(s\right)}=&\sum_{m=s}^\infty\left(m^2-s^2\right)\log\left(1-q^{m}\right)\qquad (s \ge 1)\end{aligned}$$ where $q=e^{-\beta}$. Thus, the total free energy is $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
F=&\sum_{s=0}^\infty F_{\left(s\right)}=F_{\left(0\right)}+\sum_{s=1}^\infty\sum_{m=s}^\infty\left(m^2-s^2\right)\log\left(1-q^{m}\right)\\
=&F_{\left(0\right)}+\sum_{m=1}^\infty \sum_{s=1}^{m}\left(m^2-s^2\right)\log\left(1-q^{m}\right)=\sum_{m=1}^\infty \frac{1}{3}m\left(2m^2+1\right)\log\left(1-q^m\right)\\
=&-\sum_{m=1}^\infty \sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{1}{3}m\left(2m^2+1\right)\frac{q^{mk}}{k}=-\sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{1}{k}\frac{q^k\left(1+q^k\right)^2}{\left(1-q^k\right)^4}
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ which agrees with . Also, one can add up only the even spin fields and the scalar field contributions to get $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
F_{\rm min}=\sum_{s=0}^\infty F_{\left(2s\right)}=&-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{k=1}^\infty\frac{q^k}{k}\left[\frac{\left(1+q^k\right)^2}{\left(1-q^k\right)^4}+\frac{1+q^{2k}}{\left(1-q^{2k}\right)^2}\right]
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ which agrees with .
The collective field theory approach
------------------------------------
We will now describe the evaluation of the partition function in the bi-local picture. Since the background is given by the ground state solution it is appropriate to use the Hamiltonian (single-time) representation of the bi-local theory [@Koch:2010cy]. The full nonlinear collective Hamiltonian for the equal-time bilocal field (and its canonical conjugate) reads $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
H&=\frac{1}{2}\int d\vec{x}d\vec{y}d\vec{z} \, \Pi\left(\vec{x},\vec{y}\right) \Psi\left(\vec{y},\vec{z}\right)\Pi\left(\vec{z},\vec{x}\right)+\frac{1}{2}\int d\vec{x}d\vec{y} \, \Pi\left(\vec{x},\vec{y}\right) \Psi\left(\vec{y},\vec{x}\right)\Pi\left(\vec{x},\vec{x}\right)\\
&+\frac{1}{2}\int d\vec{x}d\vec{y} \, \Pi\left(\vec{x},\vec{x}\right) \Psi\left(\vec{x},\vec{y}\right)\Pi\left(\vec{y},\vec{x}\right)+\frac{1}{2}\int d\vec{x} \, \Pi\left(\vec{x},\vec{x}\right) \Psi\left(\vec{x},\vec{x}\right)\Pi\left(\vec{x},\vec{x}\right)\\
&+\frac{1}{2}\int d\vec{x} \left(-\left.\Box_{\vec{x}} \Psi\left(\vec{x},\vec{y}\right)\right|_{\vec{y}=\vec{x}}\right)+\frac{N^2}{8} {{\rm Tr}}\Psi^{-1}+\Delta V
\label{hamiltonian}
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Box_{\vec{x}}$ is the Laplacian on $S^2$ and the counterterms (which are lower orders in $1/N$) are $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta V=\left(-\frac{N}{4}\left(K+1\right)+\frac{1}{8}\left(K+1\right)^2\right){{\rm Tr}}\Psi^{-1} \ .\end{aligned}$$ The first five (integral) terms on the RHS of (\[hamiltonian\]) comes from a direct rewriting of the original Hamiltonian (of the vector fields) in terms of the bi-local fields (after a repeated use of the chain rule) (see [@Jin:2013lqa] for details). The rest terms in (\[hamiltonian\]) (including the interaction term ${{\rm Tr}}\Psi^{-1}$ and the counterterm $\Delta V$) arises from a similarity transformation to make the Hamiltonian Hermitian. This is in the same spirit as the Jacobian present in the action approach, and the counterterm is related to the lower order measure.
The collective Hamiltonian (\[hamiltonian\]) is well suited to perform a $1/N$ expansion after the rescaling $\Psi \to N \Psi$ and $\Pi \to \Pi/N$. By expanding $\Psi\left(\vec{x},\vec{y}\right)$ around the background field $\Psi=\Psi_0+\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\eta$, and similarly for the conjugate momenta $\Pi=\sqrt{N}\pi$, one can show that the leading Hamiltonian $H^{\left(0\right)}$ of order $\mathcal{O}\left(N\right)$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
E^{(0)}=&H^{\left(0\right)}=\frac{N}{2}\int d^2x \left[-\left.\nabla_{\vec{x}}^2\Psi_0\left(\vec{x},\vec{y}\right)\right|_{\vec{y}=\vec{x}}\right]+\frac{N}{8}{{\rm Tr}}\Psi_0^{-1} \cr
=&\frac{N}{2}\sum_{\vec{k}}\left(l+\frac{1}{2}\right)=\frac{N}{4}\sum_{l=0}\left(2l+1\right)^2
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ which is exactly the ground state energy of $N$ free bosons.
The one-loop calculation follows similarly as the covariant formulation used in the previous section. The quadratic Hamiltonian of order $\mathcal{O}\left(N^0\right)$ is $$\begin{aligned}
H^{\left(2\right)}=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\vec{k}_1\le \vec{k}_2} \left[\pi_{\vec{k}_1,\vec{k}_2^*}\pi_{\vec{k}_2,\vec{k}_1^*}+\eta_{\vec{k}_1,\vec{k}_2^*}\omega^2_{\vec{k}_1,\vec{k}_2}\eta_{\vec{k}_2,\vec{k}_1^*}\right]\end{aligned}$$ where $\vec{k}=\left(l,m\right)$ and $\vec{k}^*=\left(l,-m\right)$. The frequencies are $\omega_{\vec{k}_1,\vec{k}_2}=l_1+l_2+1$ on $S^2$, so that the free energy of the singlet sector can be easily calculated as $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
F'_{\rm min}=&E^{(1)}\beta+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\left(l_1,m_1\right),\left(l_2,m_2\right)}\log\left[1-e^{-\beta\left(l_1+l_2+1\right)}\right]+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\left(l,m\right)}\log\left[1-e^{-\beta\left(2l+1\right)}\right]\\
=&E^{(1)}\beta-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{n=1}^\infty\frac{e^{-n\beta}}{n}\left[\frac{\left(1+e^{-n\beta}\right)^2}{\left(1-e^{-n\beta}\right)^4}+\frac{1+e^{-2n\beta}}{\left(1-e^{-2n\beta}\right)^2}\right]
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where the factor $\frac{1}{2}$ in the second term are necessary for avoiding double-counting. Furthermore, the 1-loop correction to the ground state energy is $E^{\left(1\right)}=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\vec{k}_1\le\vec{k}_2}\omega_{\vec{k}_1,\vec{k}_2}=\frac{1}{2}(K+1)\sum_{\vec{k}}\lambda(\vec{k})$ which precisely cancels the $\mathcal{O}(N^0)$ contribution from the counterterm $\Delta V$: $\Delta E^{(1)} = -\frac{1}{4} (K+1) {{\rm Tr}}\Psi_0^{-1}=-\frac{1}{2}(K+1)\sum_{\vec{k}}\lambda(\vec{k})$. This ensures the vanishing of the total one loop correction: $E^{\left(1\right)}_{\text{total}}=E^{\left(1\right)}+\Delta E^{\left(1\right)}=0$. Therefore, the leftover correction to the free energy is $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
F_{\rm min}=&-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{n=1}^\infty\frac{e^{-n\beta}}{n}\left[\frac{\left(1+e^{-n\beta}\right)^2}{\left(1-e^{-n\beta}\right)^4}+\frac{1+e^{-2n\beta}}{\left(1-e^{-2n\beta}\right)^2}\right]
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ which agrees with after the identification $q = e^{-\beta}$.
In a similar way, one can calculate the free energy of singlet sector of $U\left(N\right)$ vector theory. In this case, the bi-local field $\Psi\left(\vec{x},\vec{y}\right)$ is not symmetric hence there will be no potential double-counting, the final result is $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
F=&\sum_{\left(l_1,m_1\right),\left(l_2,m_2\right)}\log\left[1-e^{-\beta\left(l_1+l_2+1\right)}\right]=-\sum_{n=1}^\infty\frac{e^{-n\beta}}{n}\frac{\left(1+e^{-n\beta}\right)^2}{\left(1-e^{-n\beta}\right)^4}
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ which agrees with . At high temperature, the free energy scales as $F \sim -4 \zeta\left(5\right) T^4$, showing the higher phase of [@Shenker:2011zf].
What we have seen in the present series of calculations is that in this case the free energies do not vanish at one loop. But the ground state energy is indeed much like the free energy of the previous section: one obtains the exact result in the leading evaluation while the one loop contribution cancels with the contribution from the counterterm. The picture regarding the redefinition of the coupling constant in the $O(N)$ case therefore appears in this background too. That is satisfactory as there should not be a change in the identification of the coupling constant just by changing the background.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
The purpose of the calculations presented in this paper is two-fold. First, the calculations (essentially of the determinants) in the bi-local collective picture and the AdS picture were seen to give identical results. This can serve as a further confirmation of the exact equivalence of the two pictures at the level of Laplacians representing small fluctuations. This agreement was seen for a variety of backgrounds. We note that the bi-local picture provides an explanation of the curious observation of [@Giombi:2013fka] that the evaluation of one-loop AdS determinants (after summing over all spins and zeta function regularization) gives a result identical to that of a single local field.
Second, the calculations performed offer further data for a specification of the dictionary between higher spin gravities and vector field theories (both $U(N)$ and $O(N)$). The issue (addressed in [@Giombi:2013fka]) is the possible difference between the identification of $G$ (the coupling constant in the higher spin theory) with the parameter $1/N$ or $1/(N-1)$ of the vector model. The collective field representation shows that the $1/N$ expansion can be maintained due to a presence of a measure factor in the functional integration. Due to the specific form of the measure we have also observed that for $O(N)$ based theories one can define an effective coupling constant given by $G'=1/(N-1)$ as proposed in [@Giombi:2013fka]. We caution however that this might be a gauge dependent phenomenon and might not be a feature of an arbitrary gauge. This problem (of measure) is well understood in bi-local version of higher spin theory but remains to be understood in Vasiliev type gravities. For this, one requires the knowledge of the action [@Boulanger:2011dd], which then through its (nonlinear) Poisson structure determines the measure appearing in the functional integral. Work on this is in progress.
Finally let us mention that the collective approach can be extended to the interacting IR fixed point as well. For the AdS computations including the heat-kernel method and the Hamiltonian method, adapting to the IR fixed point is relatively straightforward just by changing the conformal dimension of the bulk scalar field from $\Delta_{(0)}=1$ to $\Delta_{(0)}=2$. On the field theory side, the IR fixed point can be reached either by turning on a double trace deformation or using the nonlinear sigma model. The collective approach can be applied to either method and we have checked that the free energy decreases along the RG flow (the F-theorem) with the difference $F_{IR}-F_{UV}=-\frac{\zeta(3)}{8 \pi^2}$ in the case of $S^3$ [@Klebanov:2011gs]. Most recently, an extension of the results in [@Giombi:2013fka] to other dimensions $d$ was performed in [@Giombi:2014iua]. It is clear that some of our conclusions from $d=3$ indeed hold more generally for other dimensions. Most important among them is the reduction of the small fluctuation determinant to a single local field one.
We would like to thank S. Das, M. Gaberdiel, S. Giombi, I. Klebanov, R. Leigh, A. Petkou and especially Sumit Das for helpful discussions. The work of AJ and JY is supported by the Department of Energy under contract DE-FG02-91ER40688. The work of KJ is supported by the DOE grant DE-FG02-13ER42001.
Derivation of the measure {#app:measure}
=========================
In the transformation from the vector fields $\phi^i\left(x\right)$ to the bi-local fields $\Phi\left(x,y\right)$, the partition function gets a Jacobian $$\begin{aligned}
\int \mathcal{D}\vec{\phi}\left(x\right)e^{-S\left[\vec{\phi}\right]}=\int \mathcal{D}\Phi\left(x,y\right) J(x,y) \, e^{-S\left[\Phi\left(x,y\right)\right]} \ .\end{aligned}$$ For the symmetric bi-local field $\Phi\left(x,y\right)$, we can give an ordering to the spacetime coordinates $x$ and $y$.[^2] Then, the independent bi-local fields are $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi\left(x,y\right)\qquad\left(x \le y\right) \ .\end{aligned}$$ Denoting $a \equiv \left(x,y\right)$ and $b \equiv \left(x',y'\right)$ with $x \le y$ and $x' \le y'$, respectively, in general, one can derive a differential equation for the Jacobian [@Jevicki:1980zg] $$\int dx'dy' \Omega\left(a,b\right)\frac{\partial \log J}{\partial \Phi\left(b\right)}+\omega\left(a\right)+\int dx'dy' \frac{\partial \Omega\left(a,b\right)}{\partial \Phi\left(b\right)}=0
\label{diff}$$ where $\omega\left(a\right)$ and $\Omega\left(a,b\right)$ are $\mathcal{O}\left(N\right)$ and $\mathcal{O}\left(N^0\right)$ contributions to $\log J$, respectively $$\begin{aligned}
\omega\left(a\right)&\equiv&-\int dz \frac{\partial^2}{\partial \phi^i\left(z\right)\partial \phi^i\left(z\right)}\Phi\left(a\right)=-2N\delta\left(x-y\right) \label{a4} \\
\Omega\left(a,b\right)&\equiv&\int dz\frac{\partial\Phi\left(a\right)}{\partial\phi^i\left(z\right)}\frac{\partial\Phi\left(b\right)}{\partial\phi^i\left(z\right)}\sim\mathcal{O}\left(N^0\right) \ . \label{a5}\end{aligned}$$ One can also compute $$\begin{aligned}
\int dx'dy' \frac{\partial \Omega\left(a,b\right)}{\partial \Phi\left(b\right)}=4\kappa \, \delta\left(x-y\right)
\label{a6}\end{aligned}$$ where the coefficient $\kappa$ depends on the type of bi-local collective field theory $$\begin{aligned}
\kappa=\begin{cases}
K&\qquad \text{for}~ U\left(N\right)\\
\frac{1}{2}\left(K+1\right)&\qquad \text{for}~ O\left(N\right)\\
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ and $K \equiv \int dx \, \delta (0)=\sum_{k} 1$.
Plugging (\[a4\]) and (\[a6\]) into the differential equation (\[diff\]), we get $$\int dx'dy' \Omega\left(a,b\right)\frac{\partial \log J}{\partial \Phi\left(b\right)}-2\left(N-2\kappa\right)\delta\left(x-y\right)=0 \ ,$$ from which one can solve for the Jacobian for general collective field theory (see also [@Rodrigues:1992ru]) as $$\begin{aligned}
\log J=\frac{1}{2}\left(N-2\kappa\right){{\rm Tr}}\log \Phi \ ,\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the explicit form of (\[a5\]).
The parameter $\kappa$ is also related to weight of bi-local space when we express a function of bi-local space in terms of a function of local space. For example, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k_1, k_2} {}' \left[\lambda\left(k_1\right)+\lambda\left(k_2\right)\right]=2\kappa\sum_k \lambda\left(k\right)\end{aligned}$$ where $\sum'$ means the summation over the independent bi-local momentum. For the $O(N)$ vector model, we have $\sum'_{k_1,k_2}=\sum_{k \le k_2}$ and $\kappa=\frac{1}{2}(K+1)$. While for the $U(N)$ vector model, there is no restriction on the summation, therefore $\kappa=K$.
[99]{}
S. Giombi and I. R. Klebanov, “One Loop Tests of Higher Spin AdS/CFT,” JHEP [**1312**]{}, 068 (2013) \[arXiv:1308.2337 \[hep-th\]\].
I. R. Klebanov and A. M. Polyakov, “AdS dual of the critical O(N) vector model,” Phys. Lett. B [**550**]{}, 213 (2002) \[hep-th/0210114\].
E. Sezgin and P. Sundell, “Massless higher spins and holography,” Nucl. Phys. B [**644**]{}, 303 (2002) \[Erratum-ibid. B [**660**]{}, 403 (2003)\] \[hep-th/0205131\].
S. Giombi and X. Yin, “Higher Spin Gauge Theory and Holography: The Three-Point Functions,” JHEP [**1009**]{}, 115 (2010) \[arXiv:0912.3462 \[hep-th\]\].
M. A. Vasiliev, “Consistent equation for interacting gauge fields of all spins in (3+1)-dimensions,” Phys. Lett. B [**243**]{}, 378 (1990).
M. A. Vasiliev, “More on equations of motion for interacting massless fields of all spins in (3+1)-dimensions,” Phys. Lett. B [**285**]{}, 225 (1992).
X. Bekaert, S. Cnockaert, C. Iazeolla and M. A. Vasiliev, “Nonlinear higher spin theories in various dimensions,” hep-th/0503128.
R. G. Leigh and A. C. Petkou, “Holography of the N=1 higher spin theory on AdS(4),” JHEP [**0306**]{}, 011 (2003) \[hep-th/0304217\].
E. Sezgin and P. Sundell, “Holography in 4D (super) higher spin theories and a test via cubic scalar couplings,” JHEP [**0507**]{}, 044 (2005) \[hep-th/0305040\].
O. Aharony, G. Gur-Ari and R. Yacoby, “d=3 Bosonic Vector Models Coupled to Chern-Simons Gauge Theories,” JHEP [**1203**]{}, 037 (2012) \[arXiv:1110.4382 \[hep-th\]\].
S. Giombi, S. Minwalla, S. Prakash, S. P. Trivedi, S. R. Wadia and X. Yin, “Chern-Simons Theory with Vector Fermion Matter,” Eur. Phys. J. C [**72**]{}, 2112 (2012) \[arXiv:1110.4386 \[hep-th\]\].
D. Anninos, T. Hartman and A. Strominger, “Higher Spin Realization of the dS/CFT Correspondence,” arXiv:1108.5735 \[hep-th\].
D. Das, S. R. Das, A. Jevicki and Q. Ye, “Bi-local Construction of Sp(2N)/dS Higher Spin Correspondence,” JHEP [**1301**]{}, 107 (2013) \[arXiv:1205.5776 \[hep-th\]\].
M. R. Gaberdiel and R. Gopakumar, “An AdS$_3$ Dual for Minimal Model CFTs,” Phys. Rev. D [**83**]{}, 066007 (2011) \[arXiv:1011.2986 \[hep-th\]\].
C. M. Chang and X. Yin, “Higher Spin Gravity with Matter in AdS$_3$ and Its CFT Dual,” JHEP [**1210**]{}, 024 (2012) \[arXiv:1106.2580 \[hep-th\]\].
A. Jevicki and J. Yoon, “Field Theory of Primaries in $W_N$ Minimal Models,” JHEP [**1311**]{}, 060 (2013) \[arXiv:1302.3851 \[hep-th\]\].
S. R. Das and A. Jevicki, “Large N collective fields and holography,” Phys. Rev. D [**68**]{}, 044011 (2003) \[hep-th/0304093\].
R. d. M. Koch, A. Jevicki, K. Jin and J. P. Rodrigues, “AdS$_4$/CFT$_3$ Construction from Collective Fields,” Phys. Rev. D [**83**]{}, 025006 (2011) \[arXiv:1008.0633 \[hep-th\]\].
A. Jevicki, K. Jin and Q. Ye, “Collective Dipole Model of AdS/CFT and Higher Spin Gravity,” J. Phys. A [**44**]{}, 465402 (2011) \[arXiv:1106.3983 \[hep-th\]\].
R. de Mello Koch and J. P. Rodrigues, “Systematic 1/N corrections for bosonic and fermionic vector models without auxiliary fields,” Phys. Rev. D [**54**]{}, 7794 (1996) \[hep-th/9605079\].
R. de Mello Koch, A. Jevicki, K. Jin, J. P. Rodrigues and Q. Ye, “S=1 in O(N)/HS duality,” Class. Quant. Grav. [**30**]{}, 104005 (2013) \[arXiv:1205.4117 \[hep-th\]\].
S. J. Brodsky and G. F. de Teramond, “Hadronic spectra and light-front wavefunctions in holographic QCD,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 201601 (2006) \[hep-ph/0602252\].
S. J. Brodsky, G. F. de Téramond and H. Gün. Dosch, “QCD on the Light-Front – A Systematic Approach to Hadron Physics,” arXiv:1310.8648 \[hep-ph\].
I. R. Klebanov, S. S. Pufu and B. R. Safdi, “F-Theorem without Supersymmetry,” JHEP [**1110**]{}, 038 (2011) \[arXiv:1105.4598 \[hep-th\]\].
S. H. Shenker and X. Yin, “Vector Models in the Singlet Sector at Finite Temperature,” arXiv:1109.3519 \[hep-th\].
L. D. Faddeev and V. N. Popov, “Covariant quantization of the gravitational field,” Sov. Phys. Usp. [**16**]{}, 777 (1974) \[Usp. Fiz. Nauk [**111**]{}, 427 (1973)\].
E. S. Fradkin and G. A. Vilkovisky, “S matrix for gravitational field. ii. local measure, general relations, elements of renormalization theory,” Phys. Rev. D [**8**]{}, 4241 (1973).
M. Kaku and P. Senjanovic, “On the Functional Measure for Quantum Gravity,” Phys. Rev. D [**15**]{}, 1019 (1977).
R. G. Leigh and A. C. Petkou, “Singleton deformation of higher-spin theory and the phase structure of the three-dimensional O(N) vector model,” arXiv:1212.4421 \[hep-th\].
R. Gopakumar, R. K. Gupta and S. Lal, “The Heat Kernel on AdS,” JHEP [**1111**]{}, 010 (2011) \[arXiv:1103.3627 \[hep-th\]\].
R. K. Gupta and S. Lal, “Partition Functions for Higher-Spin theories in AdS,” JHEP [**1207**]{}, 071 (2012) \[arXiv:1205.1130 \[hep-th\]\].
G. W. Gibbons, M. J. Perry and C. N. Pope, “Partition functions, the Bekenstein bound and temperature inversion in anti-de Sitter space and its conformal boundary,” Phys. Rev. D [**74**]{}, 084009 (2006) \[hep-th/0606186\].
K. Jin, “Higher Spin Gravity and Exact Holography,” PoS Corfu [**2012**]{}, 086 (2013) \[arXiv:1304.0258 \[hep-th\]\].
N. Boulanger and P. Sundell, “An action principle for Vasiliev’s four-dimensional higher-spin gravity,” J. Phys. A [**44**]{}, 495402 (2011) \[arXiv:1102.2219 \[hep-th\]\].
S. Giombi, I. R. Klebanov and B. R. Safdi, “Higher Spin AdS$_{d+1}$/CFT$_d$ at One Loop,” arXiv:1401.0825 \[hep-th\].
A. Jevicki and B. Sakita, “Collective Field Approach to the Large N Limit: Euclidean Field Theories,” Nucl. Phys. B [**185**]{}, 89 (1981).
J. P. Rodrigues and A. Welte, “A Vector - like large N approach to zero-dimensional SU(2) matrix models,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**8**]{}, 4175 (1993).
[^1]: A very similar identification of AdS space in light-cone QCD was found in [@Brodsky:2006uqa; @Brodsky:2013dca].
[^2]: For example, for $x=\left(x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n\right)$ and $y=\left(y_1,y_2,\cdots,y_n\right)$, $x<y$ means iff $x_1<y_1$ or $x_1=y_1, x_2<y_2$ etc.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Structure-induced features of the wave functions for the quantum systems on complex networks are discussed in this paper. For a quantum system on a network, the state corresponding to the eigenvalue close to the center of the spectrum is used as the representative state to display the impacts of the structure on the wave functions. We consider the Erdos-Renyi, the WS small world and the growing randomly network (GRN) models. It is found that the probability distribution functions (PDF) of the representative state’s components can be described with a power-law with an exponential cutoff in a unified way. For Erdos-Renyi networks, with the increase of the connectivity probability $p_{ER} $ the PDF turns from power-law-dominated to exponential-dominated functions. For the WS networks in a special region of the rewiring probability $p_r \in
(0,0.2)$, where this model can capture the features of real world networks, and the GRN networks, the PDFs obey almost a perfect power-law. These characteristics can be used as the structure measurements of complex networks. They can also provide useful information on dynamical processes on complex networks.
address: |
$^1$ Department of Modern Physics, University of Science and Technology of China, Anhui Hefei 230026, China\
$^2$ Life Science and Bioengineering, Beijing University of Technology, Beijing 100022, China
author:
- Huijie Yang$^1$
- Fangcui Zhao$^2$
- Yunpeng Wang$^1$
- Binghong Wang$^1$
title: 'Scaling Invariance in Wave Functions of Quantum Systems on Complex Networks\'
---
The structures of complex networks can induce nontrivial features to the physical processes occurring on them. Typical topics include the epidemic spreading on networks [@1; @2; @3], the synchronization of coupling oscillators on networks [@4; @5; @6; @7], the response of complex networks to stimuli [@8; @9] and so on. In this paper, we consider the impacts of the network structures on the wave functions of quantum systems.
Anderson transition tells us that disorder structures can induce a transition from extended to localized states [@10; @11]. Quantum systems with quasi-period structures will be in an intermediate state, which can be described with critical wave functions [@12; @13]. The wave function for a localized state decreases exponentially with the distance from its center, while the critical wave function obeys a power-law with respect to the distance. Complex networks have nontrivial structures rather than regular and complete disorder ones. In literature the spectra density function and the time series analysis methods [@14; @15; @16] are used to reveal structure-induced features from the spectra [@17; @18; @19; @20; @21; @22; @23] and the corresponding eigenvectors [@24; @25] of complex networks. In this paper we try to capture the special characteristics of complex networks from the wave functions of the quantum systems on them. These wave functions can provide us useful information on the corresponding classical systems, i.e., the probability distribution function (PDF) of packets walking on the networks at steady states [@26]. Consequently, the PDF can shed light on the dynamical processes as the traffic flow [@27; @28], the epidemic spreading [@1; @2; @3] and the synchronization on networks [@4; @5; @6; @7].
We consider an undirected complex network of $N$ coupling identical oscillators. Denote the adjacent matrix of this network with $A$, whose element $A_{ij}$ is $1$ and $0$ if the nodes $i$ and $j$ are connected and disconnected, respectively. The Hamiltonian of this quantum system reads,
$$\label{eq1} \hat {H} = \sum\limits_{n = 1}^N {\hat {h}_0 (x_n ,p_n
)} + \frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{m \ne n}^N {A_{mn} \cdot \hat {V}(x_m
,x_n )} ,$$
where $\hat {h}_0 (x_n ,p_n )$ is the Hamiltonian of the oscillator $n$ and $\hat {V}(x_m ,x_n )$ the coupling potential between the oscillators $m$ and $n$. Denote the site energy and the corresponding state of each oscillator with $\varepsilon _0 $ and $\left| {\varphi _0 } \right\rangle $, respectively. The elements of $\hat {H}$read,
$$\label{eq2}
\begin{array}{l}
H_{mn} \\
= \left\langle {\varphi _0 (x_m )\left| {\hat {h}_0 (x_m ,p_m )\left|
{\varphi _0 (x_n )} \right.} \right.} \right\rangle \\
+ A_{mn} \cdot
\left\langle {\varphi _0 (x_m )\left| {V(x_m ,x_n )\left| {\varphi
_0 (x_n
)} \right.} \right.} \right\rangle \\
= \varepsilon _0 \cdot \delta _{mn} + A_{mn} \cdot V_{mn} \\
\end{array}$$
Assigning $\varepsilon _0 = 0$ and $V_{mn} = 1$, we have $H = A$. Hence, the special features of the wave functions of the considered quantum system can be obtained from the eigenvectors of the adjacent matrix $A$.
The quantum systems considered in literature have deterministic structures in real world Euclidean space, which lead to nature definitions of the concepts as the localized, intermediate and extended states of the quantum systems. These concepts are also extended to capture the features of quantum systems on small-world networks based on regular lattices, where the long-range edges can be regarded in a certain degree as perturbations to the regular lattices [@25]. Obviously, these concepts are invalid for general complex networks without deterministic structures in Euclidean space. Herein, we consider the probability distribution functions (PDF) of the values of the components in the eigenvectors.
The eigenvector corresponding to the special eigenvalue close to the center of the spectrum for a network, denoted with $E_c $, is employed as the representative state to illustrate the features of the considered quantum system. Denote the representative state with $r = (r_1 ,r_2 , \cdots ,r_N )$, where $r_m $ is the $m$th component. Divide the range the probability values of $\rho =
\left\{ {N \cdot \left| {r_m } \right|^2,m = 1,2,3, \cdots ,N}
\right\}$ distribute into $M$ bins. Reckon the numbers of the values falling in the bins, respectively. The PDF of the values of the components can be approximated as,
$$\label{eq3} P_t \propto K_t$$
where $K_t $ is the number of the values falling in the $t$th bin. The size of the bins can be chosen as a fraction of the variance, i.e., $S_{bin} = \frac{1}{J} \cdot \sqrt
{\frac{\sum\nolimits_{m = 1}^N {\rho _m ^2} }{N}} $. In the calculations the parameter $J$ is assigned $10$. It is found that the PDF for different networks can be described with a power-law with an exponential cutoff, which reads,
$$\label{eq4}
\begin{array}{l}
P(T) \propto T^{ - \alpha }\exp ( - \beta T), \\
T = t \cdot (\rho _{\max } - \rho _{\min } ) / M. \\
\end{array}$$
For $\alpha = 0$ and $\beta = 0$, the PDF will degenerate to exponential and power-law functions, respectively.
The probability moment (PM) defined as,
$$\label{eq5} M_q (E_c ) = \sum\limits_{m = 1}^N {\left( {\frac{\rho
_m }{N}} \right)^q} ,$$
is also used to measure the global extent of localization. For a perfect extended state we have $M_q (E_c ) = \frac{1}{N^{q -
1}}$, while for a state strongly localized on one node the PM tends to $1$. Generally, PM should be in the range of $\left[
{\frac{1}{N^{q - 1}},1} \right]$.
\[0.8\][![\[fig:epsart\] Typical $P(T)$ results for the quantum systems on the ER networks. The circles and solid lines are the PDF and the fitting results, respectively. The power-law with an exponential cutoff presented in Eq.(4) can capture the characteristics of $P(T)$ very well. The value of the parameter $\beta $ increases from negative to positive. At the transition point $p_{ER} = \frac{4}{N} > p_c $, we have $\beta = 0.007 \approx
0$, that is, the PDF is a perfect power-law function. When the connectivity probability $p_{ER} = \frac{7}{N}$, $\beta $ increases rapidly to $0.31$ while $\alpha $ decreases to $0.87$. Its PDF tends to be exponential-dominated.](fig1 "fig:")]{}
As an extreme condition, we consider networks constructed with the Erdos-Renyi (ER) network model. An ER network can be obtained just by connecting each pair of $N$ nodes with the connectivity probability $p_{ER} $. There is a critical point of the connectivity probability $p_{ER} $, denoted with $p_c $, when $p_{ER} > p_c $ almost all the nodes tend to form a giant cluster. As shown in figure 1, with the increase of $p_{ER} $, the value of the parameter $\beta $ turns from negative to positive. At the transition point $p_{ER} = \frac{4}{N} > p_c $, we have $\beta = 0.007 \approx 0$. That is, the PDF is a perfect power-law function. When the connectivity probability $p_{ER} = \frac{7}{N}$, $\beta $ increases rapidly to $0.31$ while $\alpha $ decreases to $0.87$. The PDF is exponential-dominated.
\[0.8\][![\[fig:epsart\]Typical$P(T)$results for the quantum systems on the WS networks. The parameters $(N,d) = (3000,2)$. The circles and solid lines are the PDF and the fitting results, respectively. The power-law with an exponential cutoff presented in Eq.(4) can capture the characteristics of $P(T)$ very well. ](fig2 "fig:")]{}
\[0.8\][ The values of $(\alpha
,\beta )$ for the quantum systems on the constructed WS networks. For each rewiring probability $p_r $ ten simulated results are presented with open circles, whose averages are shown with the red solid lines. $\left( {N,d} \right) = (3000,2)$. In the interested region of $p_r \in (0,0.2)$ the value of $\beta $ is in the range of $\left[ { - 0.06,0.1} \right]$. The PDFs obey almost a perfect power-law. The corresponding values of $\alpha $ are much larger than that in the other regions.](fig3 "fig:")]{}
\[0.8\][ The PM for the quantum systems on the WS networks with different values of rewiring probability. For each rewiring probability $p_r $ ten simulated results are presented with open circles, whose averages are shown with the red solid lines. $\left( {N,d} \right) = (3000,2)$. In the region $p_r \in (0,0.2)$, the PM values are much larger than that in the other regions. The quantum states on these networks are localized much more than that on the other networks.](fig4 "fig:")]{}
In the WS small-world model the nontrivial features are introduced into the regular lattices just by rewiring with a certain probability $p_r $ the end of each edge to another randomly selected node. In the rewiring procedure double edges and self-edges are forbidden. In the regular lattices each node is connected with $d$ right-handed nodes. Figure 2 presents several typical $P(T)$ results for the quantum systems on the WS networks with different values of rewiring probability. From figure 3 we can find that in the special range of $p_r \in (0,0.2)$, where the model can capture the features of real world networks, the values of $\beta $ are in the range of $\left[ { - 0.06,0.1} \right]$, i.e., the PDFs obey almost a perfect power-law. The corresponding values of $\alpha $ are significant larger than that in the other regions. Figure 4 presents explicitly the higher extent of global localization of the states for the quantum systems in the region $p_r \in (0,0.2)$. For WS networks with $d = 5$, we can obtain similar results.
\[0.8\][![\[fig:epsart\]Typical $P(T)$results for quantum systems on the regular lattices. The power-law with an exponential cutoff presented in Eq.(4) can capture the characteristics of $P(T)$ very well. The values of $(\alpha ,\beta )$ decrease rapidly to $(0.96, -
1.307)$. The quantum systems on these regular lattices are significantly delocalized compared with that on WS networks (the values of the probability $\rho $ distribute homogenously in a much narrower interval). The circles and the solid/dashed lines are the PDFs and the fitting results, respectively. $\left( {N,d} \right) =
(3000,2)$.](fig5 "fig:")]{}
For the condition $p_r = 0$, the constructed WS networks degenerate to one-dimensional regular lattices. The values of $(\alpha ,\beta
)$ decrease rapidly to $(0.96, - 1.307)$. The quantum systems on these regular lattices are significantly delocalized compared with that on WS networks (the values of the probability $\rho $ distribute homogenously in a much narrower interval).
\[0.8\][![\[fig:epsart\]Typical$P(T)$results for the quantum systems on the GRN networks. $(N,m) = (3000,1).$ The circles and solid lines are the PDF and the fitting results, respectively. The power-law with an exponential cutoff presented in Eq.(4) can capture the characteristics of $P(T)$ very well.](fig6 "fig:")]{}
The growing randomly network (GRN) model simulates a kind of preferential attachment for new added nodes during the growing of the networks. Starting from several connected nodes as a seed, at time $t + 1$ a new node is linked to $m$ existing nodes at time $t$, denoted as $\left\{ {s_t^i \left| {i = 1,2, \cdots ,m} \right.}
\right\}$, with the probability $p(s_t^i ) \propto k(s_t^i )^\theta
,0 \le \theta \le 1$. $k(s_t^i )$ is the degree of the node $s_t^i
$. $\theta = 1$ leads to the BA scale-free model. Several typical results are shown in Figure 6. The values of $\left( {\alpha ,\beta
} \right)$ for quantum systems on the constructed GRN networks are shown in figure 7. The values of $\beta $ are basically in the region of $[ - 0.05,0.05]$. Consequently, the PDFs for the quantum systems on these GRN networks obey almost a perfect power-law. The global extents of localization are displayed in figure 8.
\[0.8\][ The values of $\left(
{\alpha ,\beta } \right)$ for quantum systems on the constructed GRN networks. The values of $\beta $ are basically in the region of $[ -
0.05,0.05]$. The PDFs for the quantum systems on these GRN networks obey almost a perfect power-law. $\left( {N,m} \right) = (3000,1)$](fig7 "fig:")]{}
\[0.8\][ The PM for the quantum systems on the constructed GRN networks. Comparison with the PM results for WS small-world networks shows that the quantum systems on GRN networks are much more localized than that on WS small-world networks. $\left( {N,m} \right) = (3000,1)$.](fig8 "fig:")]{}
\[0.8\][ The relation of $\alpha $ versus $\beta $. For same values of $\beta $, the $\alpha $ values for quantum systems on the GRN networks are generally smaller than that on the WS networks. There are much more nodes having large values of $\rho $ in GRN networks. The ER networks with $p_{ER} $ less than or near the critical value $p_c $ ($p_{ER} \le
\frac{3}{N})$ fall into the region of GRN networks, while that with $p_{ER} \ge \frac{4}{N}$ falls in the region of WS networks. The network with $p_{ER} = \frac{7}{N}$ falls in the extension of the WS network region. Its large value of $\beta = 0.31$ tells us that its PDF is exponential-dominated.](fig9 "fig:")]{}
Figure 9 presents the relation of $\alpha $ versus $\beta $. In this scheme each point corresponds to a network. In the region of $\beta
\approx 0$ the PDF obeys perfect power-law, while a significant deviation of $\beta $ from $0$ reveals the exponential-dominated behavior of the PDF. For same values of $\beta $, the corresponding $\alpha $ values for the quantum systems on the GRN networks are generally smaller than that on the WS networks. There are much more nodes having large values of $\rho $ in GRN networks. This higher extent of localization can be found by comparison the PM values. The ER networks with $p_{ER} $ less than or near the critical value $p_c
$ ($p_{ER} \le \frac{3}{N})$ fall into the region of GRN networks, while that with $p_{ER} \ge \frac{4}{N}$ falls in the region of WS networks. The network with $p_{ER} = \frac{7}{N}$ falls in the extension of the WS network region. Its large value of $\beta =
0.31$ tells us that its PDF is exponential-dominated.
In summary, the states of the quantum systems on the WS, GRN and ER networks obey a unified power-law with an exponential cutoff. The WS networks with $p_r \in (0,0.2)$, where the WS model can capture the features of real world networks, and the GRN networks obey almost a perfect power-law. The values of the power-law exponent $\alpha $ for GRN networks are much smaller than that for the WS networks. With the increase of $p_{ER} $ the PDF for ER networks tends from almost perfect power-law to exponential-dominated functions. These findings are consistent with the global extent of localizations for the considered networks, which can be displayed explicitly with the PM values.
The two parameters introduced in this paper, denoted with $\alpha $ and $\beta $, are determined by the structures of the considered networks. Consequently, they can be employed as a measurement of the structure characteristics. The PDF can be used to determine the distribution of traffic packets on networks at steady states. This information may shed light on the dynamical processes on networks, such as the traffic flow, the traffic congestion and the epidemic spreading processes on complex networks.
**Acknowledgements**
This work was supported by the National Science Foundation of China under Grant No.70571074 and No.70471033. It is also supported by the Specialized Research Fund for the Doctoral program of Higher Education (SRFD No. 20020358009). One of the authors (H. Yang) would like to thank Prof. Y. Zhuo and Prof. J. Gu in China Institute of Atomic Energy for stimulating discussions.
[1]{} M. E. J. Newman, SIAM Review **45** 117(2003). F. Liljeros, C. R. Edling, L. A. N. Amaral, H. E. Stanley, and Y. Aberg, Nature **411**, 907(2001). H. Yang, F. Zhao, Z. Li, W. Zhang, and Y. Zhou, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B **18**, 2734(2004). M. Barahona, and L. M. Pecora, Phys. Rev. Lett. **89**, 054101(2002). T. Zhou, M. Zhao, and B. Wang, e-print cond-mat/0508368. M. Zhao, T. Zhou, and B. Wang, e-print cond-mat/0507221. S. Jalan, R. E. Amritkar, and C. -K. Hu, e-print nlin.CD/0307037. B. -Y. Yaneer, and I. R. Epstein, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. **101**, 4341(2004). F. Li, T. Long, Y. Lu, Q. Ouyang, and C. Tang, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. **101**,4781(2004). P. W. Anderson, Phys. Rev. **181**, 25 (1969) P. A. Lee, and T. V. Ramakerishnan, Rev. Mod. Phys. **57**, 287(1985). C. Tang, and M. Kohmoto, Phye. Rev. B **34**, 2041(1986). M. Kohmoto, B. Sutherland, and C. Tang, Phys. Rev. B **35**, 1020(1987). H. Yang, F. Zhao, W. Zhang, and Z. Li, Physica A **347**, 704(2005). H. Yang, F. Zhao, Y. Zhuo, X. Wu, and Z. Li, Phys. Lett. A **292**, 349(2002). H. Yang, F. Zhao, Y. Zhuo, X. Wu, and Z. Li, Physica A **312**, 23(2002). H. Yang, F. Zhao, L. Qi and, B. Hu, Phys. Rev. E **69**, 066104(2004). F. Zhao, H. Yang, and B. Wang, Phys. Rev. E **72**, 046119(2005). H. Yang, F. Zhao, and B. Wang, e-print cond-mat/0505086. Physica A xxx(2005).(in press). S. N. Dorogovtsev, A. V. Goltsev, J. F. F. Mendes, and A. N. Samukhin, Phys. Rev. E **68**, 046109(2003). I. J. Farkas, I. Deranyi, A. -L. Barabasi, and T. Vicsek, Phys. Rev. E **64**, 026704(2001). R. Berkovits and Y. Avishai, Phys. Rev. B **53**, R16125(1996). M. A. M. de Aguiar and Y. Bar-Yam, Phys. Rev. E **71**,016106(2005). C. Zhu, S. Xiong, Y. Tian, N. Li, and K. Jiang, Phys. Rev. Lett. **92**, 218702(2004). C. Zhu, and S. Xiong, Phys. Rev. B **63**, 193405 (2001). H. Yang, T. Zhou, W. Wang, B. Wang and F. Zhao, e-print cond-mat:0509354. L Zhao, Y.-C. Lai, K. Park, and N. Ye, Phys. Rev. E **71**, 026125(2005). A. E. Motter, A. P. S. de Moura, Y.-C. Lai, and P. Dasgupta, Phys. Rev. E **65**, 065102(R) (2002).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
General high resolution microscopy involves dense data acquisition. One intense field of research aims to reduce the amount of data acquisition or sample illumination [@Jackson2009; @Hoebe2007]. In [@Jackson2009], the acquisition is restricted to only those areas where relevant signal is present. In [@Hoebe2007] a method called controlled light-exposure microscopy (CLEM) is introduced, supported by a nonuniform illumination of the field of view. However, both methods suffer from being image-content dependent for a successful implementation. Indeed, these methods need a feedback loop inside the acquisition setup to make decisions about the sampling rate or the illumination intensity, depending on the objects characteristics. Here, we address the sensing problem in microscopy by taking an alternative approach provided by the new theoretical framework of Compressed Sensing (CS). This method is independent of image-content and does not need any feedback loop during the acquisition. CS was previously reported in magnetic resonance imaging acquisition [@Lustig2007], single-pixel imaging [@Takhar2006] or inline, single-shot holography for tridimensional imaging [@Brady2009]. The main idea presented here is to combine off-axis, frequency-shifting (for accurate phase-shifting) digital holography to perform quadrature-resolved random measurements of an optical field in a diffraction plane and a sparsity minimization algorithm to reconstruct the image.
CS is a novel mathematical theory for sampling and reconstructing signals in an efficient way, introduced by Candès and Donoho [@Candes2006c; @Donoho2006; @Candes2005]. It exploits the fact that most images are compressible or sparse in some domain due to the homogeneity, compactness and regularity of structures. Instead of sampling the entire data and then compress it to eliminate redundancy, CS performs a compressed data acquisition. Some basic requirements to enable Compressed Sensing are (i) to find a sparsifying transform able to shrink the data into a small number of coefficients (ii) to acquire random projections of the signal into orthogonal subspaces, such as the Fourier domain for spatially-sparse images (iii) to use a sampling scheme that obeys the Restricted Isometry Property (RIP) [@Candes2008a] and (iv) to use a sampling domain and a sparsifying transform that span incoherent domains (i.e. domains where the signal is dense in one case and sparse in the other one) [@Candes2006c]. Complying with these requirements, CS states that a signal $g \in \mathbb{R}^{N}$ having a $S$-sparse representation (i.e. it can be well represented by a small number $S$ of coefficients, where $S \ll N$) on a basis $\Psi$, can be reconstructed very accurately from a small number of projections of $g$ onto randomly chosen subspaces (e.g. Fourier measurements for spatial sparsity). More precisely, a signal $g$ has a sparse representation if it can be written as a linear combination of a small set of vectors taken from some basis $\Psi$, such as $g = \sum_{i}^{N} c_i \Psi_i$, with ${\parallel c \parallel}_{\ell_1} \approx S$, where ${\parallel \cdot \parallel}_{\ell_1}$ denotes the $\ell_1$ norm which corresponds to the sum of magnitudes of all terms of the candidate signal $g$ projected on $\Psi$. In general, the ${\ell_p}$ norm is defined as ${\parallel \mathbf{c} \parallel}_{\ell_p} := \{ \sum_{i=1}^{N} |c_i|^p \}^{1/p}$.
As demonstrated in [@Candes2005], if such a sparsifying transform $\Psi$ exists in the spatial domain, it is possible to reconstruct an image $g$ from partial knowledge of its Fourier spectrum. In our case, $g$ will represent the local optical intensity in the object plane. We denote $f \in \mathbb{C}^{N}$ the associated complex optical field, satisfying $g = |f|^2$. The radiation field propagates from the object to the detector plane in Fresnel diffraction conditions. Thus, the optical field in the object plane $f$ is linked to the field $F$ in the detection plane by a Fresnel transform, expressed in the discrete case as: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
F & = & \mathcal{F}(f) \, : \, \mathbb{C}^N \rightarrow \mathbb{C}^N\\
F_p & = & \frac{1}{N} \sum_{n=1}^{N} f_n \, {\rm e}^{ i \left( \alpha n^2 - 2 \pi n p /N \right)}
\label{eq_tr_fresnel_discrete}\end{aligned}$$ where $n, p \in \{1, \dots, N\}$ denote pixel indexes, $\alpha \in \mathbb{R}^+$ is the parameter of the quadratic phase factor ${\rm e}^{ i \alpha n^2}$ describing the curvature in the detection plane of a wave emitted by a point source in the object plane. In CS, the signal reconstruction consists in solving a convex optimization problem that finds the candidate $\hat{g}$ ($\hat{\cdot}$ denotes an estimator) of minimal complexity satisfying $\hat{F}|_{\Gamma} = F|_{\Gamma}$, where $F|_{\Gamma} \subseteq F$ is a partial subset of measurements in the set $\Gamma$.
The experimental setup is sketched in Fig. \[fig\_080731nanoDLS1\]. It consists of an off-axis, frequency-shifting digital holography scheme [@Atlan2007a; @Gross2007]. The monochromatic optical field from a diode laser dynamically backscattered by an intralipid emulsion illuminates an US Air Force (USAF) resolution target, beats against a separate local oscillator (LO) field detuned by $\Delta \omega / (2 \pi) = 200\, \rm Hz$ and creates a time-fluctuating interference pattern measured with a $N = 1024 \times 1024$ array detector. The diffracted object field map in the detector plane, resolved in quadrature (in amplitude and phase) $F \in \mathbb{C}^N$ is calculated from a four-phase measurement [@Atlan2007a]. The frequency detuning $\Delta \omega$ enables rejection of non fluctuating light components reflected by the target as well as speckle reduction through signal accumulation.
$F$ can be back-propagated numerically to the target plane with the standard convolution method when all measurements $F \in \mathbb{C}^N$ are available. In this case, the complex field in the object plane $f$ is retrieved from a discrete inverse Fresnel transform of $F$; $f = \mathcal{F}^{-1}(F)$ : $$\label{eq_tr_fresnel_discrete_inverse}
f_p = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{n=1}^{N} F_n \, {\rm e}^{-i \left( \alpha n^2 - 2 \pi n p /N \right)}$$
Now returning to the CS reconstruction problem, we want to recover the intensity image of the object $g = \{|f|^2 : f \in \mathbb{C}^N \}$ from a small number of measurements $F|_{\Gamma} \in \mathbb{C}^M$ where $M \ll N$. Partial measurements in the detection plane, illustrated by the first step in Fig. \[fig:scheme\], can be written as $F|_{\Gamma} = \Phi f$, where the sampling matrix $\Phi$ models a discrete Fresnel transform (eq. \[eq\_tr\_fresnel\_discrete\]) and random undersampling with flat distribution.
![CS reconstruction scheme.[]{data-label="fig:scheme"}](scheme){width="7.5cm"}
To find the best estimator $\hat{g}$, we solve the following convex optimization problem [@Candes2006d]: $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{g} = \arg \min_{g \in \mathbb{R}^N} {\parallel \Psi g \parallel}_{\ell_1}\ \ \mbox{subject to}\ \
\hat{F}|_{\Gamma} = F|_{\Gamma}
\label{eq:optim}\end{aligned}$$ This optimization leads to an iterative image reconstruction process, illustrated by the loop inside the dotted frame in Fig. \[fig:scheme\]. Explicitly, given a partial knowledge of the Fresnel coefficients $F|_{\Gamma}$, we seek a solution $\hat{g}$ with maximum sparsity (i.e. with minimal norm ${\parallel \Psi g \parallel}_{\ell_1}$), and whose Fresnel coefficients $\hat{F}|_{\Gamma}$ match the subset observed $F|_{\Gamma}$ (as illustrated in Fig. \[fig:scheme\]). Since our test image is piecewise constant with sharp edges (such as most microscopy images), it can be sparsely represented computing its gradient. In image processing, a suitable norm to constrain the gradient of an image was introduced as the Total Variation (TV) which measures the $\ell_1$ norm of the gradient magnitudes over the whole image: $${\parallel g \parallel}_{TV} = {\parallel \nabla g \parallel}_{\ell_1}$$ The incoherence property holds for the two basis adopted here, which are the Fresnel spectrum and the TV [@Candes2006c]. Moreover, random measurements in the spectral domain satisfy the RIP condition [@Candes2008a]. Hence for overwhelming percentage of Fresnel coefficients sets $\Gamma$ with cardinality obeying $|\Gamma| = M \geq K \cdot S \log N$, for some constant $K$, $\hat{g}$ is the unique solution to the problem: $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{g} = \arg \min_{g \in \mathbb{R}^N} {\parallel \nabla g \parallel}_{\ell_1}\ \ \mbox{subject to}\ \
\hat{F}|_\Gamma = F|_\Gamma
\label{eq:optim2}\end{aligned}$$ However, holographic measurements are corrupted with noise and the observed signal is not exactly sparse. More appropriately, the observations can be described by noisy measurements $F|_{\Gamma} = \Phi f + n$, where $n \in \mathbb{C}^M$ is a noise component with bounded energy ${\parallel n \parallel}_{\ell_2} \leq \epsilon$. In this particular case, a better reconstruction can be achieved by relaxing the constraint $\hat{F}|_\Gamma = F|_\Gamma$ and allowing an error $\delta$ at most proportional to the noise energy $\epsilon$ [@Marim2009b; @Donoho2006b]. Finally, solving the following problem performs the reconstruction of $g$ with robustness to noise: $$\hat{g} = \arg \min_{g \in \mathbb{R}^N} {\parallel \nabla g \parallel}_{\ell_1}\ \ \mbox{subject to}\ \
{\parallel \hat{F}|_\Gamma - F|_\Gamma \parallel}_{\ell_2}\leq \delta
\label{eq:optim3}$$ for some $\delta \leq C \epsilon$, which depends on the noise energy.
![(a) Standard holography, as described in Eq. (\[eq\_tr\_fresnel\_discrete\]). (b) CS reconstruction, using 7% of the Fresnel coefficients. (c) Gradient of $g$. (d) Residual from (a) and (b). (e), (f) Magnified views from (a) and (b).[]{data-label="fig:result"}](results){width="8.4"}
In Fig. \[fig:result\] we illustrate some CS reconstruction results. A reconstruction of an off-axis image with the standard convolution method (eq. \[eq\_tr\_fresnel\_discrete\_inverse\]) is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:result\]a. The image reconstructed with holography uses all available measurements (4 phases $\times$ 10 accumulations $\times 1024^2 = 4.2 \times 10^7$ pixels). For the CS approach, Fresnel coefficients are undersampled randomly. Fig. \[fig:result\]b shows the CS reconstruction result from only 7% of the pixels used in the standard approach (4 phases $\times$ 10 accumulations $\times$ 0.07 $\times 1024^2 = 2.9 \times 10^6$ pixels). Fig. \[fig:result\]c illustrates the gradient of the image $\nabla g$ (sparsifying domain) and Fig. \[fig:result\]d illustrates the residual (Euclidean distance $|\hat{g}-g|$) from standard holographic reconstruction (a) and CS reconstruction (b). The global normalized error is ${\parallel \hat{g}-g \parallel}_{\ell_2} = 0.005 $ ($\hat{g}$ and $g$ have unit norms). This error is essentially due to the relaxation of the constraint for a perfect match between measures and estimations in the CS scheme, leading to some denoising effect, confirmed by the visual aspect of the residual image image Fig. \[fig:result\]d showing essentially unstructured noise. Finally, Figs. \[fig:result\]e and \[fig:result\]f display magnified views from central region of images (a) and (b), illustrating the quality of the reconstruction.
In conclusion, we have presented a novel microscopy imaging framework successfully employing Compressed Sensing principles. It combines an iterative image reconstruction and digital holography to perform quadrature-resolved random measurements of an optical field in a diffraction plane. The CS approach enables optimal image reconstruction while being robust to high noise levels. The proposed technique is expected to greatly improve many microscopy applications, allowing the acquisition of high dimensional data with reduced acquisition time increasing imaging throughput and opening the door to sample-friendly acquisition protocols.
This work was funded by Institut Pasteur, Direction Générale de l’Armement (DGA), Institut Langevin, ANR and CNRS. The authors also acknowledge support from Fondation Pierre-Gilles de Gennes.
[10]{}
C. Jackson, R. F. Murphy, and J. Kovačević. , 2071 (2009).
R. A. Hoebe, C. H. Van Oven, T. W. J. Gadella Jr, P. B. Dhonukshe, C. J. F Van Noorden, and E M M Manders. , 249 (2007).
M. Lustig, D. Donoho, and J. M. Pauly. , 1182 (2007).
D. Takhar, J. Laska, M. Wakin, M. Duarte, D. Baron, S. Sarvotham, K. Kelly, and R. Baraniuk. , 43 (2006).
D. Brady, K. Choi, D. Marks, R. Horisaki, and S. Lim. , 13040 (2009).
E. Candès and J. Romberg. , 969 (2007).
D. L. Donoho. , 1289 (2006).
E. Candès and J. Romberg. , 76 (2005).
E. Candès. , Serie I 346, ISSN 1631-073X, 589 (2008).
M. Atlan and M. Gross. , 2701 (2007).
M. Gross and M. Atlan. , 909 (2007).
E. Candès, J. Romberg, and T. Tao. , 489 (2006).
M. Marim, E. Angelini, and J.-C. Olivo-Marin. , 744605 (2009).
D. Donoho, M. Elad, and V. Temlyakov. , 6 (2006).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present basic informations about package SPHOTOM for an automatic multicolour photometry. This package is in development for a creation of photometric pipe-line, which we plan to use in near future with our new instruments. It could operate in two independent modes, (i) GUI mode, in which user can select images and control functions of package through interface and (ii) command line mode, in which all processes are controlled using a main parameter file. SPHOTOM is developed as an universal package for Linux based systems with easy implementation for different observatories. Photometric part of package is based on Sextrator code, what allow us to detect all objects on the images and perform their photometry with different apertures. We can also perform astrometric solution for all images for a correct cross-identification of the stars on the images. The result is a catalogue of all objects with their instrumental photometric measurements which are consequently used for a differential magnitudes calculations with one ore more comparison stars, transformations to international system and colour indices determinations.'
---
The function of the SPHOTOM can be described in the following steps:
Sorting {#sorting .unnumbered}
-------
It is the first step in command line mode, which creates different lists of images based on informations in FITS header of images as well as names of files. It uses robust sorting scheme and it is written in Python using PyFits module. User can define types of lists, which will be used in next steps. Sorting could be executed also from GUI mode. For a correct functionality it is necessary to have a consistent FITS headers and/or image names, which are observatory dependent.
Master images {#master-images .unnumbered}
-------------
Create master images using an average or a median of input files. No other corrections are performed in this step. This images are stored in archive for a future use. User can define a number of images entering into this procedure.
Photometric reduction {#photometric-reduction .unnumbered}
---------------------
During photometric reduction of raw images we use created or archive master images. We can use, bias, dark frame, flat-field and dark for a flat corrections. Procedure automatically control image dimensions, temperatures and used colours. The results are the lists of images based on their colours.
Photometry {#photometry .unnumbered}
----------
All images in lists after photometric reduction are used for a photometry using Sextrator (Bertin & Arnouts, 1996) code. We can control all photometry options using parameters files of Sextrator (for more details see Sextrator manual). This package is very effective on non or semi-crowded fields and allow us to detect all objects above defined background level on the images and perform their photometry with different user defined apertures. It can also remove bad or corrupted detections (stars on the edges of images, saturated stars, cosmic ray hits). User can define different types of informations in output file.
Identification {#identification .unnumbered}
--------------
If FITS header of images have a WCS (World Coordinate Systems) information (Calabretta & Greisen, 2002), we perform cross-identification with external catalogs (USNO-A2.0 or Tycho) using up to 20 brightest stars on image and than astrometric solution of all detected objects is calculated. If we have no WCS information we calculate astrometric solution with known approximate coordinates of image center and cross-Identification with external catalogs. For each image it is created a file with detected objects with their coordinates (celestial and image) and their instrumental magnitudes in apertures from photometry.
Output catalogue {#output-catalogue .unnumbered}
----------------
After identification of the objects we have 2 possibilities: (I) in GUI user can select up to 9 stars and generate their multicolour light curves with differential magnitudes. No other corrections are performed. User can manually use procedures in final corrections step. (II) in command line mode we generate differential magnitudes between all pairs of stars, create light curves and store them in temporary database for an easier manipulation.
Final corrections {#final-corrections .unnumbered}
-----------------
In final step we can perform several corrections: 1) Heliocentric correction of time. 2) Determination of extinction coefficients and reduction of systematic effects using SARS algorithm (Ofir et al., 2010). 3) Transformation to international system with known transformation coefficients. 4) Calculation of average comparison star from user selected objects. Finally we create result differential light curves.
This contribution was supported by VEGA project 2/0094/11.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address: |
Department of Mathematics\
University of Georgia\
Athens, GA 30602
author:
- Valery Alexeev
date: 'August 15, 1996'
title: Compactified Jacobians
---
****
---------------------
Preliminary version
---------------------
Introduction {#sec:Introduction}
============
Let $C$ be a reduced projective curve over a field $k$ such that $C_{\bar k}$ has only nodes as singularities. The jacobian ${\operatorname{Pic}}^0\,C$ is a semiabelian variety over $k$ which parameterizes invertible sheaves on $C$ of degree 0 on each irreducible component. It need not be proper. The problem of finding a good compactification for it goes back at least to the work of Igusa [@Igusa_SystemsOfJacobians] and the notes of Mumford and Mayer [@Mumford_BoundaryPoints; @Mayer69]. For an irreducible curve the answer was given already by D’Souza in [@DSouza79]. Altman, Kleiman and others extended this work to the families of irreducible curves with more general (for example, nonplanar) singularities in a series of works [@AltmanKleiman_CompJac; @AltmanKleiman_CompJac2; @AltmanIarrobinoKleiman_IrreducibilityCompJac; @KleimanKleppe81; @Rego_CompactifiedJacobian], and more recently [@Soucaris94; @Esteves95].
In the case when $C$ is reducible the situation is more complicated. In a classical paper [@OdaSeshadri79] Oda and Seshadri constructed a family of compactified jacobians ${\operatorname{Jac}}_{\phi}$ parameterized by an element $\phi$ of a certain real vector space. The construction is very general and covers a lot of cases. At the same time it poses a question of giving a more natural definition for ${\operatorname{Jac}}_{\phi}$ and explaining where exactly the multitude of answers comes from. A related paper is [@Seshadri82].
It is important to note that the term “compactified jacobian” is a misnomer. Most of the varieties ${\operatorname{Jac}}$ discussed here do not naturally contain ${\operatorname{Pic}}^0(C)$. This becomes especially clear when one works over a nonclosed field or with families. Instead, there is always an action of ${\operatorname{Pic}}^0(C)$ and ${\operatorname{Jac}}$ is stratified into locally closed subschemes so that every stratum is a homogeneous space over ${\operatorname{Pic}}^0(C)$ and the maximal-dimensional strata are principal homogeneous spaces.
However, we will use the term since it is widely accepted.
The work of Simpson [@Simpson94a] on the moduli of coherent sheaves on projective schemes implies, as a very special case of a much more general situation, a natural definition of the compactified jacobian ${\operatorname{Jac}}_{d,L}(C)$ which depends on an integer $d$, the degree, and on an ample invertible sheaf $L$ on $C$, the polarization. The definition is functorial and therefore also works for families. It turns out that ${\operatorname{Jac}}_{d,L}(C)$ and Oda-Seshadri’s ${\operatorname{Jac}}_{\phi}(C)$ coincide and there is a simple formula for $\phi$ as a function of $d$ and $L$. An immediate corollary of this is that they are all reduced and Cohen-Macaulay schemes.
In the case when the curve $C$ is stable, we can further narrow the choices by using for $L$ the dualizing sheaf $\omega_C$. Then for every $d\in{{\mathbb Z}}$ the schemes ${\operatorname{Jac}}_{d,\omega_C}/{\operatorname{Aut}}(C)$ can be put in a family over the moduli space $\overline{M}_g$, where $g$ is the arithmetical genus of the curve $C$. This is the result of the work [@Pandharipande94] of Pandharipande (he also considers sheaves of rank $\ge2$). A yet another family $\overline{P}_d\to\overline{M}_g$ for $d\ge10(2g-2)$ was earlier constructed by Caporaso in [@Caporaso94] as the compactification of the universal jacobian. The interpretation of the fiber $\overline{P}_d(C)$ over $[C]\in\overline{M}_g$ is in terms of invertible sheaves on certain semistable curves that have $C$ as a stable model. Pandharipande shows that Caporaso’s construction of $\overline{P}_d$ is equivalent to his.
Another approach is to look at a one-parameter family of smooth curves $C_t$ degenerating to $C$ and try to find a limit of the family of “jacobians” ${\operatorname{Jac}}_d(C_t)={\operatorname{Pic}}^d(C_t)$, perhaps after a finite ramified base change. In the complex analytic situation Namikawa [@Namikawa_ToroidalDegsAVs] constructed infinitely many toroidal degenerations of principally polarized abelian varieties that depend on polyhedral decompositions. We note a related work [@Kajiwara93] where the compactified jacobians corresponding to polyhedral decompositions appear in the context of log geometry (under the restriction that the irreducible components of the curve $C$ are nonsingular).
Among various polyhedral decompositions Namikawa explicitly distinguished one called the Voronoi decomposition (and the Delaunay decomposition dual to it).
The degeneration corresponding to the Delaunay and Voronoi decompositions also appears in [@AlexeevNakamura96] as a result of the “simplified Mumford’s construction”. There it is shown that a family of principally polarized abelian varieties with theta divisors over spectrum of a complete DVR has the canonical limit (perhaps after making a finite ramified base change first). This limit was called a stable quasiabelian variety (SQAV), and when considered as a pair $(P,B)$ with the theta divisor – a stable quasiabelian pair (SQAP). This poses a question of whether the SQAP which appears as the limit of jacobians is one of the compactified jacobians ${\operatorname{Jac}}_{\phi}$, ${\operatorname{Jac}}_{d,L}(C)$ above, and if yes, then which one.
As explained in [@Alexeev_CMAV], an SQAV corresponding to a smooth curve $C$ coincides with ${\operatorname{Pic}}^{g-1}(C)$ and not with ${\operatorname{Pic}}^0(C)$. This gives a motivation to look at the case $d=g-1$ more closely.
We show that precisely for one degree, $d=g-1$, the scheme ${\operatorname{Jac}}_{d,L}(C)$ does not depend on the polarization $L$, so one can simply write ${\operatorname{Jac}}_{g-1}$. For this reason we call it the [ *canonical compactified jacobian.*]{} We show that ${\operatorname{Jac}}_{g-1}$ possesses a natural ample sheaf with a natural section which we call the theta divisor $\Theta_C$. We give a very simple explicit combinatorial description of the stratification of ${\operatorname{Jac}}_{g-1}$ and the restrictions of $\Theta_C$ on each stratum. The description goes in terms of the orientations on complete subgraphs of the dual graph $\Gamma(C)$ and invertible sheaves on the partial normalizations of $C$ of multidegrees that correspond to these orientations.
By considering a degenerating family $C_t\rightsquigarrow C$ of curves and the corresponding degenerating family ${\operatorname{Pic}}^{g-1}(C_t)
\rightsquigarrow {\operatorname{Jac}}_{g-1}(C)$ one can show that the canonical compactified jacobian is an SQAV (we do not include this argument here). Therefore, the functor associating to each stable curve $C$ its canonical compactified jacobian $({\operatorname{Jac}}_{g-1},\Theta)$ should define a map from the Deligne-Mumford compactification $\overline{M}_g$ to the complete moduli space of SQAVs if the latter exists.
Finally, an SQAV was defined in [@AlexeevNakamura96; @Alexeev_CMAV] in terms of some explicit combinatorial data. We give the corresponding data for a curve $C$ (about a half of this description can already be found in [@Namikawa_NewComp2 §18] and [@Namikawa_ToroidalCompSiegel 9.D] where it is attributed to Mumford). Further, we explain how this second description is related to the previous one.
Although the main definitions and results including \[defn:Jac\_functor\] and \[thm\_Simpson\] hold over arbitrary base, for most of the paper we will be working over an algebraically closed field for simplicity.
I would like to thank Profs. Yu.I. Manin, T. Oda and R. Smith for very useful conversations. It was Prof. Oda who kindly explained me the relation between his and Seshadri’s parameter $\phi$ and the polarizations (in the case of degree 0). Of course, it is completely my fault if I didn’t get it right.
Definition of ${\operatorname{Jac}}_{d,L}$ {#sec:Definition of oJd}
==========================================
In this section I give the definition for compactified jacobians which I feel is the easiest and the most natural, and formulate the main existence theorem, due to Simpson. To take the bull by the horns, here it is:
\[defn:cj\] For every integer $d$ and a polarization $L$ on $C$, the “compactified jacobian” ${\operatorname{Jac}}_{d,L}$ is the coarse moduli space of semistable w.r.t. $L$ admissible sheaves on $C$ of degree $d$ up to the ${\operatorname{gr}}$-equivalence.
Let us now explain the terms used in this definition. The [ *polarization*]{} $L$ is an ample invertible sheaf. By [ *admissible*]{} (for our purposes) sheaf we mean a coherent ${{\mathcal O}}_C$-module $F$
1. which is of rank 1, i.e. it is invertible on a dense open subset of $C$, and
2. such that for every $x\in C$ the stalk $F_{x,C}$ is of depth 1. Equivalently, any nonzero subsheaf of $F$ has support of dimension 1.
The latter condition is what Seshadri [@Seshadri82] calls a depth 1 sheaf and what Simpson [@Simpson94a] calls a purely dimensional sheaf.
\[saynum:admissible\_sheaves\] As well known (see f.e. [@Seshadri82]) admissible sheaves have a very simple description:
1. if $x$ is nonsingular, $F_{x,C}\simeq {{\mathcal O}}_{x,C}$
2. if $x$ is a node, $F_{x,C}$ is either ${{\mathcal O}}_{x,C}$ or the maximal ideal $m_{x,C}$. In the latter case $F$ is isomorphic to $\pi(x)_*F(x)$ where $\pi(x)$ is a partial normalization of $C$ at $x$ and $F(x)=\pi(x)^*F/\text{torsion}$.
Moreover, if we are interested in the depth 1 sheaves that have rank 0 or 1 at every generic point, we need to add the sheaves such that
3. $F_{x,C}=0$
4. if $x$ is a node lying on two irreducible components $C_1$ and $C_2$ with the inclusions $i_k:C_k\to C$, then $F_{x,C}=i_{k*}{{\mathcal O}}_{C_k}$, $k=1$ or $2$.
\[lem:admissible\_sheaves\] For each admissible sheaf $F$ on $C$ denote by $\pi': C'\to C$ the partial normalization of $C$ at the nodes where $F$ is not invertible and by $F'=\pi{'}^*F/tors$. Then $F=\pi'_*F'$. Therefore, every admissible sheaf $F$ on $C$ can be identified with a unique invertible sheaf $F'$ on a unique partial normalization $C'$ of $C$.
Well known, see f.e. [@Seshadri82].
\[defn:degree\] For an admissible sheaf $F$ on $C$ the degree is defined as $$\deg F= \chi(F) -\chi({{\mathcal O}}_C) =\chi(F) +g-1,$$ where $g$ is the arithmetical genus of $C$.
Note that $\deg F'$ if defined on $C'$ itself is $\deg F$ minus the number of nodes where $F$ is not invertible.
Let ${\underline\lambda}=(\lambda_1\dots\lambda_s)$ be the multidegree of $L$, and $\underline{r}=(r_1\dots r_s)$ be the multirank of a depth 1 sheaf $F$. The Seshadri slope is $$\mu_L(F)= \frac{\chi(F)}{\sum \lambda_i r_i}$$
A depth 1 sheaf $F$ on $C$ is said to be stable (resp. semistable) w.r.t. the polarization $L$ if for any nonzero subsheaf $E\subset F$ one has $$\mu_L(E) < \mu_L(F)$$ (resp $\le$).
This definition, due to Seshadri [@Seshadri82], is a particular case of a much more general one given by Simpson in [@Simpson94a] that applies to a pure-dimensional sheaf on any projective scheme whatsoever.
\[lem:criterion\_stability\_for\_admissible\_sheaves\] A depth 1 sheaf is (semi)stable iff the inequality $\mu_L(E)<$(resp. $\le$) $\mu_L(F)$ is satisfied for finitely many subsheaves of the form $F_D=i_*(i^*F/tors)$ for every subcurve $D\subset C$, where $i:D\to C$ is the inclusion morphism.
Indeed, for any depth 1 subsheaf $E$ with support $D$ one has $E\subset F_D$ and $\mu_L(E)\le\mu_L(F_D)$.
This leads to a series of simple inequalities some of which will be considered in the next sections. Therefore, knowing the multidegree of $F$ and the set of nodes where $F$ is not locally free, it is easy to say whether $F$ is (semi)stable or not.
According to the general theory, for every depth 1 sheaf $F$ there exists a Harder-Narasimhan filtration $$0=F_0\subset F_1 \subset\dots\subset F_k=F$$ with strictly decreasing slopes and semistable quotients $F_i/F_{i+1}$.
If $F$ is semistable, then there is a similar (Jordan-Holder) filtration with stable $F_i/F_{i+1}$ which is not unique. However, the graded object ${\operatorname{gr}}(F)=\oplus F_i/F_{i+1}$ is uniquely defined.
Two semistable depth 1 sheaves $F$ and $F'$ are said to be ${\operatorname{gr}}$[*-equivalent*]{} if ${\operatorname{gr}}(F)\simeq{\operatorname{gr}}(F')$.
Now all the ingredients of the definition \[defn:cj\] have been introduced.
To put this into a functorial perspective, consider a projective morphism of schemes $\pi:C\times S\to S$ whose every geometric fiber is a reduced curve with nodes only as singularities and a relatively ample sheaf $L$ on $C$. We will say that a coherent sheaf $F$ on $C$ is admissible (resp. stable, resp. semistable) if so is its restriction to every geometric fiber of $\pi$. We say that two sheaves are equivalent (resp. ${\operatorname{gr}}$-equivalent) if the restrictions on the geometric fibers are isomorphic (resp. ${\operatorname{gr}}$-equivalent). Now define the moduli functor $Jac_{d,L}(C/S):Schemes\to Sets$ in the following way:
\[defn:Jac\_functor\] For any scheme $S'$, $Jac^-_{d,L}(C/S)(S')$ is the set of semistable admissible sheaves on $C'=C\underset{S}{\times}S'/S'$ up to the ${\operatorname{gr}}$-equivalence. The functor $Jac^-_{d,L}(C/S)$ itself is not necessarily a sheaf for the fppf (faithfully flat of finite presentation) topology and therefore cannot be representable even if all the sheaves are stable. This happens basically for the same reason why the functor ${\operatorname{Pic}}\,S'$ is not a sheaf: one needs a rigidification to kill the infinite ($={{\mathbb G}}_m$) group of automorphisms.
When the smooth locus of $C/S$ has a section, one can use the rigidified version. Or we can follow the same path as for the relative Picard functor, i.e. define $Jac_{d,L}(C/S)$ to be the fppf-sheafification of $Jac^-_{d,L}(C/S)$.
\[thm\_Simpson\] The functor $Jac_{d,L}(C/S)$ is coarsely represented by a projective scheme ${\operatorname{Jac}}_{d,L}(C/S)$.
This may be proved by the same methods as in [@Simpson94a] and basically is a very special case of [@Simpson94a 1.21]. Simpson works over $\mathbb C$ but in our particular situation there is no need for this. The hardest question involved, the boundedness, is basically obvious.
Alternatively, in \[thm:Jacs\_are\_the\_same\] we will show that our (semi)stability condition is equivalent to the one that was used by Oda and Seshadri, so in the case $S={\operatorname{Spec}}\bar k$ the theorem follows by [@OdaSeshadri79 12.14].
Basic definitions and notations {#sec:Basic definitions and notations}
===============================
The purpose of this section is to fix some notations common to the following sections and to introduce the basic examples of curves on which the later descriptions will be illustrated.
1. To any curve $C$ we can associate the unoriented graph $\Gamma(C)$ by assigning a vertex to each irreducible component $C_i$ and an edge to every node. We do not assume $C$ to be connected, so the graph need not be connected either.
2. $\pi:\widetilde C\to C$ denotes the normalization of $C$.
3. $C_i$ are the irreducible components of $C$, $\widetilde C_i$ are their normalizations.
4. $g_i=p_a(C_i)$, $\tilde g_i=p_a(\widetilde C_i)$.
5. $h(C)=h(\Gamma(C))$ is the cyclotomic number – the number of independent loops in $\Gamma$, i.e. the rank of $H_1(\Gamma(C))$ when $\Gamma$ is considered as a cell complex.
[**Six simple examples.**]{}
(110,55)(0,0) (0,0) (0,50) (70,25) (80,25) (72,25)(78,25)
\[example1\] $C=C_1\cup C_2$ intersecting at one point with both $C_i$ smooth. ${\tilde g}_i=g_i$, $h(C)=0$.
(110,55)(0,0) (10,45)(17,37)(21,28)(24,15)(25,5) (10,30)(17,37)(20,49) (5,20)(21,28)(30,35) (10,10)(24,15)(40,15) (40,49)(50,40)(60,37) (53,48)(50,40)(55,30) (67,25) (80,25) (90,35) (90,15) (69,25)(78,25) (81.5,26.5)(88.5,33.5) (81.5,23.5)(88.5,16.5) (95,45) (105,35) (96.5,43.5)(103.5,36.5)
\[example2\] The generalization of the previous example is a curve whose dual graph is a forest. Still ${\tilde g}_i=g_i$ and $h(C)=0$.
(110,55)(0,0) (20,10)(30,20)(40,30)(30,42)(20,30)(30,20)(40,10) (90,15) (90,22.5)
\[example3\] An irreducible curve with one node. ${\tilde g}=g-1$, $h(C)=1$.
(110,55)(0,0) (30,35)(26,40)(30,45)(34,40)(30,35) (30,35)(34,28)(30,24) (30,35)(26,28)(30,24) (30,24)(34,18)(30,12)(27,7) (30,24)(26,18)(30,12)(33,7) (90,15) (90,20) (90,22.5) (90,25)
\[example4\] The generalization of that is an irreducible curve with $n$ nodes. ${\tilde g}=g-n$, $h(C)=n$.
(110,55)(0,0) (20,15)(27.5,12)(35,15)(37,20)(35,25)(30,27)(25,30)(20,35) (27.5,43)(35,40) (27.5,49)(27.5,5) (70,25) (90,25) (72,25)(88,25) (71.5,26.5)(80,32)(88.5,26.5) (71.5,23.5)(80,18)(88.5,23.5)
\[example5\] The dollar sign curve. ${\tilde g}_i=g_i$, $h(C)=2$.
(110,55)(0,0) (30,35)(26,40)(30,45)(33,49) (30,35)(34,40)(30,45)(27,49) (30,35)(34,28)(30,24) (30,35)(26,28)(30,24) (30,24)(34,17)(30,12)(27,7) (30,24)(26,17)(30,12)(33,7) (70,25) (90,25) (71.5,26.5)(80,32)(88.5,26.5) (71.5,23.5)(80,18)(88.5,23.5) (71.5,26.5)(80,37)(88.5,26.5) (71.5,23.5)(80,13)(88.5,23.5)
\[example6\] The generalization of the dollar sign curve is a curve $C=C_1\cup
C_2$ with both $C_i$ smooth and intersecting at $n$ points. ${\tilde g}_i=g_i$, $h(C)=n-1$.
Comparison with Oda-Seshadri’s compactified jacobians {#sec:Comparison with Oda-Seshadri's compactified jacobians}
=====================================================
We would like to compare the compactified jacobians introduced in section \[sec:Definition of oJd\] with those appearing in the classical paper [@OdaSeshadri79] of Oda and Seshadri.
The ${\operatorname{Jac}}_{\phi}$ in [@OdaSeshadri79] are constructed using GIT as the moduli spaces of $\phi$-semistable admissible sheaves. Here $\phi$ is an element of a certain real vector space $\partial
C_1(\Gamma,{{\mathbb R}})$ (without loss of generality one can assume that $\phi\in\partial C_1(\Gamma,{{\mathbb Q}})$). $\Gamma$ is, as in the previous section, the dual graph of $C$ and $C_0,C_1,H_0,H_1,C^0,C^1,H^0$ and $H^1$ are the associated to it chain and (co)homology groups.
In [@OdaSeshadri79] the main object of interest is the depth 1 sheaves of degree 0. Oda and Seshadri give the combinatorial definition of a $\phi$-stable (resp. semistable) sheaf and introduce the $\phi$-equivalence relation. The main result then is that there exists a reduced scheme ${\operatorname{Jac}}_{\phi}$ which coarsely represents the functor of $\phi$-semistable sheaves up to $\phi$-equivalence. This is then applied to compactify ${\operatorname{Pic}}^0\,C$.
However, for any depth 1 sheaf of arbitrary degree $d$ one can relate the $\phi$-(semi)stability and equivalence with $(d,L)$-(semi)stability and equivalence. Then whatever is proved for ${\operatorname{Jac}}_{\phi}$ immediately applies to ${\operatorname{Jac}}_{d,L}$. Here is the precise connection.
\[thm:Jacs\_are\_the\_same\] Let ${\underline\lambda}=(\lambda_i)$ and ${\underline\omega}=(\lambda_i)$ be the multidegrees of the polarization $L$ and of the dualizing sheaf $\omega_C$ respectively, and $\lambda=\sum\lambda_i$ and $\omega=\sum\omega_i=2g-2$ be the total degrees. Pick arbitrary integers $d_i$ with $\sum d_i=d$ and sufficiently large integers $\tilde{n}_i$. Define $\phi=(\phi_i)\in\partial C_1({{\mathbb Q}})$ to be a solution of the following system of linear equations $$(\lambda_i/\lambda)(d-\omega/2)=
d_i-\omega_i/2+\tilde{n}_i+\phi_i$$ ($\phi$ is only defined up to a shift by a lattice). Then an admissible sheaf of degree $d$ is (semi)stable w.r.t. $L$ iff it is $\phi$-(semi)stable. Two semistable w.r.t. $L$ sheaves are ${\operatorname{gr}}$-equivalent iff they are $\phi$-equivalent.
This can be extracted from [@OdaSeshadri79 §11] directly, particularly from the account on pp.52-53.
Every ${\operatorname{Jac}}_{d,L}$ is isomorphic to one of ${\operatorname{Jac}}_{\phi}$ and vice versa.
Every ${\operatorname{Jac}}_{d,L}$ is reduced and Cohen-Macaulay.
Indeed, ${\operatorname{Jac}}_{\phi}$ is reduced by [@OdaSeshadri79 11.4]. Moreover, the proof shows (pp.60-62) that ${\operatorname{Jac}}_{\phi}$ is a good GIT quotient of a certain scheme $R$ and there exists an open subscheme $Y\subset R\times {{\mathbb P}}(E^*)$ such that the projection $R\to
Y$ is surjective, and $Y$ is formally smooth over a Hilbert scheme $H$ which is open in a quotient by the symmetric group of $C\times\dots\times C$.
Therefore, $H$ is CM, an so is $Y$, and so is $R$, and so is ${\operatorname{Jac}}_{\phi}$.
Description of ${\operatorname{Jac}}_{g-1}$ {#sec:first description}
===========================================
${\operatorname{Jac}}_{g-1,L}(C)$ does not depend on the polarization $L$.
Indeed, by definition \[defn:degree\] the degree $d=g-1$ iff $\chi(F)=0$. Then for any $E\subset F$ the inequality $$\mu_L(E)\le \,(\text{resp. }<) \,\mu_L(F)$$ is equivalent to $$\chi(E)\le \,(\text{resp. }<) \,0$$
For this reason we will call ${\operatorname{Jac}}_{g-1}(C)$ the [*canonical compactified jacobian.*]{}
A subgraph $\Gamma'\subset\Gamma$ is said to be [*generating*]{} if $\operatorname{vertices}(\Gamma)=\operatorname{vertices}(\Gamma')$. Every such subgraph corresponds to a partial normalization of $C$ at the nodes $\Gamma-\Gamma'$. We denote this partial normalization by $\pi(\Gamma'):C(\Gamma')\to C$. Note in particular that $C(\Gamma)=C$ and that $\tilde C$ is $C(\Gamma')$ where $\Gamma'$ has all the vertices of $\Gamma$ but no edges at all.
A subgraph $\Gamma'\subset\Gamma$ is said to be [*complete*]{} if $\operatorname{vertices}(\Gamma')\subset
\operatorname{vertices}(\Gamma)$ and $\operatorname{edges}(\Gamma')$ are precisely the edges of $\Gamma$ lying inside $\Gamma'$. These graphs correspond to subcurves $D\subset C$. Often we identify such subcurves $D$ with the corresponding subgraphs.
A [*multidegree*]{} of a graph $\Gamma$ is a set $\underline{d}=(d_i)$ of integers for every vertex $C_i$ of $\Gamma$. [*We will always assume that*]{} $$\sum d_i = g-1$$
A [*normalization of multidegree*]{} $\underline{d}$ is a set of integers $\underline{e}=(e_i)$ defined by $$e_i=d_i-(\tilde g_i-1).$$ It will be called [*the normalized multidegree.*]{} Note that we can use multidegrees $\underline{d}$ and normalized multidegrees $\underline{e}$ interchangeably. Note that $\sum e_i$ equals the number of edges of $\Gamma$.
For a subcurve $D\subset C$, i.e. a complete subgraph $\Gamma'\subset\Gamma$, we set $$d_D=\sum_{C_i\subset D} d_i, \quad
e_D=\sum_{C_i\subset D} e_i$$
\[defnprop\] A normalized multidegree $\underline{e}$ is called [ *semistable*]{} (resp. [*stable*]{}) if any of the following equivalent conditions hold:
1. $$|e_D-\#edges(D)-\frac{1}{2}D(C-D)|\le \frac{1}{2}D(C-D)$$
for every subcurve $D\subset C$. Here $D(C-D)$ is the number of points in $D\cap\overline{(C\setminus D)}$ (resp. $<$).
2. $$e_D\le \#edges(D)+D(C-D)$$
(resp.$<$).
3. there exists an orientation of the graph $\Gamma$ such that $e_i$ equals the number of arrows pointing at $C_i$ (resp. in addition there is no proper subcurve $D\subset C$ such that all arrows between $D$ and $C-D$ go in one direction).
In this case the multidegree $({\underline d})$ is also called (semi)stable.
The implication (i)$\Rightarrow$(ii) is clear and the inverse is obtained by looking at $D'=C-D$. (iii) obviously implies (ii).
To prove the implication (ii)$\Rightarrow$(iii) first assume that the normalized multidegree $\underline{e}$ of the graph of $C$ is strictly semistable, i.e. there exists a subcurve $D\subset C$ for which the equality holds. Then consider separately the following multidegrees on $D$ and $C-D$. On $C-D$ simply take the restriction of $\underline{e}$. On $D$, however, for every vertex $C_i$ take $e_i'=e_i$ minus the number of edges between $C_i$ and $C-D$. Then it is easy to show that the two multidegrees thus obtained are semistable. Therefore, the orientations on $D$ and $C-D$ exist by the induction on the number of vertices. To complete the orientation of $C$, orient all the edges between $D$ and $C-D$ to point at $D$.
In general, starting with a semistable multidegree as in (ii) we can fix an arbitrary vertex $C_{i_0}$ and change the degrees of $C_{i_0}$ and the neighboring vertices = curves $C_j$ by 1 to make the multidegree strictly semistable, thus reducing to the previous case. Hence, we get an orientation for the modified multidegree. The orientation for the original multidegree is then obtained by reversing the orientations of edges $(i_0,j)$.
The third condition of the above definition is the easiest to check. We will call an orientation satisfying (iii) semistable (resp. stable). Note that different orientations may well produce the same multidegree.
This is how the above combinatorial definitions relate to the (semi) stability of admissible sheaves on $C$. By lemma \[lem:admissible\_sheaves\] every admissible sheaf $F$ on $C$ can be identified with a unique invertible sheaf $F'$ on a unique partial normalization $C'=C(\Gamma')$ of $C$. Denote by $({\underline d}')$ (resp. $({\underline e}')$) the corresponding (resp. normalized) multidegrees on $C'$. Then
If $\deg F=g-1$, then for $({\underline d}')$ one has $\sum d'_i=g'-1$.
Obvious.
1. $F$ is semistable iff $({\underline e}')$ is semistable.
2. $F$ is stable iff $({\underline e}')$ is stable and the graphs $\Gamma$ and $\Gamma'$ have the same number of connected components.
Follows easily from \[defnprop\] and \[lem:criterion\_stability\_for\_admissible\_sheaves\].
We can now describe the points of ${\operatorname{Jac}}_{g-1}(C)$ as follows
\[thm:1description\]
1. ${\operatorname{Jac}}_{g-1}(C)$ has a natural stratification into homogeneous spaces over ${\operatorname{Pic}}^0(C)$. Each stratum corresponds in a 1-to-1 way to a stable multidegree $\underline{d'}$ (resp. stable normalized multidegree $\underline{e'}$) on a generating subgraph $\Gamma'\subset\Gamma$. The $k$-points of this stratum can be identified with $k$-points of ${\operatorname{Pic}}_{\underline{d'}}(C(\Gamma'))$, i.e. with invertible sheaves on $C(\Gamma')$ of multidegree $\underline{d'}$. The codimension of this stratum equals $h(\Gamma)-h(\Gamma')$.
2. There is a natural Cartier divisor $\Theta$ on ${\operatorname{Jac}}_{g-1}(C)$. Under the above identification, the restriction of $\Theta$ on each stratum corresponds to the sheaves $L$ with $h^0(L)>0$.
To illustrate this theorem, let us see what happens in our basic examples.
Graph $\Gamma$ doesn’t have any stable multidegrees: take $D$ to be one of the vertices. The only possibility then is $\Gamma'$ which is a disjoint union of two vertices and the multidegree $\underline{e}=(0,0)$, i.e. $\underline{d}=(\tilde g_1-1,\tilde
g_2-1)=(g_1-1,g_2-1)$. The graph $\Gamma'$ corresponds to the normalization $\widetilde X=X_1\bigsqcup X_2$ and $${\operatorname{Jac}}_{g-1}(C)={\operatorname{Pic}}^{g_1-1}(C_1)\oplus{\operatorname{Pic}}^{g_2-1}(C_2)$$
Once again, a forest doesn’t have any stable orientations unless all the brunches, i.e. edges, are cut. So, there is only one normalized multidegree ${\underline e}'=(0,\dots,0)$ for a generating subgraph corresponding to the normalization $\widetilde C$ and $${\operatorname{Jac}}_{g-1}(C)=\oplus_i{\operatorname{Pic}}^{g_i-1}(C_i)$$
The stable orientations are
(110,55)(0,0) (15,15) (15,22.5) (16.75,15.25)(19,17.5) (16.75,15.5)(19.5,15.5) (35,15)
The first corresponds to ${\operatorname{Pic}}^{{\tilde g}-1+1}(C)={\operatorname{Pic}}^{{\tilde g}}(C)$ and the second – to ${\operatorname{Pic}}^{{\tilde g}-1}(\widetilde X)$.
There are $2^n$ subgraphs $\Gamma'$: each edge is either included in $\Gamma'$ or it’s not. Each graph with $k$ edges obviously defines the multidegree $({\underline d}')=(k)$. Therefore there are $\binom n{n-k}=\binom
nk$ strata of codimension $n-k$ each corresponding to ${\operatorname{Pic}}^{g'-1}(C')$.
The possible generating subgraphs are:
(110,55)(0,0) (15,25) (25,25) (17,25)(23,25) (16.5,26.5)(20,30)(23.5,26.5) (16.5,23.5)(20,20)(23.5,23.5) (40,25) (50,25) (41.5,26.5)(45,30)(48.5,26.5) (41.5,23.5)(45,20)(48.5,23.5) (40,40) (50,40) (42,40)(48,40) (41.5,38.5)(45,35)(48.5,38.5) (40,10) (50,10) (42,10)(48,10) (41.5,11.5)(45,15)(48.5,11.5) (65,40) (75,40) (66.5,41.5)(70,45)(73.5,41.5) (65,25) (75,25) (67,25)(73,25) (65,10) (75,10) (66.5,8.5)(70,5)(73.5,8.5) (90,25) (100,25)
It is very easy to list all stable orientations and the corresponding stable multidegrees. Here are some of them:
(110,55)(0,0) (25,25) (40,25) (27,25)(38,25) (38,25)(36,26) (38,25)(36,24) (26.5,26.5)(32.5,32)(38.5,26.5) (38.5,26.5)(38,29) (38.5,26.5)(36,27) (26.5,23.5)(32.5,18)(38.5,23.5) (26.5,23.5)(27,21) (26.5,23.5)(29,23) (70,25) (85,25) (71.5,26.5)(77.5,32)(83.5,26.5) (83.5,26.5)(83,29) (83.5,26.5)(81,27) (71.5,23.5)(77.5,18)(83.5,23.5) (71.5,23.5)(72,21) (71.5,23.5)(74,23)
Here is the complete list:
1. For the graph $\Gamma$ itself there are two multidegrees $(2,1)$ and $(1,2)$ corresponding to invertible sheaves of multidegree $({\tilde g}_1+1,{\tilde g}_2)=({\tilde g}-1,{\tilde g}_2-1)+(2,1)$ and $({\tilde g}_1,{\tilde g}_2+1)=({\tilde g}-1,{\tilde g}_2-1)+(1,2)$ on $C$.
2. In the second column, for each graph we have a unique stable multidegree $(1,1)$. Hence, there are 3 strata of codimension 1 corresponding to invertible sheaves of multidegree $({\tilde g}_1,{\tilde g}_2)=({\tilde g}-1,{\tilde g}_2-1)+(1,1)$.
3. In the third column there are no stable orientations – the graphs are trees.
4. From the last column we get the normalized multidegree $(0,0)$ which corresponds to the invertible sheaves on the normalization $\widetilde C$ of $C$ of multidegree $({\tilde g}_1-1,{\tilde g}_2-1)=({\tilde g}-1,{\tilde g}_2-1)+(0,0)$.
This is an exercise no harder then the previous five. Any subgraph $\Gamma'$ has at least one stable orientation with one exception: when $\Gamma'$ contains only one edge. For each such subgraph with $k$ edges the number of possible stable multidegrees is $k-1$. Therefore, there are $\binom nk(k-1)$ strata of codimension $n-k$ for $k>0$ and one stratum for $k=0$.
The proof of (i) follows immediately from \[lem:admissible\_sheaves\] and \[lem:criterion\_stability\_for\_admissible\_sheaves\]. In each ${\operatorname{gr}}$-equivalence class of strictly semistable sheaves we can choose the one with the minimal graph $\Gamma'$ and it will be stable in our definition.
Next, we have to show the existence of a natural line bundle with a natural section on ${\operatorname{Jac}}_{g-1}(C)$.
To define the divisor $\Theta$ in a way similar to how it was done in [@Soucaris94; @Esteves95] for irreducible $C$. Consider any family $\pi:C\times S\to S$ and an admissible sheaf $F$ of degree $g-1$ on $C\times S$. Then there is a natural line bundle $L(F)$ on $S$ defined as $$L(F)= (\det R\pi_*F)^{-1}$$ see [@KnudsenMumford76] for its definition.
If we replace $F$ by $F\otimes\pi^*E$, $L(F)$ will be replaced by $L(F)\otimes E^{-\chi(F_t)}$. When $d=g-1$, $\chi=0$ which means that $L(F)$ will not change, so it is universally defined. Moreover, two ${\operatorname{gr}}$-equivalent families of semistable sheaves produce the same $L(F)$. The latter follows from the fact that if $$0\to F'\to F\to F''\to 0$$ is an exact sequence, then $\det R\pi_*F=(\det R\pi_*F')\otimes
(\det R\pi_*F'')$, so only the stable factors are important.
${\operatorname{Jac}}_{d,L}$ and ${\operatorname{Jac}}_{\phi}$ are constructed using GIT as a quotient of the Grothendieck’s $Quot$-schemes. By the universality $L(F)$ descends to ${\operatorname{Jac}}_{g-1}$.
Now fix a point $c\in C$ and consider a universal family $F$ of invertible sheaves of degree $g'-1$ and multidegree ${\underline d}'$ over ${\operatorname{Pic}}^{g'-1}(C')$, where $C'=C(\Gamma')$ is any of the partial normalizations of $C$. When does the formula $$\Theta=\{s\in{\operatorname{Pic}}^{g'-1}(C') \,|\, h^0(F_s)>0\}$$ define a divisor? The answer is given by a theorem of Beauville [@Beauville_PrymSchottky 2.1]: it is exactly when the multidegree ${\underline d}'$ is semistable using the part (iii) of Definition-Proposition \[defnprop\]. It is also easy to show directly that if two sheaves of degree $g'-1$ are semistable and ${\operatorname{gr}}$-equivalent, then $h^0(F_1)\ne0$ iff $h^0(F_2)\ne0$.
$\Theta$ provides a section of $(\det R\pi_*F)^{-1}$.
From the above proof we have a yet another characterization of semistable admissible sheaves in degree $g-1$: they have the multidegrees for which the usual definition of the theta-divisor actually gives a divisor.
An SQAV corresponding to a curve {#sec:Jac second description}
================================
An SQAV was defined in [@AlexeevNakamura96] explicitly starting from the following combinatorial data:
1. a lattice $X\simeq{{\mathbb Z}}^{g'}$ (and a lattice $Y$ isomorphic to it via $\phi:Y{{\overset{\sim}{\rightarrow}}}X$).
2. a symmetric positive definite bilinear form $B:X\times
X\to{{\mathbb Z}}$.
3. an abelian variety $A_0$ of dimension $g''$, $g'+g''=g$, with a principal polarization given by an ample sheaf ${{\mathcal M}}_0$.
4. a homomorphism $c_0:X\to A_0^t(k)$ (and a dual homomorphism $c_0^t:Y\to A_0(k)$) defining a semiabelian variety $G_0$ (and a dual semiabelian variety $G^t$).
5. a trivialization of the biextension $\tau_0:1_{X\times
X}=1_{Y\times X}\to (c^t\times c)^*{{\mathcal P}}_{A_0}^{-1}$, where ${{\mathcal P}}_{A_0}$ is the Poincare bundle.
When the abelian part $A_0$ is trivial, $\tau_0$ becomes simply a bilinear symmetric function $b_0:X\times X\to k^*$.
We now would like to explain how to associate this data to a curve $C$. Part of this description can already be found in [@Namikawa_NewComp2 §18] and [@Namikawa_ToroidalCompSiegel 9.D] where it is attributed to Mumford.
1. $X=H_1(\Gamma(C),{{\mathbb Z}})$.
2. By choosing arbitrarily an orientation on $\Gamma$, we get a natural embedding of $X$ in a free abelian group $C_1(\Gamma(C),{{\mathbb Z}})=\oplus{{\mathbb Z}}e_j$, each $e_j$ corresponds to an edge of $\Gamma$. The form $B$ is the restriction to $H_1$ of the standard Euclidean form on $C_1$.
3. an abelian variety $A_0$ is ${\operatorname{Pic}}^0({\widetilde C})$. Instead of line bundle on $A_0$ we consider $B_0=Pic^{g-1}({\widetilde C})$ and the natural line bundle $M_0$ on it defines by the theta divisor. A choice of an isomorphism $A_0\to B_0$ doesn’t matter.
4. every element of $H_1(\Gamma)$ defines a cycle of multidegree $(0,\dots,0)$ on ${\widetilde C}$, i.e. an element of $A_0^t$. This gives the homomorphism $c$.
5. Finally, the map $\tau$ is the most interesting part. The quick answer is that $\tau$ is given by a “generalized crossratio”.
Let $f,g$ be two meromorphic functions on a smooth projective curve $X$ with disjoint divisors. Then, defining $$(f,g)=f(div\, g)= \prod_{x\in C} f(x)^{v_x(g)},$$ one has $(f,g)=(g,f)$ according to A.Weil. For $f=(z-a)/(z-b)$, $g=(z-c)/(z-d)$ this is nothing but the usual crossratio.
In [@SGA4 XVII] Deligne showed that to arbitrary two invertible sheaves $L,M$ on $X$ and their meromorphic sections $f,g$ with disjoint divisors one can associate an element $(f,g)$ of a certain one-dimensional vector space $(L,M)$. These one-dimensional vector spaces are bilinear and symmetric in $L,M$ (in the case of degree 0 they form a symmetric biextension of ${\operatorname{Pic}}^0\times{\operatorname{Pic}}^0$) and $(f,g)=(g,f)$ if $\deg M\cdot\deg L$ is even and $=-(g,f)$ otherwise. We will call this pairing Deligne symbol. A very nice summary of its properties can be found in [@BeilinsonManin86].
Now for every two distinct elements $e_k,e_l$ of the standard basis in $C_1(\Gamma)$ we have two divisors of the total degree 0 on ${\widetilde C}=\cup {\widetilde C}_i$. This defines a one-dimensional vector space $V_{k,l}$ and an element $(e_k,e_l)$ in it. If $k=l$, we still have a vector space $V_{k,k}$ but $(e_k,e_k)$ is undefined. [*We define it arbitrarily.*]{}
In particular, restricting this to $X\times X\subset C_1\times C_1$, we obtain a pairing on $X\times X$ with the values in a certain collection of one-dimensional vector spaces. Because every element of $H_1$ has degree 0 on each irreducible component ${\widetilde C}_i$, this pairing is symmetric. It can be checked that these one-dimensional vector spaces are the fibers of $(c^t\times c)^*{{\mathcal P}}_{A_0}^{-1}$, where ${{\mathcal P}}_{A_0}$ is the Poincare bundle (= Weil biextension) on $A_0\times A_0$. This defines the trivialization $\tau_0$.
In the case $A_0=0$, i.e. when all $C_i$ are rational, $\tau_0=b_0$ is a product of the usual cross ratios.
\[saynum:independence\_of\_the\_choice\] Our definition seemingly depends on a choice of $(e_k,e_k)$. However, by [@AlexeevNakamura96] an SQAV depends only on the residue class of $\tau_0$ modulo the following equivalence relation. $\tau_0$ can be replaced by $$\tau'_0(x,y)=\tau_0(x,y)\cdot
c^{B_1(x,y)}$$ for any $c\in k$ and any symmetric positive bilinear form $B_1$ defining the same Delaunay decomposition as $B$ (for the definitions of the Delaunay decompositions, see [@AlexeevNakamura96] or [@OdaSeshadri79]).
The independence of the choice of $(e_k,e_k)$ now follows because on $C_1({{\mathbb R}})$ the standard Euclidean form and the form $\sum
\lambda_iz_i^2$ for any $\lambda_i>0$ define the same Delaunay decomposition. The Delaunay cells are the standard cubes and their faces. Because, as one can easily show ([@OdaSeshadri79 3.2] or [@Namikawa_ToroidalCompSiegel §18]) $C_1(\Gamma(C),{{\mathbb Z}})\cap
H_1(\Gamma(C),{{\mathbb R}})=H_1(\Gamma(C),{{\mathbb Z}})$, the Delaunay decomposition of ${X\otimes{{\mathbb R}}}=H_1({{\mathbb R}})$ is the intersection of this standard Delaunay decomposition with $H_1({{\mathbb R}})$.
Therefore, every cell has the following simple description. For each $1\le i\le\dim C_1$ we choose an integer $n_i$ and two numbers $a_i,b_i$ with either $a_i=b_i=n_i$ or $a_i=n_i$ and $b_i=n_i+1$. Then we obtain the cell $\sigma$ in $C_1({{\mathbb R}})$ defined by the inequalities $$a_i \le z_i \le b_i$$ and the cell in $\sigma\cap H_1({{\mathbb R}})$ in $H_1({{\mathbb R}})$ (it may be empty).
In this case $H_1=C_1$ and we have the standard Euclidean space ${{\mathbb R}}^g\supset{{\mathbb Z}}^g$. The Delaunay cells are standard cubes and their faces. Modulo the translation by ${{\mathbb Z}}^g$ there are exactly $\binom
nk$ such cells of codimension $k$. These numbers are the same as in section \[sec:first description\].
Further assume that the curve $C$ is rational for simplicity. Then the symmetric bilinear form $b_0$ is defined by $n(n-1)/2$ crossratios $(e_i,e_j)$, $i< j$.
In this case $H_1(\Gamma(C),{{\mathbb Z}})\subset C_1(\Gamma(C),{{\mathbb Z}})$ is the hyperplane $\{x_1+x_2+x_3=0\}$. The Delaunay decomposition is the decomposition of ${{\mathbb R}}^2$ into unilateral triangles. Modulo the translations there are two cells of dimension 2, 3 cells of dimension 1 and 1 cell of dimension 0. These numbers are the same as in section \[sec:first description\].
This SQAV does not depend on the form $\tau_0$ as all the $3=\dim
S^2(H_1)$ choices are killed by the $3=\dim C_1$ choices for $(e_k,e_k)$.
In this case $H_1(\Gamma(C),{{\mathbb Z}})\subset C_1(\Gamma(C),{{\mathbb Z}})$ is the hyperplane $\{x_1+...+x_n=0\}$. The lattice is the standard lattice $A_n$. It can be checked that the number of $k$-dimensional cells is given by the same formula as in the section \[sec:first description\].
[@AlexeevNakamura96] gives a stratification of an SQAV into locally closed subschemes which are homogeneous spaces over a semiabelian variety. A stratum of dimension $n$ corresponds to a Delaunay cell of dimension $n-\dim A_0$.
On the other hand, in section \[sec:first description\] we have given a similar description for ${\operatorname{Jac}}_{g-1}$ and the semiabelian variety is ${\operatorname{Pic}}^0 C$. In all the above examples the numbers of strata of each dimension in both descriptions are the same. We now would like to relate the two descriptions explicitly.
Consider an arbitrary orientation of the generating subgraph $\Gamma'\subset\Gamma$. By \[defnprop\] it corresponds to a semistable multidegree ${\underline d}'$ of the graph $\Gamma(C)$. Now, depending on whether the edge $e_i$ is oriented the “right” way (the same that we used defining $H_1$), the “wrong” way, or not present at all, choose $a_i=0,b_i=1$, $a_i=-1,b_i=0$ or $a_i=b_i=0$. This gives a Delaunay cell $\sigma$ of $C_1({{\mathbb R}})$ and the Delaunay cell $\sigma\cap H_1({{\mathbb R}})$ of $H_1({{\mathbb R}})$ as in \[saynum:independence\_of\_the\_choice\]. Moreover, the orientation is stable iff $$\dim\sigma=\dim\sigma\cap H_1({{\mathbb R}})$$
The above is Oda and Seshadri’s description of the stratification of ${\operatorname{Jac}}_{\phi}$ for the case $\phi=\partial e(J)/2$, in which case the Namikawa-Delaunay decomposition of [@OdaSeshadri79] coincides with the Delaunay decomposition we have described above. Therefore, everything follows from [@OdaSeshadri79] and the following lemma
${\operatorname{Jac}}_{g-1}$ corresponds to the choice $\phi=\partial e(J)/2$ in the notations of [@OdaSeshadri79].
Follows directly from \[thm:Jacs\_are\_the\_same\].
[Mum64]{}
A. Altman, A. Iarrobino, and S. Kleiman, [*Irreducibility of the compactified jacobian*]{}, Proc. 9th north nordic summer school, Oslo (1976), 1–12, Sijthoff and Noordhoff.
A. Altman and S. Kleiman, [*Compactifying the [P]{}icard scheme [II]{}*]{}, Amer. J. Math. [**101**]{} (1979), 10–41.
A. Altman and S. Kleiman, [*Compactifying the [P]{}icard scheme*]{}, Adv. Math. [**35**]{} (1980), 50–112.
V. Alexeev, [*Compact moduli of (co)abelian varieties*]{}, Preprint (1996).
V. Alexeev and I. Nakamura, [*On [M]{}umford’s construction of degenerating abelian varieties*]{}, Preprint (1996).
A. Beauville, [*Prym varieties and the [S]{}chottky problem*]{}, Invent. Math. [**41**]{} (1977), no. 2, 149–196.
A.A. Beilinson and Yu.I. Manin, [*The [M]{}umford form and the [P]{}olyakov measure in string theory*]{}, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. [**107**]{} (1986), 359–376.
L. Caporaso, [*A compactification of the universal [P]{}icard variety over the moduli space of stable curves*]{}, J. Amer. Math. Soc. [**7**]{} (1994), no. 3, 589–660.
C. D’Souza, [*Compactification of generalized jacobian*]{}, Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. Sect., Math. Sci. [**88**]{} (1979), no. 5, 419–457.
E. Esteves, [*Three times the theta divisor on the compactified jacobian is very ample*]{}, Preprint (1995).
J. Igusa, [*Fiber systems of [J]{}acobian varieties*]{}, Amer. J. Math. [**78**]{} (1956), 171–199.
T. Kajiwara, [*Logarithmic compactifications of the generalized jacobian variety*]{}, J. Fac. Sci. Univ. Tokyo Sect [IA]{} Math [**40**]{} (1993), no. 2, 473–502.
S. Kleiman and H. Kleppe, [*Reducibility of the compactified jacobian*]{}, Compositio Math. [**43**]{} (1981), 277–280.
F. Knudsen and D. Mumford, [*The projectivity of the moduli space of stable curves [I]{}*]{}, Math. Scand. [**39**]{} (1976), 19–55.
A.L. Mayer, [*Compactification of the variety of moduli of curves, lectures 2 and 3*]{}, Seminar on degeneration of algebraic varieties, Institut for Advanced Study, Princeton (1969/70), (mimeographed notes).
D. Mumford, [*Further comments on boundary points*]{}, AMS Summer School at Woods Hole (1964), (mimeographed notes).
Y. Namikawa, [*A new compactification of the [S]{}iegel space and degenerations of abelian varieties, [II]{}.*]{}, Math. Ann. [**221**]{} (1976), 201–241.
Y. Namikawa, [*Toroidal degeneration of abelian varieties*]{}, Complex Analysis and Algebraic Geometry (W.L. [Baily, Jr.]{} and T. Shioda, eds.), Cambridge Univ. Press, 1977, pp. 227–239.
Y. Namikawa, [*Toroidal compactification of [S]{}iegel spaces*]{}, Lecture Notes in Math., vol. 812, Springer-Verlag, 1980.
T. Oda and C.S. Seshadri, [*Compactifications of the generalized jacobian variety*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. [**253**]{} (1979), 1–90.
R. Pandharipande, [*A compactification over $\overline{M}_g$ of the universal moduli space of slope-stable vector bundles*]{}, Preprint alg-geom/9502020 (1994).
C.J. Rego, [*The compactified [J]{}acobian*]{}, Ann. Sci. École Norm. Sup [ **13**]{} (1980), no. 211–233.
C.S. Seshadri, [*Fibr[é]{}s vectoriels sur les courbes alg[é]{}briques*]{}, Ast[é]{}risque [**96**]{} (1982).
M. Artin, A.Grothendieck, J.L. Verdier, et al., [*[SGA4. T]{}h[é]{}orie de topos et cohomologie [é]{}tale des sch[é]{}mas*]{}, Lecture Notes in Math., vol. 305, Springer-Verlag, 1973.
C.T. Simpson, [*Moduli of representations of the fundamental group of a smooth projective variety [I]{}*]{}, Publ. Math. I.H.E.S. (1994), no. 79, 47–129.
A. Soucaris, [*The ampleness of the theta divisor on compactified jacobian of a proper and integral curve*]{}, Compositio Math. [**93**]{} (1994), no. 231–242.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'If a one-dimensional quantum lattice system is subject to one step of a reversible discrete-time dynamics, it is intuitive that as much “quantum information” as moves into any given block of cells from the left, has to exit that block to the right. For two types of such systems — namely quantum walks and cellular automata — we make this intuition precise by defining an *index*, a quantity that measures the “net flow of quantum information” through the system. The index supplies a complete characterization of two properties of the discrete dynamics. First, two systems $S_1, S_2$ can be “pieced together”, in the sense that there is a system $S$ which acts like $S_1$ in one region and like $S_2$ in some other region, if and only if $S_1$ and $S_2$ have the same index. Second, the index labels connected components of such systems: equality of the index is necessary and sufficient for the existence of a continuous deformation of $S_1$ into $S_2$. In the case of quantum walks, the index is integer-valued, whereas for cellular automata, it takes values in the group of positive rationals. In both cases, the map $S \mapsto \ind S$ is a group homomorphism if composition of the discrete dynamics is taken as the group law of the quantum systems. Systems with trivial index are precisely those which can be realized by partitioned unitaries, and the prototypes of systems with non-trivial index are shifts.'
author:
- 'D. Gross'
- 'V. Nesme'
- 'H. Vogts'
- 'R.F. Werner'
bibliography:
- 'qciLit.bib'
title: Index theory of one dimensional quantum walks and cellular automata
---
Introduction
============
Quantum walks and quantum cellular automata are quantum lattice systems with a discrete step dynamics, which is reversible, and satisfies a causality constraint: In each step only finitely many neighboring cells contribute to the state change of a given cell. This leads to an interesting interplay between the conditions of reversibility (unitarity) and causality, which is the subject of this article.
Starting point of the analysis is a simple intuition: for any connected group of cells in a one dimensional system as much “quantum information” as moves into the subsystem from the left has to move out at the other end. Moreover, this “flow” is a conserved quantity, in the sense that it remains constant over the spatial extent of the system. It can thus be determined locally at any point.
Making this intuition precise, we associate with every such lattice system an *index*, a quantity measuring the net flow of information. The index theory developed in this work completely resolves three, a priori very different, classification problems:
\(1) *Find all locally computable invariants*. It is shown that there exists a “crossover” between two systems $S_1, S_2$ if and only if their indices coincide. More precisely, a crossover $S$ between $S_1$ and $S_2$ is a system which acts like $S_1$ on a negative half line $\{x|x\leq a\}$ and like $S_2$ on a positive half line $\{x|x\geq b\}$. Clearly, a locally computable invariant must assign the same value to two systems if there exists a crossover between them. It follows that any invariant is a function of the index.
\(2) *Classify dynamics up to composition with local unitaries*. A natural way of constructing dynamics which respect both reversibility and causality is by concatenating layers of block unitaries. In every step, one would decompose the lattice into non-overlapping finite blocks and implement a unitary operation within every block. Such *local unitary implementations* are conceptually related to the gate model of quantum information. Not every time evolution may be realized this way: a uniform right-shift of cells serves as the paradigmatic counter-example. We show that the systems with local implementations are precisely those with trivial index. Consequently, equivalence classes of dynamics modulo composition with block unitaries are labeled by their indices.
\(3) *Determine the homotopy classes*. It is proved that two systems may be continuously deformed into each other (with a uniform bound on the causality properties along the connecting path) if and only if they have the same index.
We will consider the above questions, and define indices, for two kinds of systems. [*Quantum walks*]{} are, on the one hand, the quantum analogs of classical random walks. On the other hand, they are discrete time analogs of a standard quantum particle “hopping” on a lattice according to a Hamiltonian which is a lattice version of the momentum operator $\mathrm{i}\partial_x$. The index defined for these systems is the same as a quantity called “flow” by Kitaev [@Kitaev]. Intuitively, this measures the mean speed of a quantum walk, expressed in units of “state space dimensions shifted to the right per time step”. The mathematical background has been explored, in a more abstract setting, by Avron, Seiler and Simon [@Seiler]. Kitaev’s work treated the first classification problem above. We will re-prove his results with an eye on generalizations to cellular automata, and will supply solutions to questions (2) and (3). Although the quantum walks seemed to be comparatively straightforward initially, the intuition gained from this case served us well in setting up the theory for the much more involved case of cellular automata. This allowed us to build an abstract index theory covering both cases with almost identical arguments (Sects. \[sec:Gimp\] and \[sec:Glci\]).
[*Cellular automata*]{} are characterized by the property that whatever state is possible in one cell (e.g., a superposition of empty/occupied) can be chosen independently for each cell. Expressed in terms of particles this means that we are necessarily looking at a “gas” system of possibly infinitely many particles. The basic definition of quantum cellular automata was given in [@qca]. On the one hand, the setting considered here is more restrictive than [@qca], covering only one-dimensional systems. On the other hand, we are allowing for non-translationally invariant dynamics — a strong generalization over the earlier paper. In fact, having completed the present work we feel that the translation invariance assumed in [@qca] was obscuring the fundamental interplay between reversibility and causality. Accordingly, we obtain here a stronger structure result, even though it is built on the same key ideas. Throughout, there is a strong interplay between local and global properties. For example, the following statement is an immediate consequence of our main Theorem \[thmIndA\]: If a nearest neighbor cellular automaton has somewhere a cell of dimension $n$, and somewhere else a cell of dimension $m$, coprime to $n$, then it can be globally implemented as a product of two partitioned unitary operations.
Our paper is organized as follows: After giving two examples in Sect. \[sec:ex\], We begin by a mathematical description of what we mean by quantum walks (Sect. \[sec:Swalks\]) and quantum cellular automata (Sect. \[sec:Sautoms\]). We then describe the notion of locally computable invariants, and why they should form an abelian group (Sect. \[sec:Glci\]). A similar general explanation of the notion of local implementation is given in Sect.\[sec:Gimp\]. The detailed theory for quantum walks is in Sect. \[sec:Iwalk\], and in Sect. \[sec:Iauto\] for cellular automata. This includes the proof that an index previously defined in the classical translationally invariant case [@Kari_index], coincides with our index for this special case (Sect. \[sec:CCA\]). We close with an outlook on variants of index theory for either higher dimensional systems or automata with only approximate causality properties (Sect. \[sec:out\]).
Examples {#sec:ex}
========
Before introducing the mathematical setting, we will illustrate the problems treated in this paper by giving two concrete examples.
Particle hopping on a ring
--------------------------
The simplest example is given by a single particle on a ring of $N$ sites arranged in a circle. More precisely, the Hilbert space we are considering is $\mathcal{C}^N$ with basis vectors $\{\ket{e_0}, \dots,
\ket{e_{N-1}}\}$. The vector $\ket{e_i}$ is taken to represent a “particle localized at position $i$”. One step of a reversible discrete-time dynamics is simply given by an arbitrary unitary $U\in U(\mathcal{C}^N)$. We will consider two such time evolutions $U_0, U_1$ defined with respect to the standard basis by $$U_0: \ket{e_i} \mapsto \ket{e_i},
\qquad
U_1: \ket{e_i} \mapsto \ket{e_{(i+1) \,\mathrm{mod}\,N}}$$ respectively. The first unitary is the trivial evolution and the second one models a uniform movement of the particle with velocity one site per time step to the right.
The physical interpretation of this simple model seems clear: we can think of a lattice version of a particle with one spatial degree of freedom, where we have introduced cyclic boundary conditions to get a simple, finite description. The causality property defining a quantum walk then expresses the physically reasonable assumptions that couplings are local and dynamics preserve locality.
In this setting, it is natural to think of the time evolution as being generated by a Hamiltonian: $U_t = e^{\mathrm{i} t H}$. Such a Hamiltonian formula would allow us to extend the dynamics to arbitrary real times $t\in\mathcal{R}$. To recover $H$, we need to take a logarithm of $U_1$. This operation is of course not uniquely defined, but the ansatz $$\label{eqn:fourierHopping}
H=\sum_{k=0}^{N-1} \frac{k}{2\pi} \ket{f_k}\bra{f_k}$$ in terms of the Fourier basis $$\ket{f_k} = \frac{1}{\sqrt N} \sum_{j=0}^{N-1} e^{\frac{2 \pi
\mathrm{i}}{N} k j}$$ seems particularly appealing. It can easily be checked to be compatible with our previous definitions of $U_0$ and $U_1$.
![Absolute value squared of a vector initially localized at site $6$ (of $10$) under the action of the time evolution $e^{\mathrm{i}tH}$ for $t\in\{0,.25,.5.,.75,1\}$. The Hamiltonian is given by Eq. (\[eqn:fourierHopping\]). The dynamics is not causal for non-integer values of $t$. \[fig:fourierHopping\] ](U0 "fig:"){width=".18\textwidth"} ![Absolute value squared of a vector initially localized at site $6$ (of $10$) under the action of the time evolution $e^{\mathrm{i}tH}$ for $t\in\{0,.25,.5.,.75,1\}$. The Hamiltonian is given by Eq. (\[eqn:fourierHopping\]). The dynamics is not causal for non-integer values of $t$. \[fig:fourierHopping\] ](U1 "fig:"){width=".18\textwidth"} ![Absolute value squared of a vector initially localized at site $6$ (of $10$) under the action of the time evolution $e^{\mathrm{i}tH}$ for $t\in\{0,.25,.5.,.75,1\}$. The Hamiltonian is given by Eq. (\[eqn:fourierHopping\]). The dynamics is not causal for non-integer values of $t$. \[fig:fourierHopping\] ](U2 "fig:"){width=".18\textwidth"} ![Absolute value squared of a vector initially localized at site $6$ (of $10$) under the action of the time evolution $e^{\mathrm{i}tH}$ for $t\in\{0,.25,.5.,.75,1\}$. The Hamiltonian is given by Eq. (\[eqn:fourierHopping\]). The dynamics is not causal for non-integer values of $t$. \[fig:fourierHopping\] ](U3 "fig:"){width=".18\textwidth"} ![Absolute value squared of a vector initially localized at site $6$ (of $10$) under the action of the time evolution $e^{\mathrm{i}tH}$ for $t\in\{0,.25,.5.,.75,1\}$. The Hamiltonian is given by Eq. (\[eqn:fourierHopping\]). The dynamics is not causal for non-integer values of $t$. \[fig:fourierHopping\] ](U4 "fig:"){width=".18\textwidth"}
Does this definition yield physically satisfactory dynamics for all times $t\in[0,1]$? Hardly. As demonstrated in Fig. \[fig:fourierHopping\], a particle initially localized at site $6$ ($N=10$) will spread out over the entire ring during the interval $t\in[0,\frac12]$, and refocus to site $7$ during $t\in[\frac12, 1]$. Any sensible notion of “causality” is violated for non-integer values of $t$. Note that this contrasts with the time evolution generated by the momentum operator $H=\mathrm{i} \partial_x$ of a continuous-variable system. The latter fulfills $\big(e^{\mathrm{i}t H} \psi\big)(x) =
\psi(x - t)$, thus preserving the localization properties of vectors $\psi\in L^2(\mathcal{R})$ for any $t\in\mathcal{R}$.
The discussion immediately raises several questions:
Is there a way to continuously interpolate between $U_0$ and $U_1$ while preserving causality? Our particular choice (\[eqn:fourierHopping\]) for $H$ could have been unfortunate. Conceivably, there is a better-suited, potentially time-dependent Hamiltonian which does the job. More physically phrased: is it possible to discretize the spacial degrees of freedom, but not the temporal ones, of a free single particle, while respecting causality? (The answer is: no, this is not possible).
Is there a simple way of deciding that the answer to the first question is negative? (Yes: the index of $U_0$ is $0$, the index of $U_1$ is $1$. The index is constant on connected components with uniformly bounded interaction length).
Further questions we will answer include: Is there a “gate-model” implementation of $U_1$? More precisely, can I write $U_1$ in terms of a constant-depth sequence of unitary operations, each of which acts non-trivially only on a constant number of sites? (No). Can I engineer a large system on $N'\gg N$ sites, endowed with a global time evolution $U$, such that the restriction of $U$ to some region of contiguous sites looks like $U_0$ and the restriction of $U$ to some other region looks like $U_1$? (No).
All these statements are made precise in Theorem \[thmInd\].
Cluster state preparation
-------------------------
In this section, we consider $N$ spin-$1/2$ particles arranged on a circle. The Hilbert space of the system is $\mathcal{H} =
\bigotimes_{i=1}^N \Cx^2$. In the previous example, it was clear what it meant for a state vector $\psi$ to be “localized” in some region $\Lambda\subset[1,N]$: namely this was the case if $\langle
\psi|e_i\rangle = 0$ for all $i\not\in\Lambda$. For state vectors on tensor product spaces, on the other hand, there seems to be no satisfactory notion of “locality”. To circumvent this problem, we focus on observables instead. An observable $A\in\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$ is localized in a region $\Lambda$ if $A$ acts like the identity on all tensor factors outside of $\Lambda$.
Reversible dynamics on such a system is again represented by a unitary $U\in U(\mathcal{H})$. We use the symbol $\alpha$ to denote the action by conjugation of $U$ on observables: $A \mapsto \alpha(A)= U A U^*$.
Let $\{\sigma_x^{(i)}, \sigma_y^{(i)}, \sigma_z^{(i)}\}$ be the Pauli matrices acting on the $i$th spin. Since one can form a basis of $\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$ from products of the Pauli matrices $\{\sigma_x^{(i)},
\sigma_z^{(i)}\}_{i=1}^N$ acting on single spins alone, it suffices to specify the effect of $\alpha$ on these $2 N$ matrices in order to completely determine the dynamics. For example, we can set $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha(\sigma_x^{(i)}) &=&
\sigma_z^{(i-1)}\otimes
\sigma_x^{(i)}\otimes
\sigma_z^{(i+1)}, \\
\alpha(\sigma_z^{(i)}) &=& \sigma_z^{(i)}.\end{aligned}$$ It is a simple exercise to verify that the operators on the right hand side fulfill the same commutation relations as the $\{\sigma_x^{(i)},
\sigma_z^{(i)}\}$. This is sufficient to ensure that a unitary $U$ implementing the time evolution $\alpha$ actually exists.
As in the previous example, we can ask more refined questions about $U$. For example: can we implement $U$ by a fixed-depth circuit of nearest-neighbor unitaries? Can one interpolate between $U$ and the trivial time evolution while keeping observables localized along the path? Is there a simple numerical invariant which would allow us to easily decide these questions?
In this particular case an educated guess gives rise to affirmative answers to all these questions. Indeed, set $$V_t^{(i, i+1)} =
\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & e^{\mathrm{i} t \pi}
\end{array}
\right)$$ with respect to the standard basis of the $i$th and $(i+1)$th spin. Define $$U_t = \prod_{i=1}^N V_t^{(i,i+1)}$$ (the product is well-defined because $V_t$ commutes with its translates, so the order in which the product is taken is immaterial). Then one checks that $\alpha$ corresponds to $U_1$, whereas $U_0$ is the trivial evolution. Clearly $U_t$ continuously interpolates between these two cases, and, by construction, does not increase the localization region of an observable by more than two sites. We note that $U_1$ is known in the quantum information literature as the interaction used to generate *graph states* [@SchlingemannWerner; @HeinEisertBriegel].
In Section \[sec:Iauto\], we will set up a general theory for answering the questions posed above—including in cases where one is not so lucky to have an explicit parametrization in terms of gates at hand.
Systems {#sec:prelims}
=======
Quantum Walks {#sec:Swalks}
-------------
We consider a quantum system with a spatial degree of freedom $x\in\Ir$, and at every site or “cell” $x$ a finite dimensional “one-cell Hilbert space” $\HH_x$. These spaces can be thought of as describing the internal states of the system as opposed to the external, spatial variables $x$. The Hilbert space of the system is $$\label{dirsum}
\HH=\bigoplus_{x=-\infty}^\infty \HH_x,$$ The specification of the $\HH_x$ will be called a [*cell structure*]{}.
We call a unitary operator $U$ on $\HH$ [*causal*]{} [^1], or a [*quantum walk*]{}, if, for any $x\in\Ir$, there are some $x_-<x_+$ such that $\phi\in\HH_x\subset\HH$ implies $U\phi\in\bigoplus_{y=x_-}^{x_+}\HH_x$. We assume that $x_\pm$ are both non-decreasing as functions of $x$, and go to $\pm\infty$ when $x$ does.
By $U_{yx}:\HH_x\to\HH_y$ we denote the block matrix corresponding to the direct sum (\[dirsum\]), i.e. $$\label{walklocal}
U\bigoplus_x\phi_x=\bigoplus_y\sum_xU_{yx}\phi_x.$$ The causality of $U$ implies that, for any $x$, only finitely many $y$ give non-zero summands.
The spatial variable $x$ of a walk and the internal degrees of freedom, described in $\HH_x$, are largely interchangeable. In one direction we can choose a basis $\ket{x,1}, \ldots, \ket{x,d}$ in some $\HH_x$, and replace the point $x$ by the sequence of points $(x,1),
\ldots, (x,d)$, each with a one-dimensional space $\HH_{x,i}$ of internal states. Because in the above definition, we assumed that the spatial variable ranges over $\Ir$, groupings have to be followed up by a relabeling of sites in the obvious way. In the other direction, we can “fuse together” several cells $x_1,\ldots,x_k$, getting a new cell $X$ with internal state space $\HH_X=\bigoplus_{i=1}^k\HH_i$. In either case it is clear how to adjust the neighborhood parameters $x_\pm$.
Hence we can either regard our system as one without internal degrees of freedom, and Hilbert space $\HH=\ell^2(\Ir)$. Typically this may involve some large neighborhoods $[x_-,x_+]$. Or else, we can group cells until we get a nearest neighborhood system, i.e., $x_\pm=x\pm1$, at the expense of having to deal with high-dimensional $\HH_x$.
Most of these definitions and constructions are easily generalized to higher-dimensional lattices. It is therefore instructive to identify the feature which restricts our results to the one-dimensional case. Indeed, it lies in the fact that one can choose a partitioning into intervals $[a_i,b_i]\subset\Ir$ such that the sites below $a_i$ and above $b_i$ interact only through the interval $[a_i,b_i]$. Formally, that is a consequence of demanding $\lim_{x\to\pm\infty}x_\pm=\pm\infty$. It is easy to see that such a separation need not be possible in a two-dimensional lattice, even if every cell has a finite neighborhood. In this more general setup, neighborhood relations up to regroupings may be described in terms of *coarse geometry* [@coarse], a theme we will not pursue here.
The simplest way to define a cell structure is to choose a Hilbert space $\HH_0$, and to set $\HH_x\equiv\HH_0$ for all $x\in\Ir$. We then have the unitary equivalence $\HH\cong\ell^2(\Ir)\otimes\HH_0$. In that case we can define the [*shift*]{} operation $S$ and its powers by $$\label{shift}
S^n(\ket x\otimes\phi_0)=\ket{x+n}\otimes\phi_0.$$ In this setting one frequently looks at translationally invariant walks, i.e., unitaries $U$ commuting with $S$. More generally, there might be some period $p$ such that $[U,S^p]=0$. Clearly, it is natural in this case to group $p$ consecutive cells, so that after grouping one gets a strictly translationally invariant walk.
The space $\HH_0$ can then either be considered as an internal degree of freedom of a walking particle, or as a [*coin*]{} so that shift steps (possibly depending on the internal state) are alternated with unitary coin tosses $\idty\otimes C$. Translationally invariant systems will be treated in more detail in Sect. \[sec:tiw\].
Since we are after a local theory of quantum walks, global aspects — like the distinction between a walk on $\Ir$ and a walk on a [*large ring*]{} of $M$ sites — are secondary, as long as the interaction length $L=\max\abs{x_+-x_-}$ remains small in comparison with $M$. In fact, from any walk on a ring we can construct one on $\Ir$ which locally looks the same. More formally, let the sites of the ring be labeled by the classes $\Ir_M$ of integers modulo $M$, and identified with $\{0,\ldots,M-1\}$. Then we extend the cell structure by setting $\HH_{x+kM}=\HH_x$ for all $k\in\Ir$. In order to extend the unitary $U$ on the ring to a walk $\widehat U$ on $\Ir$ we set $$\label{Uperiodic}
\widehat U_{xy}=\left\lbrace
\begin{array}{cl}
0& \quad \mbox{if }\ |x-y|>L \\
U_{x'y'} &\quad \mbox{if }\ |x-y|\leq L,\
x'\equiv x, y'\equiv y\ \mod M.
\end{array}\right.$$ For the second line to be unambiguous, we require $2L<M$. To verify unitarity we need to compute $$\label{UperiodicUnitary}
\sum_y\widehat U_{xy}^*\widehat U_{yz}
=\sum_{y'}U_{x'y'}^*U_{y'z'},$$ where we have assumed that $|x-z|\leq 2L$, because otherwise the left hand side is zero anyhow. Note that for each summation index $y$ only one class $y'\in\Ir_M$ can occur in the sum on the right hand side. Moreover, every class $y'$ appears, although possibly with a zero contribution. But the sum on the right is $\delta_{x'z'}\idty_{x'}$, which together with a similar argument for $UU^*$ proves the unitarity of $\widehat U$.
From the point of view of index theory, the walk $U$ on the ring and $\widehat U$ on the line are the same. However, if we iterate $U$, the interaction length $(x_+-x_-)$ increases, and eventually non-zero matrix elements can occur anywhere in $U^n$. In this sense, the set of quantum walks on a ring does not form a group. This is the reason why the theory of walks on $\Ir$ is more elegant and more complete. From now on we will therefore consider walks on $\Ir$ only.
Cellular Automata {#sec:Sautoms}
-----------------
Once again we consider a system in which a finite dimensional Hilbert space $\HH_x$ is associated with every site $x\in\Ir$. However, rather than combining these in a direct sum, we take their tensor product. In plain English this means that, for any two sites $x,y$, rather than having a system of type $\HH_x$ at position $x$ [*or*]{} a system of type $\HH_y$ at position $y$, as in a quantum walk, we now have a system of type $\HH_x$ at position $x$ [*and*]{} a system of type $\HH_y$ at position $y$. In contrast to the infinite direct sum of Hilbert spaces, the infinite tensor product is not well-defined. Since we want to look at local properties, we could work with a “potentially” infinite product, i.e., some finite product with more factors added as needed in the course of an argument. But it is easier to work instead with the observable algebras $\AA_x$, equal to the operators on the Hilbert space $\HH_x$, or equivalently the algebra $\MM_{d(x)}$, where $d(x)=\dim\HH_x$ ($\MM_d$ denotes the algebra of $d\times
d$-matrices). In analogy to the definition for walks, we will refer to the specification of the algebras $\AA_x$ as the [*cell structure*]{}.
For the observable algebras associated to sets $\Lambda\subset\Ir$, we use the following notations: for finite $\Lambda$, $\AA(\Lambda)$ is the tensor product of all $\AA_x$ with $x\in\Lambda$. For $\Lambda_1\subset\Lambda_2$ we identify $\AA(\Lambda_1)$ with the subalgebra $\AA(\Lambda_1)\otimes
\idty^{\Lambda_2\setminus\Lambda_1}\subset\AA(\Lambda_2)$. For infinite $\Lambda\subset\Ir$ we denote by $\AA(\Lambda)$ the C\*-closure of the increasing family of finite dimensional algebras $\AA(\Lambda_f)$ for finite $\Lambda_f\subset\Lambda$, also called the quasi-local algebra [@BraRo]. In particular, the algebra of the whole chain is $\AA(\Ir)$, sometimes abbreviated to $\AA$.
A [*cellular automaton*]{} with cell structure $\{\AA_x\}_{x\in\Ir}$ is an automorphism $\alpha$ of $\AA=\AA(\Ir))$ such that, for some functions $x\mapsto x_\pm$ as specified in Sect. \[sec:Swalks\], each $\alpha(\AA_x)\subset\AA([x_-,x_+])$. Note that the restricted homomorphisms $\alpha_x:\AA_x\to\AA([x_-,x_+])$ uniquely determine $\alpha$, because every observable acting on a finite number of cells can be expanded into products of one-site observables. These [*local rules*]{} $\alpha_x$ have to satisfy the constraint that the algebras $\alpha_x(\AA_x)$ for different $x$ commute element-wise. In that case they uniquely determine an endomorphism $\alpha$. For examples and various construction methods for cellular automata we refer to [@qca].
Exactly as in the case of quantum walks we can group cells together for convenience. Whereas the dimensions for subcells add up for quantum walks ($\dim\bigoplus_{x\in\Lambda}\HH_x=\sum_{x\in\Lambda}\dim\HH_x$) we get $\AA(\Lambda)\cong\MM_d$ with the product $d=\prod_{x\in\Lambda}d(x)$.
By considering the time evolution of observables, we have implicitly chosen to work in the Heisenberg picture. The expectation value of the physical procedure ([*i*]{}) prepare a state $\rho$, ([*ii*]{}) run the automaton for $k$ time steps, ([*iii*]{}) measure an observable $A$ would thus be given by the expression $\rho(\alpha^k(A))$. Accordingly, we choose a convention for the [*shift*]{} on a chain with isomorphic cells, which at first seems inverted relative to the definition (\[shift\]) for walks. We define it as the automorphism $\sigma$ with $\sigma(\AA_x)=\AA_{x-1}$, acting according to the assumed isomorphism of all the cell algebras. Thus if one prepares a certain state, it will be found shifted to the right after one step of $\sigma$, in accordance with (\[shift\]) although in that case $U\HH_x=\HH_{x+1}$.
Local Implementability {#sec:Gimp}
======================
We have defined the causality properties of walks and cellular automata *axiomatically*, i.e., as a condition on the input-output behavior of the maps $U$ and $\alpha$. Alternatively, one may take a *constructive* approach. Here, one would list a set of operations that should certainly be included in the set of local dynamics, and refer to any given time evolution as being locally implementable if it can be represented as sequence of these basic building blocks. Both methods are equally valid, and in this section we will completely analyze their relation. From the axiomatic point of view this might be called a “structure theorem”, whereas from the constructive point of view one would call it a “characterization theorem”.
In the case at hand, there is a natural choice of building blocks. Namely, we can partition the system into some subsets (“blocks”) of sites, and apply a unitary operation separately to each subsystem in the partition. (Note that the unitaries would be combined by a direct sum for walks and by a tensor product for cellular automata). For such maps the interplay between unitarity and causality is trivial: causality puts no constraint whatsoever on the choice of unitaries acting in each block. Moreover, it allows the overall operation to be resolved into a sequence of steps, in which one block operation is done after the other. This picture is close to the gate model of quantum computation [@nc]: here each block unitary would correspond to one “gate” involving some subset of registers, so that these gates do not disturb each other. The fact that they can be executed in parallel is expressed by saying that these infinitely many gates nevertheless represent an operation of [*logical depth 1*]{}.
For partitioned unitary operations the various block unitaries obviously commute. Commutation is really the essential feature if we want to resolve the overall time step into a sequence of block unitary steps. Indeed, consider a family of commuting unitaries $U_j$, each localized in a finite subset $\Lambda_j$ of some infinite lattice (not necessarily one-dimensional). We only need that the cover by the $\Lambda_j$ is locally finite, i.e., each point $x$ is contained in at most finitely many $\Lambda_j$. Then the product $\prod_j U_j$ implements a well-defined operation on localized elements. In the cellular automaton case (where localization just means $U_j\in\AA(\Lambda_j)$), we define the action on a local observable $A$ as $$\label{communitary} \alpha(A)=\Bigl(\prod_j
U_j^*\Bigr)A \Bigl(\prod_j U_j\Bigr),$$ with the understanding that both products range over the same index set, namely those $j$ for which $\Lambda_j$ meets the localization region of $A$. Here the products can be taken without regard to operator ordering, since we assumed that the $U_j$ commute. Including additional factors $U_j$ on both sides will not change $\alpha(A)$, since such factors can be “commuted past” all other $U_{j'},U_{j'}^*$ and $A$ to meet the corresponding $U_j^*$ and cancel. So the product is over [*all*]{} $j$, in the sense of a product over any sufficiently large finite set. Similar considerations apply for the case of walks on general lattices.
Now if a QCA $\alpha$ is represented in the form (\[communitary\]), we can also represent it as a product of partitioned operations: indeed, we only need to group the $U_j$ into families within which all $\Lambda_j$ are disjoint. The product of each family is obviously a partitioned unitary and under suitable uniformity conditions on the cover we only need a finite product of such partitioned operations to represent $\alpha$, typically $s+1$ factors, where $s$ is the spatial dimension of the lattice. Hence we consider the representation as a product of partitioned unitaries as essentially equivalent to the representation by commuting unitaries as in (\[communitary\]). In either case we will say that the system is [*locally implementable*]{}.
We now come to the basic result for implementing general walks or cellular automata by commuting unitaries — provided we are allowed to enlarge the system. The key feature of these extensions is that they work in arbitrary (not necessarily one-dimensional) lattices and that the ancillary system is a copy of the system itself, on which we implement simultaneously the inverse operation. In the following result, we allow the underlying “lattice” $X$ to be any countable set. General neighborhood schemes are described as controlled sets in some coarse structure [@coarse]. For the present paper it suffices to describe causality in terms of a metric $d$ on $X$, of which we only assume that all balls $\NN_L(x)=\{y|d(x,y)\leq L\}$ are finite sets. The causality condition for walks on $X$ is then that there is some “interaction radius” $L$ such that in (\[walklocal\]) $U_{yx}=0$ for $d(x,y)>L$. Similarly, for QCAs, the causality condition reads $\alpha(\AA_x)\subset\AA(\NN_L(x))$. For walks $U,V$ on the same lattice we simply write $U\oplus V$ for a walk with one-cell Hilbert spaces $\HH_x\oplus\KK_x$, where $\HH_x$ are the one-cell spaces for $U$ and $\KK_x$ those for $V$. This splits the total Hilbert space into $\HH\oplus\KK$, and $U\oplus V$ acts according to this direct sum. Similarly, we define the tensor product $\alpha\otimes\beta$ acting on two parallel systems combined in a tensor product.
\[ANW\] (1) For any quantum walk $U$, the walk $U\oplus U^*$ is locally implementable. (2) For any cellular automaton $\alpha$, the automaton $\alpha\otimes\alpha^{-1}$ is locally implementable.
\(1) We are considering a doubled system in which the one-cell Hilbert space at $x$ is $\HH_x\oplus\HH_x$. Let $S_x$ denote the unitary operator on the doubled system which swaps these two summands, and acts as the identity on the one-cell spaces of all other sites. Now consider the unitaries $$T_x=(U^*\oplus\idty)S_x(U\oplus\idty).$$ These commute, because they are the images of the commuting transformations $S_x$ under the same unitary conjugation. Moreover, they are localized near $x$ by the causality properties postulated for $U$. Hence their infinite product defines a walk unitary, as discussed above. This unitary is $$\prod_xT_x=(U^*\oplus\idty)S(U\oplus\idty)=S(\idty\oplus U^*)(U\oplus\idty)=S(U\oplus U^*),$$ where we have used that $S=\prod_xS_x$ is just the global swap of the two system copies. Hence $U\oplus U^*=(\prod_xS_x)(\prod_xT_x)$ is locally implemented.
\(2) Essentially the same idea works for cellular automata [@ANW07]. Again we consider the unitaries $S_x\in\AA_x\otimes\AA_x$, which swap the two tensor factors, so that $S_x(A_x\otimes B_x)=(B_x\otimes A_x)S_x$. Now consider the unitary elements $$T_x=(\id\otimes \alpha)[S_x].$$ Here we have written the arguments of an automorphism in brackets, to distinguish it from grouping parentheses, and thus eliminate a possible source of confusion in the coming computations. As images of a family of commuting unitaries under an automorphism, the $T_x$ are themselves a commuting family of unitaries. Moreover, they are localized in $\AA_x\otimes\AA_{\NN(x)}$. Hence they implement a cellular automaton $\beta$. We determine it by letting it act first on a localized element of the form $A_x\otimes\idty$ with $A_x\in\AA_x$. $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber \beta[A_x\otimes\idty]&=&\Bigl(\prod_yT_y\Bigr)^*\bigl(A_x\otimes\idty\bigr)\Bigl(\prod_yT_y\Bigr)\\
&=&(\id\otimes \alpha)\Bigl[\prod_yS_y\Bigr]\
(\id\otimes \alpha)\Bigl[A_x\otimes\idty\Bigr]\
(\id\otimes \alpha)\Bigl[\prod_yS_y\Bigr] \nonumber\\
&=&(\id\otimes \alpha)\Bigl[(\prod_yS_y)(A_x\otimes\idty)(\prod_yS_y)\Bigr]
\nonumber\\
&=&(\id\otimes \alpha)[\idty\otimes A_x]=\idty\otimes\alpha[A_x]
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ A similar computation shows that $\beta[\idty\otimes \alpha[B_x]]=B_x\otimes\idty$. Since $\alpha$ is an automorphism, this is the same as $\beta[\idty\otimes B_x]=\alpha^{-1}[B_x]\otimes\idty$. Using the homomorphism property of $\beta$, we get for general localized elements $A,B$ that $\beta[A\otimes B]=\alpha^{-1}[B]\otimes\alpha[A]$. Hence following $\beta$ by a global swap (implemented by $\prod_xS_x$) we have implemented $\alpha\otimes\alpha^{-1}$ locally.
The group of locally computable invariants {#sec:Glci}
==========================================
In this section we take up the idea of a [*locally computable invariant*]{} and show that, for either walks or automata, these invariants necessarily form an abelian group. The group multiplication reflects both the composition and the parallel application to a double chain. We postpone to later sections the question whether nontrivial invariants exist, i.e., at this stage it might well be that the group described here is trivial. Later on we will determine this group to be $(\Ir,+)$ for quantum walks (see Sect. \[sec:Iwalk\])and $(\Rt_+,\cdot)$, the multiplicative group of positive fractions, for cellular automata (see Sect. \[sec:Iauto\]). In this section, in order not to double each step, we will describe the arguments for the case of walks, and just comment at the end on the necessary changes for the cellular automaton case.
Suppose we have defined a property $\PP(U)$, which is defined for any quantum walk $U$, and which can be determined solely on the basis of a finite collection of the block matrices $U_{xy}$. More specifically, if we write the walk in nearest-neighbor form by grouping, we call a property $\PP(U)$ [*locally computable*]{} if we can compute it from the restriction of $U$ on any interval of length $\geq2$. The crucial part of this definition is, of course, that the result obtained in this way must be the same for any interval we may select for the computation, a property which we stress by calling $\PP$ a locally computable invariant.
Suppose now that two walks $U_1$ and $U_2$ [*share a patch*]{}, in the sense that there is a long interval $[x_1,x_2]\subset\Ir$, on which the Hilbert spaces $\HH_x$ for $x\in[x_1,x_2]$ have the same dimensions and, after the choice of a suitable isomorphism, the unitaries $U_1$ and $U_2$ restricted to these subspaces act in the same way. We assume that the interval is sufficiently long to determine $\PP$. Then local computability just means that we must have $\PP(U_1)=\PP(U_2)$. In other words, $\PP$ must be constant on each equivalence class of the relation of “sharing a patch”. So the theory of locally computable invariants is really equivalent to characterizing the classes of the transitive hull of this relation: We will write $U_1\sim U_n$, if there is a chain of walks $U_1,U_2,\ldots,U_n$ such that, for all $i$, $U_i$ and $U_{i+1}$ share a patch. In contrast to the relation of sharing a patch, this equivalence relation no longer makes any requirements about the sizes of any one-cell Hilbert spaces in the walks $U_1$ and $U_n$. The most comprehensive locally computable property is now just the property of $U$ to belong to some equivalence class: all other locally computable properties are functions of this class. Our aim thus shifts to computing the set $\JJ$ of equivalence classes for “$\sim$”. The equivalence class of a walk $U$ will be denoted by $\ind(U)\in\JJ$, and called its (abstract) [*index*]{}.
Let us first make the connection to the questions of the previous section: suppose that a walk or automaton is locally implementable, i.e., the product of a collection of block partitioned unitaries. Compare this with a system in which all unitaries, whose localization intersects the positive half axis, are replaced by the identity. Clearly, this acts like the identity on all cells on the positive axis, and we can further modify the system by making it trivial ($0$-dimensional $\HH_x$ or $1$-dimensional algebras $\AA_x$) for $x>0$. Clearly these systems share a large patch (most of the negative axis), so they are equivalent. In other words, locally implementable systems have the same index as the identity on a trivial chain.
A very useful fact about the relation $U_1\sim U_2$ is that it implies a prima facie much stronger relation: It is equivalent to the property that there is a “crossover” walk $U_c$, which coincides with $U_1$ on a negative half line $\{x|x\leq a\}$ and coincides with $U_2$ on a positive half line $\{x|x\geq b\}$.
Let us denote the relation just described by $U_1\approx U_2$. Then $U_1\approx U_2\Rightarrow U_1\sim U_2$, because $U_1$ and $U_2$ each share an infinite patch with $U_c$.
In the converse direction, if $U_1$ and $U_2$ share a patch, we can define $U_c$ to be the walk whose one-cell Hilbert spaces $\HH_x$ are those of $U_1$ for $x$ to the left of the shared patch, and are those of $U_2$ for $x$ to the right of the shared patch. Similarly, we define the unitary $U_c$ to coincide with $U_1$ to the left and with $U_2$ on the right. On the shared patch we can choose either one, since the two walks coincide. Since the shared patch was assumed to be sufficiently long this does not lead to an ambiguity for either $U_c$ or $U_c^{-1}$. Hence $U_1\approx U_2$.
In order to cover the case that $U_1$ and $U_2$ are linked by a chain in which any neighbors share a patch, we only need to prove that $U_1\approx U_2$ is a transitive relation.
![Combining a crossover from $U_1$ to $U_2$ with a crossover from $U_2$ to $U_3$ to obtain a crossover from $U_1$ to $U_3$. The shaded double chains can be fused to a single cell by Prop. \[ANW\].[]{data-label="fig:crosstrans"}](transit.eps){width="8.5cm"}
In order to prove transitivity, consider the walks $U_1,U_2,U_3$ with crossovers $U_{12}$ and $U_{23}$ as shown in Fig. \[fig:crosstrans\]. There we also included a copy of the inverse of $U_2$. We take the overall picture as a representation of the walk $U_{12}\oplus U_2^{-1}\oplus U_{23}$. Now consider the strands of $U_{12}$ and $U_2^{-1}$ to the right of the crossover region of $U_{12}$. Since $U_2\oplus U_2^{-1}$ is locally implementable by Prop. \[ANW\], we can replace this pair of strands by a trivial system, still retaining a legitimate unitary operation for the rest. Similarly, we can fuse the strands of $U_{23}$ and $U_2^{-1}$ to the left of the crossover region of $U_{23}$ to nothing. This results in a unitary operator, which coincides with $U_1$ on a left half axis and with $U_3$ on a positive half axis, i.e., a crossover $U_{13}$.
Suppose we regroup some finite collection of the cells. Clearly, this does not affect cells far away, and we immediately get a crossover. Hence the index does not change when regrouping cells, even if this is carried out in parallel. We will implicitly use this in the sequel by regrouping sites in whatever way is most convenient.
Define the direct sum $U\oplus V$ of walks as in the previous section. Then if $U_c$ (resp. $V_c$) is a crossover between $U_1$ and $U_2$ (resp. $V_1$ and $V_2$), $U_c\oplus V_c$ is obviously a crossover between $U_1\oplus V_1$ and $U_2\oplus V_2$. Hence the class $\ind(U\oplus V)\in\JJ$ depends only on the equivalence classes of $U$ and $V$, and we can define an “addition” of indices by $\ind(U)+\ind(V)=\ind(U\oplus V)$. This addition is abelian, because there is a trivial crossover between $U\oplus V and V\oplus U$, just exchanging the summands on a half chain. Moreover, since an inverse is defined as $-\ind(U)=\ind(U^*)$ via Prop. \[ANW\], we conclude that $\JJ$ becomes an abelian group.
Now suppose $U$ and $V$ are walks on the same cell structure, so that $UV$ makes sense. We claim that there is a crossover between $UV$ and $U\oplus V$. Hence we also get $$\ind(UV)=\ind(U\oplus V)=\ind(U)+\ind(V).$$
Indeed, consider the cell structure on which $U\oplus V$ is defined, which has one-cell Hilbert spaces $\HH_x\oplus\HH_x$ at each site. Now let $S_+$ denote the unitary which acts as the swap on all $\HH_x\oplus\HH_x$ with $x>0$ and leaves the subspaces with $x\leq0$ unchanged. Then $(U\oplus\idty)S_+(\idty\oplus V)S_+$ is a crossover between $U\oplus V$ and $UV\oplus\idty\sim UV$.
The concept of crossovers and the arguments for the group structure can be taken over verbatim, with the replacements $U\mapsto\alpha$, $\HH_x\mapsto\AA_x$, $\oplus\mapsto\otimes$. Of course, the index group will also be different, and we will adopt the convention to write it multiplicatively. The product formula thus reads $\ind(\alpha\beta)=\ind(\alpha\otimes\beta)=\ind(\alpha)\ind(\beta)$.
To make the abstract theory of this section useful, one needs to establish an isomorphism of the index group with some explicitly known group. The natural way to do that is to identify [*generators*]{}, i.e., some particular walks which cannot be implemented locally, but are sufficient to generate arbitrary walks up to locally implementable factors. Although it is far from obvious at this point, it will turn out later that, for walks as well as for cellular automata, the role of generators is played by the shifts. Since there is only one kind of generators, it suffices to assign numbers as “index values” to the shifts to establish an isomorphism of the abstract index groups with groups of numbers.
For walks, the shift was introduced in Sect. \[sec:Swalks\]. We denote by $S_d$ the shift on a system with $d$-dimensional internal degree of freedom ($\dim\HH_x=d$ for all $x$). Similarly, let $\sigma_d$ denote the shift automorphism on a chain with cell algebra $\MM_d$. We tentatively demand $$\label{shiftindW}
\ind(S_d)=d$$ and, similarly, $$\label{shiftindA}
\ind(\sigma_d)=d.$$ This has to be consistent for shifts on parallel chains. Since $S_d\oplus S_e=S_{d+e}$ and $\sigma_d\otimes\sigma_e=\sigma_{d\cdot e}$, this requires that we take the indices of walks as a group of numbers under addition, and for the cellular automata as a group of numbers under multiplication. Indeed, we will show that the above formulas fix an isomorphism of the abstract index group $\JJ$ to $(\Ir,+)$ for quantum walks, and to the group $(\Rt_+,\cdot)$ of positive fractions for cellular automata.
Index for quantum walks {#sec:Iwalk}
=======================
Pedestrian definition
---------------------
The following is the basic definition of this chapter. To the best knowledge of the authors, it is due to Kitaev [@Kitaev], who calls this quantity the [*flow*]{} of a walk $U$.
\[defInd\] For any walk $U$, we define the [**index**]{} as $$\label{defIndW}
\ind U=\sum_{x\geq0>y}\left(\tr (U_{xy})^*U_{xy}-\tr (U_{yx})^*U_{yx}\right).$$
Note that the sum is finite by virtue of the definition of causal unitaries. Clearly, for the simple shift we get $\ind S_1=1$, confirming Eq. (\[shiftindW\]).
Of course, we will show presently that this quantity has all the properties of the abstract index discussed in the previous sections. However, from the definition given here it seems miraculous that such a quantity should be always an integer, and independent of the positioning of the cut. To see this it is better to rewrite this quantity in the following way.
Operator theoretic definition
-----------------------------
We introduce the projection $P$ for the half axis $\{x\geq0\}$, i.e., the projection onto the subspace $\bigoplus_{x\geq0}\HH_x$. Then, for $\phi_x\in\HH_x$ and $\phi_y\in\HH_y$ we get $$\bra{\phi_x} PU-UP\ket{\phi_y}=\left\lbrace
\begin{array}{cl}
0 & x\geq0\ \mbox{and}\ y\geq0\\
-\bra{\phi_x}U_{xy}\ket{\phi_y} & x<0\ \mbox{and}\ y\geq0\\
\bra{\phi_x}U_{xy}\ket{\phi_y} & x\geq0\ \mbox{and}\ y<0\\
0 & x<0\ \mbox{and}\ y<0
\end{array}\right.$$ Hence, for any pair $(x,y)$ the commutator $[U,P]$ has just the signs used in the definition of the index, and we get $$\label{indcomm}
\ind U=\tr U^*[P,U]=\tr(U^*PU-P)$$ Note that for the the trace on the right hand side we cannot use linearity of the trace to write it as the difference of two (equal!) terms, because this would result in an indeterminate expression $\infty-\infty$.
Fundamental properties of the index for walks
---------------------------------------------
\[thmInd\]
1. $\ind U$ is an integer for any walk $U$
2. $\ind U$ is locally computable, and uniquely parameterizes the equivalence classes for the relation $\sim$ from Sect. \[sec:Glci\], hence can be identified with the abstract index defined there.
3. $\ind(U_1\oplus U_2)=\ind(U_1)+\ind(U_2)$, and, when $U_1$ and $U_2$ are defined on the same cell structure, $\ind(U_1U_2)=\ind(U_1)+\ind(U_2)$. Moreover, for the shift of $d$-dimensional cells: $\ind S_d=d$.
4. $\ind U=0$ if and only if $U$ admits a “local decoupling”, i.e. there is a unitary $V$, which acts like the identity on all but finitely many $\HH_x$, such that $UV$ is block diagonal with respect to the decomposition $\HH=\bigl(\bigoplus_{x\leq0}\HH_x\bigr)\oplus\bigl(\bigoplus_{x\geq1}\HH_x\bigr)$.
5. $\ind U=0$ if and only if it is locally implementable (see Sect. \[sec:Gimp\]). In this case it can be written as a product of just two partitioned unitaries. When $U$ is regrouped in nearest neighbor form, then the partitioned unitaries can be chosen to couple only pairs of nearest neighbors.
6. $\ind U_1=\ind U_0$ if and only if $U_0$ and $U_1$ lie in the same connected component, i.e., there is a norm continuous path $[0,1]\ni t\mapsto U_t$ of causal unitaries of uniformly bounded interaction length $L$ with the specified boundary values.
The rest of this subsection is devoted to the proof of this result. According to Eq. (\[indcomm\]), the index is closely related to a difference of projections. If these were finite dimensional, we could just use linearity to get the difference of two integers. The following Lemma shows that the result is still an integer when the difference of the two projections has finite rank. Actually it is even sufficient for the difference to be trace class, and with a careful discussion of the trace, it is sufficient for the $\pm1$ eigenspaces of the difference to be finite dimensional [@Seiler]. Here we include the simple case sufficient for our purposes.
\[finrank\] Let $Q,P$ be orthogonal projections in a Hilbert space $\HH$, such that $Q-P$ has finite rank. Then
1. The range $\RR=(Q-P)\HH$ is an invariant subspace for both $Q$ and $P$.
2. $\tr(Q-P)$ is an integer.
3. There is a unitary operator $V$ such that $V\phi=\phi$ for all $\phi\perp(Q-P)\HH$, and such that $Q\geq V^*PV$ or $Q\leq V^*PV$.
4. If $\tr(Q-P)=0$, the $V$ from the previous item satisfies $Q=V^*PV$.
1\. follows from the identity $$Q(Q-P)=Q(\idty-P)=(Q-P)(\idty-P),$$ and its analogue for $P$.\
2. Clearly, we can evaluate the trace in a basis of $\RR$ since the basis elements from $\RR^\perp$ contribute only zeros. Since the restrictions of $Q$ and $P$ to $\RR$ are projections on a finite dimensional space, $$\tr(Q-P)=\tr_\RR(Q-P)=\tr_\RR(Q)-\tr_\RR(P)$$ is the difference of two natural numbers.\
3&4. Obviously, we can find such a unitary on $\RR$ with the corresponding property for the restrictions of $Q$ and $P$ to $\RR$. We then extend $V$ to be the identity on $\RR^\perp$. When $\tr(Q-P)=0$, this $V$ is a unitary mapping from $Q\RR$ to $P\RR$.
None of the statements, or values of the index will change under grouping, except part of item 5, which requires nearest neighbor form. Therefore we will assume without loss that all walks are nearest neighbor. We will use Lemma \[finrank\] with $Q=U^*PU$.\
1. This follows directly from Eq. (\[indcomm\]) and Lemma \[finrank\], item 2.
2\. Let $P'$ be the projection onto another half axis, say $x\geq x_0$. Then $P-P'$ is finite rank and hence $(U^*PU-P)-(U^*P'U-P')=P'-P-U^*(P-P')U$ is the difference of two finite rank operators with equal trace. Hence the index does not depend on the cut position, and since formula (\[defInd\]) clearly involves only matrix elements at most 1 site from the cut, it is a locally computable invariant. It remains to be shown that it is a complete invariant, i.e., that $\ind U_1=\ind U_2$ implies $U_1\sim
U_2$ in the sense of Sect. \[sec:Glci\]. This will be done in connection with item 4 below.
3\. This follows from Sect. \[sec:Glci\]. But a direct proof (for the product) is also instructive: $$(U_1U_2)^*P(U_1U_2)-P=(U_2^*PU_2-P)+U_2^*(U_1^*PU_1-P)U_2$$ is the sum of two finite rank operators, of which we can take the trace separately.
4\. Apply Lemma \[finrank\], item 3, to get $V$ with $P=V^*(U^*PU)V$, and hence $PUV=UVP$. The fact that $V-\idty$ vanishes on all but finitely many $\HH_x$ follows from its construction: $V-\idty$ vanishes on the complement of $(P-Q)\HH\subset\HH_{-1}\oplus\HH_0$, for the cut “$-1|0$” used in Def. \[defInd\]. Note that this implies $V\sim\idty$, and also $UV\sim\idty$, since a unitary which has no matrix elements connecting $x\geq0$ and $x<0$ clearly allows a crossover with the identity. From the product formula for locally computable invariants we therefore get that $\ind U=0$ implies $U\sim\idty$. Obviously, this extends to other values of the index: if $\ind U_1=\ind U_2$ we have $\ind U_1^*U_2=0$, hence $U_1^*U_2\sim\idty$ and hence $U_1\sim U_2$. This completes the proof of item 2.\
5&6. These items each contain a trivial direction: We have already shown in Sect. \[sec:Glci\] that locally implementable walks have trivial index. Moreover, it is clear from Definition \[defInd\] that the index is a continuous function, and must hence be constant on each connected component. The non-trivial statement in 5. is that walks with trivial index are indeed implementable, and in 6. that walks with vanishing index can be connected to the identity (the rest then follows by multiplication). In either case, an explicit construction is required, and it will actually be the same one.
So let $U=U_1$ be a walk $\ind U=0$. Let $V_0$ denote the decoupling unitary for the cut $-1|0$, obtained in the proof of item 4, and define similar unitaries $V_k$ for the cuts at $2k-1|2k$ such that $UV_k$ has no non-zero matrix elements $(UV_k)_{xy}$ with $y<2k\leq x$. Let $H_k$ denote a hermitian operator located on the same subspaces as $V_k-\idty$, such that $V_k=\exp(iH_k)$. We will take all $H_k$ bounded in norm by the same constant ($\pi$ will do). Then since they live on orthogonal subspaces, their sum $H=\sum_kH_k$ is well-defined and also bounded. Now let $V(t)=\exp(itH)$, which is a norm continuous function of $t$, because $\norm H\leq\pi$. The endpoint $V(1)$ can also be defined by this product formula $V(1)=\prod_kV_k$, because on each subspace $\HH_{2k-1}\oplus\HH_{2k}$ only one these unitaries is different from $\idty$. Moreover, $UV(1)$ has no matrix elements $y<2k\leq x$ for any $k$, i.e., it is block diagonal for a decomposition of $\Ir$ into pairs $\{2k,2k+1\}$. Now take a similar Hamiltonian path deforming each block in this matrix decomposition separately to the identity. Specifically, we take $W(0)=\idty$ and $W(1)=UV(1)$. Then $t\mapsto W(t)V(t)^*$ is a norm continuous path (although no longer a unitary group), with the endpoints $\idty$ and $U$. Moreover, each unitary $W(t)$ or $V(t)^*$ is based on a partition into neighboring pairs so that, for no $t$, $W(t)V(t)^*$ has any non-zero matrix element between sites with $|x-y|>2$. This proves the remaining statement in item 5 (for $t=1$), and also the statement about uniformly bounded neighborhoods in item 6.
The translation invariant case {#sec:tiw}
------------------------------
Suppose that $U$ commutes with some power of the shift. It is then useful to group spaces $\HH_x$ into larger blocks to get commutation with the shift itself. That is, in this section we assume all $\HH_x\equiv\KK$ to be equal, and $U_{xy}=U_{x-y}$, where by a slight abuse of notation the single-index quantity $U_x$ is defined as $U_{x0}$. The width $L$ is the largest $x$ such that $U_x\neq0$ or $U_{-x}\neq0$. It is natural to diagonalize $U$ using the Fourier transform. We define $\FF:\ell^2(\Ir)\otimes\KK\to\LL^2([-\pi,\pi])\otimes\KK$ by $\FF(\Psi)(p)=\frac1{\sqrt{2\pi}}\sum_xe^{ipx}\Psi(x)$. This is to be read as a $\KK$-valued equation, where we use the natural identification of $\LL^2([-\pi,\pi])\otimes\KK$ with the set of $\KK$-valued square integrable functions on $[-\pi,\pi]$. Similarly, we identify $\ell^2(\Ir)\otimes\KK$ with the $\KK$-valued square summable sequences. Then $\FF U\FF^*$ becomes the multiplication operator by the $p$-dependent matrix $$\label{Uhat}
\widehat U(p)=\sum_{x=-L}^L U_xe^{ipx}.$$ Note that this is a Laurent polynomial in $e^{ip}$. The largest degree of $e^{ip}$ in the polynomial is $x_+-x$, which is constant by translation invariance. The lowest degree is $x-x_-$. Further, $\widehat U(p)$ must be a unitary operator on $\KK$ for every $p\in\Rl$. Taking these facts together, we conclude that both the determinant $\det\widehat U(p)=f(p)$ and its inverse $1/f(p)=\det\widehat U(p)^*$ are Laurent polynomials as well. But this is only possible if $f$ is actually a monomial, say proportional to $\exp(inp)$ for some integer $n$. We claim that this $n$ is the index:
For a translation invariant walk, $$\label{tiindexDet}
\det\widehat U(p)=C e^{ip\ \ind(U)},$$ for some phase constant $C$.
As a simple example consider the shift on a chain with $\dim\HH_0=1$. We already noted after Definition \[defInd\] that this has index $1$. The corresponding $p$-dependent unitary is the number $\widehat U(p)=e^{ip}$, so this also gives index $1$. For unitaries acting on each site separately in the same way, we get agreement because $\ind U=0$, and $\widehat U(p)$ is independent of $p$. Note also that both sides of \[tiindexDet\] have the same behavior under composition and direct sums. This proves the formula for all walks which can be composed of shifts and sitewise rotations. Actually, [*all*]{} translationally invariant walks can be represented in this way [@Gao], but we prefer to give a direct proof of the proposition without invoking this decomposition.
From Definition \[defInd\] we get $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\ind U
&=& \sum_{x=0}^\infty\sum_{y=-\infty}^{-1}\tr|U_{x-y}|^2-\tr|U_{y-x}|^2
\\\nonumber
&=& \sum_{n=-\infty}^\infty n\tr|U_n|^2
= \sum_{nm}\delta_{nm} n\tr(U_m^* U_n)\\\nonumber
&=&\frac1{2\pi i}\int_{-\pi}^\pi\!\!dp\ \tr \Bigl(\widehat U(p)^*
\frac{d\widehat U(p)}{dp}\Bigr)\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, for any invertible matrix function $\widehat U$, $$\frac d{dp}\det\widehat U(p)
=\det\widehat U(p)\ \tr\Bigl(\widehat U(p)^{-1}\frac{d\widehat U(p)}{dp}\Bigr).$$ Hence with $\det\widehat U(p)=\exp(ipn)$ the above integrand is actually constant equal to $in$, and $\ind(U)=n$.
![\[fig:wind\]Example for eigenvalues of $\widehat U(p)$, with $\dim\KK=3$, $L=5$, $\ind U=-1$. In this case the spectrum is a single curve on the torus. The index can be computed by the signed number of crossings of any horizontal line, or as the sum of the derivatives of all branches.](wrapbands.eps){width="8cm"}
The properties of a walk depend crucially on the properties of the eigenvalues $e^{i\omega_1(p)},\ldots,e^{i\omega_d(p)}$ of $\widehat U(p)$ (see Fig. \[fig:wind\]). Clearly, $p\mapsto\widehat U(p)$ is an analytic family of operators, so we can follow the eigenvalues as analytic curves [@Kato]. The derivatives of the eigenvalues determine the [*group velocity*]{}: Let $P_\alpha(p)$ be the eigenprojection of $\widehat U(p)$ belonging to the eigenvalue $\exp{i\omega_\alpha(p)}$. Then the group velocity operator can be written as $$\label{groupVelo}
G(p)=\lim_{t\to\infty}\frac1tX(t)
=\sum_\alpha P_\alpha(p)\frac{d \omega_\alpha(p)}{d p},$$ where $X$ denotes the position operator, and at degenerate eigenvalues the projections $P_\alpha(p)$ have to be chosen appropriately, as dictated by analytic perturbation theory. The limit is in the strong resolvent sense. Hence the probability distribution for the selfadjoint operator $G$ in a state $\rho$ is equal to the asymptotic position distribution starting from $\rho$ in “ballistic” scaling[@TimeRandom]. In particular, when the internal state is unpolarised, i.e., when the initial state is of the form $\rho=\sigma\otimes\idty/d$, we find [@Kitaev] $$\langle X(t)\rangle=\langle X(0)\rangle+ \frac td \ind(U).$$ In this sense the index has direct relevance as a mean speed of the walk.
It is, of course, suggestive to connect the topological properties of the eigenvalue curves in Fig. \[fig:wind\] with the index. In principle, these curves are allowed to cross each other. So in general, we have several branches of curves, which wind several times around the torus before closing. The number of curves and their winding numbers would appear to be a topological invariant, but this is not true because of the “avoided crossing” phenomenon, in which a small perturbation of the walk turns an eigenvalue crossing into a close encounter of two separate curves (suggested also at $p=1.6$ in Fig. \[fig:wind\]). Hence only the [*sum of the winding numbers*]{} is stable with respect to small perturbations, and this is indeed equal to $\ind U$. To see this, note that at every $p$ the sum of the derivatives of all branches is equal to the index. Therefore the sum of the winding angles of the branches taken from $p=-\pi$ to $p=\pi$ is $2\pi\,\ind U$. The winding angles of the closed curve components are just suitable sub-sums of this, and this partition is changed at avoided crossing points.
We close this section by establishing a variant of the main theorem for the translationally invariant case. Of course, most of this follows by simply specializing. The only question which requires a new argument is whether the path connecting two translationally invariant walks can be chosen to go entirely through translationally invariant walks. This is established in the following proposition.
Let $U$ be a translationally invariant causal unitary with $\ind U=0$. Then we can find a norm continuous path $t\mapsto U_t$ of translationally invariant causal unitaries of bounded width such that $U_0=\idty$ and $U_1=U$.
We use the factorization theorem for “paraunitary” operators [@Gao] (see also [@Vogts]), which states that $\widehat U(p)$ can be written as a finite product $$\widehat U(p)=V_0\prod_{k=1}^r \widehat W_{m_k}(p)\, V_k$$ of constant unitaries $V_k$ and the elementary causal unitaries $$\widehat W_m(p)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
e^{imp}&0&\cdots&0\\
0&1&\cdots&0\\
\vdots&&\ddots&\vdots\\
0&0&\cdots&1\end{array}\right)$$ As a quantum walk these corresponds to a shift of only the first internal state by $m$ positions, leaving all other internal states fixed. This walk has index $m$, and the product formula yields $\ind
U=\sum_km_k$. The maximal polynomial degree of any matrix element in $e^{\pm ip}$ depends on the localization region $[x_+,-x_-]$, and is clearly bounded by $L_{\rm
max}=\sum_k|m_k|$. Hence we can contract the walk to $\idty$ by contracting each of the $V_k$ to $\idty$, never exceeding width $L_{\rm max}$ on the way.
The index for cellular automata {#sec:Iauto}
===============================
For cellular automata we proceed in analogy to the case of walks, i.e., by defining directly a locally computable quantity as the index $\ind\alpha$ of a walk automorphism $\alpha$. We then establish that it is actually a complete locally computable invariant and, at the same time that it characterizes the connected components of QCAs.
As a technical preparation we need some background on commutation properties of algebras spanning several cells. It is basically taken from [@qca], and included here to make the presentation here self-contained.
Support algebras
----------------
For defining the index we need to find a quantitative characterization of “how much” of one cell ends up in another. To this end we introduce the notion of support algebras. Consider a subalgebra $\AA\subset\BB_1\otimes\BB_2$ of a tensor product. What is the position of $\AA$ relative to the tensor structure? Here we answer a relatively simple part of this question: which elements of $\BB_1,\BB_2$ are actually needed to build $\AA$?
For the following Definition with Lemma, recall that $\AA'$ denotes the commutant $\{a|\forall a_1\in\AA: [a,a_1]=0\}$.
\[lem:spp\] Let $\BB_1$ and $\BB_2$ be finite dimensional C\*-algebras, and $\AA\subset\BB_1\otimes\BB_2$ a subalgebra. Then
1. There is a smallest C\*-subalgebra $\CC_1\subset\BB_1$ such that $\AA\subset\CC_1\otimes\BB_2$. We call this the [ **support algebra**]{} of $\AA$ on $\BB_1$, and denote it by $\CC_1=\Spp(\AA,\BB_1)$.
2. Consider a basis $\{e_\mu\}\subset\BB_2$, so that every $a\in\AA$ has a unique expansion $a=\sum_\mu a_\mu\otimes
e_\mu$ with $a_\mu\in\BB_1$. Then $\Spp(\AA,\BB_1)$ is generated by all the elements $a_\mu$ arising in this way.
3. The commutant of $\Spp(\AA,\BB_1)$ in $\BB_1$ is characterized as $\{b\in\BB_1|b\otimes\idty\in\AA'\}$.
We can pick out the terms $a_\mu$ by applying a suitable functional $\omega_\mu$ from the dual basis to the second factor, i.e., by applying the map $\id\otimes\omega_\mu:\BB_1\otimes\BB_2\to\BB_1$, which takes $b_1\otimes b_2$ to $\omega_\mu(b_2)b_1$. Clearly, if $a\in\CC_1\otimes\BB_2$, so that $a$ can be expanded into simple tensors using only elements from $\CC_1$ in the first factor, we find $a_\mu=(id\otimes\omega_\mu)(a)\in\CC_1$. Hence the algebra described in item 2 must be contained in any $\CC_1$ satisfying item 1. Since it also satisfies condition 1, we have identified the unique smallest $\CC_1$. The characterization 3 follows by looking at commutators of the form $[b\otimes\idty,a]$, and expanding $a$ as above.
This construction was introduced to the QI community by Zanardi [@Zanardi], who applied it to the algebra generated by an interaction Hamiltonian, and consequently called it an “interaction algebra”. Of course, we can apply the construction also to the second factor, so that $$\label{a2Supp}
\AA\subset \Spp(\AA,\BB_1)\otimes \Spp(\AA,\BB_2)
\subset\BB_1\otimes\BB_2\;.$$
The crucial fact we need about support algebras is that “commutation of algebras with overlapping localization happens on the intersection”. More precisely, we have the following
\[sppcomm\] Let $\AA_1\subset\BB_1\otimes\BB_2$ and $\AA_2\subset\BB_2\otimes\BB_3$ be subalgebras such that $\AA_1\otimes\idty_3$ and $\idty_1\otimes\AA_2$ commute in $\BB_1\otimes\BB_2\otimes\BB_3$. Then $\Spp(\AA_1,\BB_2)$ and $\Spp(\AA_2,\BB_2)$ commute in $\BB_2$.
Pick bases $\{e_\mu\}\subset\BB_1$ and $\{e'_\nu\}\subset\BB_2$, and let $a\in\AA_1$ and $a'\in\AA_2$. Then we may expand uniquely: $a=\sum_\mu e_\mu\otimes a_\mu$ and $a'=\sum_\nu a'_\nu\otimes e'_\nu$. Then by assumption $$0=[a\otimes\idty_3,\idty_1\otimes a']
=\sum_{\mu\nu}e_\mu\otimes [a_\mu,a'_\nu]\otimes e'_\nu \;.$$ Now since the elements $e_\mu\otimes e'_\nu$ are a basis of $\BB_1\otimes\BB_3$, this expansion is unique, so we must have $[a_\mu,a'_\nu]=0$ for all $\mu,\nu$. Clearly, this property also transfers to the algebras generated by the $a_\mu$ and $a'_\nu$, i.e., to the support algebras introduced in the Lemma.
Defining the Index {#sec:Defindalpha}
------------------
Now consider a cellular automaton $\alpha$ on a cell structure $\AA_x$. By regrouping, if necessary, we may assume that it has only nearest neighbor interactions. Now consider any two neighboring cells $\AA_{2x}\otimes\AA_{2x+1}$, and their image under $\alpha$, i.e., $$\alpha\Bigl(\AA_{2x}\otimes\AA_{2x+1}\Bigr)\subset
\Bigl(\AA_{2x-1}\otimes\AA_{2x}\Bigr)\otimes
\Bigl(\AA_{2x+1}\otimes\AA_{2x+2}\Bigr).$$ We apply the support algebra construction to this inclusion, obtaining two algebras $$\begin{aligned}
\label{RR2x}
\RR_{2x}&=& \Spp\Bigl(\alpha\bigl(\AA_{2x}\otimes\AA_{2x+1}\bigr),\
\bigl(\AA_{2x-1}\otimes\AA_{2x}\bigr)\Bigr)\\
\RR_{2x+1}&=& \Spp\Bigl(\alpha\bigl(\AA_{2x}\otimes\AA_{2x+1}\bigr),\
\bigl(\AA_{2x+1}\otimes\AA_{2x+2}\bigr)\Bigr)\end{aligned}$$ Intuitively, the algebras $\RR_y$ with even index become larger when information flows to the right, whereas the ones with odd index describe a flow to the left. Of course, this intuition will be made precise below, but at this stage one can at least check these statements for the shift: When $\alpha(\AA_y)=\AA_{y-1}$ (recall the convention made at the end of Sect. \[sec:Sautoms\]) we have $\RR_{2x}=\AA_{2x-1}\otimes\AA_{2x}$ and $\RR_{2x}=\Cx\idty$. This is to be contrasted with $\RR_y=\AA_y$ for the identity.
Continuing with our construction, observe that by Lemma \[sppcomm\], the subalgebras $\RR_{2x+1}$ and $\RR_{2x+2}$ commute in the algebra $\bigl(\AA_{2x+1}\otimes\AA_{2x+2}\bigr)$. Algebras $\RR_y$ which are further away commute anyhow, since they are contained in disjoint cells. We conclude that [*all*]{} $\RR_y$ commute.
By definition of support algebras, $\alpha(\AA_{2x}\otimes\AA_{2x+1})\subset \RR_{2x}\otimes\RR_{2x+1}$, so that the algebras $\RR_x$ together generate an algebra containing $\alpha\AA(\Ir)$. Because $\alpha$ is an automorphism, this is the same as $\AA(\Ir)$. Now if any $\RR_x$ had a non-trivial center, i.e., if there were an element $X\in\RR_x$ commuting with all of $\RR_x$ but not a multiple of $\idty$, this $X$ would also be in the center of the entire quasi-local algebra $\AA(\Ir)$. However, this center is known to be trivial [@BraRo]. We conclude that each $\RR_x$ must have trivial center, and hence be isomorphic to $\MM_{r(x)}$ for some integer $r(x)$. Moreover, the inclusion noted at the beginning of this paragraph cannot be strict, since otherwise we would find an element in the relative commutant, which would once again be in the center $\alpha\AA(\Ir)$. To summarize, we must have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{AARReven}
\alpha\bigl(\AA_{2x}\otimes\AA_{2x+1}\bigr)
&=&\RR_{2x}\otimes\RR_{2x+1}, \\\mbox{hence}\qquad
d(2x)d(2x+1)&=&r(2x)r(2x+1).\end{aligned}$$
![\[fig:algebradims\]Cell structure with support algebras. (Read top to bottom) If the width of cells is taken as log dimension, the index can be read off the slant in the boxes representing mapping by $\alpha$. ](cells.eps){width="8.5cm"}
On the other hand, the commuting full matrix algebras $\RR_{2x+1}$ and $\RR_{2x+2}$ together span the tensor product isomorphic to $\MM_{r(2x+1)r(2x+2)}$ inside $\bigl(\AA_{2x+1}\otimes\AA_{2x+2}\bigr)$. Again the inclusion cannot be strict, because otherwise the automorphism would not be onto. From this we get the second relation and dimension equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{AARRodd}
\RR_{2x+1}\otimes\RR_{2x+2}
&=&\AA_{2x+1}\otimes\AA_{2x+2}, \\\mbox{hence}\qquad
r(2x+1)r(2x+2)&=&d(2x+1)d(2x+2).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ These relations are summarized pictorially in Fig. \[fig:algebradims\]. They give us the the first two equalities in $$\label{dimtransfer}
\frac{r(2x)}{d(2x)}=\frac{d(2x+1)}{r(2x+1)}=\frac{r(2x+2)}{d(2x+2)}
\equiv \ind\,\alpha.\nonumber$$ In other words, this quantity is constant along the chain, and hence we are entitled to define it as the index $\ind \alpha$. The even/odd asymmetry only comes from the construction, by which the even $\RR_{2x}$ describe a flow to the right (increasing $x$), and the odd $\RR_{2x+1}$ are associated with a flow to the left. By shifting the entire construction, we could switch the even/odd distinction, and define, for any $\AA_x$, both the ascending and the descending $\RR_x$. In any case, for the shift $\sigma_d$ of a $d$-dimensional chain we get $d(y)\equiv d$, $r(2x)=d^2$, and $r(2x-1)=1$, and hence $\ind\sigma_d=d$, as announced in Eq. (\[shiftindA\]).
It is part of the local computability property that we have a lot of freedom in choosing the cell structure for which we want to evaluate the index. Since one typically wants to use this freedom to simplify the computation, we will now summarize the constraints. It is clear that there are three subalgebras involved in the computation, playing the rôle of, say the above $\AA_0,\AA_1,\AA_2$ for determining $\RR_1$. Let us call these $\AA_L,\AA_M,\AA_R$ to emphasize that these algebras need not be part of the original cell structure, and we are free to choose them within certain limits. Let us start by fixing some algebra $\AA_M\cong\MM_d$, a full matrix algebra contained in some local algebra, whose crucial property is to split the system: we must have an isomorphism of the total algebra with $\AA_{<M}\otimes\AA_M\otimes\AA_{>M}$, where the outer factors contain suitable infinite half chain algebras, and such that $$[\alpha(\AA_{<M}),\AA_{>M}]=[\alpha(\AA_{>M}),\AA_{<M}]=\{0\}.$$ Clearly, this imposes a a lower bound on the size of $\AA_M$ in terms of the interaction length of the automorphism. Now we choose finite dimensional matrix subalgebras $\AA_R\subset\AA_{>M}$ and $\AA_L\subset\AA_{<M}$ such that $\alpha(\AA_M)\subset\AA_L\otimes\AA_M\otimes\AA_R$. These three can be taken as part of a nearest neighbor cell structure, so that the above arguments give $$\label{defIndA}
\left.\begin{array}{rcl}
\AA_M&\cong&\MM_d\\
\Spp(\alpha(\AA_L\otimes\AA_M),\AA_M\otimes\AA_R)&\cong&\MM_r
\end{array}\right\rbrace
\quad\Rightarrow \ind\alpha=\frac dr$$ Note that there is no harm in choosing $\AA_R$ larger than necessary: the support algebra, being the minimal algebra needed to build the tensor product, will simply not change. By a similar argument, we can choose $\AA_L$ too large without changing this support algebra.
Fundamental properties of the index for cellular automata
---------------------------------------------------------
\[thmIndA\]
1. $\ind\alpha$ is a positive rational for every $\alpha$. When the automaton is regrouped in nearest neighbor form, both the numerator and the denominator of $\ind\alpha$ in canceled form divide every cell dimension.
2. $\ind\alpha$ is locally computable, and uniquely characterizes the equivalence classes for the relation $\sim$ from Sect. \[sec:Glci\]. It can hence be identified with the abstract index defined there.
3. $\ind(\alpha\otimes\alpha')=\ind(\alpha)\ind(\alpha')$ and, when $\alpha$ and $\alpha'$ are defined on the same cell structure, $\ind(\alpha\alpha')=\ind(\alpha)\ind(\alpha')$.\
If, for some $y$, $\alpha(\AA((-\infty,y]))\subset\AA((-\infty,y]))$, then $\ind\alpha\in\Nl$.\
Moreover, for the shift of $d$-dimensional cells: $\ind \sigma_d=d$.
4. An automaton $\alpha$ has index 1 if and only if it can be implemented locally. In this case it can be written as a product of just two partitioned unitary automorphisms. If $\alpha$ is partitioned in nearest neighbor form, the partitioned automorphisms can be taken to couple pairs of nearest neighbors only.
5. Two automata $\alpha_0,\alpha_1$ on the same cell structure have the same index if and only if they can be deformed to each other, i.e., there is a strongly continuous path $[0,1]\ni
t\mapsto \alpha_t$ of automorphisms, all with the same neighborhoods, and with the specified boundary values.
(1,3) $\ind\alpha\in\Rt_+$ follows immediately from the construction in Sect. \[sec:Defindalpha\], particularly Eq. (\[dimtransfer\]). Let $\ind\alpha=\frac pq$ be the fraction in canceled form. Then, from this equation $p=nr(2x)$ and $q=nd(2x)$, where $n$ is the canceled factor. Hence $q$ divides $d(2x)$ and from the second fraction in (\[dimtransfer\]) we find that $p$ divides $d(2x+1)$. By shifting the construction by one cell, we find the remaining divisibility statements. From Eq. (\[dimtransfer\]) we also get the product formulas 3. Suppose that $\alpha$ maps some left half chain in to itself. Then we choose a cell partition so that $y=2x+1$ in the setting of (\[RR2x\]). Then $\RR_{2x+1}\subset\AA_{2x+1}$ and since these are full matrix algebras with the same unit, the quotient $\ind\alpha=d_{2x+1}/r_{2x+1}$ in (\[dimtransfer\]) is integer. The value for the shift was verified as an example after (\[dimtransfer\]).
(2,4,5) From Eq. (\[dimtransfer\]) local computability is obvious. From the general discussion in Sect. \[sec:Glci\] we also get that locally implementable $\alpha$ have $\ind\alpha=1$. The hard part, which is needed to identify the abstract index with the concrete formula is the converse. For this the crucial step is the following claim:
[*Let $\alpha$ and $\alpha'$ be nearest neighbor cellular automata on the same cell structure and with the same index. Then there are unitaries $V_x\in\AA_x\otimes\AA_{x+1}$ such that the two locally implemented automorphisms $$\begin{aligned}
\beta(A)&=&(\prod_xV_{2x-1})^*A(\prod_xV_{2x-1}) \nonumber\\
\gamma(A)&=&(\prod_xV_{2x})^*A(\prod_xV_{2x}) \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ satisfy: $\alpha'\gamma=\beta\alpha$*]{}.
Before proving this claim, let us see how it implies the statements in the Theorem. By the general theory of Sect. \[sec:Glci\] locally implementable automorphisms $\beta,\gamma$ are $\sim$-equivalent to the identity, and $\alpha\sim\beta\alpha=\alpha'\gamma\sim\alpha'$. Hence equality of the indices as defined by (\[defIndA\]) implies crossover equivalence, and hence the equality of all locally computable invariants. This proves item 2. The converse in item 4 follows by taking $\alpha'=\id$, giving the local implementation $\alpha=\beta^{-1}\gamma$ of any index 1 automorphism $\alpha$.
Finally, it is clear for item 5 that we can connect $\alpha$ and $\alpha'$ with the same index by the required continuous path: we just need to contract each unitary $V_x$ in $\beta,\gamma$ to the identity, to obtain a path $\alpha_t=\beta_t\alpha\gamma_t^{-1}$ with $\alpha_0=\alpha$ and $\alpha_1=\alpha'$. This path will not be continuous in the norm on automorphisms, i.e., we cannot make $\norm{\alpha_t-\alpha_s}$ small, since this would already fail for one-site operations $\alpha_t(A)=\Bigl(U_t^{\otimes\infty}\Bigr)^*AU_t^{\otimes\infty}$ with $t\mapsto U_t$ norm continuous. However, for any finitely localized observable $A$, $t\mapsto \alpha_t(A)$ will be continuous in norm, which is the claim of strong continuity made in the Theorem. We remark that an important part of the proof of item 5 is missing at this point: We did not exclude the possibility that there are continuous paths linking automorphisms of different index. This will be achieved by Prop. \[davidsformula\], an expression for the index which is manifestly continuous with respect to strongly continuous deformations.
Now to prove the claim, let $\alpha$ and $\alpha'$ have the same cell structure and the same index. Then we carry out the construction of Sect. \[sec:Defindalpha\] for both automorphisms, resulting in some intermediate algebras $\RR_x$ and $\RR_x'$.
Since the indices coincide, formula (\[dimtransfer\]) demands that these are full matrix algebras of the same dimensions. For example, $$\RR_{2x-1}\otimes\RR_{2x}=\AA_{2x-1}\otimes\AA_{2x}=\RR_{2x-1}'\otimes\RR_{2x}'.$$ Clearly, there is a unitary operator $V_{2x-1}\in\AA_{2x-1}\otimes\AA_{2x}$ so that $V_{2x-1}^*\RR_{y}V_{2x-1}=\RR'_{y}$ for $y=2x$ and for $y=2x-1$. We can take all these unitaries together as implementing one partitioned automorphism $\beta(A)=(\prod_xV_{2x-1})^*A(\prod_xV_{2x-1})$. By definition, it satisfies $\beta(\RR_y)=\RR'_y$ for all $y\in\Ir$.
Now consider the action of $\alpha$ and $\alpha'$ on $\AA_{2x}\otimes\AA_{2x+1}$. We now get two isomorphisms $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\alpha':\AA_{2x}\otimes\AA_{2x+1}&\to&\RR'_{2x}\otimes\RR'_{2x+1} \quad\mbox{and}\\
\beta\alpha:\AA_{2x}\otimes\AA_{2x+1}&\to&\RR_{2x}\otimes\RR_{2x+1} \to\RR'_{2x}\otimes\RR'_{2x+1}.
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Hence $(\alpha')^{-1}\beta\alpha$ restricts to an automorphism of $\AA_{2x}\otimes\AA_{2x+1}$, and can therefore be implemented by a unitary $V_{2x}\in\AA_{2x}\otimes\AA_{2x+1}$. These unitaries together implement $\gamma$, and we get the desired equation $\alpha'\gamma=\beta\alpha$.
Index for classical reversible automata {#sec:CCA}
---------------------------------------
In this section, we will review a common notion of index for reversible classical cellular automata, and show that it coincides with our definition. In the context of this paper, a reversible classical cellular automaton can be defined as a particular case of a quantum cellular automaton. In each cell $\AA_x$ we single out a maximal abelian subalgebra $\DD_x$. With respect to a suitable choice of basis, $\DD_x$ is then the set of diagonal matrices. As a finite dimensional abelian algebra, we can regard $\DD_x$ as the set of complex valued functions on a finite set $\Alf_x$, called the [*alphabet*]{} of the cell, which at the same time serves as the set of basis labels for the orthonormal basis in which $\DD_x$ is diagonal. The global C\*-algebra of the classical system is then the infinite tensor product $\DD(\Ir)=\bigotimes_{x=-\infty}^\infty\DD_x$. It is canonically isomorphic to the algebra of continuous functions on the compact cartesian product space $\Alf_\Ir=\bigtimes_{x=-\infty}^\infty\Alf_x$, also known as the space of infinite configurations. We use lower case letters such as $c$ for such configurations, and denote by $c(x)\in\Alf_x$ the configuration of the cell at $x$.
Now let $\alpha$ be a QCA with the property that $\alpha(\DD)\subset\DD$. Then the restriction of $\alpha$ to $\DD$ is an automorphism of $\DD$, which must be of the form $(\alpha f)(c)=f(\Phi(c))$, where $\Phi$ is a homeomorphism on configurations. The causality conditions on $\alpha$ are readily expressed in terms of $\Phi$, and, together with analogous arguments for the inverses show that $\Phi$ is a reversible classical cellular automaton in the usual sense, apart from the requirement of translation invariance. There are some subtle points to note about the correspondence $\alpha\to\Phi$:
- Suppose that in the above argument we start from a general, not necessarily strictly causal automorphism $\alpha$ of the quasi-local algebra $\AA(\Ir)$. We still get a continuous $\Phi$ on the compact space $\Alf_\Ir$. By the definition of the product topology this means that the local configurations $\Phi(c)_x$ after the time step depend on only finitely many $c(y)$. In the translation invariant case this means that $\Phi$ is a cellular automaton with finite neighborhood. In fact, this argument is used to establish that the inverse of a reversibly cellular automaton also has a finite neighborhood. This is a rather surprising sharpening of the causality condition. However, we are appealing here to a highly non-constructive compactness argument, which gives no control on the size of the neighborhoods, or (barring translation invariance) on the uniformity of the neighborhoods. For example, we can apply it to a cellular automaton $\alpha$ on a 2D lattice, whose quasi-local C\*-algebra is isomorphic to that of a 1D automaton. Hence the condition of $\alpha$ being an automorphism is not strong enough to give a 1D automaton in the sense defined above.
- The mapping is onto, i.e., every classical reversible cellular automaton can be “quantized”. The argument is very simple for finite lattices, e.g., a regular lattice with periodic boundary conditions: one labels the basis of a Hilbert space by the classical configurations. Then the classical automaton $\Phi$ is a permutation of the basis vectors, which can be interpreted as a unitary operator via $U_\Phi\ket c=\ket{\Phi(c)}$. Then for all observables we set $\alpha(A)=U_\Phi^*AU_\Phi$. One needs to check that this transformation is causal in the quantum sense [@qca], in particular that off-diagonal local operators that are finitely localized (i.e. localized on a finite number of cells) keep this property under the action of $\alpha$. Indeed one gets a bound on the quantum neighborhoods, which involves both the neighborhoods of $\Phi$ and the neighborhoods of $\Phi^{-1}$. The same computation provides a formula for $\alpha(A)$, for $A$ finitely localized, in terms of the classical rule, and this can be used to define $\alpha$ also for infinite lattices. We will not, however, make this explicit here.
- The mapping $\alpha\to\Phi$ is not injective. Indeed an ambiguity is inherent in the construction just described: we can choose different bases with the same diagonal operators $\kettbra a$ by choosing a phase for each basis vector. This amounts to changing $\alpha$ by an on-site unitary, which is certainly irrelevant for index purposes. But we can consider this more generally: suppose that two cellular automata $\alpha,\beta$ restrict to the same automorphism on the diagonal algebra $\DD$. Then $\alpha\beta^{-1}$ leaves $\DD$ point-wise fixed. In a finite lattice, so that $\alpha$ is unitarily implemented, the implementing unitary hence commutes with all elements of the maximally abelian algebra $\DD$, hence must itself be diagonal. It is suggestive that this also holds in a localized form on the infinite lattice, so $\alpha\beta^{-1}$ would be a product of commuting unitaries and hence have trivial index. The following result builds on this intuition.
\[classicalfactor\]Suppose that $\alpha$ and $\beta$ be quantum cellular automata taking the diagonal algebra $\DD$ into itself, with the same restriction to $\DD$. Then $\ind\alpha=\ind\beta$.
Before coming to the proof of this proposition we single out two arguments of independent interest, each of which can be used to draw the main conclusion, without discussing in detail the structure of local phase factors. The first criterion uses the absence of propagation. The second uses the global transpose map $\Theta:\AA(\Ir)\to\Ir$. It is defined as the matrix transpose on each local algebra, in a basis in which $\DD$ is diagonal. Since transposition is isometric, and consistent with the embeddings $A\mapsto A\otimes\idty$ it extends to the whole algebra. $\Theta$ is a linear anti-homomorphism (meaning $\Theta(AB)=\Theta(B)\Theta(A)$), and, for every automorphism $\alpha$, $\Theta\alpha\Theta$ is again an automorphism.
1. Let $\alpha$ be a nearest neighbor cellular automaton such that, for some finite interval $[z_-,z_+]$ we have $\alpha^n\bigl(\AA([0,1])\bigr)\subset\AA([z_-,z_+])$ for all $n\in\Ir$. Then $\ind\alpha=1$.
2. For any cellular automaton $\alpha$: $\ind(\Theta\alpha\Theta)=\ind\alpha$.
1\. The index $\ind\alpha^n$ can be expressed as a ratio of of subcell dimensions of $\AA([z_-,z_+])$, hence is uniformly bounded in $n$. But since $\ind\alpha^n=(\ind\alpha)^n$ this implies $\ind\alpha\leq1$. With the same argument for the inverse we get $\ind\alpha\geq1$.
2\. By assumption, the global transposition is made with respect to product basis, so that for a tensor product $\BB=\BB_1\otimes\BB_2$ of cells we get $\Theta_\BB=\Theta_{\BB_1}\otimes\Theta_{\BB_2}$. We will drop the indices on $\Theta$ in the sequel. Then it is clear from the definition (Lemma \[lem:spp\]) that the support algebra construction behaves naturally under global transposition, i.e., we have $\Spp(\Theta\AA,\Theta\BB_1)=\Theta\Spp(\AA,\BB_1)$. Moreover, when $\BB_1$ is a tensor product of cells we get $\Theta\BB_1=\BB_1$. Hence in (\[RR2x\]) we find for the automorphism $\widetilde\alpha=\Theta\alpha\Theta$: $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde\RR_{2x}
&=& \Spp\Bigl(\Theta\alpha\Theta\bigl(\AA_{2x}\otimes\AA_{2x+1}\bigr),\
\bigl(\AA_{2x-1}\otimes\AA_{2x}\bigr)\Bigr) \nonumber\\
&=& \Spp\Bigl(\Theta\alpha\bigl(\AA_{2x}\otimes\AA_{2x+1}\bigr),\
\Theta\bigl(\AA_{2x-1}\otimes\AA_{2x}\bigr)\Bigr) \nonumber\\
&=& \Theta\Spp\Bigl(\alpha\bigl(\AA_{2x}\otimes\AA_{2x+1}\bigr),\
\bigl(\AA_{2x-1}\otimes\AA_{2x}\bigr)\Bigr)=\Theta\RR_{2x}.
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Since this has the same dimension as $\RR_{2x}$, we find from (\[dimtransfer\]) that $\ind(\Theta\alpha\Theta)=\ind\alpha$.
Due to the multiplication formula, we only need to consider the case that $\alpha$ is equal to the identity ($=\beta$) on $\DD$. Consider any operator $A_x\in\AA_x$ in a single cell, and let $D_y\in\DD_y$ be a diagonal element in another cell. Then $$\alpha(A_x)D_y=\alpha(A_x)\alpha(D_y)=\alpha(A_xD_y)=\alpha(D_yA_xD_y)=D_y\alpha(A_x).$$ Hence the finitely localized element $\alpha(A_x)$ commutes with all diagonal operators on the neighboring sites, and $\alpha(A_x)\in\AA_x\otimes\bigotimes_{y\neq x}\DD_y$. This algebra is best seen as a direct sum of copies of $\AA_x$, labeled by configurations $c=\{c(y)\}$ with $c(y)\in\Alf_y$ of all cells $y\neq x$ in the localization region of $\alpha(\AA_x)$. A homomorphism of $\AA_x$ into this algebra splits into one homomorphism into each summand, which in turn is given by a unitary $U_x(c)$. Hence we can summarize the action of $\alpha$ on $\AA_x$ as $$\alpha(A_x)=\sum_cU_x(c)^*A_xU_x(c)\otimes P(c),$$ where $P_c$ is the minimal projection of the diagonal algebra corresponding to $c$. We also know that diagonal elements of $\AA_x$ are fixed, so $U_x(c)$ is itself diagonal, say $U_x(c)\ket a=u(a,c)\ket a$. This leads to $$\label{localphase}
\alpha\bigl((\ketbra ab)_x\bigr)=\sum_c\frac{u(b,c)}{u(a,c)}\ (\ketbra ab)_x\otimes P(c).$$ The commutation of $\alpha(\AA_x)$ and $\alpha(\AA_y)$ for $x\neq y$ introduces further conditions on the phase functions $u$. But rather than analyzing these in detail, we use the Lemma to conclude directly from Eq. (\[localphase\]) that $\ind\alpha=1$. To this end, note that by applying the homomorphism $\alpha$ to (\[localphase\]) and using $\alpha(P(c))=P(c)$, we get a corresponding formula for the iterate of $\alpha$: $$\label{localphasen}
\alpha^n\bigl((\ketbra ab)_x\bigr)
=\sum_c\left(\frac{u(b,c)}{u(a,c)}\right)^n\ (\ketbra ab)_x\otimes P(c),$$ for any $n\in\Ir$. Clearly, the localization region of this operator does not increase with $n$, so by the first part of the Lemma we get $\ind\alpha=1$. Alternatively, we can apply $\Theta$ to the equation, using $\Theta(P(c)=P(c)$. This reverses each of the ketbra operators, so $\Theta\alpha\Theta=\alpha^{-1}$. Hence $\ind\alpha=1$ also follows with the second part of the Lemma.
An index for classical reversible cellular automata has been defined albeit only in the translationally invariant case. According to G. A. Hedlund ([@Hedlund69], section 14), the definition is due to L. R. Welch, so we will call it the Welch index $i_W$ here. For the definition itself we will follow Kari [@Kari_index], where it is introduced in section 3. We will show that this coincides with the quantum index. Hence the quantum index is a possible extension to non-translationally invariant systems. It is very likely that the theory in [@Kari_index] can also be extended directly, but we have not gone to the trouble of checking all the details.
In the translation invariant case, all cell alphabets $\Alf_x\equiv\Alf$ are the same, and a cellular automaton is a map $\phi: \Alf^\Ir\to\Alf^\Ir$. Let $r$ be a “large enough” integer, and $R_\phi^r$ the set of $4r$-tuples of the form
$$\Bigl(c(0),\cdots,c(2r-1),(\phi c)(-r),\cdots,(\phi c)(r-1)\Bigr),$$
where $c$ runs over all infinite configurations. Then the Welch index of $\phi$ is defined as $$\label{iWelsh}
i_W(\phi)=\frac{|R_\phi^r|}{{|\Alf|}^{3r}}\ .$$ Clearly, for the identity only $|\Alf|^3$ different letters occur here, so $i_W(\id)=1$. Similarly, for a shift we get $i_W(S)=|\Alf|$, and parallel application of $\phi$ and $\phi'$ to parallel chains yields $i_W(\phi\times\phi')=i_W(\phi)i_W(\phi')$.
The non-trivial results about the index, and the structure theory of reversible, translationally invariant classical cellular automata is developed in [@Kari_index], with key results analogous to our paper: the expression (\[iWelsh\]) does not depend on $r$ (provided it is large enough). The product formula holds, and an automaton $\phi$ is locally implementable iff $i_W(\phi)=1$. Moreover, every such automaton can be decomposed into shifts and locally implementable ones. Since a classical “local implementation” implies a partitioned representation of the quantum automaton, we can put these facts together to conclude that $$\label{iW=ind}
i_W(\phi)=\ind\alpha,$$ for any quantum cellular automaton which restricts on the diagonal subalgebra to a classical CA given by $\phi$. In this sense our theory is a direct generalization of Kari’s work, extended by the aspects of deformation classes (which make no sense in the classical discrete setting) and local computability (which makes no sense in the translation invariant setting).
Interlude: More Analogies between Walks and Cellular Automata
-------------------------------------------------------------
The two definitions of the index, (\[defIndW\]) for walks and (\[defIndA\]) for cellular automata are not directly analogous. Here we would like to point out the differences, and discuss how to make the analogy between these two cases even tighter by supplying the missing analogous definitions.
The definition (\[defIndA\]) considers a part of the system split into three parts L-M-R. Based on suitable inclusions, it gives a formula for the index, which immediately makes obvious that it is always a positive rational. In contrast, the walk expression Eq. (\[defIndW\]) is a difference of numbers which can take arbitrary real positive values, and only one cut of the system is considered. Moreover, (\[defIndW\]) made it very easy to prove the continuity of the index under deformations, whereas neither (\[defIndA\]) nor the abstract considerations of Sects. \[sec:Gimp\] and \[sec:Glci\] clarify continuity for the index of cellular automata. Since continuity is an important feature of our index theory, we will need an appropriate expression also for the automaton case, and the analogies laid out in this subsection are intended to motivate the form of this formula.
Let us first set up an index formula for walks in analogy with (\[defIndA\]). The analog of the support algebra is the “support subspace of $\KK_{12}$ in $\KK_2$”, denoted $\Spp(\KK_{12},\KK_2)$, which is defined for any subspace $\KK_{12}\subset\KK_1\oplus\KK_2$ of the orthogonal direct sum of Hilbert spaces. Namely, it is the smallest subspace $\LL\subset\KK_2$ such that $\KK_{12}\subset\KK_1\oplus\LL$. Then the analog of Lemma \[sppcomm\] holds in the sense that subspaces $\KK_{12}\subset\KK_1\oplus\KK_2$ and $\KK_{23}\subset\KK_2\oplus\KK_3$ are orthogonal iff $\Spp(\KK_{12},\KK_2)\perp\Spp(\KK_{23},\KK_2)$ are orthogonal. Now consider subspaces $\HH_L\oplus\HH_M\oplus\HH_R\subset\HH$ chosen with the localization constraints as in Sect. \[sec:Defindalpha\]. In particular, we require $U\HH_L\perp\HH_R$, and $U\HH_R\perp\HH_L$. Then the direct analog of (\[defIndA\]) reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{defIndWW}
\ind U&=&\dim\Spp(U(\HH_L\oplus\HH_M),\HH_M\oplus\HH_R)-\dim\HH_M
\nonumber\\
&=&\rank(P_{MR}UP_{LM})-\dim\HH_M.\end{aligned}$$ Here the second equality, in which $P_{LM}$ is the projection onto $\HH_L\oplus\HH_M$ etc., follows with $\Spp(U(\HH_L\oplus\HH_M),\HH_M\oplus\HH_R)=P_{LM}UP_{MR}\HH$.
Consider the block matrix for $U$ with respect to the decomposition $$\HH=\HH_{-\infty}\oplus\HH_L\oplus\HH_M\oplus\HH_R\oplus\HH_{+\infty},$$ where the pieces at the ends contain the appropriate infinite half chains. Using the causality assumptions, we find that $$\label{U-LMR}
U=\left(\begin{array}{ccc|cc}
\ast&\ast&0&0&0\\ \ast&\ast&\ast&0&0\\\hline
0&\fatasterisk&\fatasterisk&\ast&0\\
0&\hbox{\large\bf0}&\fatasterisk&\ast&\ast\\ 0&0&0&\ast&\ast
\end{array}\right)\ ,$$ where the asterisks stand for any possibly non-zero block. We have highlighted in boldface the block $P_{MR}UP_{LM}$ appearing in (\[defIndWW\]), and introduced two separating lines, namely the separation $-\infty,L,M|R,+\infty$ on the domain side (i.e., a vertical line) and the horizontal separation $-\infty,L|M,R,+\infty$ on the range side of $U$. These separators do [*not*]{} cross on the diagonal, which is why we cannot simply compute the index from the highlighted block via Eq. (\[defIndW\]). However, this is easily amended by multiplying with a suitable shift: we can introduce a basis in each $\HH_x$, and hence in $\HH$, effectively making all underlying cell dimensions one-dimensional. In this representation we can introduce a shift operation $S$, and clearly $U'=S^{|M|}U$ will be a unitary with the same matrix elements as $U$ shifted vertically by $|M|=\dim\HH_M$. Obviously, $\ind U'=\ind U+|M|$, which explains the second term in (\[defIndWW\]), and leaves us with proving that $\ind U'=\rank(P_{MR}UP_{LM})$. Clearly, for this task the further subdivision of the blocks is irrelevant, and we can consider a general block decomposed unitary operator $$U=\left(\begin{array}{c|c}U_{11}&0\\\hline U_{21}&U_{22}\end{array}\right)$$ with a finite rank upper right corner. We have to show that $\rank U_{21}=\tr(U_{21}^*U_{21})$. But from the unitarity equation it follows that $U_{21}$ is a partial isometry, so $U_{21}^*U_{21}$ is its domain projection, whose dimension is indeed the rank of $U_{21}$.
The proof of formula (\[defIndWW\]) was essentially by reduction to the case of “half neighborhoods”, i.e., the case that $[x_-,x_+]=[x,x+1]$, in which no influence ever spreads to the left. Then one of the off-diagonal blocks of the unitary entering (\[defIndW\]) vanishes, and we saw directly that the other block gives an integer contribution, which can be interpreted as a dimension.
Similarly, for a half-neighborhood cellular automaton we demand $\alpha(\AA_x)\subset\AA_{x-1}\otimes\AA_{x}$, where once again we have chosen the convention to match information traveling to the right, observing the Heisenberg picture. In particular, this condition is satisfied by the shift. For such automata with we can simplify the index formula in a way quite analogous to the case of half-neighborhood walks. Indeed, setting $$\label{halfstepAlgs}
\TT_x=\Spp(\alpha(\AA_x),\AA_x) \quad\mbox{and }
\NN_x=\Spp(\alpha(\AA_x),\AA_{x-1}),$$ we can employ the same arguments as in Sect. \[sec:Iauto\] to conclude that these commute, and must be full matrix algebras $\TT_x\cong\MM_{t(x)}$ and $\NN_x\cong\MM_{n(x)}$. Then, further following the previous reasoning, $\alpha(\AA_x)=\NN_{x}\otimes\TT_x$ and $\AA_x=\TT_x\NN_{x+1}$. This yields the dimension equation $$\label{halfstepDims}
d(x)=n(x)t(x)=t(x)n(x-1).$$ Hence the integers $n(x)$ do not depend on $x$. In fact, $\ind\alpha=n(x)$. This follows readily from the observation that $$\RR_{2x+1}= \Spp\Bigl(\alpha\bigl(\AA_{2x}\otimes\AA_{2x+1}\bigr),\
\bigl(\AA_{2x+1}\otimes\AA_{2x+2}\bigr)\Bigr)
=\TT_{2x+1}\otimes\idty_{2x+2}.$$ Therefore, from Eq. (\[dimtransfer\]) we get $$\ind\alpha=d(2x+1)/r(2x+1)=d(2x+1)/t(2x+1)=n(2x+1).$$
In fact, for any cell structure on which a shift is available, we could have used this slightly simplified setup to define the index of any $\alpha$ by first shifting and regrouping to a half-neighborhood automaton, and correcting by a factor depending on the size of the necessary shift. However, since such a shift is not available in general, there was no gain in this approach.
For nearest neighbor automata the structure of support algebras using just a single cut, i.e., algebras of the form $\Spp(\alpha(\AA_L),\AA_R)$ are not sufficient to define the index. As a counterexample, consider a unitary evolution $A\mapsto U^*AU$ for $U\in\AA_L\otimes\AA_R$ with $\AA_L=\AA_R=\MM_d$. Clearly, as a locally implementable operation, this has always trivial index. But the support algebra written above can be just about anything. For example, taking a “controlled unitary” $U=\sum_i \kettbra i\otimes U_i$, we have $\Spp(\alpha(\AA_R),\AA_L)$ as the algebra of diagonal matrices, and $\Spp(\alpha(\AA_L),\AA_R)$ generated by the $U_i^*U_j$, which for $\AA_R\cong \MM_r$ can easily be $\AA_R$. On the other hand, one can easily construct an automorphism with the same support algebras, but index $d$.
The algebraic structure of support algebras across a single cut is also insufficient for us in another way: it is a discrete structure, hence does not go to any trivial value as we deform an $\alpha$ to the identity. Therefore, if only to get the continuity of the index we need to look at some continuously varying quantities. We found a formula with just these properties by looking at cellular automaton analogs of the simple walk formula (\[defIndW\]). The following section is devoted to the proof of this formula.
One-cut quotient formula
------------------------
A continuously varying quantity measuring the difference between subalgebras and going to a trivial value as they come to coincide may be some kind of angle, or overlap, between the linear subspaces. It is natural to measure such angles with respect to the only scalar product between algebra elements, which is canonically defined in our context. Indeed, let $\tau$ denote the [*normalized trace*]{} on the algebra $\AA$ of the entire chain. That is, on any matrix subalgebra $\BB\subset\AA$, $\BB\cong\MM_d$, we define $\tau(A)=\frac1d\tr(A)$, where $\tr$ is the usual matrix trace on $\MM_d$, which is $1$ on minimal projections. The reason for this normalization is that in contrast to the matrix trace, the value of $\tau$ does not change if we consider $A$ to be embedded as $A\otimes\idty$ in some larger subalgebra $\BB\otimes\BB_1$, and is hence a well defined state on chain algebra $\AA$. In fact, it is the unique state (normalized positive functional) on $\AA$ with the property that $\tau(AB)=\tau(BA)$. This characterization is purely algebraic, which implies that, for every automorphism $\alpha$ of $\AA$ and any $A\in\AA$, we have $\tau(\alpha(A))=\tau(A)$.
We now define the scalar product between algebra elements by $$\label{HSproduct}
\braket xy=\tau(x^*y).$$ The completion of the algebra $\AA$ as a Hilbert space with this scalar product is called the GNS-Hilbert space $\HH_\tau$ of the tracial state $\tau$. We write $\ket x\in\HH_\tau$ for the vector obtained by embedding $x\in\AA$ in the completion. The trace of operators on $\HH_\tau$ will be denoted by $\ttr$, to avoid confusion with the matrix trace $\tr$ of some elements of $\AA$, which is also used later. Since $\tau$ is preserved by any automorphism $\alpha$, we can define a unitary operator $V_\alpha$ on $\HH_\tau$ with $$\label{Valpha}
V_\alpha\ket x=\ket{\alpha(x)}.$$
Consider now a finite or infinite dimensional subalgebra $\BB\subset\AA$. By $P$ we denote the orthogonal projection onto the closure of $\BB$ in $\HH_\tau$. For finite matrix algebras $\BB\cong\MM_d$ the matrix units $e_{ij}\cong\ketbra ij$ clearly form a basis $\BB$, and one readily verifies that $\{\sqrt d\,\ket{e_{ij}}\}_{i,j=1}^d$ is an orthonormal basis of this $d^2$-dimensional subspace. It is sometimes also helpful to represent the projection $P$ as an integral over unitaries. That is, for a finite dimensional subalgebra $\BB\subset\AA$ we have $$\label{twirl}
P=d^2 \int\!\!dU\ \kettbra U,$$ where the integral is over the unitary group of $\BB$, and $dU$ denotes the normalized Haar measure. For infinite dimensional subalgebras such formulas are not available. We will only need infinite dimensional projections of this type for half chain algebras, which are the closure of an increasing net of finite dimensional subalgebras $\BB_n$. In this case the family of projections $P_n$ associated with the approximating algebras is also increasing, and converges strongly to $P$.
When $\BB_1\subset\AA$ and $\BB_2\subset\AA$ are commuting matrix subalgebras, the corresponding matrix units, say $e_{ij}^{(1)}$ and $e_{ab}^{(2)}$, can be taken together as a set of matrix units for $\BB_1\otimes\BB_2$, and we get $$\braket{e_{ij}^{(1)}}{e_{ab}^{(2)}}=\tau({e_{ji}^{(1)}}{e_{ab}^{(2)}})
=\frac1{d_1d_2}\delta_{ij}\delta_{ab}.$$ Therefore we get $$\label{overlap1}
P_1P_2=\kettbra\idty.$$ This equation also holds for infinite pieces of the chain, e.g., a right and a left half chain localized on disjoint subsets of $\Ir$. This readily seen by approximating each half chain by finite matrix algebras and using the strong convergence of projections. Note that (\[overlap1\]) also implies that $P_1$ and $P_2$ commute, and the projections $P_i-\kettbra\idty$ with the intersection removed are orthogonal.
Of course, if two algebras do not commute, which requires that the localization regions of $\BB_1$ and $\BB_2$ overlap, the geometric position of the subspaces $P_i\HH_\tau$ is not so simple. Even if the algebras have trivial intersection $\BB_1\cap\BB_2=\Cx\idty$, so that $(P_1\HH_\tau)\cap(P_2\HH_\tau)=\Cx\ket\idty$ the vectors in the remainder can now have angles different from $\pi/2$, and may even approximate each other. This leads to the following definition of a quantitative notion of the overlap of two algebras, which will be the basis of the index formula we develop in this section. We state it together with a few of its basic properties. A matrix algebra here always means a subalgebra, which is isomorphic to $\MM_d$ for some $d<\infty$ and contains the identity of $\AA$.
\[overlemma\] For any to subalgebras $\BB_1,\BB_2\subset\AA$, with corresponding orthogonal projections $P_1,P_2$ on $\HH_\tau$, we define their [**overlap**]{} as $$\label{overlap}
\ovlp(\BB_1,\BB_2)=\sqrt{\ttr(P_1P_2)}\ \in[0,\infty].$$ Then
1. $\ovlp(\BB_1,\BB_2)=1$, for commuting matrix algebras
2. $\ovlp(\BB_1,\BB_2)\geq1$, for any two subalgebras (with unit).
3. Let $\BB_1,\BB_2\subset\BB_{12}$ and $\BB_3,\BB_4\subset\BB_{34}$ are matrix subalgebras such that $\BB_{12}$ and $\BB_{34}$ commute. Then $$\label{overlaptensor}
\ovlp(\BB_1\BB_3,\BB_2\BB_4)=\ovlp(\BB_1,\BB_2)\ovlp(\BB_3,\BB_4).$$
4. Let $\BB_1,\BB_2,\BB_3,\BB_4$ be a chain of matrix algebras such that $[\BB_i,\BB_j]=\{0\}$, except for $i,j=2,3$. Then $\ovlp({\BB_1\BB_2,\BB_3\BB_4})=\ovlp({\BB_2,\BB_3})$.
5. Let $\BB_1,\BB_2,\BB_3$ be commuting matrix algebras with $\BB_2\cong\MM_d$. Then $\ovlp(\BB_1\BB_2,\BB_2\BB_3)=d$.
6. Let $\BB_1\cong\MM_d$ and $\BB_2$ be finite dimensional matrix algebras, and $\alpha$ an automorphism of the ambient algebra such that $\norm{\alpha(x)-x}\leq\varepsilon\norm x$ for $x\in\BB_1$. Then $$\abs{\ovlp(\alpha(\BB_1),\BB_2)-\ovlp(\BB_1,\BB_2)}\leq \varepsilon d^2.$$
Item 1 follows directly from Eq. (\[overlap1\]). For item 2, note that $P_i\geq\kettbra\idty$. Since we are only considering subalgebras containing the identity of the ambient algebra, the parenthetical remark is only added for emphasis. Item 3 follows by observing that the normalized trace on $\BB_{12}\BB_{34}\cong\BB_{12}\otimes\BB_{34}$ is fixed to be the product of normalized traces on the subalgebras. In this tensor product representation one readily verifies that the projection belonging to $\BB_1\BB_3$ is the tensor product $P_1\otimes P_3$, and similarly for $P_2,P_4$. Then the formula follows because the trace $\ttr$ also factorizes.\
Finally item 4 follows by taking $\BB_1\BB_4$ and $\BB_2\BB_3$ as the pairing of item 2, and using item 1 to conclude that $\ovlp(\BB_1,\BB_3)=1$.
To prove the continuity estimate in item 6, note that overlaps are $\geq1$, so that by a gradient estimate on the square root function $$\abs{\ovlp(\alpha(\BB_1),\BB_2)-\ovlp(\BB_1,\BB_2)}
\leq\frac12\left|\ttr((\widetilde P_1-P_1)P_2)\right|
\leq\frac12\norm{\widetilde P_1-P_1}_1,$$ where $\widetilde P_1,P_1,P_2$ are the projections belonging to $\alpha(\BB_1),\BB_1,\BB_2$, and $\norm X_1$ denotes the trace norm of $X$. We use the representation of $P_1$ in the form (\[twirl\]), so that $$\widetilde P_1-P_1=d^2\int\!\!dU\ \Bigl(\kettbra{\alpha(U)}-\kettbra U\Bigr).$$ We will estimate the trace norm of this expression by estimating the integrand, and using that, for any unit vectors $\phi,\psi$ in a Hilbert space, $\norm{\,\kettbra\phi-\kettbra\psi\,}_1\leq2\norm{\phi-\psi}$. Indeed, for unitaries like $U$ and $\alpha(U)$ the vectors $\ket U$ and $\ket{\alpha(U)}$ have norm 1 in $\HH_\tau$. Moreover, $\norm{\ket{\alpha(U)-U}}^2=\tau\Bigl((\alpha(U)-U)^*(\alpha(U)-U)\Bigr)\leq \varepsilon^2\norm U\tau(\idty)=\varepsilon^2$. Hence $$\frac12\norm{\widetilde P_1-P_1}_1\leq \frac{2d^2}2\varepsilon\int\!\!dU=d^2\varepsilon.$$
With these preparations we can state the main result of this section:
\[davidsformula\] Let $\AA_<=\AA_{(-\infty,0]}$ and $\AA_>=\AA_{[1,\infty)}$, and $\AA_L,\AA_R$ the algebras of any two neighboring cell algebras for a nearest neighbor grouping of the chain. Then $$\label{indDavid}
\ind(\alpha)=\frac{\ovlp\Bigl({\alpha(\AA_<),\AA_>}\Bigr)}{\ovlp\Bigl({\alpha(\AA_>),\AA_<}\Bigr)}
=\frac{\ovlp\Bigl({\alpha(\AA_L),\AA_R}\Bigr)}{\ovlp\Bigl({\alpha(\AA_R),\AA_L}\Bigr)}.$$ Moreover, if $t\mapsto\alpha_t$ is a strongly continuous family of cellular automata with the same cell structure and neighborhood scheme, then $\ind(\alpha_t)$ is constant.
The square of the numerator of the second index expression is $\ttr V_\alpha P_LV_\alpha^*P_R$, and we first verify that this expression is unchanged if we choose a larger $L$ and $R$, say $L'=L_1\cup L$ and $R'=R\cup R_1$. Indeed, the algebras $\alpha(\AA_{L_1}), \alpha(\AA_L),\AA_R,\AA_{R_1}$ satisfy the conditions of Lemma \[overlemma\], item 4. Moreover, arguing as for formula (\[overlap1\]) we see that not only the trace, but even the operator is independent of an enlargement. Hence taking a strong limit we obtain the corresponding expression for the infinite half-chains.
From Lemma \[overlemma\], item 3, it is clear that the expression thus defined satisfies the tensor product property in fact, numerator and denominator do so independently. Moreover, the formula is valid for shift automorphisms by virtue of item 5 of the Lemma.
Now let $\sigma$ be a tensor product of shifts with $\ind\sigma=\ind\alpha$, and let $\ind'\alpha$ be the value the formula in the proposition gives for any automorphism $\alpha$. Then we have $\ind'(\alpha\otimes\sigma^{-1})=\ind'(\alpha)(\ind\sigma)^{-1}=\ind'\alpha/(\ind\alpha)$. So it remains to prove that $\ind'\alpha=1$ for every $\alpha$ with $\ind\alpha=1$, which by Thm. \[thmIndA\] means that $\alpha$ is implemented by two layers of block unitaries. Moreover, we can forget all unitaries acting only on one side of the separation, since they do not change the algebras. Only one unitary $U_{LR}\in\AA_L\otimes\AA_R$ connecting the cells immediately adjacent to the cut remains. Hence it only remains to prove the Lemma below.
For the continuity statement observe that we can make a nearest neighbor grouping jointly for all $\alpha_t$, so we can apply Lemma \[overlemma\], item 6, to see that both denominator and numerator of the second fraction in (\[indDavid\]) are continuous. Moreover, the denominator is $\geq1$, so $\ind(\alpha_t)$ is a continuous function of $t$. On the other hand, numerator and denominator of $\ind\alpha$ have to divide every cell dimension, so there is only a finite choice of possible values, given the neighborhood structure. Hence $\ind(\alpha_t)$ is constant.
In order to state the remaining Lemma, let us consider any automorphism $\alpha$ of a tensor product $\AA_L\otimes\AA_R$ of two finite dimensional matrix algebras. We can take $\AA_x = \BB(\HH_x)$, for some $d_x$-dimensional Hilbert spaces $\HH_x$). In that case, the automorphism $\alpha$ is implemented by conjugation with a unitary: $\alpha(x) = U x U^*$, for some $U\in U(\HH_L\otimes \HH_R)$. We will express the fraction appearing in (\[indDavid\]) in terms of $U$.
In the following calculation, it turns out to be convenient to introduce orthonormal bases in the Hilbert spaces involved. Denote these bases by $\{\ket i\}\subset \HH_L$ and $\{\ket a\}\subset \HH_R$ respectively. These bases allow us to define the notion of a *partial transpose* $U^\Gamma$ of $U$. We set $$\bra{ia}(U^\Gamma)\ket{jb} = \bra{ja}U\ket{ib}.$$ While the partial transpose depends on the basis used to define it, one may easily convince oneself that the expression appearing in next lemma is independent of that choice.
\[lem:contraction\] When $\alpha(x)=UxU^*$ is an automorphism of the tensor product $\AA_L\otimes\AA_R$ of finite dimensional matrix algebras, we have $$\label{eqn:partialTranspose}
\ovlp(\alpha(\AA_L),\AA_R)^2=
\frac1{d_Ad_B}\tr\left(\bigl(U^\Gamma U^{\Gamma*}\bigr)^2\right)$$ Moreover, this expression is invariant under the substitution $\AA_L \leftrightarrow \AA_R$.
We introduce matrix units $e_{ij}=\ketbra ij$ as above and use that the $\sqrt d\,{e_{ij}}$ form an orthonormal basis of $\AA_L$. Thus the projection $P_L$ on $\HH_\tau$ corresponding to this algebra is $P_L=d_L\sum_{ij}\kettbra{e_{ij}}$. Of course, the transformed projection $\widetilde P_L$ for $\alpha(\AA_L)$ is obtained by substituting $\ket{\alpha(e_{ij})}$ for $\ket{e_{ij}}$. Similarly, we set $f_{ab}=\ketbra ab$ and, accordingly, $P_R=d_R\sum_{ab}\kettbra{f_{ab}}$. Then the left hand side of (\[eqn:partialTranspose\]) becomes $$\ovlp(\alpha(\AA_L),\AA_R)^2=\ttr(\widetilde P_LP_R)
= d_Ld_R\sum_{ijab}\left|\braket{f_{ab}}{\alpha(e_{ij})}\right|^2,$$ with the scalar products $$\begin{aligned}
\braket{f_{ab}}{\alpha(e_{ij})}
&=& \sum_{kc}\tau(e_{kk}f_{ba} Ue_{ij}f_{cc}U^*) \nonumber\\
&=& \frac1{d_Ld_R}\sum_{kc}\bra{ka}U\ketbra{ic}{jc}U^*\ket{kb} \nonumber\\
&=& \frac1{d_Ld_R}\sum_{kc}\bra{ia}U^\Gamma\ketbra{kc}{kc}U^{\Gamma*}\ket{jb} \nonumber\\
&=& \frac1{d_Ld_R}\bra{ia} U^\Gamma U^{\Gamma*}\ket{jb}\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ Altogether we get Eq. (\[eqn:partialTranspose\]).
The second claim becomes a simple corollary: we must verify that the right hand side is unchanged by the substitution $U\mapsto U^*$. Since the adjoint operation commutes with the partial transpose, this amounts to a cyclic rearrangement under the trace.
Outlook {#sec:out}
=======
Two directions of generalization of the theory presented here are especially suggestive and are, in fact, the subject of ongoing work in our group. We briefly comment on the prospects.
Approximate causality
---------------------
In many situations in physics causality is only approximately satisfied, e.g., as a bound $\norm{U_{xy}}\leq f(|x-y|)$ for some function $f$ going to zero at infinity. For example, the unitary groups generated by finite range Hamiltonians would satisfy this, but are never strictly causal in the sense required here. For the key Lemma. \[finrank\] powerful generalizations exist [@Seiler]. From these it is clear that the index of approximately causal unitaries is definable, integer valued, satisfies a product formula, and is zero for the unitaries arising from Hamiltonian subgroups. The part of the theory which is less clear is related to the converses, namely the construction of strictly causal unitary walks with the same index, approximating a given approximately causal unitary.
In the case of cellular automata the right notions of approximate causality are not clear. Ideally, one would only demand that $\alpha$ be an automorphism of the quasi-local algebra [@BraRo]. By definition, this means that the image of any localized element can be approximated in norm by localized ones. The idea of support algebras (which largely relies in its present form on picking a finite basis) is certainly too simplistic, and in any case it is unlikely that such algebras will always turn out to be finite dimensional matrix algebras. One may speculate, whether the index should take on also irrational values, but this seems unlikely, because of its dependence on the cell structure: for chains of homogeneous cell dimension $2$, the index is always a power of $2$, and not a dense set of rationals.
Higher lattice dimension
------------------------
As we have shown, in lattice dimension 1 three possible classifications of walks and automata coincide: (1) the classification by locally computable invariants, (2) the classification modulo locally implementable, unitaries, and (3) the classification up to homotopy. It is very unlikely that these three coincide in higher dimension as well. In the one-dimensional theory we could allow the local systems to grow, but also the localization regions. In the higher dimensional case we will use a translation invariant metric to bound the neighborhood sizes of a “local” system. Generalizations can be built on coarse geometry [@coarse].
Locally computable invariants are probably trivial. For example, an arbitrarily large patch of the shift automorphism can be connected to the identity outside a finite enlargement of the patch. In this sense the shifts have the same invariants as the identity. To get a more interesting theory, one should take other regions for the definition of “locally” computable, e.g., computability on cones [@Buchholz], or computability [*outside*]{} of any arbitrarily large region.
The classification modulo local implementability is especially interesting from the physical point of view, but it might turn out to be rather wild. For example, consider some self-intersection free path in the lattice, which comes from infinity and goes to infinity. Fix walks/cellular automata, which are equal to the identity off this path and allow any of the one-dimensional systems along this path. As long as we fix the path, we can apply the one dimensional theory. For two paths, which keep a finite distance from each other, it is easy to envisage local swap-type unitaries taking one path to the other, which would bring the corresponding path-related indices under the same roof. However, if the paths move away from each other, there will be no such local operation connecting them, so systems with non-trivial indices along these paths fall into different equivalence classes modulo local implementability. However, the equivalence classes of paths modulo “keeping a finite distance” are a rather unmanageably large set. A useful classification cannot be expected. Incidentally, the same class of examples shows that the “invariants computable outside any finite region” will give a wild set.
For the homotopy classification of walks there is already a theory, based on the K-theory of C\*-algebras and its connection with coarse geometry. Indeed, the $K_1$ group of a C\*-algebra just classifies the connected components of its automorphism group. This theory will most naturally apply to approximately causal walks, since strict causality cannot even be stated simply in terms of the C\*-algebra of the whole system. The connection with coarse geometry is being explored, for example, by Ralf Meyer and his group in Göttingen. Surprisingly (to us) it turns out that using Bott periodicity one can see that the $K_1$ group of approximately causal walks alternates between $\Ir$ in odd dimension and $0$ in even dimension. Unfortunately, this theory does not apply readily to the case of cellular automata.
Higher dimensional translation invariant systems
------------------------------------------------
In order to tame the wildness indicated in the previous subsection, one can restrict attention to translationally invariant systems. Immediately, the index of walks gets an obvious definition. The Fourier transform $\widehat U$ of the walk is now a Laurent polynomial in the variables $\exp(ip_k)$, where $(p_1,\ldots,p_s)$ is the momentum vector. Then $\det\widehat U$ is an invertible polynomial and we again conclude $\det\widehat U(p)=\exp(i\sum_kn_kp_k)$ for some integers $n_k$. The lattice vector $(n_1,\ldots,n_s)$ can be called the index, in direct generalization of the one-dimensional case.
For cellular automata, which are products of partial shifts and local block unitaries, we can just define the index via the shift content contained in such a representation, obtaining some vector with rational components. Since it is not known, whether any QCA is of this form, this is very unsatisfactory. As a step in the right direction, one can define an index by reduction to the 1D case, without using any special decomposition: Suppose we choose vectors $a_1,\ldots,a_{n-1}$ in an $n$-dimensional lattice, and we identify sites differing by integer multiples of these vectors. Then if the $a_k$ are large enough with respect to the interaction length of the automaton, this gives a well-defined cellular automaton evolution $\alpha[a_1,\ldots,a_{n-1}]$ on the quotient lattice, which now has only one unbounded direction, so we can assign an index to it. Then we call a vector $q\in\Rl^n$ the index of $\alpha$, if $$\label{indQuotienTI}
\ind \alpha[a_1,\ldots,a_{n-1}]=\det[q,a_1,\ldots,a_{n-1}],$$ where on the right hand side the square bracket denotes the matrix with the specified column vectors. It can be verified easily that this gives the result indicated before, for any cellular automaton, which has a decomposition into partial shifts and partitioned unitaries. But in general it is not even clear that the left hand side must depend linearly on each $a_k$.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We gratefully acknowledge the support of the DFG (Forschergruppe 635) and the EU (projects CORNER and QUICS), as well as the Erwin Schrödinger Institute.
[^1]: We are indebted to a referee who drew our attention to the inflationary use of the word “local” in our manuscript, where, among other things, quantum walks were called “local” unitaries. We changed this to “causal” for the crucial finite propagation property of walks and cellular automata. This is reminiscent of relativistic propagation in algebraic quantum field theory and in keeping with usage in signal processing (where $x$ would be time, and $x_-=x$). In quantum information it agrees with [@semilocal; @ANW07]. The terminology disagrees with what some field theorists would probably say [@Wer87a], and with [@qca].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Last-mile logistics is regarded as an essential yet highly expensive component of parcel logistics. In dense urban environments, this is partially caused by inherent inefficiencies due to traffic congestion and the disparity and accessibility of customer locations. In parcel logistics, access hubs are facilities supporting relay-based last-mile activities by offering temporary storage locations enabling the decoupling of last-mile activities from the rest of the urban distribution chain. This paper focuses on a novel tactical problem: the geographically dynamic deployment of pooled relocatable storage capacity modules in an urban parcel network operating under space-time uncertainty. In particular, it proposes a two-stage stochastic optimization model for the access hub dynamic pooled capacity deployment problem with synchronization of underlying operations through travel time estimates, and a solution approach based on a rolling horizon algorithm with lookahead and a benders decomposition able to solve large scale instances of a real-sized megacity. Numerical results, inspired by the case of a large parcel express carrier, are provided to evaluate the computational performance of the proposed approach and suggest up to $28\%$ last-mile cost savings and $26\%$ capacity savings compared to a static capacity deployment strategy.\
[ ***Keywords—*** Parcel Logistics, Urban Networks, Dynamic Deployment, Capacity Relocation, Capacity Pooling, Stochastic Optimization, Physical Internet ]{}
author:
- Louis Faugère
- Walid Klibi
- Chelsea White III
- Benoit Montreuil
bibliography:
- 'Bibliography.bib'
title: |
Dynamic Pooled Capacity Deployment\
for Urban Parcel Logistics
---
Introduction
============
Global urbanization, growth of e-commerce and the ever increasing desire for speed put pressure on the need for innovation in designing, managing and operating urban logistics systems in a sustainable and cost-efficient way. In 2018, $55\%$ of the world’s population lived in urban areas (up to $82\%$ in North America). The [@united20182018] predict that global urbanization will reach $68\%$ by 2050, with an increasing number of megacities (cities of 10+M inhabitants). Increasing population density is a challenge for city logistics in terms of traffic congestion, vehicle type restrictions, limited parking spaces, expensive and rare logistic facility locations, and is further complex in megacities due to their extremely high density [@fransoo2017reaching]. For urban parcel logistics systems, the growth of e-commerce is currently one of the main challenges to tackle with an annual growth over $20\%$ on the 2017-2019 period, projected to be over $15\%$ until 2023 [@statista_2019_growth]. Online-retailing with goods being transported to consumers’ homes increase the number of freight movements within cities while reducing the size of each shipment [@savelsbergh201650th] which makes first and last mile logistic activities harder to plan. Moreover, consumers’ desire for speed (i.e. same-day delivery and faster) has yet to be met by online retailers [@statista_2019_speed]. With promises as fast as 1-hour delivery (e.g. Amazon Prime in select U.S cities), the cost of last-mile logistics becomes an ever more critical part of urban parcel logistics. These trends have been accelerated due to attempts to mitigate the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g., sequestering in place), requiring companies to increase their last-mile delivery capabilities and to deal with the dramatic shift to online channels [@mitsloancovid19].\
To tackle these challenges, a number of innovations have emerged from academia and industry. [@savelsbergh201650th] provide an overall view of recent innovations and modeling of solutions such as multi-echelon networks, dynamic delivery systems, pickup and delivery point networks, omni-channel logistics, crowd-sourced transportation and the integration of public and freight transportation networks. Many of these innovations are considered in the Physical Internet initiative, introduced in @montreuil2011toward, which seeks global logistics efficiency and sustainability by transforming the way physical objects are handled, moved, and stored by applying concepts from internet data transfer to real-world shipping processes. A conceptual framework on the application of Physical Internet concepts to city logistics was recently proposed in @crainic2016physical, in particular the concepts of pooling and hyperconnectivity in urban multi-echelon networks. As underlined by @savelsbergh201650th, city logistics problems integrating real-life features such as highly dynamic and volatile decision making environments, sharing principles or multi-echelon networks, offer a fertile soil for groundbreaking research.\
Inspired by the case of a large parcel logistics company operating in megacities, this paper examines a novel tactical optimization problem in urban parcel logistics. It consists in the dynamic deployment and relocation of pooled storage capacity in an urban parcel network operating under space-time uncertainty. It builds on the recent proposal of a hyperconnected urban logistics network structure [@montreuil2018IMHRC] in line with the new challenges of the parcel logistics industry. The proposed network structure is based on the pixelization of urban agglomerations in unit zones (clusters of customer locations), local cells (cluster of unit zones) and urban areas (cluster of local cells). It is composed of three tiers of interconnected logistics hubs: gateway hubs (GH), local hubs (LH) and access hubs (AH) respectively designed to efficiently handle inter urban areas, inter local cells, and inter unit zones parcel flows. Beyond the realm of an urban agglomeration, the network of gateway hubs connects to a network of regional hubs (RH) covering entire blocks of the world (e.g. North America), and these regional hubs connect to a worldwide network of global hubs. This paper focuses on access hubs which are small logistics hubs located at the neighborhood level within minutes of customers, enabling parcel transfer between different vehicle types temporarily holding parcels close to pickup and delivery points. Access hubs are to be used by logistics carriers, and not by consumers as smart lockers are. Access hubs can materialize in many forms including a parked trailer, a smart locker bank, or a storage shed as illustrated in Figure \[fig: AHExample\]. Trailer based solutions like Figure \[fig: AHExample\] (a) and (d) offer all-or-nothing mobile solutions, while capacity module based solutions like Figure \[fig: AHExample\] (b) and (c) offer flexible capacity adjustment over time. The scope of this paper is a capacity module based solution.
Parcel logistics networks have undergone significant changes in the last 20 years, notably in urban contexts as seen in [@janjevic2020characterizing], and have received an increasing attention in the academic literature. Strategic and tactical network design problems such as the ones examined by [@SmilowitzDaganzo; @winkenbach2016enabling] approximate operations costs when designing and planning for multi-echelon networks. While network design problems are complex due to intricate interdependencies between strategic, tactical and operational decisions, continuum approximations (see [@ansari2018advancements]) are useful to capture operations complexity and take informed decisions. However, such approximations are typically used to estimate travel distance and cost, but not travel time and operations synchronization. This paper considers access hubs to be modular in storage capacity similar to designs proposed in [@FaugereCIE], such that capacity modules can be removed/added to adapt access hub’s storage capacity. At the tactical level, capacity modules are to be deployed over a network of access hub locations; at the operational level, capacity modules are to be allocated to serve their access hub’s need or neighboring locations via capacity pooling. In a dynamic setting, the associated problem can be related to a multi-period location-allocation problem which belongs to the NP-Hard complexity class [@manzini2008optimization]. Once the capacity of the network of access hubs is adjusted, each access hub plays the role of a transshipment location between couriers performing pickup and delivery services within minutes of the access hub and riders transporting parcels between local hubs and a set of access hubs. Such transshipments require tight synchronization of the two tiers so as to provide efficient and timely pickup and delivery operations. This operational context mimics, on a hourly basis, a two-echelon pickup and delivery problem with synchronisation, which is a complex routing problem (see for instance @Cuda2015). Thus, the integration of operations in the tactical decision model leads to better capacity deployment decisions [@Klibi2016], yet induces solvability challenges due to its combinatorial and stochastic-dynamic structure.
This paper studies a novel tactical optimization problem: the dynamic deployment of pooled storage capacity in an urban parcel network operating under space-time uncertainty. Its contribution is threefold: (1) the characterization of a new tactical problem for capacity deployment, motivated by dynamic aspects of urban parcel logistics needs, (2) the modeling of the access hub dynamic pooled capacity deployment problem as a two-stage stochastic program with synchronization of underlying operations through travel time estimates, and (3) the design of a solution approach based on a rolling horizon algorithm with lookahead and a benders decomposition able to solve large scale instances of a real-sized megacity. Numerical results, inspired by the case of a large parcel express carrier, are provided to evaluate the computational performance of the proposed approach and suggest up to $28\%$ last-mile cost savings and $26\%$ capacity savings compared to a static capacity deployment strategy.
Section \[Literature\] summarizes the literature relevant to this type of problem, section \[Probdescription\] describes the problem and proposes a mathematical modeling, section \[SolutionApproach\] presents the proposed solution approach, section \[Results\] provides an experiment setup and discusses results, and section \[Conclusion\] highlights key takeaways and managerial insights, and identifies promising research avenues.
Literature Review {#Literature}
=================
Multi-echelon network for urban distribution have received a lot of attention in the academic literature (e.g. [@BenjellounTrends], [@mancini2013multi], [@janjevic2019integrating]), commonly using urban consolidation centers (UCC) to bundle goods outside the boundaries of urban areas. As reported in [@janjevic_development_2014], several micro-consolidation initiatives have been proposed to downscale the consolidation effort by bundling goods at the neighborhood level using capillary networks of hubs located much closer to pickup and delivery points, defined as access hubs in the conceptual framework proposed by [@montreuil2018IMHRC]. Examples of such initiatives are satellite platforms (e.g. [@BenjellounTrends]), micro-consolidation centers (e.g. [@leonardi2012before]), mobile depots (e.g. [@marujo2018assessing]), and micro-depots [@stodick2019sustainable]. Most of the focus has been on location and vehicle routing aspects (e.g. [@anderluh2017synchronizing] and [@enthoven2020two]) and cost and negative externalities assessment (e.g. [@verlinde2014does], [@arvidsson2017ex], [@marujo2018assessing]) in solutions using depots and cargo-bikes. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, the dynamic management of access hub capacity for urban parcel logistics has not yet been studied in the academic literature.\
The problem studied in this paper involves modular capacity relocation and a capacity pooling recourse mechanism impacting the operations of a two-echelon synchronization problem. In this section, a literature review on dynamic capacitated facility location problems and integrated urban network design problems is presented.\
Dynamic facility location problems where systems are subject to varying environments (e.g. non-stationary demand) allow the relocation of facilities over time. [@arabani2012facility] provide a literature review on facility location dynamics, including problems with and without hub relocation. Innovations in the manufacturing industry have motivated the study of modular and mobile production and storage. [@marcotte2016introducing] have presented various threads of innovations such as distributed production, on-demand production, additive production, and mobile production, that would motivate and benefit from hyperconnected mobile production systems. [@marcotte2015modeling] and [@malladiererawhite] proposed mathematical modeling for production and inventory capacity relocation and allocation to manage multi-facility network facing stochastic demand. However, they examine small to medium networks far from the scale of urban parcel logistics networks and do not study operations synchronization. [@aghezzaf2005capacity] studied storage capacity expansion planning coupled to dynamic inventory relocation in the context of warehouse location allocation problems, but did not consider capacity reduction or relocation. [@ghiani2002capacitated], [@melo2006dynamic], and [@jena2015dynamic] modeled dynamic facility location problem where not only sites could be permanently or temporarily opened or closed, but also resized by adding or removing modular capacity. [@melo2006dynamic] proposed models capturing modular capacity shifts from existing to new facilities. However in these problems, capacity relocation is generally not managed jointly with capacity allocation or its impact on underlying operations. Dynamic facility location literature partially covers the tactical capacity relocation problem studied in this paper, but does not integrate underlying operations dynamics at the urban logistics scale.\
Integrated network design problems typically deal with a combination of strategic decisions such as facility location, tactical decisions such as resource allocation and scheduling, and operational decision such as vehicle routing. The integration of these different levels of decisions can be found in two main problem classes: service network design problems and location routing problems. Service network design problems deal with the selection and scheduling of services such as hub operations, shipping lines and routing of freight (e.g. [@crainic2016service; @hewitt2019scheduled]) while location routing problems combine facility location-allocation decisions with associated freight routing decisions. [@drexl2015survey] provide a recent survey of variants and extensions of the location routing problem. The dynamic location routing problem ([@francis2008period]) considering the assignment of demand to locations over multiple periods, is similar to the problem studied in this paper: it aims at minimizing network and routing costs over a multiperiod location and routing decision vector. However, multi-echelon location routing problems (e.g. [@crainic2004advanced; @perboli2011two]) have only recently gathered attention in the literature. Although multi-echelon networks are relevant to postal and parcel delivery distribution systems ([@gonzalez2009n]) where fine time constraints and synchronization have become an essential consideration, most papers studying multi-echelon networks are concerned with the two-echelon case and ignore temporal aspects ([@drexl2015survey]).\
When allowing inter-location capacity pooling, underlying operations described in section \[introduction\] are impacted. Couriers perform pickup and delivery tours starting and ending in their reference access hub, while riders visit access hubs starting and ending their routes in their reference local hub. The impact of capacity pooling can be measured by modeling its impact on the route of parcels, couriers and riders. However, when taking decisions at the tactical level, explicitly modeling routes is not necessary. TSP and VRP continuous approximations have been introduced by [@Daganzo94; @DaganzoBook] to embed operations in strategic and tactical logistics problems (e.g. [@EreraThesis], [@franceschetti2017strategic]). A recent literature on variants of this approach can be found in [@ansari2018advancements]. [@SmilowitzDaganzo; @winkenbach2016enabling; @bergmann2020integrating] adapted these continuous approximations to the context of parcel express logistics to approximate distance traveled and cost. However, the aspect of synchronization using travel time continuous approximations has not yet been studied. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper is the first to study a capacity relocation problem with the synchronization of two-echelon routing operations through travel time estimates.
Problem Description and Formulation {#Probdescription}
===================================
Business Context {#biz}
----------------
A parcel logistics company provides pickup and delivery services to customers in a region covered by a network of access hubs. The network of access hubs may be dedicated to the parcel logistics provider, or shared between several companies as suggested by the concept of open networks in the Physical Internet. Figure \[fig: Relocation\] provides a conceptual illustration of the network of access hubs and the relocation of capacity modules over two deployment periods. Once the network capacity is set, pickups from customers are dropped off by couriers in access hubs and will occupy a certain storage volume for some time until a rider picks them up to perform outbound activities. To-be-delivered parcels are dropped off by riders in access hubs and will occupy a certain storage volume for some time until a courier picks them up to perform the delivery to customers. To provide good service, the company must ensure that parcels flow rapidly and seamlessly between couriers and riders, which requires the sound management of storage capacity deployed in access hubs. Storage volume requirements vary depending on the fluctuation of demand for pickup and delivery services over time and are observed over a discrete set of operational periods (e.g. hourly). Access hubs are composed of modular storage units that can be assembled and disassembled relatively easily, enabling rapid relocation of storage capacity in the network. During each deployment period (e.g. week or day), storage capacity can be relocated within the network of access hubs, or to/from a depot where additional capacity modules are stored when not in use. Figure \[fig: Relocation\] illustrates demand variability and the relocation of capacity modules within the network of access hubs over two deployment periods. For instance, unit zones with increasing demand (and therefore increasing capacity requirements) from period $t$ to $t+1$ receive capacity module(s) from the depot of from locations that have decreasing capacity requirements (e.g. lower left unit zone in Figure \[fig: Relocation\]).
The relocation of capacity modules over the network adjusts the storage capacity available in each access hub for the following period. In this study, we assume capacity module relocation is performed by a separate business unit whose routing decisions are out of the scope of the research reported in this paper.\
The objective is to minimize the cost incurred by operating such a network of access hubs without disrupting underlying operations. The decision scope is tactical (capacity deployment) and requires the integration of operational decisions. However, since the main interest is a set of tactical decisions, there is no need to explicitly model operations, but only to approximate the impact of deployment decisions on routing cost and time synchronization.\
Let $L$ be a set of access hub locations and $W$ a set of external depots composing a network $G=(N=L\cup W,A)$ where $A$ is the complete set of directed arcs between locations in $N$. A capacity deployment of $I_0$ capacity modules in time $t$ over the network is represented by a vector $S(t) = (S_l(t), \forall l \in N)$. The relocation of capacity modules can be represented as vectors $R(t)=(R_a(t),\forall a\in A)$. Accordingly, there are ${I_0+|L|-1 \choose I_0}$ possible arrangements of $I_0$ modules over $|L|$ locations. In the case where $I_0 \geq |L|$ and that each location gets at least one module, there are ${I_0-1 \choose |L|-1}$ possible arrangements. In this realistic context, access hub networks are expected to be composed of a high number of locations (i.e., hundreds). Thus, state and action spaces would be significantly large-sized, which results in curse of dimensionality issues ([@powell2007approximate]).\
Moreover, a set of realization scenarios $\omega \in \Omega$ with probability $\phi_{\omega}$ is considered. The number of pickups and deliveries as well as the storage volume requirements are observed hourly and respectively represented as a vectors $\rho^P(\tau, \omega) = (\rho^P_l(\tau,\omega), \forall l \in L)$, $\rho^D(\tau, \omega) = (\rho^D_l(\tau, \omega), \forall l \in L)$ and $D(\tau, \omega)=(D_l(\tau, \omega), \forall l \in L)$, for every operations hour $\tau \in T_t$, where $t \in T$ is an operations horizon between two deployment periods (e.g. a week). If a courier or rider observes a lack of storage capacity when visiting an access hub, the courier or rider can perform the following recourse actions: pool capacity by making a detour towards a neighboring access hub with extra capacity or consign its load to a nearby third-party business (e.g. local shop) for a certain price agreed upon (uncapacitated recourse). Once volume requirements are observed, recourse actions are taken for each operational period $\tau$: capacity pools as a vector $P(\tau, \omega)=(P_a( \tau,\omega),\forall a\in A_{pool})$ where $A_{pool}$ is the set of arcs on which capacity can be pooled, and consignments as a vector $Z(\tau,\omega)=(Z_l(\tau,\omega),\forall l\in L)$. At any time $\tau$ in scenario $\omega$, the system can thus be represented as a state $S_t = S(t) \text{ s.t. } \tau \in T_{t}$ and an action $x_\tau = (R(\tau), P(\tau,\omega), Z(\tau,\omega)) \text{ s.t. } \tau \in T_{t}$, where $R(\tau)$ is the null vector except for $\tau = t, \forall t \in T$. Based on the optimisation framework proposed in [@powell2019unified], our stochastic optimization challenge for the access hub dynamic pooled capacity deployment problem can be formulated as follows: $$\label{opt challenge}
\min_{x_\tau \in X(\tau)} \mathop{\mathbb{E}}_{\omega \in \Omega}\left \{\sum_{t \in T} \sum_{\tau \in T_t} C_\tau(S_t,x_\tau,\rho^P(\tau,\omega), \rho^D(\tau,\omega), D(\tau,\omega))|S_0 \right \}$$ where $X(\tau)$ is the set of feasible actions at time $\tau$, $S_0$ is the initial state of the system, and $C_\tau(\cdot)$ is the cost function at time $\tau$. Figure \[fig: Timeline\] illustrates the dynamics of the problem with the tactical decision timeline: before each period $t$, a network deployment strategy $S(t)$ is decided through relocation decisions $R(t)$ and implemented right before the beginning of period $t$. Then, demand realized and recourse actions are taken in each period $\tau \in T_t$. At the end of periods $T_t$, a network deployment strategy $S(t+1)$ is decided through relocation decisions $R(t+1)$ and implemented right before the beginning of period $t+1$ and the process repeats.
Operations Cost Approximation and Synchronization Modeling \[under op\]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Once decisions on capacity deployment are set for a given period $t$, they strongly impact the quality of operations performed by couriers and riders. More specifically, capacity at each location impacts the number and costs of detour and perturb the synchronisation of the operations between couriers and riders at each location. Accordingly, the surrounding objective of integrating routing operations is to evaluate the performance of the capacity deployment in minimizing the detours due to an underestimation of the capacity needs and in guaranteeing the synchronisation of the operations between couriers and riders at each location. To do so, this subsection proposes to develop routes with detours cost approximations, and travel time approximations. It builds on a refined granularity of routing operations periods (hourly) and uncertain storage volume requirements.\
Figure \[fig: Operations\] illustrates the use of access hubs in first/last mile parcel logistics operations during a period $\tau$ with one rider and 3 couriers. At the operational level, pickup and delivery decisions are made hourly ($\tau$) based on the volume-based capacity made available at each access hub. In addition, capacity relocation determines the number and costs of recourse actions needed to satisfy the requested volumes. With the consideration of capacity pooling recourse, the pickup and delivery problem with transshipment faced by couriers and riders adds the feature of detours. Here, to ensure timely transshipment operations, the detours performed by couriers and riders, are limited to their original time period ($\tau$), avoiding couriers and riders to be desynchronized. Since these detours necessitate additional moves and are time consuming, this comes with a supplementary incurred cost.
It is clear that capturing the dynamics of underlying operations when taking capacity deployment decisions leads to better solutions. However, the pickup and delivery problem with transshipment is NP-hard ([@RaisPandDwithTransshipment]) and including it explicitly in the tactical model would make it intractable. Since the goal is to foster best capacity deployment decisions, it is sufficient to anticipate the operations costs and time synchronisation constraints using scenario-based continuous approximations.
Accordingly, hereafter is proposed a tractable approximation of each period $\tau$ pickup and delivery problem with transshipment by developing deterministic continuous approximations of vehicle routing problems. The starting point of the proposed approximations is the estimation of the vehicle routing problem length when the depot (from which vehicles start their routes) is not necessarily located in the area where customers are located as proposed in [@Daganzo94]: $$\label{VRPDaganzo}
VRP(n) = 2rm + nk(\delta)^{-\frac{1}{2}}$$ where $r$ is the average distance between the depot and the customer locations, $m$ is the number of routes required to serve all customers, $n$ is the number of points to be visited, $k$ is a constant parameter that can be estimated through simulation ([@DaganzoBook]), and $\delta$ is the density of points in the area. An a priori lower bound on the number of routes required to serve all customers, $m$, is $n/Q$ where $Q$ is the capacity of one vehicle in terms of customer locations. The first term of approximation (\[VRPDaganzo\]) represents the line-haul (back and forth) performed by vehicle to travel from the depot to the area where customers are located, and the second term represents the tour performed by traveling between each successive stops. Based on these seminal works, the next subsection proposes an adaptation of these equations to the operational context of riders and couriers, and develops an explicit time-based estimation of their operations.\
### Riders operations {#riders-operations .unnumbered}
Riders work in local cells, which are clusters of access hubs served by the same upper level local hub(s) as illustrated in Figure \[fig: Rider\]. Riders visit a set of $n_{LC}$ access hubs within their local cell of area $A_{LC}$ (and density $\delta_{LC} = \frac{n_{LC}}{A_{LC}}$) to pickup and deliver parcels as part of a defined route (e.g. planned beforehand based on averaging network’s load). At the time of deployment, underlying riders’ routes are not known with certainty, but need to be estimated in order to anticipate operations performance. When a rider makes his tour in period $\tau$ under scenario $\omega$ two cases are possible: (i) the tour is operated as planned because sufficient capacity is deployed at all visited access hubs in the route or because the detours are assigned to access hubs that are already in the remaining itinerary of the rider (bold lines in Figure \[fig: Rider\]); (ii) the rider tour is perturbed due to a lack of capacity at an access hub, and thus has to perform an immediate detour to a neighboring access hub before pursuing the rest of the regular tour (dash lines in Figure \[fig: Rider\]).
Given approximation (\[VRPDaganzo\]), if the number of detours performed by riders in local cell $LC$ in period $\tau$ in scenario $\omega$ is $n_{LC}^R(\tau, \omega)$, the route length estimation with detours of riders’ operations is:
$$\label{VRPRider}
VRP^R_{LC}(\tau, \omega) = 2r_{LC}m_{\tau}^R(\omega) + (n_{LC}+n_{LC}^R(\tau, \omega))k^R(\delta_{LC})^{-\frac{1}{2}}$$
where $n_{LC}$ is the total number of access hubs in local cell $LC$, $r_{LC}$ is the average distance between $LC$’s local hub(s) and its access hubs, and $m_{\tau}^R(\omega)$ is the number of riders’ operating.\
The cumulative time (in time-rider) necessary to perform tours approximated in (\[VRPRider\]) is: $$\label{rider time cumulative}
T^R_{LC}(\tau, \omega) = m_{\tau}^R(\omega)(t^R_s + \frac{2r_{LC}}{s^R_0}) + (n_{LC} + n_{LC}^R(\tau, \omega))(\frac{ k^R(\delta_{LC})^{-\frac{1}{2}}}{s^R} + t^R_a) + (\sum_{l \in LC}(\rho_l^D(\tau,\omega) + \rho_{l}^P(\tau,\omega)))t^R_u$$ where the first term is the time spent to setup tours ($t_s^R$ per tour) and perform the line-haul at a speed of $s_0^R$, the second term represent the travel time between stops at a speed of $s^R$ and the stopping time $t_a^R$ per access hub, and the third term represents the service time (handling) $t_u^R$ per pickup and delivery.\
Thus, the cost associated with riders’ operations in local cell $LC$ in period $\tau$ in scenario $\omega$ is: $$C^R_{LC}(\tau, \omega) = m_{\tau}^R(\omega)(c^R_f + 2r_{LC} c^R_{v_0}) + (n_{LC} + n_{LC}^R(\tau, \omega))k^R(\delta_{LC})^{-\frac{1}{2}} c^R_v + T^R_{LC}(\tau, \omega) c^R_w$$ where the first term represents the fixed, $c^R_f$, and variable, $c^R_{v_0}$ in line-haul and $c^R_v$ in tour, costs associated with vehicles, and the second term represents the variable labor cost $c^R_w$ of $m_\tau^R(\omega)$ riders.\
Since the nominal routing cost (with no detours) is a sunk cost incurred regardless of the capacity deployment, the marginal cost is sufficient to inform the tactical decision of the impact of recourse actions. The marginal cost of the detours induced by the tactical decisions, or difference between the rider routing cost with detours and the nominal rider routing cost, is: $$\Delta C^R_{LC}(\tau, \omega) = n_{LC}^R(\tau, \omega)k^R(\delta_{LC})^{-\frac{1}{2}} c^R_v + \Delta T^R_{LC}(\tau, \omega) c^R_w$$ where the time associated with performing detours is the time needed to perform detours: $$\Delta T^R_{LC}(\tau, \omega) = n_{LC}^R(\tau, \omega)(\frac{ k^R(\delta_{LC})^{-\frac{1}{2}}}{s^R} + t^R_a)$$
### Couriers operations {#couriers-operations .unnumbered}
Couriers operate in unit zones, which are clusters of pickup and delivery points served by access hub(s). Couriers leave their reference access hubs to visit customers and perform pickups/deliveries before returning to their access hub. When a courier arrives at the courier’s access hub with picked parcels, if the courier observes a lack of capacity, the courier can be immediately directed to available capacity in some neighboring access hub. Then, the courier will perform a detour (out and back) to the assigned neighbour access hub before starting their next tour from their reference access hub. Figure \[fig: Courier\] illustrates a courier’s tour and a detour as described.
Since access hubs are located in the same area as pickup/delivery locations, the line-haul distance at this echelon is negligible, which eliminates the first term of approximation (\[VRPDaganzo\]). If the number of detours performed by couriers on arc $a \in A_{pool}(l)= \{a=(l,j), \forall j: (l,j) \in A_{pool}\}$ of length $d_a$ in period $\tau$ under scenario $\omega$ is $n_{a}^C(\tau, \omega)$, the route length estimation with detours of couriers’ operations is: $$\label{VRPCouriers}
VRP^C_{l}(\tau, \omega) = (\rho_{l}^P(\tau,\omega) + \rho_{l}^D(\tau,\omega))k^C(\delta_{l})^{-\frac{1}{2}} + \sum_{a \in A_{pool}(l)} (2 n_{a}^C(\tau, \omega) d_a)$$ where the first term represents the total length of tours performed by couriers to visit pickup/delivery locations, and the second term represents the detours (out and back) performed between access hub $l$ and its neighboring access hubs.\
The cumulative time (in time-courier) necessary to perform courier tours is based on the approximation in (\[VRPCouriers\]) as follows: $$\label{courier time cumulative}
T^C_{l}(\tau, \omega) = (\rho_{l}^P(\tau,\omega) + \rho_{l}^D(\tau,\omega))(\frac{ k^C(\delta_{l})^{-\frac{1}{2}}}{s^C} + t^C_a) + \sum_{a \in A_{pool}((l)} n_{a}^C(\tau, \omega)(\frac{2 d_a}{s^C_0} + t^C_a) + (\rho_{l}^D(\tau,\omega) + \rho_{l}^P(\tau,\omega))t^C_u$$ where the first term represents the travel time between pickup/delivery locations at a speed of $s^C$ and the stopping time $t_a^C$ per stop, the second term represents the travel time during detours to neighboring access hubs at a speed of $s^C_0$ plus a stopping time $t_a^C$, and the third term represents the service time (handling) $t_u^C$ per pickup and delivery.\
Thus, the cost associated with couriers’ operations at access hub $l$ in period $\tau$ under scenario $\omega$ is: $$C^C_{l}(\tau, \omega) = ((\rho_{l}^P(\tau,\omega) + \rho_{l}^D(\tau,\omega))k^C(\delta_{l})^{-\frac{1}{2}} c^C_v + \sum_{a \in A_{pool}(l)} (2 n_{a}^C(\tau, \omega) d_a) c^C_{v_0}) + T^C_{l}(\tau, \omega) c^C_w$$ where the first term represents the variable travel costs, respectively $c^C_v$ between pickup/delivery locations and $c^C_{v_0}$ between access hubs, and the second term represents the variable labor cost $c^C_w$ of $m_\tau^C(\omega)$ couriers.\
Again, since the nominal routing cost (with no detours) is a sunk cost incurred regardless of the capacity deployment, the marginal cost is sufficient to inform the tactical decision of the impact of recourse actions.The marginal cost of the detours induced by the tactical decisions, or the difference between the courier routing cost with detours and the nominal courier routing cost is: $$\Delta C^C_{l}(\tau, \omega) = \sum_{a \in A_{pool}(l)} (2 n_{a}^C(\tau, \omega) d_a) c^C_{v_0}) + \Delta T^C_{l}(\tau, \omega) c^C_w$$ where the time associated with performing detours is: $$\Delta T^C_{l}(\tau, \omega) = \sum_{a \in A_{pool}(l)} n_{a}^C(\tau, \omega)(\frac{2 d_a}{s^C_0} + t^C_a)$$
### Operations Synchronization {#operations-synchronization .unnumbered}
Recall that a key objective of integrating routing operations with the capacity deployment problem is to guarantee the synchronisation of the operations between couriers and riders at each location. To do so, this subsection proposes to develop time-based synchronisation constraints based on the travel time approximations (\[rider time cumulative\]) and (\[courier time cumulative\]), developed above.
Parcels transshipped from riders to couriers and couriers to riders through access hubs must be transshipped during the period of time the parcels are within the network. That is, the length of a courier’s (respectively rider’s) original tour, plus the added detour(s) must not exceed the maximum length feasible within one operational period. For riders’ operations, at the local cell level, this tour length can be expressed, based on the number of riders ($m_\tau^R(\omega$) in period $\tau$ under scenario $\omega$, as follows: $$\label{Rider_Synchro_Constraint}
T^R_{LC}(\tau, \omega) \leq m_\tau^R(\omega) \Delta_\tau, \forall \omega \in \Omega, LC \in \mathcal{LC}, \tau \in T_t, t \in T$$ where $\Delta_\tau$ is the length of period $\tau$. Similarly, for couriers’ operation, at the access hub level, synchronization can be expressed, based on the number of couriers ($m_\tau^C(\omega$) in period $\tau$ under scenario $\omega$, as follows: $$\label{Courier_Synchro_Constraint}
T^C_{l}(\tau, \omega) \leq m_\tau^C(\omega) \Delta_\tau, \forall \omega \in \Omega, l \in L, \tau \in T_t, t \in T$$
Two-Stage Stochastic Program Formulation for the Access Hub Dynamic Pooled Capacity Deployment Problem
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this section, a stochastic programming formulation is proposed to tackle the optimization problem (\[opt challenge\]) presented in section \[biz\]. We remark that the stochastic optimisation problem (\[opt challenge\]) can be modeled as a multi-stage stochastic program based on a scenarios tree. However, this program would be intractable for realistic size instances, due to its combinatorial structure and non-anticipatory constraints [@Schultz2003]. Under a rolling horizon framework, the model is built here on the relaxation approach [@Shapiro2009] that is applied to transform the multi-stage stochastic program to a two-stage stochastic program with multiple tactical periods. More specifically, it consists in transferring all the capacity deployment decisions of the $T$ periods to the first-stage in order to be set at the beginning of the horizon. In this case, only first-stage design decisions ($t=1$) are made here and now, but subsequent capacity deployment decisions ($t>1$) are deferrable in time according to their deployment period. Hereafter are introduced the additional sets, input parameters, random variables and decision variables that formulate the overall model.
### Sets {#sets .unnumbered}
$$\begin{aligned}
\begin{tabularx}{\textwidth}{ll}
$\mathcal{L}$ & access hub locations, indexed by $l$ \\
$\mathcal{LC}$ & local cells, indexed by $LC$ \\
$\mathcal{W}$ & depot locations, indexed by $l$ \\
$\mathcal{A}$ & arcs between two locations of the network $\mathcal{L}\cup\mathcal{W}$, indexed by $a$ \\
$\mathcal{G}$ & asymmetric graph $(\mathcal{L}\cup\mathcal{W},A)$ satisfying the triangle inequality \\
$T$ & tactical periods, indexed by $t$, covering the planning horizon\\
$T_t$ & subset of operational (demand) periods, indexed by $\tau$, between periods $t$ and $t+1$ \\
$\Omega$ & scenarios, indexed by $\omega$ \\
$\delta^+(l)$ & incoming relocation arcs in location $l \in \mathcal{G}$ \\
$\delta^-(l)$ & outgoing relocation arcs from location $l \in \mathcal{G}$ \\
$N^+(l)$ & incoming recourse arcs in location $l$ ; $N^+(l) \subset \delta^+(l)$\\
$N^-(l)$ & outgoing recourse arcs from location $l$ ; $N^-(l) \subset \delta^-(l)$\\
$A_{pool}(l)$ & recourse arcs available for capacity pooling from location $l$ \end{tabularx}
\end{aligned}$$
\
### Input Parameters {#input-parameters .unnumbered}
$$\begin{aligned}
\begin{tabularx}{\textwidth}{ll}
$h_l$ & cost of holding one capacity module at location $l$. \\ $I_0$ & total number of capacity modules available in the system\\
$\phi_\omega$ & probability of scenario $\omega$\\
$p_l$ & penalty for lacking capacity in location $l$ \\
$r_a$ & cost of relocating one capacity module on $a$. \\ $\overline{S_l}$ & maximum number of capacity modules that can be placed in location $l$ \\
$v$ & volume provided by a capacity module \\
$v^R$ & volume that a rider can carry on a tour \\
$v^C$ & volume that a courier can carry on a tour
\end{tabularx}
\end{aligned}$$
\
### Random Variables {#random-variables .unnumbered}
$$\begin{aligned}
\begin{tabularx}{\textwidth}{ll}
$D_l(\tau, \omega)$ & volume requirements in location $l$ in scenario $\omega$ in period $(\tau)$
\end{tabularx}
\end{aligned}$$
\
### Decision Variables {#decision-variables .unnumbered}
$$\begin{aligned}
\begin{tabularx}{\textwidth}{ll}
$S_l(t)$ & number of capacity modules available in location $l$ for period $t$ \\
$R_a(t)$ & number of capacity modules relocated through arc $a$ at the beginning of period $t$ \\
$P_a(\tau, \omega)$ & volume shared from location $i$ to $j$, $a=(i,j) \in N_{\omega, \tau}^-(i)$ in period $\tau$ under scenario $\omega$ \\
$Z_l(\tau, \omega)$ & lack of capacity in volume at location $l$ in period $\tau$ under scenario $\omega$ \\
$n^R_a(\tau, \omega)$ & number of detours performed by riders on arc $a$ in period $\tau$ under scenario $\omega$ \\
$n^R_{LC}(\tau, \omega)$ & number of detours performed by riders in local cell $LC$ in period $\tau$ under scenario $\omega$ \\
$n^C_a(\tau, \omega)$ & number of detours performed by couriers on arc $a$ in period $\tau$ under scenario $\omega$ \\
$n^C_l(\tau, \omega)$ & number of detours performed by couriers from location $l$ in period $\tau$ under scenario $\omega$
\end{tabularx}
\end{aligned}$$
### Model {#model .unnumbered}
$$\begin{aligned}
\min & \sum_{t \in T} \bigg( \sum_{l \in \mathcal{L}\cup \mathcal{W}} h_l S_l(t) + \sum_{a \in A} r_a R_a(t) \nonumber \\
& + \sum_{\omega \in \Omega} \phi_{\omega} \bigg( \sum_{\tau \in T_{t}} \bigg( \sum_{l \in L} (\Delta C_l^C(\tau, \omega) + p_l Z_l(\tau, \omega)) + \sum_{LC \in \mathcal{LC}} \Delta C_{LC}^R(\tau, \omega) \bigg) \bigg) \bigg) \label{Obj} \\
\text{s.t.: \ } \nonumber \\
& \text{Inventory balance of capacity modules at all locations:} \nonumber \\
& S_l(t) = S_l(t-1) + \sum_{a \in \delta^+(l)} R_a(t) - \sum_{a \in \delta^-(l)} R_a(t), \forall l \in \mathcal{L}\cup \mathcal{W}, t \in T \label{IB} \\
& \text{Total capacity module inventory constraint:} \nonumber \\
& \sum_{l \in \mathcal{L}\cup\mathcal{W}}S_l(t) = I_0, \forall t \in T \label{Inv} \\
& \text{Spatial constraint at all locations:} \nonumber \\
& S_l(t) \leq \overline{S_l}, \forall l \in \mathcal{L}, t \in T \label{Spatial} \\
& \text{Volume requirements satisfaction constraints:} \nonumber \\
& v S_l(t) + \sum_{a \in N^+(l)} P_a (\tau, \omega) - \sum_{a \in N^-(l)} P_a (\tau, \omega) + Z_l (\tau, \omega) \geq D_l(\tau, \omega), \forall l \in L, \tau \in T_{t}, t \in T, \omega \in \Omega \label{Vol Req}\\
& \text{Synchronization constraint for riders' operations: (\ref{Rider_Synchro_Constraint})} \nonumber \\
& \text{Synchronization constraint for couriers' operations: (\ref{Courier_Synchro_Constraint})} \nonumber \\
& \text{Rider's detours count:} \nonumber \\
& n_{LC}^R(\tau, \omega) \geq \sum_{l \in LC} \sum_{a \in A_{pool(l)}} n_a^R(\tau, \omega), \forall LC \in \mathcal{LC}, \tau \in T_{t}, t \in T, \omega \in \Omega \\\label{LC detour count}
& n_a^R(\tau, \omega) \geq \frac{P_a(\tau, \omega)}{v^R}, \forall a \in A_{pool}(l), l \in L, \tau \in T_{t}, t \in T, \omega \in \Omega \\\label{Rider detour count}
& \text{Courier's detours count:} \nonumber \\
& n_{l}^C(\tau, \omega) \geq \sum_{a \in A_{pool}(l)} n_a^C(\tau, \omega), \forall l \in L, \tau \in T_{t}, t \in T, \omega \in \Omega \\\label{AH detour count}
& n_a^C(\tau, \omega) \geq \frac{P_a(\tau, \omega)}{v^C}, \forall a \in A_{pool}(l), l \in L, \tau \in T_{t}, t \in T, \omega \in \Omega \\\label{Courier detour count}
& \text{Integrality and non-negativity constraints:} \nonumber \\
& P_a(\tau, \omega), Z_l(\tau, \omega), n_a^C(\tau, \omega), n_a^R(\tau, \omega), n_{l}^C(\tau, \omega) \geq 0 \\
& S_l(t), R_a(t)\text{ integer} \label{integrality constraint}\end{aligned}$$
Minimizing expression (\[Obj\]) corresponds to minimizing the last-mile cost, defined in this paper as the cost of deploying capacity modules in each access hub locations (holding costs) and the relocation costs for each capacity module movement for each reconfiguration period, and the marginal cost incurred by recourse actions (capacity pool from neighboring location and consignment). Constraints (\[IB\]) and (\[Inv\]) enforce the conservation of the total number of capacity modules in the network. Constraints (\[Spatial\]) limit the number of capacity modules that can be deployed in each access hub locations. Constraints (\[Vol Req\]) enforce that all demand in terms of volume requirement is served by a combination of capacity modules, capacity pools and consignments, in each demand period of each scenario. Constraints (\[Rider\_Synchro\_Constraint\]) and (\[Courier\_Synchro\_Constraint\]) are the synchronization constraints for the underlying riders and couriers problems as developed in section (\[under op\]). Constraints (\[LC detour count\]) and (\[Rider detour count\]) count the number of detours performed by riders within each local cell based on recourse capacity pooling decisions and the carrying capacity of riders. Constraints (\[AH detour count\]) and (\[Courier detour count\]) count the number of detours performed by couriers from each access hub based on recourse capacity pooling decisions and the carrying capacity of couriers.
Solution Approach {#SolutionApproach}
=================
In this section, our rolling horizon solution approach is presented, which builds on solving sequentially the two-stage model presented above using scenario sampling, Benders decomposition and acceleration methods. It approximates optimization problem (\[opt challenge\]) by planning for one capacity deployment period, $t$, at the time and deferring subsequent capacity deployment decisions to the following iterations of the Algorithm. In order to enhance the quality of the solutions produced at each iteration, a $\theta$ tactical lookahead is considered to plan for $1 + \theta$ tactical periods, where only the first period is implementable and the subsequent ones are used as an evaluation mechanism. The proposed rolling horizon solution approach is described in Algorithm 1. Here, the length of the sub-horizon is controllable; it can represent one tactical period (i.e. myopic, $\theta = 0$) or several of them (i.e. lookahead, $\theta \geq 1$). Of course, when dealing with large-scale networks, the selection of the lookahead length is part of the trade-offs necessary to make in order to keep the model tractable. In order to enhance the solvability of the optimization model (\[Obj\]-\[integrality constraint\]), for each sub-horizon $[t, t+\theta]$, a tailored Benders decomposition approach is developed, that fits with the two-stage and multi-period setting of our formulation. It is applied under a large sample of multi-period scenarios. The following subsections address the decomposition approach as well as the associated acceleration methods developed.\
$S_l(t_0) \longleftarrow S_l(t_0)$
Benders Decomposition {#BD}
---------------------
Benders decomposition is a row generation solution method for solving large scale optimization problems by partitioning the decision variables in first stage and second stage variables ([@Benders2005]). The model is first projected onto the subspace defined by the first stage variables, replacing the second stage variables by an incumbent; the resulting model is called the restriced master problem. Then, a linear problem with the second stage variables and a candidate solution from the restricted master problem is formulated; the resulting model is called the subproblem and can often be decomposed in independent subproblems. From the solution of the subproblem, feasibility and optimality cuts can be identified and added to the restricted master problem. The algorithm terminates when the incumbent in the restriced master problem is equal to the the value of the subproblem.\
Suppose the capacity deployment and relocation decisions (first stage decision variables) $S_l(t)$, $S_l(t+1)$, ... ,$S_l(t+\theta)$ and $R_a(t)$, $R_a(t+1)$, ..., $R_a(t+\theta)$ are given with values $\widehat{S_l}(t)$, $\widehat{S_l}(t+1)$, ... , $\widehat{S_l}(t+\theta)$ and $\widehat{R_a}(t)$, $\widehat{R_a}(t+1)$, ..., $\widehat{R_a}(t+\theta)$. Then, the subproblem can be defined as taking recourse action decisions (i.e. second stage decisions; capacity pooling) to minimize the approximate overall operations costs. The subproblem can be decomposed per scenario $\omega$, operational period $\tau$ and local cell $LC$ into a set of independent subproblems as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{subproblem}
SP_{LC}(\tau, \omega) = \min & \sum_{l \in L(LC)} (\Delta C_l^C(\tau, \omega) + p_l Z_l(\tau, \omega)) + \Delta C_{LC}^R(\tau, \omega) \\
\text{s.t.: \ } \nonumber \\
& \text{Volume requirements satisfaction constraints:} \nonumber \\
& v \widehat{S_l}(t) + \sum_{a \in N^+(l)} P_a(\tau, \omega) - \sum_{a \in N^-(l)} P_a(\tau, \omega) + Z_l (\tau, \omega) \geq D_l(\tau, \omega), \forall l \in L(LC) \label{dual1}\\
& \text{Synchronization constraint for riders' operations: (\ref{Rider_Synchro_Constraint})} \nonumber \\
& \text{Synchronization constraint for couriers' operations: (\ref{Courier_Synchro_Constraint})} \nonumber \\
& \text{Detour linking constraints: (\ref{LC detour count}), (\ref{Rider detour count}), (\ref{AH detour count}), (\ref{Courier detour count})} \nonumber \\
& P_a(\tau, \omega), Z_l(\tau, \omega), n_a^C(\tau, \omega), n_a^R(\tau, \omega), n_{l}^C(\tau, \omega) \geq 0 \nonumber
$$
It is important to notice that the defined subproblems are feasible regardless of the value of the tactical decisions (first stage variables); This is possible thanks to the variables $Z_l(\tau, \omega)$ that compensate for any lack of capacity in the network by incurring a large cost.\
Solving each subproblem using a dualization strategy, one can identify the following optimality cuts for each local cell, operational period $\tau$ and scenario $\omega$:
\[Benders cuts\] q\_[LC]{}(, ) & \_[l L(LC)]{}\^j\_l(,)(D\_l(, )-v S\_l(t))\
&+ \^j\_[LC]{}(, ) ( m\^R(, )(\_- (t\^R\_s + )) - n\_[LC]{}( + t\^R\_a)\
& -\_[l LC]{}(\_l\^D(, ) + \_l\^P(, ))t\^R\_u ) &&\
&+ \_[l L(LC)]{} ( \^j\_l(,)( m\^C(,) \_- (\_l\^P(, ) + \_l\^P(, ))( + t\^C\_a + t\^C\_u) ) ) &&
where $j \in J$, the set of extreme points of the dualized subproblem; $\pi^j_l(\tau,\omega)$, $\mu^j_{LC}(\tau, \omega)$ and $\lambda^j_l(\tau,\omega)$ are the dual values respectively associated with constraints (\[dual1\]), (\[Rider\_Synchro\_Constraint\]) and (\[Courier\_Synchro\_Constraint\]).
Finally, the restricted master problem, whose objective minimizes the cost of deploying capacity modules in each access hub and the relocation costs for each capacity module for each period subject to the optimality cuts, can be formulated as follows:
$$\begin{aligned}
RMP = \min & \sum_{t}^{t+\theta} \bigg( \sum_{l \in \mathcal{L}\cup \mathcal{W}} h_l S_l(t) + \sum_{a \in A} r_a R_a(t) + \sum_{\omega \in =\Omega} \phi_{\omega} \sum_{\tau \in T_{t}} \sum_{LC \in \mathcal{LC}} q_{LC}(\tau, \omega) \bigg)\\
\text{s.t.: \ } \nonumber \\
& \text{Inventory balance of capacity modules at all locations: (\ref{IB})} \nonumber \\
& \text{Total capacity module inventory constraint: (\ref{Inv})} \nonumber \\
& \text{Spatial constraint at all locations: (\ref{Spatial})} \nonumber \\
& \text{Optimality cuts: (\ref{Benders cuts})}, \forall j \in \overline{J}\subset J\\\nonumber
& S_l(t), R_a(t) \text{ integer} \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Solving the restriced master problem with added optimality cuts provides new values $\widehat{S_l}(t)$ and $\widehat{R_a}(t)$, and a new incumbent solution. This process can be executed iteratively until the incumbent solution equals the subproblem value, indicating optimality.
Acceleration Methods {#preprocessing and acceleration}
--------------------
The following subsection describes acceleration methods developed to improve the performance of the proposed solution approach on large instances. The acceleration techniques retained are those that improve significantly the convergence speed of the benders decomposition algorithm for the proposed model.
### Pareto-optimal Cuts {#pareto-optimal-cuts .unnumbered}
The proposed implementation of the benders decomposition can be improved using Pareto-optimal cuts, which requires to solve two linear programs: the original subproblem (\[subproblem\]), and the Pareto subproblem. The result is the identification of the strongest cut when the original subproblem solution has multiple solutions. A Pareto-optimal solution produces the maximum value at a core point, which is required to be in the relative interior of the convex hull of the subregion defined by the first stage variables. The Pareto subproblem can be decomposed per scenario $\omega$, operational period $\tau$ and local cell $LC$ in a set of independent Pareto subproblems as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Pareto subproblem}
\min & \sum_{l \in L(LC)} (\Delta C_l^C(\tau, \omega) + p_l Z_l(\tau, \omega)) + \Delta C_{LC}^R(\tau, \omega) + v_{SP} Y \\
\text{s.t.: \ } \nonumber \\
& v (S_l^0(t) + \sum_{a \in N^+(l)} P_a(\tau, \omega) - \sum_{a \in N^-(l)} P_a(\tau, \omega) + Z_l (\tau, \omega) + (D_l(\tau, \omega) - v \widehat{S_l}(t)) Y \nonumber \\
& \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \geq D_l(\tau, \omega), \forall l \in L(LC) \label{pareto1}\\
& \text{Modified synchronization constraint for riders' operations:} \nonumber \\
& T^R_{LC}(\tau, \omega) \leq m^R(\tau, \omega) \Delta_\tau (1 - Y) \nonumber \\
& \qquad \qquad + \bigg( m_{\tau}^R(\omega) \bigg(t^R_s + \frac{2r_{LC}}{s^R_0} \bigg) + n_{LC} \bigg( \frac{ k^R(\delta_{LC})^{-\frac{1}{2}}}{s^R} + t^R_a \bigg) + \bigg( \sum_{l \in LC}(\rho_{l \tau}^D(\omega) + \rho_{l \tau}^P(\omega)) \bigg)t^R_u \bigg) Y \label{pareto_rider}\\
& \text{Modified synchronization constraint for couriers' operations:} \nonumber \\
& T^C_{l}(\tau, \omega) \leq m^C(\tau, \omega) \Delta_\tau (1 - Y) + \bigg( (\rho_{l \tau}^P(\omega) + \rho_{l \tau}^P(\omega)) \bigg(\frac{ k^C(\delta_{l})^{-\frac{1}{2}}}{s^C} + t^C_a + t^C_u \bigg) \bigg) Y, \forall l \in L(LC) \label{pareto_courier}\\
& \text{Detour linking constraints: (\ref{LC detour count}), (\ref{Rider detour count}), (\ref{AH detour count}), (\ref{Courier detour count})} \nonumber \\
& P_a(\tau, \omega), Z_l(\tau, \omega), n_a^C(\tau, \omega), n_a^R(\tau, \omega), n_{l}^C(\tau, \omega), Y \geq 0 \nonumber
$$ where $v_{SP}$ is the value of the corresponding original subproblem and $S_l^0(t)$ a core point of the current solution to the restricted master problem. Solving each Pareto subproblem using a dualization strategy, one can identify strengthened optimality cuts (\[Benders cuts\]) by assigning $\pi^j_l(\tau,\omega)$, $\mu^j_{LC}(\tau, \omega)$ and $\lambda^j_l(\tau,\omega)$ the dual values respectively associated with constraints (\[pareto1\]), (\[pareto\_rider\]) and (\[pareto\_courier\]).\
The proposed implementation also updates the core point, which can be seen as an intensification procedure: locations that are rarely given capacity modules decay toward low values while locations with consistent capacity module presence in every solution are assigned a high coefficient in Pareto solutions. The update rule was introduced in [@papadakos2009integrated], and consists of updating the core point at iteration $k$, $S^{0(k)}$ by combining it with the solution of the master problem at this iteration, $\widehat{S}^{(k)}$, using a factor $\lambda$. [@maheo2019benders] suggest that a factor $\lambda=1/2$ yields the best results. The update rule is defined as follows:
$$\begin{aligned}
S^{0(k+1)}_l(t) = \frac{S^{0(k)}_l(t) + \widehat{S_l}^{(k)}(t)}{2}, \forall l \in L, t \in T \\
S^{0(k+1)}_l(t) = \frac{I_0 - \sum_{l' \in L}S^{0(k+1)}_{l'}(t)}{|W|}, \forall l \in W\end{aligned}$$
where $k$ is the current iteration of the Benders algorithm.
### $\epsilon$-optimal Method {#epsilon-optimal-method .unnumbered}
When dealing with large-scale instances, the $\epsilon$-optimal method as described in [@rahmaniani2017benders] has proven to speed up the proposed Benders decomposition algorithms by avoiding to solve the restricted master problem to optimality at each iteration, while guaranteeing an optimal gap within $\epsilon$. It is not necessary to solve the restricted master problem to optimality at each iteration to generate good quality cuts, and there is no incentive to do so at the beginning of the algorithm because the relaxation is weak. Instead, the restricted master problem can be solved with a relaxed optimality gap by adding a constraint forcing the objective value to be improved by at least $\widehat{\epsilon}$ percent compared to the previous solution. Then, when no feasible solution is found, $\widehat{\epsilon}$ is decreased. The same mechanism is applied until $\epsilon$ is reached; the algorithm terminates when no feasible solution is found to the restricted master problem, guaranteeing that the current solution is within $\epsilon$ of the optimal.
Experimental Results {#Results}
====================
In this section, the results of numerical experiments are presented in order to validate the developed modeling and solution approaches, and to analyze the performance of the proposed capacity deployment strategy for urban parcel logistics. After describing the test instances which are inspired from the real data of a large parcel express carrier, experimental results about the computational performance of the solution approach are presented. Then, the performance of the dynamic pooled capacity deployment strategy is exposed and compared to its static counterpart. Finally sensitivity analyses are conducted on the capacity pooling distance and the holding costs to derive further insights.
Experimental setting {#Exp setting description}
--------------------
Table \[Instances\] summarizes the characteristics of the considered instances: number of access hub locations, number of local cells, and area and population covered by the network. 100 non-stationary demand scenarios are generated randomly from given distributions at the hourly level with monthly, weekly, daily and hourly seasonality factors. Figure \[demand sample\] illustrates demand dynamics by displaying access hub volume requirements box plots and snapshots of demand levels in two consecutive tactical periods as seen in Figure \[fig: Relocation\] for a sample local cell from instance E. The number of scenarios is chosen to ensure tactical decision stability with a reasonable in-sample statistical gap ($1.5\%$) and coefficient of variation ($0.5\%$) as detailed in \[Experiment Parameters\]. The considered planning horizon spread over two months, with 8 weekly tactical periods and hourly operational period. Each week is composed of seven days of ten operating hours each. The $\epsilon$-method is implemented with a guaranteed optimality gap of $0.1\%$.
Instance Access hubs Local cells Area covered (sq.km) Population covered
---------- ------------- ------------- ---------------------- --------------------
A 39 1 24.2 338,000
B 54 2 42.1 590,000
C 138 4 66 924,000
D 421 10 178.4 2,500,000
E 838 20 410 5,740,000
: Experimental Instances[]{data-label="Instances"}
As benchmark solutions, static capacity deployments are considered for each instance. Such static capacity deployment represents the minimum capacity module deployment required over the network of access hub locations to satisfy storage requirements for all operational periods within the planning horizon $T$ without being able to update capacity over time or use capacity pooling recourse actions. Benchmark solutions are found by solving $\min \{ \sum_{t \in T} \sum_{l \in \mathcal{L}\cup \mathcal{W}} h_l S_l(t) \}$ such that $S_l(t) \in \{v S_l(t) \geq D_l(\tau, \omega), \forall l \in L, \tau \in T_{t}, t \in T, \omega \in \Omega \}$ over the entire planning horizon with no relocation or recourse by relaxing spatial constraints to ensure feasibility.\
An instance has more or less savings potential depending on its demand dynamics and network configuration. Although assessing the potential of capacity pooling a priori is non trivial, the potential of capacity relocation can be assessed by a lower bound to the dynamic capacity deployment problem with no capacity pooling. Define $\Tilde{S}_l(t)$ as the maximum number of capacity modules required at location $l$ in any operational period associated with tactical period $t$ in all considered scenarios; that is $\Tilde{S}_l(t) = max(\ceil{D_l(\tau, \omega)/v} , \forall \tau \in T_t, \omega \in \Omega)$. Then, an instance’s capacity relocation cost savings potential can be computed by factoring in holding costs while ignoring relocation costs, producing a lower bound for the dynamic capacity deployment problem with no capacity pooling, with objective value $\sum_{t \in T} h_l\Tilde{S}_l(t)$. Benchmark solutions and relocation potential for the considered instances are summarized in Table \[Benchmark\].
Instance Total cost Capacity Potential cost savings
---------- --------------- ---------- ------------------------
A $\$138,966$ 189 $7.93\%$
B $\$181,275$ 245 $8.72\%$
C $\$453,137$ 618 $7.58\%$
D $\$1,325,490$ 1820 $7.29\%$
E $\$2,840,510$ 3818 $9.25\%$
: Benchmark Solutions and Relocation Potential[]{data-label="Benchmark"}
The initial capacity deployment is defined by running the proposed solution approach for the tactical period immediately preceding the studied planning horizon by relaxing constraint (\[IB\]). The default values of input parameters are estimated relying on company experts and presented in \[Experiment Parameters\]. Each instance is assigned one depot in one of its local hub locations to store unused capacity modules at no cost. The number of modules available $I_0$ and the penalty cost $p_l$ are set to large values (respectively $5000$ modules and $\$100,000$ per modules in order to prevent full recourse actions by lack of capacity and focus on feasible capacity deployments with capacity pooling. As suggested by [@winkenbach2016enabling] (through simulation) when studying a french parcel express company, this paper considers the value of the $k$ constants to be 0.82 for riders and 1.15 for couriers.\
All experiments were implemented in Python 3.7 using Gurobi 9.0 as the solver and were computed using 40 logical processors on an AMD EPYC Processor @ 2500GHz.
Computational Performance
-------------------------
The experiments presented in this section study the computational performance of the proposed solution approach when tackling instances of different sizes. The first experiment aims at validating the efficiency of the proposed acceleration methods in section (\[preprocessing and acceleration\]) for the Benders algorithm. It examines the impact of combinations of the acceleration methods on the runtime of the Benders algorithm for solving the optimization model (\[Obj\]-\[integrality constraint\]) for one relocation period with no lookahead. Figure \[benders performance C\] display the runtimes for instances C with a capacity pooling distance of 1km and a time cutoff of 15 hours; B represents the original Benders algorithm developed in section (\[BD\]); BP represents Benders with pareto-optimal cuts; BE represents Benders with the $\epsilon$-optimal method; and BPE represents BP with the $\epsilon$-optimal method.\
Figure \[benders performance C\] suggests that pareto-optimal cuts have the strongest impact on computational performance as it allows the BP algorithm to converge in 965 seconds when the B algorithm did not converge within the time limit. The $\epsilon$-optimal method suggests a significant improvement compared to the original Benders algorithm, and has an advantage over BP when close to optimality (while guaranteeing a solution within $0.1\%$ of optimality). Similar behaviors can be observed for larger instances, with BPE outperforming B, BP and BE.
Next, Figure \[algorithm\_perf\] depicts the computational performance of the proposed solution approach for different lookahead values as a function of network size. Each data point is the average runtime per period for a minimum sample set of 16 instances (8 relocation periods times 2 capacity pooling distances) and a maximum of 48 instances (8 relocation periods times 6 capacity pooling distances) based on the other experiments presented in the paper. The first observation is that the proposed solution approach is efficient in solving large-scale instances considered in this paper (838 access hubs), with a maximum runtime around 3 hours (with 2 weeks lookahead); this result suggests tractability for most urban area sizes, including megacities. The second observation is that adding tactical lookahead reasonably increase runtime: 1 week and 2 weeks lookahead runtimes are respectively at most 2.1 times and 3.5 times as long as no lookahead runtimes wihtin the range of network sizes considered.
Comparative Results
--------------------
The results presented in this section highlight the benefits of relocating capacity dynamically over time and allowing capacity pooling compared to a static capacity deployment with no capacity pooling. Results are summarized in Table \[Result table\] for different lookahead values and capacity pooling distance (in km). Table \[Result table\] presents total costs of the network, deployed capacity (maximum number of modules), relocation share (average number of relocations per period as a share of capacity), and cost and capacity savings with respect to the static counterpart.
First, cost and capacity savings are observed in all the instances. Maximum cost savings of $28.3\%$ and capacity savings of $26.46\%$ are reached for instance A with a capacity pooling distance of 2km and a 2 weeks tactical lookahead. Most of these savings are a result of the capacity pooling recourse as savings with capacity pooling of 0km indicate a much lower savings (maximum of $6.26\%$ cost savings). Note that for each instance, savings with no capacity pooling are less than potential savings presented in Table \[Benchmark\] (where relocation costs are not accounted for). The average number of relocations per period represent up to $7.31\%$ of the capacity, and is decreasing as more tactical lookahead is added; capacity deployments are gradually reconfiguring networks. Capacity savings indicate that the total number of modules required (both deployed and stored at a depot) is inferior to the number of modules required in static counterparts. Capacity savings also increase as capacity pooling is available, making the total capital invested in capacity modules inferior than in static counterparts.\
Furthermore, the results show that adding tactical lookahead is beneficial for all instances with and without capacity pooling by improving cost savings and decreasing the number of relocations. The role of tactical lookahead is to anticipate future needs and avoid relocations that will be reverted to in the future. Lookahead can be seen as the flexibility hedging of the solution approach to avoid relocations under uncertainty. However, the difference between one week and two weeks of tactical lookahead is more subtle with smaller cost improvements. These results suggest that solution’s quality increase with lookahead ($\theta$), offering extra cost savings. Tactical lookahead anticipates for future relocations therefore decreasing relocation share at the cost of slightly higher capacity deployments. However, there does not seem to be significant improvements from extending the lookahead from one week to two weeks, especially when considering the additional computational runtime.\
Lastly, capacity pooling brings significant value to instance A, B, and C, but less cost savings improvements for instance D and E. This is probably due to the the fact that instances D and E have lower hub density, increasing the distance between access hubs (see Table \[Instances\]). Section \[pooling varation\] examine the impact of capacity pooling distance in more details by focusing on instance C.
Capacity Pooling Variations {#pooling varation}
---------------------------
This experiment examines the effect of capacity pooling as a way to further decrease costs. Table \[table: capacity pooling\] summarizes the effect of different capacity pooling distances (in km) on instance C’s solutions. It presents average additional rider and courier travel (induced by detours), and cost and capacity savings for instance C. Figure \[fig: Pooling Exp\] displays a plot of cost and capacity savings as a function of pooling distance.
The increase in capacity pooling distance allows to produce superior solutions but only until a maximum of $12.55\%$ is reached with a pooling distance of 5km. This trend can clearly be seen in Figure \[fig: Pooling Exp\]. Indeed, no matter how large capacity pooling pooling neighborhoods are, constraints (\[Rider\_Synchro\_Constraint\]) and (\[Courier\_Synchro\_Constraint\]) limit capacity poolings from an operational point of view: riders and couriers cannot perform long distance detours as it would disrupt their activity by delaying other pickup / deliveries. Table \[pooling varation\] shows that most of the additional travel induced by detours is performed by couriers; since riders have larger carrying capacity, one rider detour may require multiple courier detours. Note also that since couriers are often using lightweight vehicles (if any vehicles at all), long distance detours may not be practical which may also limit the capacity pooling distance from a design perspective. The same behavior can be observed for the other instances.
Holding Costs Versus Relocation Costs
-------------------------------------
This experiment examines the influence of relocation costs and holding costs on dynamic capacity deployments. Intuitively, two extreme cases can be identified: (1) if holding costs are negligible compared to relocation costs, there is no incentive to dynamically adjust capacity, and (2) if relocation costs are negligible compared to holding costs, a myopic view of the problem would be optimal as anticipating future relocations does not save cost. Apart from extreme cases, variations of holding costs and relocation cost can represent different urban environments. A very dense city may have high holding costs (prime real estate) and low relocation costs (short distances between locations). In this experiment, four cases are examined: High-high, High-low, Low-high and Low-low, where High and high respectively represent high holding costs and high relocation costs and Low and low respectively represent low holding costs and low relocation costs. Cost vectors are scaled linearly and high costs are chosen to be $100\%$ higher than baseline values while low costs are assumed to be $50\%$ lower than baseline values. Table \[table: H vs C\] presents total cost, capacity (maximum number of modules deployed), relocations, relocation share (average number of relocations per period as a share of capacity), and cost and capacity savings for instance C with a capacity pooling distance of 2km. Savings are computed comparing to benchmark solutions with corresponding cost adjustements (holding costs).
\[H\]
Case Relocation share Cost savings Capacity savings
----------- ------------------ -------------- ------------------
High-low $6.12\%$ $13.07\%$ $9.62\%$
High-high $5.22\%$ $11.76\%$ $9.78\%$
Low-low $6.20\%$ $13.10\%$ $8.13\%$
Low-high $3.73\%$ $9.02\%$ $7.79\%$
: Impact of Holding versus Relocation Costs on Instance C[]{data-label="table: H vs C"}
A first observation is that cases where relocation costs are low perform best with costs savings around $13.1\%$, regardless of holding costs. When relocation costs are high, cost savings are worse, especially when holding costs are low ($9.02\%$). Low holding cost cases deploy more capacity modules overall which impact capacity savings, but are still able to reach high cost savings when relocation costs are low. The combination of low holding costs and high relocation costs decreases opportunities for worthy relocations (only $3.73\%$ relocation share), requiring more capacity deployed and therefore limiting cost savings ($9.02\%$). Similar behavior can be observed on the other instances.\
Overall, this experiment indicates that denser urban environment (high holding costs) tend to be better candidates for dynamic capacity management of access hub networks. Moreover, low relocation costs (i.e. easy installation and good mobility of capacity modules) can make any urban environment a worthy candidate for such capacity management strategy. Finally, the combination of lesser dense urban environment and high relocation costs significantly limits opportunity for cost savings.
Conclusion {#Conclusion}
==========
This paper defines and formulates the Dynamic Pooled Capacity Deployment Problem in the context of urban parcel logistics. This problem involves a tactical decision on the relocation of capacity modules over a network of discrete locations associated with stochastic demand requirements. To improve the quality of the capacity deployment decisions, the proposed model integrates an estimate of the difference of operations cost, which includes capacity assignment decisions with the possibility of capacity pooling between neighboring locations. It also integrates synchronization requirements of the 2-echelon routing subproblems, using an analytical derivate from the route length estimation function. The dynamic problem is modeled and approximated with a two-stage stochastic program with recourse, where all capacity deployment decisions on a finite planning horizon are moved to the first stage. Due to the uncertainty of capacity requirements and the challenges of solving the MIP formulation for realistic networks of several hundreds locations, a roll-out approach with lookahead based on a Benders decomposition of the finite planning horizon problem coupled with acceleration methods is proposed. Five instances of networks of different sizes are presented to perform computational experiments to test the performance of the proposed approach and assess the potential of the defined capacity deployment strategy.\
Results show that the proposed approach produces solutions in a reasonable time even for large scale instances of up to 838 hubs. They suggest that a dynamic capacity deployment strategy with capacity pooling has a significant advantage over a static capacity deployment strategy for access hub networks, with up to $28\%$ cost savings and $26\%$ capacity savings. Results also show that one-week lookahead helps producing superior solutions by anticipating future relocations, but adding a two-weeks lookahead does not make a significant improvement. Increasing the capacity pooling distance, while increasing computing time, tend to increase opportunities for cost savings by allowing more locations to pool capacity until an operational feasibility threshold is reached. Dynamically adjusting workforce assignment in the network was not explored but could potentially overcome this limitation. Denser urban environments (i.e. with higher real estate costs) are natural candidates for dynamic capacity deployments as relocation costs are more easily overcome by holding costs. However, relocation costs are the most limiting when it comes to cost savings. Technology solutions featuring cheaper installation costs and high degree of mobility make it more interesting to consider periodic network reconfigurations.\
The implementation of such innovation also has management challenges not studied in this paper. For instance, implementation may require a more agile workforce, specialized training and targeted hiring enabling a data-driven approach to managing network capacity. Management challenges also need to be considered by decision makers along with the potential reduction of fixed-assets offered by capacity savings when evaluating the solution for implementation.\
Finally, there are numerous research avenues around reconfigurable networks, dynamic capacity management and access hubs in urban parcel logistics. Where technology allows for very frequent network reconfiguration, solutions featuring not only modular but mobile capacity (e.g. on wheels) and near real-time capacity relocation can become relevant as a complement to the proposed dynamic capacity deployment strategy. Moreover, the possibility of updating operations planning as needed (e.g. dynamic routing, dynamic staffing) can unlock the potential of capacity pooling not only as a recourse but as an integral part of network design and operations planning.
Calibration and Data {#Experiment Parameters}
====================
In-sample Variability
---------------------
In-sample variability was tested with no lookahead for instance A with capacity pooling limited to 1 km for 10 samples. Results are presented in Table \[Statistical Analysis\]. Coefficient of variation represent the ratio between the standard deviation and the average of solutions’ total cost. Statistical gap represent the ratio $(UB-LB)/LB$ where UB and LB are respectively the highest and lowest total cost in the sample.
Number of scenarios 5 10 20 30 50 75 100 200
-------------------------- ----------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Coefficient of variation $3.47\%$ $2.87\%$ $2.70\%$ $2.11\%$ $1.34\%$ $1.04\%$ $0.52\%$ $0.41\%$
Statistical gap $10.04\%$ $9.16\%$ $8.57\%$ $7.85\%$ $4.25\%$ $3.51\%$ $1.53\%$ $1.22\%$
: In-sample Statistical Analysis[]{data-label="Statistical Analysis"}
Cost Estimates
--------------
The capacity module relocation costs $r_a$ include an operational cost of $\$1.50$ per kilometer, and a fixed cost of two operators for two hours at a rate of $\$10$ per hour to uninstall/install modules once at the desired locations:
$$\begin{aligned}
r_a = 1.50 d_a + 40, \forall a = (i,j) \in A\end{aligned}$$
Where $d_a$ is the distance between location $i$ and $j$ such that $a = (i,j)$.\
The holding costs are computed from an amortized acquisition cost of $\$2000$ over 5 years (52 weeks long years), and from a rent cost of $\$75$ per square meter times a location specific factor $(1+f_l)$ randomly generated to represent the real estate difference between locations.
$$\begin{aligned}
h_l = \frac{2000}{5*52} + 75 (1+ f_l), \forall l \in L\end{aligned}$$
Where $f_l$ is randomly generated from a uniform distribution over $[2\%, 15\%]$. It is also assumed that modules do not depreciate when stored at depots ($h_l = 0, \forall l \in D$).\
Other Input Parameters
----------------------
\[h\]
Parameter Value Parameter Value
------------ --------------------- ------------- ------------------------
$c^C_v$ $\$1/km$ $s^R_0$ $50 \textit{ km/h}$
$c^C_{v0}$ $\$0.8/km$ $\hat{S_l}$ $15 \textit{ modules}$
$c^R_f$ $\$10$ $t^C_a$ $1 \textit{ min}$
$c^R_v$ $\$1.8/km$ $t^C_u$ $2 \textit{ min}$
$c^R_{v0}$ $\$1.2/km$ $t^R_a$ $5 \textit{ min}$
$k^C$ $1.15$ $t^R_u$ $1 \textit{ min}$
$k^R$ $0.82$ $t^R_s$ $5 \textit{ min}$
$p_l$ $100000/ module$ $v$ $0.75 \textit{ } m^2$
$s^C$ $7 \textit{ km/h}$ $v^C$ $0.48 \textit{ } m^2$
$s^C_0$ $15 \textit{ km/h}$ $v^R$ $6.40 \textit{ } m^2$
$s^R$ $30 \textit{ km/h}$
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We discuss the first results from our mid-infrared imaging survey of Milky Way Giant regions with our detailed analysis of W51A, which is one of the largest G regions in our Galaxy. We used the FORCAST instrument on *SOFIA* to obtain 20 and 37$\mu$m images of the central $10\arcmin\times20\arcmin$ area, which encompasses both of the G49.5-0.4 and G49.4-0.3 sub-regions. Based on these new data, and in conjunction with previous multi-wavelength observations, we conjecture on the physical nature of several individual sources and sub-components within W51A. We find that extinction seems to play an important role in the observed structures we see in the near- to mid-infrared, both globally and locally. We used the *SOFIA* photometry combined with *Spitzer*-IRAC and *Herschel*-PACS photometry data to construct spectral energy distributions (SEDs) of sub-components and point sources detected in the *SOFIA* images. We fit those SEDs with young stellar object models, and found 41 sources that are likely to be massive young stellar objects, many of which are identified as such in this work for the first time. Close to half of the massive young stellar objects do not have detectable radio continuum emission at cm wavelengths, implying a very young state of formation. We derived luminosity-to-mass ratio and virial parameters of the extended radio sub-regions of W51A to estimate their relative ages.'
author:
- 'Wanggi Lim and James M. De Buizer'
title: 'Surveying the Giant Regions of the Milky Way with *SOFIA*: I. W51A'
---
Introduction
============
When a single massive star begins to form in a giant molecular cloud, it tends to be highly self-embedded and thus observable only in the mid-infrared (MIR) to sub-millimeter. At some point the central (proto-)star becomes hot enough that a substantial amount of Lyman continuum luminosity is produced. This ionizes the gas in its immediate surroundings, creating an region that is bright in centimeter radio continuum emission. Initially this region is quite small ($\sim$0.01 pc), and thus is called a hyper-compact (HC) region [@hoare07]. However, as the region evolves and expands and more of the natal material becomes heated to higher temperatures, emission becomes observable at shorter and shorter infrared wavelengths. These ultra-compact (UC, $\sim$0.1pc) and compact (C, $\sim$1pc) phases can be quite bright at MIR wavelengths and sometimes even near-infrared (NIR) wavelengths [@churchwell02]. This scenario holds for the formation of an individual massive star (or a tight multiple system of massive stars). However in the case of the most massive young stellar clusters in our Galaxy, there seems to be ongoing and/or sequential star formation, with the Lyman continuum emission from revealed massive stars as well as individual compact regions combining to emit more than 10$^{50}$ LyC photons s$^{-1}$, and in the process create vast ionized regions within their host molecular clouds [@1994ApJ...421..140V]. These large regions are called giant (G) regions, and typically have ionizing fluxes more than an order of magnitude larger than our nearest massive star-forming region, the Orion Nebula (i.e. M42). These objects tend to have angular sizes in the infrared of one to several arcminutes (given their typical $\sim$few kpc distances), and can be distinguished by their bright and optically thin radio continuum emission at cm wavelengths [@2004MNRAS.355..899C]. Also, such G regions are a dominant source of emission contributing to the bolometric luminosity that we see from galaxies in general [e.g. @2008ApJ...672..214G]. Therefore, understanding the global and detailed properties of G regions in our own Galaxy can be used as a template for interpreting what we observe in galaxies far away.
Our understanding of the formation of massive stars is not known to the same level of detail as stars like our own Sun. Discerning the similarities and differences of high-mass and low-mass star formation is essential to our fundamental understanding of star formation in general. Moreover, we know less about clustered star formation than isolated star formation. However, it is believed that the vast majority of all stars form within OB clusters [@1978PASP...90..506M]. G regions are laboratories for the earliest stages of massive star formation and clustered star formation, and as such, a lot may be learned about the environments of forming OB clusters.
This is the first paper in a large-scale project with the goal of creating a 20 and 37$\mu$m imaging survey of all known G regions within the Milky Way with the *Stratospheric Observatory For Infrared Astronomy* (*SOFIA*) and its mid-infrared instrument FORCAST. Though the *Spitzer Space Telescope* and *Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer* (*WISE*) satellite imaged these regions at comparable resolutions near 20$\mu$m, often the *Spitzer* 24$\mu$m and *WISE* 22$\mu$m images were severely saturated in the brightest areas. There also exist *Midcourse Space Experiment* (*MSX*) 21$\mu$m images of each of these regions, and while they are unsaturated, the resolution is $\sim$18$\arcsec$, or 7$\times$ worse than what we can achieve with *SOFIA* at 20$\mu$m. Observing near 20$\mu$m is also possible from ground-based observatories, but from the ground the sky emission is much brighter than these sources and one must observe through a sky and background subtraction technique called “chopping and nodding”. However, these regions are highly extended in emission and no ground-based observatory can chop larger than $\sim$1$\arcmin$. Furthermore, typical ground-based cameras also have small field-of-view ($<$1$\arcmin$). Both of these issues mean that images typically obtained with ground-based facilities can only target small subregions and the images they obtain are often contaminated with negative emission from the chop and nod reference beams (which can complicate flux calibration and accuracy, as well as artificially change the observed morphology and source structure). At 37$\mu$m, *SOFIA*-FORCAST has unique wavelength coverage, allowing us to probe cooler dust (50–100K) and even more extinguished regions than is possible at 20$\mu$m with the best resolution ever achievable at that wavelength ($\sim$3.0$\arcsec$).
@2004MNRAS.355..899C used a published 6cm all-sky survey along with data from the *MSX* and *IRAS* archives to identify 56 bona-fide G regions. Observations of these targets are ongoing, and we aim to observe as many of these sources as we can with *SOFIA* to understand their physical properties individually and as a population. In this paper, and several papers to follow, we will discuss individual G regions, highlighting the properties of each region as determined from the *SOFIA* data, and compare that data to other data in the literature. We plan to finish the series of G region papers with one detailing the global properties of Milky Way G regions as a population, with comparisons to extragalactic G regions and starbursts.
We start here with an in-depth look at our *SOFIA* observations of the extensive W51A G region. This source was one of the first observed for this program, and is one of the largest regions in our source list in terms of angular diameter. W51A is also one of the largest and brightest G regions in our Galaxy, weighing in at 100 times the mass of Orion [$\sim$1$\times10^5 M_\sun$ for W51A versus $\sim$1$\times10^3 M_\sun$ for M42; @2010ApJS..190...58K; @2018MNRAS.473.4890S], with an ionizing flux more than 100 times that of Orion . It is sufficiently large, complicated, and well-studied that we devote to it this entire first paper.
In the next section (§\[sec:obs\]), we will discuss the new [*SOFIA*]{} observations and give information on the data obtained of W51A. In §\[sec:results1\], we will give more background on this region as we compare our new data to previous observations and discuss individual sources and regions in-depth. In §\[sec:data\], we will discuss our data analysis, modeling, and derivation of physical parameters of sources and regions. Our conclusions are summarized in §\[sec:conclusion\].
Observations and Data Reduction {#sec:obs}
===============================
Data for this program have been collected over several *SOFIA* Cycles dating back to Cycle 1 in 2013. All data were obtained using the FORCAST instrument [@2013PASP...125...1393H]. FORCAST is a dual-array mid-infrared camera capable of taking simultaneous images at two wavelengths. The short wavelength camera (SWC) is a 256$\times$256 pixel Si:As array optimized for 5–-25$\mu$m observations; the long wavelength camera (LWC) is a 256$\times$256 pixel Si:Sb array optimized for 25–-40$\mu$m observations. After correction for focal plane distortion, FORCAST effectively samples at 0$\farcs$768 pixel$^{-1}$, which yields a 3$\farcm$4$\times$3$\farcm$2 instantaneous field of view. Observations were obtained in the 20$\mu$m ($\lambda_{eff}$=19.7$\mu$m; $\Delta\lambda$=5.5$\mu$m) and 37$\mu$m ($\lambda_{eff}$=37.1$\mu$m; $\Delta\lambda$=3.3$\mu$m) filters simultaneously using an internal dichroic.
All images were obtained by employing the standard chop-nod observing technique used in the thermal infrared, with chop and nod throws sufficiently large to sample clear off-source sky (typically $\sim$7$\arcmin$). We also dithered the observations to help correct for any additional array artifacts (e.g. bad pixels) that are not removed via the chop and nod process. As detailed in @2013PASP...125...1393H, this process does not always completely flatten the background of FORCAST data, leaving low-spatial frequency background variations that changes from exposure to exposure and which cannot be easily removed. Therefore, some significantly large areas of the images obtained can have slightly non-zero (including negative) backgrounds. Furthermore, the background around bright sources can be suppressed due to electronic crosstalk [see again @2013PASP...125...1393H], creating negative areas of background.
The W51A G region is much larger ($\sim$15$\arcmin\times$15$\arcmin$) than the FORCAST field of view, and thus had to be mapped using multiple pointings. Though the total exposure time for each pointing was planned to be the same (in order to yield a mosaicked image with relatively uniform signal-to-noise), in actuality the time varied due to changes in flight plans, losses of time in flight, or changes in observing efficiencies over the cycles. For W51A, we created a mosaic from 19 individual pointings, each composed of the coaddition of 9-10 dither images, with each final dither-coadded image having an average on-source exposure time of about 180s at both 20$\mu$m and 37$\mu$m. However, the exposure time in any given area could be different given that edges of the final images produced at each pointing after coadding the dithers have variable exposure times and each pointing had significant field overlap ($>$10%) with adjacent pointings. The overlapping areas can have factors of 2-4 larger exposure time than non-overlapping areas. The total fraction of overlapped area in the SOFIA maps are 24.6% and 26.4% for 20 and 37$\mu$m, respectively.
Flux calibration for each of the 19 individual pointings was created via the *SOFIA* Data Cycle System (DCS) pipeline. The pipeline uses calibrators (stars and asteroids) observed over multiple flights to derive a calibration factor (Jy per raw data unit) for each image. These calibration factors take into account airmass and aircraft altitude of each observation, and once corrected for these conditions, these calibration factors show remarkably stable values across multiple flights, and thus are assumed to be reliable. The flux density calibration error of the W51A field is $\sim$3.3% at 20$\mu$m and $\sim$8.0% at 37$\mu$m.
Some of the images produced from the dither-coadded individual pointings had additional residual high-spatial frequency background noise due to imperfect nod subtraction. To remove this high frequency pattern noise (seen only in the 20$\mu$m images), the data were corrected using a custom-developed Interactive Data Language (IDL) software package built around its native Fast Fourier Transform code (*fft.pro*). The noise was corrected by isolating it in Fourier space and removing it before transforming the data back into image space. We modified all raw data so that all 198 dither images were inspected and corrected by the IDL Fourier Transform code. The flux density difference before and after this correction are maintained under 2% across all 20$\mu$m images.
Another issue that had to be dealt with when mosaicking the individual pointings is the FORCAST array crosstalk mentioned above. This means that when there is a particularly bright source on the array (e.g. IRS1 and IRS2 regions), the array response can cause the images of adjacent pointings to have discontinuous backgrounds. Through trial and error we found that the best way to mosaic all of the data and minimize the effect of this was to use a combination of the *SOFIA* Pipeline Software and custom mosaicking routines. We used the *SOFIA* Pipeline Software to make three sub mosaics that showed smooth background over the sub-fields. We then used custom IDL routines to match the backgrounds of the three sub-fields with exposure time weighting to create the final W51A map. We tested the photometric variances among the final mosaic produced solely with the *SOFIA* Pipeline, the IDL-corrected mosaic, and flux calibrated individual pointing images from the *SOFIA* Pipeline prior to mosaicking. The intensities of individual sources in all three cases are in agreement to within better than 10% which implies the background correction method does not substantially affect scientific results. There still exist areas with slightly negative background intensities in the final 20 and 37$\mu$m mosaic maps, however as we will discuss in §\[sec:cps\], this in the end does not affect our compact source photometry since the issue is mitigated by applying proper background subtraction.
In addition to the FORCAST data, our analyses also utilize the *Spitzer* IRAC 3.6, 4.5, 5.8 and 8.0$\mu$m data of the Galactic Legacy Infrared Mid-Plane Survey Extraordinaire survey (GLIMPSE, @2009PASP..121..213C) as well as the *Herschel* PACS 70$\mu$m and 160$\mu$m and SPIRE 250, 350 and 500$\mu$m data of the *Herschel* infrared Galactic Plane Survey (Hi-GAL, ).
Because all FORCAST data were taken in the dichroic mode, one can determine precise relative astrometry of the two wavelength images that were obtained simultaneously. The relative astrometry between filters is known to better than 0.5 pixels ($\sim$0$\farcs$38). All images then had their astrometry absolutely calibrated using *Spitzer* data by matching up the centroids of point sources in common between the *Spitzer* and *SOFIA* data. Absolute astrometry of the final *SOFIA* images is assumed to be better than 1$\farcs$0.
In order to perform photometry on MIR point sources, we employed the aperture photometry program *aper.pro*, which is part of the IDL DAOPHOT package available in The IDL Astronomy User’s Library (http://idlastro.gsfc.nasa.gov).
Comparing *SOFIA* Images to Previous Imaging Observations {#sec:results1}
=========================================================
W51 was first detected as an region by @1958BAN....14..215W through its free-free radio continuum emission. Over a decade later it was identified as a molecular cloud from its CO emission [@1971ApJ...165..229P]. The 430 MHz observations of @1967AnAp...30...59K were the first to resolve W51 into four large ($\sim$10–20$\arcmin$) radio components, which were labeled A through D, with W51A being the brightest among them. @1970ApL.....5...99W, were the first to further resolve W51A into two components labeled G49.5-0.4 and G49.4-0.3. @1972MNRAS.157...31M observed W51A in centimeter continuum emission and further resolved G49.5-0.4 into eight regions named a through h, and G49.4-0.3 into three regions labeled a through c. About two decades later, @1994ApJS...91..713M identified G49.5-0.4i and G49.4-3d, e, and f from Very Large Array (VLA) centimeter observations. G49.5-0.4j was first defined by @2000ApJ...543..799O. Peaks and compact sources within or near these regions are indexed with numbers. Our *SOFIA* imaging data covers the entire W51A region, including both G49.5-0.4 and G49.4-0.3 (Figure \[fig:f1\]).
G49.5-0.4
---------
The strongest radio continuum emission regions in G49.5-0.4 are e and d. G49.5-0.4 was first mapped in the infrared by @1974ApJ...187..473W, where they identified two bright infrared components: IRS1, which was coincident with the radio source e; and IRS2, which was coincident with the radio source d. Both of these regions are well-studied and have garnered most of the observations trained on W51. We will discuss these two regions first before tackling the other regions of G49.5-0.4 below.
### The W51A IRS1 region (a.k.a. G49.5-0.4e)
*IRS1* — The e region of G49.5-0.4 encompasses the entire 1$\farcm$5 arc-shaped IRS1 infrared region and its surroundings east of the d complex. The IRS1 arc as seen in the mid-infrared is bisected by dark lanes (Figure \[fig:f2\]), first discussed by @1994ApJ...433..164G in their work with 2$\mu$m images of W51A. These dark lanes are centered at the locations shown with star symbols in Figure \[fig:f2\]. @1994ApJ...433..164G point out several lines of evidence including the fact that the radio continuum maps show no gaps at these infrared-dark locations to conclude that the dark lanes are cold and dense dust filaments seen in absorption against the bright emission of the e arc. The *SOFIA* data show that these features are suppressed in their infrared emission even out to 37$\mu$m. If this suppression is due to extinction from a dense, cold dust filament, it would be expected that, at a long enough wavelengths, one would see the continuum emission from the cold dust concentrated in these dark lanes. Interestingly, there is no indication of concentrated emission from these dark lanes in the *Herschel* 70 and 160$\mu$m data. In fact, the northernmost dark lane is clearly suppressed in emission out to 160$\mu$m. Perhaps more importantly, there are no indications of the northern two dark lanes having any enhanced emission in the 1.3mm ALMA continuum maps of @2017ApJ...842...92G. This may indicate that the gaps are not actually due to dense cold dust filaments, but may simply be areas with less dust, contrary to previous assessments.
The brightest radio continuum peak in the e arc is coincident with a peak seen at both 20 and 37$\mu$m, as well in all *Spitzer*-IRAC bands (except 8$\mu$m, which is saturated) which we label as IRS1/\#9. Interestingly, there does not seem to be a peak at this location in the *Herschel* data.
*The W51 e1/e2 cluster* — There is a heavily studied massive star proto-cluster in the area $\sim$30$\arcsec$ interior to (east of) the arc, with radio sources designated e1, e2, e3, e4, e8n, e8s, e9, and e10 (Figure \[fig:f3\]). This area is rich in maser emission, and is often given the moniker W51 MAIN (or just W51M) in maser studies of the region.
@1978MNRAS.183..435S first found the two UC regions in this area, and named them e1 and e2, due to their proximity to the main e feature. Later, @1993ApJ...417..645G discovered two more HC regions near e1 and e2 at 3.6cm, which were named e3 and e4. @1997ApJ...488..241Z discovered an additional source at 1.3cm that lies between e4 and e1, which they named e8. This was later split into two sources, e8n and e8s, which were found to also be separate HC regions [@2016AnAp...595A..27G]. Recently, @2016AnAp...595A..27G discovered two more HC regions designated e9 and e10. Furthermore, there are two hot molecular cores in this area, first seen as ammonia clumps by @1983ApJ...266..596H, one very close to e2, and the other coincident with e8 (Figure \[fig:f3\]). These hot cores have a rich line chemistry [@2017ApJ...842...92G] and are surrounded by multiple species of masers, which are the signposts of early massive star formation.
@2005ApJS..156..179D observed the W51 e region from the ground at arcsecond resolution at both 11.7$\mu$m and 20.8$\mu$m with the *IRTF*. At both wavelengths only a single point source was detected in the region near e1, but not coincident with it. The new observations made here with *SOFIA* at 20$\mu$m with better astrometric accuracy confirm that this mid-infrared emission is not coming from e1 (Figure \[fig:f3\]). Instead it appears that the mid-infrared point-source is coincident with a newly detected radio continuum source, e9 [@2016AnAp...595A..27G], seen at 6.5cm which is characterized as being a HC region.
Our image of the e9 source looks much different at 37$\mu$m. The morphology looks more like an arc, starting at the location of the 20$\mu$m point-source and stretching for $\sim$10$\arcsec$ to the east, wrapping around, but avoiding the radio sources e1 and e8. To see this emission in a little more detail, we deconvolved the 37$\mu$m data, which yielded an image with $\sim$2$\arcsec$ resolution (Figure \[fig:f3\]). We see from this image a “peanut” of emission with two peaks at 37$\mu$m, a fainter one coincident with the e9 source, and the brighter one peaking just to the east of the e4/e8 sources. There is also a finger of fainter emission extending north of the brightest 37$\mu$m peak, which reaches the location of e2.
While it seems clear from the deconvolved image that the peak at e9 seen at all wavelengths is clearly coming from the HC region at this location, there are a couple of possible interpretations of why we see the brightest peak at 37$\mu$m just east of the e4/e8 area. First is that the combined emission from the multiple UC and HC regions is simply escaping from an area of lower extinction, which is located east of the e4/e8 region. Evidence for this comes from the fact that the NH$_3$ (3,3) peak [@1983ApJ...266..596H], which is a dense gas tracer, peaks around the same location of the e4/e8 area, and the mm continuum emission appear to lie in a linear structure running more or less north-south just west of the ammonia peak and coincident with the “waist” of the peanut in 37$\mu$m emission (Figure \[fig:f3\]c). This all points to a possible gradient in density in this area, with the density falling off to the east from e4/e8.
A second possible scenario is that the brightest peak at 37$\mu$m, and the finger of emission that connects it to the e2 area, are due to a cavity carved out of the surrounding medium by the CO outflow from e2 [@2010ApJ...718L.181S; @2017ApJ...842...92G]. Mid-infrared emission is often seen coming from the outflow cavities carved out by the blue-shifted side of the outflows in heavily obscured MYSO regions [@2006ApJ...642L..57D; @2017ApJ...843...33D]. The CO outflow from the e2 area does indeed have a blue-shifted outflow lobe pointing to the southeast of e2 at a position angle of 145$^{\circ}$ (see cyan arrow in Figure \[fig:f3\]c).
Interestingly, @2016ApJ...825...54B claim that the *Spitzer* IRAC-GLIMPSE data detect infrared emission from both the e1 and e2 sources. Further scrutiny of the data show that the infrared peak mis-identified as coming from e1, is actually the same peak seen at other mid-infrared wavelengths presented here and coming from e9. The second source seen in the IRAC data is actually equidistant between e2 and e4, and not coming from e2 (see Figure \[fig:f3\]; blue stars). It does not correspond to any known point source seen at any other infrared wavelength, but does appear to come from within the confines of the extended 37$\mu$m emission. The source also does not appear in *2MASS* *J*, *H*, or *K* data of this region, meaning it is likely not a foreground source. This source is apparently below the detection limits of the mid-infrared facilities that previously observed this region, but has a steep enough SED that we are beginning to pick it up at 37$\mu$m with *SOFIA*.
*Other detections in the IRS1/e region* — Within the extended emission of the northern stretch of the e arc, there is a infrared point source that was detected at 20 and 37$\mu$m, which was first identified by @2016ApJ...825...54B as IRS1/\#1 (Figure \[fig:f4\]). Several other compact radio sources (e4, e5, and e11-e23) have been identified in other areas within and around the e arc (see Figure \[fig:f2\]). We detect compact or point-like sources in the mid-infrared at the locations of e7, e15, and e5 (also called IRS1/\#2 by @2016ApJ...825...54B; see Figure \[fig:f4\]) in the *SOFIA* data. While we do not resolve a point source at the location of the radio point source e11, there is an unlabeled, resolved, circular (r$\sim$3$\arcsec$) radio continuum source situated $\sim$4$\arcsec$ to the northeast of e11, where we do detect a diffuse infrared emission about the same extent at 20$\mu$m, however it appears as an arc-shaped structure at 37$\mu$m. We name this source IRS1/\#8 (Figure \[fig:f2\]). We do not resolve mid-infrared point sources at the locations of the cm radio continuum point sources labeled e12-e14 and e17-23, though there is extended mid-infrared emission throughout the areas where they are situated (Figure \[fig:f2\]). Faint infrared emission is also detected with *SOFIA* at the location of e6 only at 37$\mu$m, though it can be seen in the *Spitzer* 8$\mu$m data [@2016ApJ...825...54B]. Radio point source e16 was also detected in our mid-infrared data, but only at 37$\mu$m (Figure \[fig:f2\] and \[fig:f5\]).
We detect several sources not seen in radio continuum emission. There is a bright resolved source at both 20 and 37$\mu$m that was first detected at 2$\mu$m by @1994ApJ...433..164G and labeled IRS3 (Figure \[fig:f2\]). It is also seen at 11.7$\mu$m in the *IRTF* data from @2005ApJS..156..179D, at 8$\mu$m in the *Spitzer* IRAC data, and at 2$\mu$m in the *2MASS* data of the area. There are three point sources detected for the first time and only seen at 37$\mu$m in the vicinity of e15 (Figure \[fig:f2\]). Following the nomenclature of @2016ApJ...825...54B, we dub these sources IRS1/\#3 , IRS1/\#4, and IRS1/\#5. There are also two resolved regions of mid-infrared emission in the northern part of the e region where there is no significant radio continuum emission peaks, both of which are seen in the near-infrared with *2MASS*, and in the mid-infrared with *SOFIA* and *Spitzer*, which we will call IRS1/\#6 (see Figure \[fig:f4\]) and IRS1/\#7(see Figure \[fig:f2\]), respectively.
The radio point source e18 of @2016AnAp...595A..27G is actually a double separated by only $\sim$0$\farcs$5 and is coincident with the peak emission from a bar-shaped 37$\mu$m source on the bottom of the e arc, just west of the dark lane (Figure \[fig:f5\]). At 20$\mu$m, the peak in emission is shifted to the peak of a $\sim$5$\arcsec$ in diamter radio continuum clump located $\sim$3$\farcs$5 southeast of the e18 binary named e18d, which was identified by @2016AnAp...595A..27G as a region ( Figure \[fig:f5\]b). At 37$\mu$m the source is very bright, and it appears to get brighter with increasing wavelength; at 70$\mu$m the emission peaks at the same location as the 37$\mu$m peak and this source appears as the 5th brightest source in all of W51A (Figure \[fig:f5\]b). It is the 4th brightest source in all of W51A at 160$\mu$m after IRS2, IRS1 (peaked at IRS1/\#1), and the e1/e2 cluster region. We will call this infrared region IRS4, in keeping with the major IR emitting source nomenclature. IRS4 is the most-steeply rising sub-component from 20 to 37$\mu$m in this study which, along with the high FIR intensities, indicates the source is highly embedded and/or young. As we will see in a later section, the best fit SED model for this source yields a bolometric luminosity of 6.48$\times$10$^5\,L_{\sun}$, which is the single star equivalent spectral type of O4.5, but the SED can be fit with MYSO models with masses in the range of 24 to 96$M_{\sun}$. However, due presence of multiple cm radio continuum sources (e16, the e18 binary, e18d), this location is likely to be an embedded core or clump that is in the process of forming a young massive proto-cluster.
### The W51A IRS2 region (a.k.a. G49.5-0.4d) {#sec:irs2}
In both the radio continuum and infrared imaging data, IRS2 breaks up into several sub-components surrounded by a $\sim$15$\arcsec\times$15$\arcsec$ cloud of emission at high spatial resolution. This extended emission was first found to be peanut-shaped in the 2$\mu$m images of @1994ApJ...433..164G, and they named the two peaks IRS2E and IRS2W. They also argued that the IRS2 region is a small cluster of ongoing star formation, identifying at least a dozen near-infrared sources. This area is also rich in masers (which are typically signposts of massive star formation), and maser studies typically refer to this region as W51A NORTH [@1981ApJ...249..124S].
High spatial resolution mid-infrared imaging by @2001ApJ...553..254O and @2016ApJ...825...54B show that the IRS2W component is an extended region of emission with no discernible point sources. This source is coincident with the brightest cm radio continuum feature, a cometary UC region, with similar appearance in the radio [i.e. @1989ApJS...69..831W; @1993ApJ...417..645G] and mid-infrared. On the other hand, the IRS2E component is found to contain a cluster of four point-source components with $\sim$1$\arcsec$ separations. Our *SOFIA* 20$\mu$m image of the area is shown in Figure \[fig:f4\]. We deconvolved the image to try to resolve out as many components in the IRS2 region as we possible, though at the limits of our deconvolution we still cannot resolve the individual components within the IRS2E cluster.
In the outskirts of the extended IRS 2 region there are several point-sources nested within the diffuse halo of infrared emission. Several of these sources have radio counterparts [as seen by @2016AnAp...595A..27G], some have been identified before in infrared observations, and others we will identify here for the first time. Radio sources d4e&w, d6, and d7 all have infrared counterparts seen with *SOFIA* (Figure \[fig:f4\]). @2016ApJ...825...54B previously have identified the infrared emission from d7 (which they call IRS 2/\#3) and this was also seen in the mid-infrared images of @2001ApJ...561..282K and named KJD 9. It can be seen in the *Spitzer* IRAC 8$\mu$m GLIMPSE image as well. Sources d4e&w and d6 do not seem to have counterparts in the *Spitzer* 8$\mu$m image, however d6 was detected in the mid-infrared by @2001ApJ...561..282K and named KJD 11.
@2016AnAp...595A..27G identify a diffuse radio source that they label d3, however this is the previously identified radio source b2 [@1994ApJS...91..713M]. The b2 source does have a mid-infrared counterpart, but we will discuss it in a later section.
In addition to IRS 2/\#3 (KJD 9), @2016ApJ...825...54B also identify three more point-like infrared sources which they label IRS2/\#1, IRS2/\#2, and IRS2/\#4 on the eastern outskirts of IRS2. These were also seen by @2001ApJ...561..282K and labeled KJD 7, KJD 8, and KJD 10, respectively. We see all four of these sources in the *SOFIA* 20 and 37$\mu$m images (see Figures \[fig:f2\] and \[fig:f4\]). IRS2/\#4 can also be seen as a point-source in the radio continuum images of @2016AnAp...595A..27G, though it was not labeled.
We also detect five more infrared sources as of yet not identified in the IRS2/d region. Continuing the nomenclature of @2016ApJ...825...54B we will call these IRS2/\#6–\#10. IRS2/\#7 appears to not be a point source, with a slight extension from SE to NW (Figure \[fig:f2\]). IRS2/\#6 appears in the *Spitzer* 8$\mu$m image, is weakly detected in the *SOFIA* 20$\mu$m image, and is not present in the 37$\mu$m *SOFIA* image (Figure \[fig:f2\]).
We do not detect a source in the *SOFIA* data at the location of KDJ 6. Though @2001ApJ...561..282K claims a source is present at this location, there is no information on the flux density or, more importantly, the significance of the detection in their paper. The source is not present in the shorter *Spitzer*-IRAC bands, and the 5.8 and 8.0$\mu$m data are not helpful because the presumed source location resides in a region of the image that is saturated.
### The G49.5-0.4b region
The extended source b appears as a cometary region or arc in the cm radio continuum images of @1994ApJS...91..713M, who also finds there is a velocity gradient from the SW to the NE as seen in H92$\alpha$. Apart from this, little else is known about this region. In the infrared, the source is bisected by a dark lane that is clearly visible in the *Spitzer* IRAC data and all the way out to 37$\mu$m (Figure \[fig:f6\]). The dark lane appears to be almost perpendicular to the velocity gradient seen in the radio line emission. There is a sub-mm core here, as seen in the Herschel 160$\mu$m data and in the 450$\mu$m data of @2006MNRAS.368.1223H, with a peak close to the location of the dark lane. This may be the case of a outflowing source (or sources) buried within the dark lane, however the morphology of the radio continuum does not resemble a (partially) ionized jet or wind. The mid-infrared appearance is knotty (Figure \[fig:f6\]). However, our source-finding algorithm found peaks at slightly different locations for sources in the 20 and 37$\mu$m data. This indicates that these are not likely to be individual centrally-heated sources. These sources are likely externally heated knots of dust, or optically-thin holes in the dust clump surrounding the central protostar(s) (as traced by the sub-mm and radio peak) where MIR emission is escaping. As we will discuss in Section 4, this region appears to be the least evolved (i.e. youngest) region in all of W51A, and therefore it may yet be too embedded for us to detect the YSOs within it even at wavelengths as long as 37$\mu$m.
### The G49.5-0.4j region
The j radio region appears as an elliptical shell in radio continuum maps [e.g. @1994ApJS...91..713M]. In the infrared, the dust emission is fully contained within this shell tracing the ring-like structure (Figure \[fig:f7\]). The 8$\mu$m *Spitzer* image also shows a bright point source at the center of this shell. It is faint but detected in the *SOFIA* 20$\mu$m images (but not at 37$\mu$m), and is very prominent at shorter wavelengths like the near-infrared.
@2000ApJ...543..799O was the first to suggest the ring structure to be a wind-blown bubble driven by the star seen at its center in the near-infrared, claiming that it is a “P Cygni-type supergiant”. This is a class of Luminous Blue Variable (LBV) star, which is thought to be a short-lived (10$^4$-10$^5$ yr) stage of massive stellar evolution between the main sequence O phase and the Wolf-Rayet (WR) phase [@1996ApJ...470..597M]. This short-lived phase is a time of great instability, leading to high mass loss resulting and the shedding of material that eventually forms circumstellar shells which can be seen readily in the infrared [@2010AJ....139.2330W]. Given the observations of and the latest derivation of the distance to W51 of 5.4 kpc from @2010ApJ...720.1055S, it can be concluded that this LBV candidate, dubbed \[OMN2000\] LS1 (hereafter LS1), has a luminosity of $\sim$5$\times$10$^5$ L$_{\odot}$.
Given their fleeting nature, LBVs are rare and only a couple dozen verified LBVs have been found in our Galaxy, with about another 50 candidates awaiting confirmation [@2017MNRAS.466..213A]. Though naively one might think that an evolved star such should not be found in a region of active star formation, this is one of several known LBVs coincident with massive star-forming complexes (e.g. Orion, G305, W43, Westerlund 1, and the Galactic Center), which represents a significant portion of the known population of LBVs. This means that these presently active star-forming regions have had a long history of sustained star formation, and claim that the data on LS1 point to an age of 3-6 Myr for the oldest observed epoch of star formation in W51A.
### The other G49.5-0.4 regions
There is very little study of the remaining G49.5-0.4 regions, which we will discuss all together in this section.
*a* — This region is an extended, round region of radio continuum emission with a diameter of about 20$\arcsec$, with a brighter area of emission on the northern side [@1994ApJS...91..713M]. In the infrared, this source takes on a different morphology at almost every wavelength (Figure \[fig:f8\]). At 20$\mu$m it appears to be a ‘hamburger’ with a brighter top than bottom, with a darker lane bisecting it through the middle. At 37$\mu$m it looks similar, but with more extended structures than at 20$\mu$m. As with the radio cm continuum images, both SOFIA wavelengths show no embedded point sources or peaks that resemble point-like sources. At 8$\mu$m, the dust emission is more clumpy and wispy. Comparing the 8$\mu$m emission to the 6cm radio continuum emission shows the peaks to be anti-correlated (see color image in Figure \[fig:f8\]), and therefore the radio maybe tracing the more extinguished regions and the 8$\mu$m may be clumpy and wispy in appearance because to is escaping through holes that are less optically thick. Both the *Spitzer*8$\mu$m and SOFIA 37$\mu$m images show an arc or bubble to the south. This arc is also seen in the *Spitzer*-MIPS 24$\mu$m image, but not in our SOFIA 20$\mu$m image, so is likely fainter than our detection limit at that wavelength.
*b1 and b3* — Radio source b1 appears as a large, circularly-symmetric source in the low resolution radio images of the region [@1994ApJS...91..713M]. In the *Spitzer* 8$\mu$m image (Figure \[fig:f8\]), it consists of a sub-component surrounded to the north and west by a narrow arc structure ($\sim$20$\arcsec$ in diameter). In the *SOFIA* data, the 20$\mu$m image shows a slightly extended source with a peak at the location of the 8$\mu$m compact source peak. There is very little emission at 20$\mu$m from the arc. At 37$\mu$m, emission tracing the arc seen at 8$\mu$m is detected, with emission also filling in the arc interior, looking more like a cometary UC region perhaps caused by a bow shock, with a broad peak near the sub-component location.
Source b3 looks like a slightly extended emission region on the northeast border of the b1 arc at 37$\mu$m, and has a similar appearance in the *Spitzer* 8$\mu$m, and *SOFIA* 20 and 37$\mu$m images (Figure \[fig:f8\]). The peak at all three wavelengths is coincident with the radio peak. Like b1, this source has a bow-shock appearance.
Interestingly, the brightest 70$\mu$m emission is located in between b1 and b3 (see the color image for this source in Figure \[fig:f8\]).
*b2* — Radio source b2 is a symmetric and compact source in *SOFIA* 20 and 37$\mu$m images (Figure \[fig:f2\]), but has a peak offset to the west in the *Spitzer* 8$\mu$m image.
We also detect one more sub-component in the *SOFIA* images near b2 which does not have a radio continuum component. G49.5-0.4b2/\#1 (see Figure \[fig:f2\]) is located $\sim$20$\arcsec$ southwest of b2, which appears as a unresolved point-source at 20$\mu$m, but is resolved and slightly extended at 37$\mu$m (and in the *Spitzer* 8$\mu$m image).
*c1 and c* — The naming convention for the radio emission in W51A has been to name the large regions of emission with letters, while individual peaks and sub-components within or near these regions are indexed with numbers. It is puzzling that there does not appear to be an extended radio region labeled c, but only the individual source peak c1 has been identified. Though there is a large and diffuse radio continuum region surrounding c1 and extending east towards the b region, it has never been labeled in radio studies, and is simply referred to as “the arc-like area between regions b and c1” by [@1994ApJS...91..713M]. The peak of c1, lies in an arc-shaped structure in the southeastern edge of a larger (r$\sim$40$\arcsec$), diffuse region of extended mid-infrared and radio continuum emission (Figure \[fig:f2\]). This region appears to be separated from c1 and b by gaps in radio continuum emission, however the 20 and 37$\mu$m maps look very different, with diffuse infrared emission from this region forming a continuous region of dust emission all the way east to c1. In keeping with previous nomenclature we will refer to this entire extended radio and infrared continuum region as region c.
@2008AJ....136..221F identified two revealed O9 stars (sources \#62 and \#64 in their list) near the peak of radio source c1. The radio continuum source identified as e15 by @2016AnAp...595A..27G and the three newly discovered MIR sources (IRS1/\#3 , IRS1/\#4, and IRS1/\#5) all lie in the northern edge of the extended c region (Figure \[fig:f2\]).
*f and g* — Observations in the near-infrared by @2000ApJ...543..799O find 5 revealed O stars and 23 early B stars in the combined f and g regions. @1997ApJS..108..489K used HI absorption studies to determine that f and g are located either near the front or northern the edge of the molecular cloud containing W51A, while components a, b, and e are likely to be embedded in or behind it.
With *SOFIA* we see the same morphology and extent as what is seen in the low spatial resolution radio continuum images of this region (see color image for this source in Figure \[fig:f8\]). *Spitzer* images at 3–8$\mu$m show extended emission from the e region continuing north and surrounding the f and g radio regions to the south, east, and west. While there seems to be some emission and near-infrared point sources near the peak of radio source g, near-infrared emission is conspicuously absent from the areas of most of the extended radio and mid-infrared continuum emission of the f and g region. This suggests that this region is being carved out by the O stars present here, heating and ionizing the areas we see in the *SOFIA* mid-infrared and radio continuum images, consistent with the hypothesis by @1997ApJS..108..489K that the f and g region is likely in front of the W51A molecular cloud.
@2005MNRAS.363..405H find a 1.2mm dust clump coincident with the peak of the g source, and estimate it has 180 M$_{\odot}$ of dust. We detect a sub-component $\sim$1$\arcmin$ southwest of the center of radio source f in the *SOFIA* data at both 20 and 37$\mu$m (Figure \[fig:f8\]), which we label as f/\#1. There are some peaks at 20$\mu$m not present at 37$\mu$m, and vice-versa, with in the extended MIR emission of f and g, but no discernable embedded or point-like sources.
*h* — This region was found to contain class II methanol masers , which are a tracer of the earliest stages of massive star formation. In the near-infrared, @2000ApJ...543..799O find dozens of revealed B stars around the h radio region, with an evolved O5 star near its center. This star can be seen in the *Spitzer* images of the region (Figure \[fig:f7\]). It is bordered to the southeast by two concentric arcs, the nearest bright at both 20 and 37$\mu$m, but the outer arc is only bright at wavelengths 37$\mu$m and longer. Encircling the O5 star and the two arcs is an outer bright-rimmed bubble that can be most easily seen in the 70$\mu$m Herschel image, which is filled in by radio continuum emission (Figure \[fig:f7\]b). The radio continuum peak is close to the 20 and 37$\mu$m peak, indicating that the whole h region may be ionized and heated by the O5 star located near there. This is unlike the region j, which abuts the rim of h to the west, which is devoid of emission inside its wind-blown shell at infrared and cm radio wavelengths. @2000ApJ...543..799O state that the h and j region has the lowest extinction in the whole of G49.5-0.4, which is likely due to the evolved state of these two regions.
*i* — One O9 star and one B1 star is seen in the near-infrared in this region by @2000ApJ...543..799O The region appears to be a multi-peaked, extended region with a radius of $\sim$14$\arcsec$ in the *Spitzer* 8$\mu$m image (Figure \[fig:f8\]). Interestingly, the 20$\mu$m SOFIA image shows a much less extended emission with a peak coincident with the southwestern peak seen at 8$\mu$m. The color image for this source in Figure \[fig:f8\] shows that the combined emission across all mid-infrared wavelengths is fan-shaped, with the 20$\mu$m emission being most compact, the 37$\mu$m emission extending out to the north and west beyond that, with the 8$\mu$m emission extending yet farther beyond both the 20 and 37$\mu$m emission to the north and west. Given the morphology as a function of wavelength in the infrared could be a “blister”-type where the source lies on the edge of a dense region and the emission is breaking out on one side (where the density is lowest).
### Mid-infrared “dark” areas of G49.5-0.4
In addition to the infrared-dark lanes discussed above in the previous sections, the *Herschel* 160$\mu$m image show that the infrared-dark area south of b2, west of d and e, north of c, and east of b and a is “filled in” by 160$\mu$m dust emission. This signifies that this area is infrared-dark due to the presence of wide-spread cold dust (Figure \[fig:f9\]).
The 160$\mu$m emission is strongest around the d and e1/e2 regions and mimics the shape seen by *SOFIA* of those regions to first order. However, the brightest 160$\mu$m emission actually wraps around and “avoids” the hot infrared emission seen by *SOFIA* of the b and c sources. Further to the north, the outskirts of the 160$\mu$m emission also look like they wrap around and avoid source g and f. This appears to indicate that the much of the appearance of G49.5-0.4 in the mid-infrared is dominated by us only seeing emission on the surfaces of the sub-cloud structure and/or leaking out through less dense areas devoid of large dust grains carved out by ionization fronts and outflows within this region of the W51A molecular cloud.
G49.4-0.3
---------
There is very little study of this region, even though it is only $\sim$2$\farcm$5 west of the well-studied G49.5-0.4 region. Though @1972MNRAS.157...31M was the first to resolve the radio continuum emission of G49.4-0.3 into three regions (labeled a through c), it was the observations of @1994ApJS...91..713M that resolve and identified further radio continuum sources (labeled d through f). Source b was identified as the brightest radio continuum component, and it is also the brightest far-infrared [@1986ApJ...300..737H] source. Since most of the studies of this region have focused on the areas around source b, we will discuss this source first before discussing the remaining sources.
### The G49.4-0.3b region
@1986ApJ...300..737H resolved this region into two components in the far-infrared with the *Kuiper Airborne Observatory*. The brightest peak in the far-infrared is near the cm radio continuum peak b. But there is a secondary peak $\sim$1$\arcmin$ to the northeast in the far-infrared which they named b-east (Figure \[fig:f10\]). This peak is seen in the 20cm images of @1994ApJS...91..713M, but was not labeled. At all wavelengths from the near-infrared to the radio there is a dark gap or decrease in emission running NW to SE and separating the southwestern part of source b from b-east, and is therefore likely due to a decrease or absence of gas and dust at that location.
Source b has a peak in the cm radio continuum that is close to, but not exactly coincident with, the far-infrared peak seen at 70$\mu$m ($\sim$5$\arcsec$ offset). Both components appear to reside in a infrared-dark area (as seen in *Spitzer* IRAC and *SOFIA* data) that bisects the b source and runs NE to SW (Figure \[fig:f10\]). The 160$\mu$m *Herschel* peak seems to be exactly centered and the same shape as the “lane” in the near- and mid-infrared emission. Given the fact that this infrared-dark area has radio continuum emission and water maser emission , and is surrounded by YSOs [@2017ApJ...839..108S], it is likely the site of very embedded massive star formation that is infrared-dark at wavelengths $<$40$\mu$m due to very high extinction. Most of the peaks within this region shift as a function of wavelength in the MIR, indicating they are externally heated knots or holes in the otherwise optically thick emission in the region where MIR light is escaping. However we find two sources where the peaks does not change with wavelength, and are therefore likely to be MYSO candidates, which we label b/[\#]{}3 and b/[\#]{}4 (Figure \[fig:f10\]).
Source b-east is a much more diffuse area of mid-infrared emission, but it does appear to have one embedded point source which we name b/\#1 (Figure \[fig:f10\]). It is likely a MYSO, since it is apparent in the *Spitzer* IRAC data, is seen at both 20 and 37$\mu$m, and is coincident with a radio continuum peak at 1.5cm [@2016AnAp...595A..27G].
We have found in the *SOFIA* data a resolved but compact source detected at 10$\arcsec$ east of the extended b-east region, that is also seen in *Spitzer* 8$\mu$m that we have named b/\#2 (Figure \[fig:f10\]). This source is also a very bright object in the *Herschel* 70 and 160$\mu$m images of this region, but has no associated cm radio continuum emission. Given its high flux in the mid- and far-infrared and lack of radio continuum emission, we believe that it is likely an MYSO in a very young evolutionary state prior to the onset of a UC region (as we will see in a later section, this source does indeed appear to be a MYSO from SED model fitting). We also see another isolated source $\sim$15$\arcsec$ southeast of b/\#2, which also has a radio component which we label b/\#5.
### The G49.4-0.3a, c, d, e and f regions
These four sources encircle the main intensity peak near source b and all have cometary or shell-like structure in the radio and in the infrared (Figures \[fig:f1\] and \[fig:f11\]). It appears from the morphologies of the sources in the *Spitzer* NIR data alone that these sources (and indeed most of this region’s structure) are due to wind-blown bubbles and/or are bright-rimmed clouds. The outer layer of the shells is generally demarcated by the dust emission as seen in the *Spitzer* IRAC and *SOFIA* images, and generally the interiors of the shells/arcs are filled with cm radio continuum emission.
*a* — This source has an interesting double arc structure, with the 8$\mu$m emission, 37$\mu$m emission, and cm radio continuum tracing both arcs. Interestingly, the *SOFIA*20$\mu$m emission dominantly traces the interior arc. The peak fluxes of the inner and outer arcs differ only by $\sim$20% in 8$\mu$m and 37$\mu$m, while at 20$\mu$m there is almost an order of magnitude differences in flux at the same positions. As we will discuss later in §\[sec:cps\], we can use a color-color diagram to determine if a source has flux in the IRAC bands that is dominated by PAH emission. Using that method we have found that this source falls well within the definition of PAH-dominated. Therefore, a plausible explanation for the behavior of the flux of this source as a function of wavelength is that the continuum emission of the outer arc may be low at wavelengths $\leq$20$\mu$m, and that the IRAC 8$\mu$m flux is high because of strong PAH emission.
It appears that there is a cluster of YSOs identified by @2017ApJ...839..108S located interior to (or east of) this double arc (Figure \[fig:f11\]), which we assume is most likely responsible for the shaping, heating, and ionizing source a. The four massive YSO candidates from @2017ApJ...839..108S are shown in Figure \[fig:f11\], though we only detect sources in the SOFIA data at the locations of the sources labeled SHA173 and SHA174. (We will show in the section on SED model fitting that these sources are unlikely to be MYSOs).
*c* — This source also has a double rimmed structure, with the eastern arc traced by *Spitzer* 8$\mu$m emission, and the western arc traced by the *SOFIA* 20 and 37$\mu$m emission (Figure \[fig:f11\]). The cm radio continuum emission fills in the area interior to the eastern arc, with a peak near the inner, western arc. Interestingly, @2017ApJ...839..108S finds a cluster of $\sim$15 YSOs to the east and south of source c. Feedback from these YSOs may be responsible for shaping the arc-shaped dust structure seen here in the MIR, however there is no evidence of any truly energetic YSOs in the cluster given that none of the cluster members display radio continuum emission, and the region appears to be devoid of continuum sources from the near-infrared out to 160$\mu$m (i.e. no indication of massive and/or young and active cluster members).
*d* — This source has a ring-shape with a radius of $\sim$1$\arcmin$, which is brightest to the southeast and faintest to the northwest. This southeastern rim appears as a bright arc in the *Spitzer* NIR data and *Herschel* far-IR data (see the large arc of 70$\mu$m emission to the west of source e in Figure \[fig:f1\]), but we barely detect it at 37$\mu$m and do not see any evidence of it at 20$\mu$m.
*e* — This source is a very tiny bright-rimmed source located on the eastern rim of source d (Figure \[fig:f10\]). This rim can be seen in the *Spitzer* NIR and *SOFIA* 37$\mu$m data, and the center is filled by unresolved radio continuum emission at cm. Only the brighter eastern part of the shell is detected at 20$\mu$m. There is what appears to be a point source in the mid-infrared, just to the southwest of e. We name this source e/\#1 (Figure \[fig:f10\]). There is no cm radio emission detected from this source.
*f* — This source is a smaller ring-shaped region (r$\sim$25$\arcsec$), with the outer rim radiating brightly in the *Spitzer* NIR images as well as the *SOFIA* 37$\mu$m image (Figure \[fig:f11\]). Interior to this is a ring seen in radio continuum emission as well as 20$\mu$m, so is likely an ionized bubble (i.e., Stromgren sphere). At all wavelengths the ring is brightest to the west, giving it a cometary UC appearance.
Data Analysis {#sec:data}
=============
Physical Properties of Sub-Components and Point Sources: SED Model Fitting and Determining MYSO Candidates {#sec:cps}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to identify what sources may be MYSOs within our W51A field, we compile the list of subcomponents and point-sources already identified and discussed in Section 3. We add to this list two sources in G49.4-0.3 (a/\#1 and b/\#6) and three in G49.5-0.4 (i/\#1, IRS1/\#10, and IRS1/\#11), which are sources detected in the field covered by *SOFIA* but outside the main areas of infrared emission discussed in Section 3. Table\[tb:cps1\] contains the information regarding the position, radius employed for aperture photometry, and 20 and 37$\mu$m flux densities (before and after background subtraction) of all these sources.
[rrrrrrrrrr]{} & & & & & & & & &\
a/[\#]{}1 & 19 22 59.2 &+14 29 39.7 & 3.84 & 1.90 & 1.46 & 4.61 & 5.39 & 7.20 &\
b/[\#]{}1 & 19 23 15.1 &+14 27 39.0 & 4.61 & 7.02 & 1.60 & 4.61 & 43.6 & 11.4 &\
b/[\#]{}2 & 19 23 18.7 &+14 27 03.7 & 9.98 & 11.6 & 6.33 & 9.98 & 61.5 & 57.4 &\
b/[\#]{}3 & 19 23 12.3 &+14 26 57.4 & 9.98 & 24.7 & 6.51 & 9.98 & 180 & 116 &\
b/[\#]{}4 & 19 23 10.7 &+14 26 30.0 & 6.14 & 24.5 & 21.8 & 6.14 & 187 & 111 &\
b/[\#]{}5 & 19 23 20.5 &+14 26 42.4 & 9.22 & 9.13 & 3.07 & 15.4 & 43.6 & 35.1 &\
b/[\#]{}6 & 19 23 32.1 &+14 26 55.4 & 4.61 & 2.96 & 0.67 & 6.91 & 17.2 & 9.19 &\
e/[\#]{}1 & 19 23 08.7 &+14 25 56.1 & 6.14 & 3.10 & 1.63 & 6.14 & 33.6 & 36.2 &\
SHA17 3 & 19 23 02.2 &+14 28 24.6 & 3.84 & 0.77 & 0.75 & 6.91 & 10.7 & 4.50 &\
SHA17 4 & 19 23 04.8 &+14 28 43.3 & 3.84 & 1.83 & 0.53 & 5.38 & 5.32 & 0.88 &\
[**G49.5-0.4**]{} & & & & & & & & &\
b1 & 19 23 34.5 &+14 32 05.5 & 18.4 & 41.1 & 25.7 & 25.3 & 258 & 156 &\
b2 & 19 23 35.8 &+14 31 27.8 & 7.68 & 24.7 & 20.5 & 9.98 & 105 & 76.5 &\
b2/[\#]{}1 & 19 23 34.9 &+14 31 11.9 & 6.91 & 3.69 & 1.65 & 7.68 & 14.6 & 10.9 & SHA172\
b3 & 19 23 36.7 &+14 32 23.4 & 12.3 & 15.4 & 6.29 & 10.8 & 59.3 & 33.5 &\
d4e+d4w & 19 23 39.7 &+14 31 29.4 & 4.61 & 7.50 & 3.49 & 4.61 & $<$55.9 & &\
d6 & 19 23 41.2 &+14 31 11.1 & 3.07 & 8.58 & 5.36 & 3.84 & 137 & 74.5 & KJD11\
e7 & 19 23 44.8 &+14 29 10.3 & 6.91 & 31.7 & 21.8 & 9.98 & 124 & 84.5 &\
e9 & 19 23 43.6 &+14 30 26.7 & 4.61 & 16.8 & 6.65 & 10.8 & 1300 & 614 &\
e15 & 19 23 38.6 &+14 30 04.9 & 4.61 & 9.19 & 6.06 & 4.61 & 43.2 & 22.6 &\
f/[\#]{}1 & 19 23 44.8 &+14 32 35.0 & 5.38 & 1.09 & 2.01 & 6.91 & 11.0 & 10.1 &\
i & 19 23 39.2 &+14 35 26.8 & 13.8 & 46.6 & 23.0 & 19.2 & 155 & 138 &\
i/[\#]{}1 & 19 23 37.6 &+14 33 59.1 & 6.14 & 1.07 & 1.48 & 15.4 & 0.49 & 18.3 &\
IRS1/[\#]{}1 & 19 23 41.7 &+14 30 51.9 & 3.84 & 78.7 & 54.6 & 4.61 & 613 & 499 &\
IRS1/[\#]{}2 & 19 23 41.9 &+14 30 56.2 & 3.07 & 16.3 & 12.8 & 4.61 & 403 & 275 & e5\
IRS1/[\#]{}3 & 19 23 37.9 &+14 29 59.4 & 3.84 & $<$0.14 & & 3.84 & 21.3 & 10.1 &\
IRS1/[\#]{}4 & 19 23 37.6 &+14 30 21.1 & 3.84 & $<$0.14 & & 3.84 & 5.08 & 3.62 &\
IRS1/[\#]{}5 & 19 23 37.3 &+14 30 10.8 & 3.84 & $<$0.14 & & 3.84 & 2.09 & 0.83 &\
IRS1/[\#]{}6 & 19 23 41.0 &+14 30 43.6 & 3.84 & 18.1 & 9.17 & 3.84 & 121 & 49.1 &\
IRS1/[\#]{}7 & 19 23 45.2 &+14 31 14.2 & 8.45 & 21.1 & 9.12 & 8.45 & 144 & 35.7 & $\sim$20$\arcsec\times$14$\arcsec$\
IRS1/[\#]{}8 & 19 23 45.9 &+14 30 30.3 & 6.91 & 21.6 & 11.8 & 9.98 & 195 & 135 & e11d, bubble\
IRS1/[\#]{}9 & 19 23 41.8 &+14 30 35.6 & 5.38 & 308 & 234 & 5.38 & 1030 & 574 &\
IRS1/[\#]{}10 & 19 23 44.5 &+14 31 28.1 & 9.98 & 23.8 & 6.11 & 10.8 & 204 & 38.0 &\
IRS1/[\#]{}11 & 19 23 54.0 &+14 28 25.1 & 3.07 & 1.50 & 0.36 & 3.84 & 0.71 & 3.60 &\
IRS2/[\#]{}1 & 19 23 40.5 &+14 31 05.0 & 3.07 & 120 & 90.6 & 3.84 & 1280 & 1060 & KJD7\
IRS2/[\#]{}2 & 19 23 40.6 &+14 30 59.9 & 3.07 & 22.5 & 13.9 & 3.84 & 394 & 298 & KJD8\
IRS2/[\#]{}3 & 19 23 40.9 &+14 31 06.0 & 3.07 & 24.8 & 13.8 & 3.84 & 260 & 146 & d7, KJD9\
IRS2/[\#]{}4 & 19 23 41.0 &+14 31 03.0 & 3.07 & 15.1 & 10.3 & 3.84 & 185 & 89.3 & KJD10\
IRS2/[\#]{}5 & 19 23 40.3 &+14 31 10.7 & 3.07 & 141 & 125 & 3.84 & 1340 & 1080 &\
IRS2/[\#]{}6 & 19 23 38.3 &+14 31 11.5 & 3.07 & 2.31 & 0.31 & 3.84 & $<$20.4 & & SHA1717\
IRS2/[\#]{}7 & 19 23 37.8 &+14 31 20.1 & 4.61 & 3.96 & 2.54 & 4.61 & 29.1 & 16.2 &\
IRS2/[\#]{}8 & 19 23 37.3 &+14 31 16.5 & 3.07 & 1.79 & 1.04 & 3.07 & 7.61 & 2.12 &\
IRS2/[\#]{}9 & 19 23 36.7 &+14 31 15.9 & 4.61 & 5.44 & 4.45 & 4.61 & 17.2 & 9.48 &\
IRS2/[\#]{}10 & 19 23 40.5 &+14 31 16.9 & 3.84 & 21.2 & 13.6 & 3.84 & 235 & 151 &\
IRS2E & 19 23 40.2 &+14 31 05.9 & 3.84 & 817 & 806 & 4.61 & 4350 & 4220 &\
IRS2W & 19 23 39.9 &+14 31 06.6 & 3.84 & 824 & 811 & 4.61 & 3880 & 3800 &\
IRS3 & 19 23 43.2 &+14 30 50.2 & 3.84 & 52.5 & 14.7 & 4.61 & 322 & 59.5 &\
IRS4 & 19 23 46.3 &+14 29 43.3 & 6.91 & 48.5 & 35.4 & 9.22 & 551 & 454 & e16,e18,e18d\
LS1 & 19 23 47.8 &+14 36 38.4 & 3.84 & 0.14 & 0.15 & 3.84 & $<$0.33 & & LBV candidate\
\[tb:cps1\]
In addition to using the photometry from the SOFIA data, we performed multi-band aperture photometry on the *Spitzer* IRAC 3.6, 4.5, 5.8, 8.0$\mu$m and *Herschel* PACS 70 and 160$\mu$m image data for W51A to create the NIR to FIR spectral energy distributions (SEDs) of the identified sub-components and point sources ( see Appendix \[appendix\] for *Spitzer* and *Herschel* photometry). Since the *Spitzer* IRAC images at all four wavelengths are completely saturated at the location of IRS2E and partially saturated at IRS2W, for these two sources we added to our SED data Two Micron All Sky Survey [2MASS @2006AJ....131.1163S] $K_{\rm s}$ band ($\lambda$=2.159$\mu$m) measured photometry values (using a 4$\farcs$0 aperture size). While the $K_{\rm s}$ band is not ideal in general for these fits because of the potential of contamination due to scattered emission and bright line emission, particularly from H$_2$ and CO ($\nu$=2–0) transitions, having an unsaturated data point at wavelengths shorter than those from *SOFIA* will at least provide some constraint to the SED fits at NIR wavelengths for IRS2E and IRS2W.
The infrared positions and aperture sizes that were used for photometry of the sub-components and point sources were determined using the FORCAST 20 and 37$\mu$m images and employing an optimal extraction method [@1998MNRAS.296..339N] that measures the radial intensity profile of each sub-component and determines the radial angular distance at which the intensity profile starts to be flat. For each source, we chose the angular distance between the center of the source and the ‘turn over’ point as the radius of the aperture. We then determined the background value from an annulus outside the aperture radius that shows relatively flat profile and is as close as possible to the inner aperture. However, in order to minimize contamination from extended emission and/or nearby sources, the location and sizes of the chosen background annuli differ for each source.
While the flux error in the flux calibration factor (Jy/ADU) of the FORCAST data is quite small ($<$15%), the backgrounds around sources can be quite large and variable (i.e. not flat under the source), the fluxes obtained through background subtraction can carry a larger uncertainty. Since the upper limit uncertainty on the flux cannot be significantly larger than the background amount we subtracted, we set the upper error bar as the background flux value. The lower error bar values for all sources come from the average total photometric error at each wavelength (as discussed in Section 2) which are set to be the estimated photometric errors of 20, 15 and 10% for 4.5, 20 and 37$\mu$m bands, respectively. In the few cases where the background around a source is negative (see discussion of data issues in §\[sec:obs\]), the errors in photometry are handled in the opposite manner as above, i.e. the background value is used as the lower error bar, and the average total photometric error is used as the upper error bar.
One problem with using *Spitzer* IRAC data for MYSO SED model fitting is that the 3.6, 5.8 and 8$\mu$m fluxes can be contaminated by PAH emission [@2001ApJ...548L..73H; @2007ApJ...657..810D], and the 4.5$\mu$m fluxes can be contaminated by shock-excited H$_2$ emission [@2006AJ....131.1479R]. Figure\[fig:ccd\] shows a simple color-color diagram (\[3.6\]-\[4.5\] vs. \[4.5\]-\[5.8\]) method which can be used to determine if sources are highly contaminated by shock emission and/or PAH emission [@2009ApJS..184...18G] based on analytic estimation of the emission line contribution to the *Spitzer*-IRAC bands [@2006AJ....131.1479R]. This analysis used the measured background subtracted IRAC band fluxes for each source (see Table\[tb:cps2\]), so that we could determine which *Spitzer* IRAC data would be the least contaminated in order to create accurate SEDs for our sources.
We found that, out of the 43 sub-components and point sources plotted in Figure\[fig:ccd\], only one source, IRS1/[\#]{}3, can be categorized as a “shock emission dominant” source. Note that IRS1/[\#]{}3 shares a location with OH masers [@2000ApJS..129..159A], which are shock-excited, supporting the idea that IRS1/[\#]{}3 is a massive YSO generating shocks. Therefore, in our SED for IRS1/[\#]{}3 we set IRAC 4.5$\mu$m data point as and upper limits due to shock emission. We also set IRAC 3.6, 5.8 and 8$\mu$m data points as upper limits since we do not know how the PAH emission affects shock emission dominant sources [@2008AJ....136.2391C]. We further find that the vast majority of our sources plotted in Figure\[fig:ccd\], 33 out of the 43, can be identified as “PAH emission dominant” sources, so we set the IRAC 3.6, 5.8 and 8$\mu$m fluxes in the SEDs of these sources as upper limits. Hence, only the IRAC flux values trusted in the SED fits for these sources is the uncontaminated 4.5$\mu$m values. There are 9 sources in Figure\[fig:ccd\] that appear to not be contaminated by shock and/or PAH emission. Thus, we use the fluxes from all IRAC bands for these 9 sources as nominal data points in their SEDs, assigning them a total photometric error of 20%.
There are some sources missing from the analysis in Figure\[fig:ccd\]. Two sources, IRS1/[\#]{}4 and IRS1/[\#]{}5, could not be included in the color-color diagram due to non-detections at 5.8$\mu$m. For these sources, we simply treat them as average sources, i.e. “PAH emission dominant” with IRAC 3.6, 5.8 and 8$\mu$m fluxes as upper limits. Furthermore, IRS2E and IRS2W are saturated in all four IRAC bands, and thus could not be included in the color-color diagram. Therefore, in the SEDs we set all four IRAC band fluxes for IRS2E and IRS2W as lower limits.
In the SEDs for all sources, the *Herschel* 70 and 160$\mu$m band fluxes are also set as upper limits since their poorer angular resolution ($\sim$10$\arcsec$) would include high levels of contamination from extended nearby sources. We also set *Spitzer* 8$\mu$m band fluxes of IRS2/[\#]{}1 and IRS2/[\#]{}5 as lower limits due to partial saturation. Both lower and upper limits utilize the band flux before background subtraction, $F_{\rm int}$. Additionally, IRS1/[\#]{}3, IRS1/[\#]{}4 and IRS1/[\#]{}5 are not detected in the FORCAST 20$\mu$m image, so we set a 3-$\sigma$ upper limit for these three sources at 20$\mu$m. The *SOFIA* 37$\mu$m fluxes of d4e+d4w and IRS2/[\#]{}6 are set as upper limits since the strong 37$\mu$m extended emission from IRS2 make difficult to distinguish the relatively weak emission from d4e+d4w and IRS2/[\#]{}6.
The next step in determining whether the infrared sources are MYSOs is to use the photometry data for each source and investigate whether they could be fit with theoretical MYSO SED models. We consider the Turbulent Core Accretion model of massive star formation [@2003ApJ...585..850M] as the fiducial models for this study since, 1) W51A is an active massive star forming region, and 2) MIR-revealed sources that were not detected in optical and NIR regimes are likely deeply embedded objects, i.e. presumed to be in the early stages of massive star formation development. @2011ApJ...733...55Z developed an IDL SED fitter program based on the Core Accretion model. In a series of papers [@2013ApJ...766...86Z; @2014ApJ...788..166Z; @2018ApJ...853...18Z], the detailed physical mechanisms of the Core Accretion models and effects of different conditions (e.g. foreground extinction, inclination of rotational axis, and outflow opening angles) toward observed MYSO SEDs was investigated (hereafter, we call these ZT models). This SED fitter estimates the intrinsic SEDs of YSOs by correcting foreground extinction and inclination angle. It then finds the best model fits that match those SEDs employing a $\chi^2$-minimization method that is normalized by the number of nominal data points (i.e. neither upper nor lower limits). The $\chi^2$ values derived from fits to only nominal data points are called $\chi^2_{\rm nonlimit}$ in the ZT model fitter. @2018ApJ...853...18Z describe that for the same observed SED, the number of nominal data points is dependent on the model SED being fit. If a data point is being used as an upper limit and the model SED is higher than that data point, it is counted in number of nominal data points. If the model SED is lower than that data point, it is not counted in in number of nominal data points, since it is not constraining the fit. Consequently, “$\chi^2_{\rm nonlimit}$ is a measurement of the average deviation of the model SED from the constraining data points” [@2018ApJ...853...18Z].
By plotting a histogram of the $\chi^2_{\rm nonlimit}$ values of the model fits for each source, we determine a group of best fit models that all have values similar to the lowest value and are distinguishable as a group from next group of models showing consistent yet significantly larger $\chi^2_{\rm nonlimit}$ values. The number of the best fit models found via this $\chi^2_{\rm nonlimit}$ method varies from source to source and are given in Table\[tb:sedp\]. Note that the $\chi^2_{\rm nonlimit}$ values can only be utilized for relative comparison of the goodness of fit. The usage of absolute $\chi^2_{\rm nonlimit}$ values to determine good fits (e.g. $\chi^2_{\rm nonlimit}$-$\chi^2_{\rm nonlimit,min}\lesssim$3) is not recommended by various authors of SED model fitters [@2006ApJS..167..256R; @2018ApJ...853...18Z].
Figure\[fig:fd1\] shows the photometry data as a function of wavelength and the ZT model fits to those SED data for the sources in G49.4-0.3 and G49.5-0.4. Table\[tb:sedp\] lists physical parameters of the model fits for all sources. The column2 of Table\[tb:sedp\] is the observed bolometric luminosity of the absolute best fit model (i.e. the model with the lowest $\chi^2_{\rm nonlimit}$ value), $L_{\rm obs}$, and column3 is the true total bolometric luminosity, $L_{\rm tot}$, which corrects for foreground extinction and disk inclination angle. The absolute best model fit foreground extinction and stellar mass are shown in column4, and column5, respectively. The number of best fit models for each source is given in column7 (these models are plotted as gray lines for each source in Figure\[fig:fd1\]), and the range of extinction values and the range of stellar mass values derived from that group of best fit models is given in column8 and column9, respectively. Column6 shows the spectral types of the YSOs derived from the best fit stellar masses, comparing them to the masses of Zero Age Main Sequence (ZAMS) stars [@2000AJ....119.1860B]. It is important to point out that the ZT models assume a single YSO within a core. Given the distance to W51A [5.4kpc; @2010ApJ...720.1055S] and the angular resolution limits of FORCAST ($\sim$3$\arcsec$), we are only able to resolve structures as small as $\sim$0.08pc. It is likely, therefore, given the high multiplicity fraction of massive stars [e.g. @2009AJ....137.3358M] that in many cases the IR sources discussed here contain proto-binaries or even proto-clusters. Though the assumption of a single YSO can be reasonable when the core contains a dominant primary YSO while other companions are relatively low-mass, we cannot be certain that this would be the case in general. Consequently, even though the ZT model fits provide more output parameters than luminosity and mass, those derived parameters are likely not meaningful given their assumption of a singe central star. The luminosity and mass parameters, at a minimum, inform us as to the likelihood of an IR source in our sample as being a massive YSO or not, which is our main interest for performing the fitting. The multiplicity can also affect the derived extinction but one can find the range of extinction we obtain among nearby sources agree reasonably well (Table\[tb:sedp\]).
From the SEDs shown in Figure\[fig:fd1\] one can see that the Herschel 70 and 160$\mu$m flux points, which we use as upper limits, are in most cases much higher than the fitted SEDs curves at those wavelengths. In these cases, if the Herschel photometry values were instead used in the fit (i.e. not as upper limits) the SED fitter would not be able to fit both the Herschel and *SOFIA*-FORCAST data points due to such a large, discontinuous jump in flux from 37 to 70$\mu$m. The Herschel 70 and 160$\mu$m data (and certainly the SPIRE 250, 300, and 500$\mu$m data) are too coarse in resolution, and combined with the likelihood of contamination from cold dust from other nearby sources, the Herschel photometry is only useful as upper limits. This shows the importance of the SOFIA data (especially 37$\mu$m) in helping to define accurate SEDs for these sources, which in turn allows us to get a more accurate understanding of their true nature.
Looking at the results in Table\[tb:sedp\], the absolute best model fits for the mid-infrared detected YSO candidates in the all of W51A yield protostellar masses in the range $m_*$=1–96$M_{\sun}$, which is approximately equivalent to a range of ZAMS spectral type G5–O3 stars. Note that ZT models have sampled protostellar mass at at 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 48, 64, 96, 128, 160$M_{\sun}$ thus there is a minimum mass granularity that can be explored with the models [@2018ApJ...853...18Z]. The most massive sources in W51A are, perhaps unsurprisingly, in the IRS1 and IRS2 regions; they are G49.5-0.4IRS1/\#1, G49.5-0.4IRS2/\#1, and G49.5-0.4IRS5/\#5. All three are best fit with a stellar mass of 96$M_{\sun}$, or the equivalent of spectral type O3 ZAMS star.
[rccccccrclrcll]{} & & & & & & & & & & & & &\
a/[\#]{}1 & 2.05 & 1.99 & 50.3 & 4 & B5 & 7 & 45.0 & - & 75.5 & 4 & - & 4 &\
b/[\#]{}1 & 1.58 & 8.76 & 66.2 & 8 & B1 & 10 & 13.2 & - & 83.8 & 8 & - & 24 & MYSO, 1.5cm\
b/[\#]{}2 & 8.30 & 18.7 & 55.3 & 12 & B1 & 5 & 15.9 & - & 71.5 & 8 & - & 24 & MYSO\
b/[\#]{}3 & 15.0 & 617 & 138 & 64 & O4.5 & 9 & 101 & - & 225 & 12 & - & 64 & MYSO, 1.5cm\
b/[\#]{}4 & 18.1 & 22.4 & 1.70 & 12 & B1 & 7 & 0.8 & - & 26.5 & 12 & - & 48 & MYSO\
b/[\#]{}5 & 6.34 & 12.5 & 25.2 & 8 & B1 & 6 & 2.7 & - & 67.1 & 8 & - & 8 & MYSO, 1.5cm\
b/[\#]{}6 & 1.27 & 92.9 & 117 & 24 & O8.5 & 7 & 74.2 & - & 201 & 4 & - & 24 & pMYSO\
e/[\#]{}1 & 5.62 & 88.4 & 143 & 24 & O8.5 & 5 & 114 & - & 218 & 12 & - & 32 & MYSO\
SHA17 3 & 1.14 & 1.99 & 26.5 & 1 & G5 & 11 & 1.7 & - & 75.5 & 1 & - & 32 &\
SHA17 4 & 0.14 & 0.15 & 38.6 & 1 & G5 & 6 & 5.3 & - & 47.7 & 0.5 & - & 12 &\
[**G49.5-0.4**]{} & & & & & & & & & & & & &\
b1 & 21.0 & 47.3 & 50.3 & 12 & B1 & 10 & 23.8 & - & 63.7 & 12 & - & 32 & MYSO, 6cm\
b2 & 12.8 & 16.6 & 26.5 & 8 & B1 & 9 & 1.7 & - & 53.0 & 8 & - & 48 & MYSO, 6cm\
b2/[\#]{}1 & 1.49 & 8.76 & 71.3 & 8 & B1 & 10 & 50.3 & - & 101 & 8 & - & 24 & MYSO\
b3 & 4.55 & 9.67 & 27.7 & 8 & B1 & 18 & 2.7 & - & 41.9 & 8 & - & 12 & MYSO, 6cm\
d4e+d4w & 6.21 & 9.45 & 47.0 & 8 & B1 & 5 & 7.9 & - & 49.5 & 8 & - & 24 & MYSO, 2cm (cCWB)\
d6 & 6.79 & 158 & 45.0 & 32 & O7 & 8 & 42.4 & - & 75.5 & 24 & - & 32 & MYSO, 2cm (cCWB)\
e7 & 12.8 & 16.6 & 26.5 & 8 & B1 & 7 & 1.7 & - & 53.0 & 8 & - & 16 & MYSO, 2cm (UC)\
e9 & 118 & 528 & 101 & 48 & O5.5 & 6 & 25.2 & - & 151 & 24 & - & 96 & MYSO, 2cm (HC)\
e15 & 3.01 & 13.3 & 26.5 & 8 & B1 & 4 & 8.4 & - & 28.5 & 8 & - & 16 & MYSO, 2cm (UC)\
f/[\#]{}1 & 1.22 & 13.6 & 14.3 & 12 & B1 & 6 & 5.3 & - & 25.2 & 12 & - & 16 & MYSO\
i & 20.0 & 22.9 & 10.9 & 12 & B1 & 6 & 3.3 & - & 78.0 & 12 & - & 32 & MYSO, 2cm\
i/[\#]{}1 & 2.57 & 36.0 & 45.0 & 16 & B1 & 8 & 45.0 & - & 75.5 & 8 & - & 16 & MYSO\
IRS1/[\#]{}1 & 58.3 & 1410 & 33.5 & 96 & O3 & 10 & 13.2 & - & 58.7 & 16 & - & 128 & MYSO\
IRS1/[\#]{}2 & 24.1 & 50.3 & 71.5 & 16 & B1 & 7 & 71.5 & - & 126 & 12 & - & 32 & MYSO, 2cm (HC)\
IRS1/[\#]{}3 & 6.07 & 9.17 & 196 & 8 & B1 & 7 & 184 & - & 212 & 4 & - & 8 & pMYSO\
IRS1/[\#]{}4 & 0.84 & 92.9 & 352 & 24 & O8.5 & 9 & 127 & - & 361 & 8 & - & 24 & MYSO\
IRS1/[\#]{}5 & 0.23 & 1.06 & 233 & 4 & B5 & 7 & 54.5 & - & 260 & 2 & - & 4 &\
IRS1/[\#]{}6 & 7.30 & 9.45 & 8.40 & 8 & B1 & 18 & 0.8 & - & 14.3 & 8 & - & 8 & MYSO\
IRS1/[\#]{}7 & 4.95 & 9.67 & 10.9 & 8 & B1 & 11 & 3.3 & - & 22.6 & 8 & - & 8 & MYSO\
IRS1/[\#]{}8 & 20.6 & 37.7 & 58.7 & 16 & B1 & 7 & 2.7 & - & 61.2 & 12 & - & 48 & MYSO, 2cm ()\
IRS1/[\#]{}9 & 85.2 & 161 & 3.40 & 32 & O7 & 6 & 3.3 & - & 53.0 & 24 & - & 32 & MYSO, 2cm\
IRS1/[\#]{}10 & 5.17 & 9.95 & 21.0 & 8 & B1 & 8 & 20.1 & - & 27.7 & 8 & - & 8 & MYSO\
IRS1/[\#]{}11 & 0.49 & 6.29 & 67.1 & 8 & B1 & 8 & 3.3 & - & 72.9 & 4 & - & 8 & pMYSO\
IRS2/[\#]{}1 & 127 & 1314 & 39.7 & 96 & O3 & 6 & 2.7& - & 67.1 & 48 & - & 96 & MYSO, 3.5cm\
IRS2/[\#]{}2 & 43.4 & 732 & 75.5 & 64 & O4.5 & 5 & 29.1 & - & 75.5 & 32 & - & 64 & MYSO\
IRS2/[\#]{}3 & 17.1 & 80.6 & 65.4 & 24 & O8.5 & 7 & 65.4 & - & 76.3 & 24 & - & 24 & MYSO, 2cm (cCWB)\
IRS2/[\#]{}4 & 10.8 & 196 & 8.40 & 32 & O7 & 10 & 8.4 & - & 49.5 & 12 & - & 32 & MYSO\
IRS2/[\#]{}5 & 133 & 1310 & 60.9 & 96 & O3 & 8 & 7.9 & - & 60.9 & 48 & - & 96 & MYSO, 3.5cm\
IRS2/[\#]{}6 & 0.35 & 0.77 & 21.8 & 4 & B5 & 11 & 16.8 & - & 246 & 4 & - & 32 &\
IRS2/[\#]{}7 & 1.83 & 19.6 & 5.30 & 12 & B1 & 10 & 5.3 & - & 41.9 & 8 & - & 24 & MYSO\
IRS2/[\#]{}8 & 0.35 & 1.87 & 26.5 & 4 & B5 & 10 & 3.3 & - & 39.4 & 4 & - & 4 &\
IRS2/[\#]{}9 & 3.01 & 13.3 & 26.5 & 8 & B1 & 8 & 8.4 & - & 79.5 & 4 & - & 24 & pMYSO\
IRS2/[\#]{}10 & 16.6 & 151 & 78.8 & 32 & O7 & 7 & 71.5 & - & 101 & 32 & - & 64 & MYSO\
IRS2E & 598 & 841 & 75.5 & 64 & O4.5 & 6 & 75.5 & - & 75.5 & 64 & - & 128 & MYSO, 3.5cm\
IRS2W & 598 & 841 & 75.5 & 64 & O4.5 & 13 & 25.2 & - & 75.5 & 64 & - & 128 & MYSO, 3.5cm\
IRS3 & 8.16 & 30.4 & 40.2 & 16 & B1 & 11 & 11.7 & - & 132 & 8 & - & 48 & MYSO\
IRS4 & 57.7 & 648 & 92.7 & 64 & O4.5 & 6 & 63.6 & - & 103 & 24 & - & 96 & MYSO, 2cm ()\
\[tb:sedp\]
IRS2E and IRS2W, which are the two brightest infrared sources in the IRS2 region, along with IRS4 are all best fit with models with stellar masses of 64$M_{\sun}$, equivalent to O4.5 stars. Again, this is under the assumption of a single central heating source. @2016ApJ...825...54B distinguished four infrared sources at the position of IRS2E which cannot be resolved by our *SOFIA*-FORCAST observations (see §\[sec:irs2\]). The total mass of the four sources was derived to be 80$M_{\sun}$ in @2016ApJ...825...54B based on the stellar evolutionary tracks of . This is in agreement with our result for IRS2E under the assumption of a single protostar (the best fit models range from 64 to 128$M_{\sun}$, with the the absolute best fit being 64$M_{\sun}$).
With the physical parameters from the SED fits given in Table\[tb:sedp\], we can deduce the likelihood of each YSO being massive. If a source has an absolute best fit stellar mass equal to or greater than 8$M_{\sun}$, and a minimum mass range value equal to or greater than 8$M_{\sun}$, we identify it as a MYSO candidate and label it as a ‘MYSO’ in Table\[tb:sedp\]. If the mid-infrared source is also an isolated cm radio continuum source or coincident with a radio peak, this adds further evidence that the source may be massive and this is also given in Table\[tb:sedp\]. If the absolute best fit stellar mass is equal to or greater than 8$M_{\sun}$, but the minimum mass range value is lower than 8$M_{\sun}$, we identify the source as a potential MYSO candidate (labeled ‘pMYSO’ in Table\[tb:sedp\]). Overall, we find 41 MYSO and potential MYSO candidates, many identified as such here for the first time.
For sources SHA173 and SHA174, which were previously identified as potential MYSOs [@2017ApJ...839..108S], we find that with the added photometry at longer infrared wavelengths[^1], the absolute best fits yield masses of only 1$M_{\sun}$, however we do have fits in the group of best fits that yield a stellar masses for these sources greater than 8$M_{\sun}$.
Roughly half of the MYSO candidates that we have identified (20 of 41) have no detected radio continuum emission. This means that in W51A half of the population of the presently forming massive stars are likely in a very young state prior to the onset of a hypercompact region [@2010ApJ...721..478H] and not observable via radio continuum emission. This demonstrates that the mid-infrared is vital in completing the inventory of the entire population of massive YSOs within W51A.
Physical Properties of Extended Sources: Kinematic Status and Global History {#sec:es}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this section, we investigate the global evolutionary state of star cluster formation in W51A by utilizing two different molecular clump evolutionary tracers, the luminosity-to-mass ratio, $L/M$, and virial parameter, $\alpha_{\rm vir}$, toward the radio-defined extended sources. We assume the extended radio sources are star-forming molecular clumps that contain embedded massive young star clusters that are ionizing the extended regions seen in radio continuum. Using the *SOFIA* FORCAST 20 and 37$\mu$m mosaics, the central positions and mid-infrared extent of the sources associated with the major radio continuum regions of W51A were measured where the central positions agree to within $\sim$10$\arcsec$ and the extents typically vary by factor of 2. These regions are listed in Table\[tb:es\] with their total integrated fluxes. These values have been background subtracted, with the background levels determined from regions nearby ($\le2\arcmin$) each source.
### The Luminosity-to-mass Ratio {#sec:lm}
The luminosity-to-mass ratio, $L/M$ is considered as a good tracer of stellar cluster formation and molecular clump evolution where $L$ is the bolometric luminosity of young stellar clusters (or molecular clump) and $M$ is the mass of the cluster. The theoretical study of @2007ApJ...654..304K showed that the $L/M$ of a massive stellar cluster (1,000$M_{\sun}$) had a positive correlation with the age of the cluster, i.e. $L/M$ increases with the evolutionary stage of stellar cluster. @2013ApJ...779...79M studied 303 massive molecular clumps defined by HCO$^+$(1-0) emission [@2011ApJS..196...12B] in order to constrain physical properties along the complete span of protocluster evolution. They analyzed mid-infrared to sub-mm dust continuum images to derive bolometric luminosity and cold component dust temperature ($T_{\rm c}$) and adopted a mass estimate from HCO$^+$(1-0). They found that $L/M$ of all molecular clumps were in the range from $\sim$0.1 to $\sim$1000 $L_\odot$/$M_\odot$. The $L/M$ of the molecular clumps showed positive correlation with $T_{\rm c}$ as well as MIR surface brightness (as measured in [*Spitzer*]{}-IRAC data). These results imply that $L/M$ traces star cluster formation and evolution.
We estimated the mass of each extended source by producing a mass surface density ($\Sigma$) map and using the estimated distance of W51A [5.4kpc, @2010ApJ...720.1055S]. The pixel-by-pixel $\Sigma$ values were derived via the method investigated in @2016ApJ...829L..19L. In this method, the optically thin assumption of dust continuum emission is adopted to perform the graybody fit (i.e. modified blackbody fit). We used *Herschel*-PACS 160$\mu$m, -SPIRE 250, 350 and 500$\mu$m images for the fitting while the PACS 70$\mu$m data were excluded since that wavelength could still be optically thick under the conditions encountered in these regions . The convolution of 160, 250 and 350$\mu$m data to match to the angular resolution of SPIRE 500$\mu$m images ($\sim{36}\arcsec$) was performed with the methods introduced by Gordon et al. (2008). We then estimated the diffuse Galactic background emission via Galactic Gaussian (GG) method that assumes the Galactic background follows Gaussian profiles along latitude. Each pixel of the background-subtracted flux density maps (160 to 500$\mu$m) were treated to derive $\Sigma$ by using the standard graybody equation, $$I_{\rm \nu} \simeq B_{\nu}(T) (1-e^{-\tau_{\nu}}) = B_{\nu}(T) (1-e^{-\Sigma \kappa_{\nu}})
\label{eq:gb}$$ where $I_{\rm \nu}$ is observed intensity of the corresponding band, $B_{\rm \nu}(T)$ is the temperature-based filter-weighted blackbody radiation, $\tau_{\nu}$ is the optical depth, $\Sigma$ is mass surface density, and $\kappa_{\nu}$ is the filter weighted opacity. We adopted the thin ice mantle dust opacity model of and a dust-to-gas mass ratio of 1/142 [@2011ApJ...732..100D] to estimate dust opacity, $\kappa_{\nu}$.
The bolometric luminosity of each clump was then derived from the integrated intensities inside the given apertures (Table\[tb:es\]) through the following method. We found that the measured radius of any given extended source is similar at all wavelength bands $\leq$160$\mu$m, and thus for each source we use the same aperture size for photometry at these wavelengths. We also found that we could use radii of approximately 2.0, 2.5, and 3.0 times the aperture size used at shorter wavelengths to perform the aperture photometry at 250, 350 and 500$\mu$m, while we use the 20$\mu$m aperture size for all *Spitzer*-IRAC bands. In order to reproduce the intrinsic fluxes of MIR extended sources, which we assume are young stellar clusters embedded in the middle of dense molecular structures, we had to de-redden the observed $F_{\rm \nu,tot}$. The 1-D radiative transfer equation of absorption, $F_{\rm \nu,tot,1} \simeq F_{\rm \nu,tot,0}^{-\tau}$, was used to determine the intrinsic intensity, $F_{\rm \nu,tot,0}$, where $F_{\rm \nu,tot,1}$ is the observed fluxes (i.e., with extinction). Here we use the median mass surface density value, $\tilde{\Sigma}$, of each extended source to derive the optical depth, $\tau_{\nu}$. Checking these values against those of previous studies [e.g. @2010ApJS..190...58K], we find that our derived optical depth values are in agreement to within a factor of 2. We make the simple assumption that the young clusters are embedded at the center of the molecular clumps so that the dust structures in front and back of the cluster are symmetric along the line of sight. Therefore, since we assumed the material to be optically thin, and since the $\Sigma$ values are derived for the total column density along the line of sight, we divided $\tilde{\Sigma}$ by 2 to de-redden only the foreground extinction of the cluster so that $\tau_{\nu}$=1/2$\kappa_{\nu}$$\tilde{\Sigma}$. In addition to the photometric uncertainty levels of each band (§\[sec:cps\]), one needs to also consider the de-reddening effect, the contribution of different temperature components, and nearby source contamination as additional errors. With all these aspects, we assume $\sim$30$\%$ total uncertainty for 4.5$\mu$m, $\sim$40$\%$ for 20 and 37$\mu$m, and $\sim$50$\%$ for 70 and 160$\mu$m. The 3.5, 5.8 and 8$\mu$m bands are treated as upper limits due the the expectation of high PAH contributions. The 250, 350 and 500$\mu$m bands are also assumed to be upper limits due to the coarse angular resolution and possible contamination from extended emission of nearby sources.
[rrrrrrrr]{} & & & & & &\
a & 19 23 05.5 &+14 28 09.6 & 44.0 & 384 & 53.3 & 2040\
b & 19 23 13.0 &+14 27 09.4 & 72.2 & 1020 & 72.2 & 5680\
c & 19 23 17.5 &+14 29 15.8 & 48.0 & 465 & 56.5 & 2300\
e & 19 23 09.2 &+14 26 02.0 & 13.8 & 22.9 & 16.8 & 246\
f & 19 23 16.2 &+14 24 16.9 & 31.7 & 185 & 35.9 & 1040\
[**G49.5-0.4**]{} & & & & & &\
a & 19 23 29.5 &+14 31 35.6 & 30.6 & 367 & 30.63 & 1340\
b & 19 23 33.3 &+14 29 59.6 & 42.8 & 607 & 42.8 & 2120\
c & 19 23 39.2 &+14 29 35.7 & 44.1 & 660 & 44.1 & 3110\
d & 19 23 40.1 &+14 31 05.8 & 22.6 & 2240 & 40.5 & 17700\
e & 19 23 44.8 &+14 30 26.8 & 59.5 & 3540 & 59.5 & 18200\
f & 19 23 48.5 &+14 33 18.3 & 29.5 & 333 & 33.3 & 1130\
g & 19 23 50.8 &+14 32 52.5 & 25.8 & 411 & 28.6 & 1150\
h & 19 23 54.2 &+14 35 42.8 & 35.0 & 338 & 35.0 & 1110\
i & 19 23 39.2 &+14 35 29.5 & 16.6 & 88.9 & 19.7 & 336\
j & 19 23 47.7 &+14 36 44.0 & 63.9 & 394 & 63.9 & 2200\
\[tb:es\]
When trying to fit the 3–500$\mu$m photometry data of the extended sources with graybody fits, it was found that a single graybody was not sufficient, but that a two-component fit worked nicely for all sources (Figure\[fig:essed\]). Therefore, following the work of @2013ApJ...779...79M, we derived the bolometric luminosity via a best-fit graybody model with two temperature components, i.e. cold and warm dust components. Based on these SEDs, we discovered that the *SOFIA*-FORCAST 20 and 37$\mu$m photometry points are crucial in distinguishing the presence of the different temperature components. Figure\[fig:essed\] shows an example that represents well the two-component nature of the SEDs of all of the sources in Table\[tb:vir\]. Integrating under these SEDs allows us to derive the bolometric luminosity of each source.
Table\[tb:vir\] shows the $M$, $L$, and $L/M$ values of the extended sources in column3, 4, and 7, respectively. We did not retrieved $M$ and $L$ of extended source d or e since the *Herschel* images are mostly saturated in those regions. From the 13 remaining extended sources, we see large variation of $L/M$: 25$\lesssim$$(L/M)$/$(L_{\sun}/M_{\sun})$$\lesssim$790. The G49.4-0.3 sources show typically smaller $L/M$ than sources in G49.5-0.4, i.e. 40$\lesssim$$(L/M)$/$(L_{\sun}/M_{\sun})$$\lesssim$110. The extended sources in G49.5-0.4f–j show high $L/M$ values ($\sim$270–790$L_{\sun}/M_{\sun}$) and the sources in the G49.5-0.4a–c area have 25$\lesssim$$(L/M)$/$(L_{\sun}/M_{\sun})$$\lesssim$100. One might assume that the relative ages of stellar clusters in W51A are high at G49.5-0.4f–j while the sources in G49.5-0.4a–c and G49.4-0.3 regions are possibly in similar evolutionary stages. This may also be seen from the derived cold temperature components (column5 of Table\[tb:vir\]). We find the $T_{\rm cold}$ of high $L/M$ sources (i.e. G49.5-0.4f–j) are $\sim$20–30K higher than the other extended sources which can indicate that the dust grains are internally heated by embedded young stellar clusters so that both $T_{\rm cold}$ and $L/M$ should increase simultaneously.
### Virial Analysis {#sec:vir}
[rrrcrrrrrrrr]{} & & & & & & &\
a & 580 & 2560 & 3.66 & 76.2 & 264.6 & 71.4 & 0.23\
b & 2490 & 9510 & 12.0 & 71.0 & 261.6 & 63.0 & 0.26\
c & 1370 & 1580 & 3.61 & 91.0 & 261.2 & 113.8 & 0.87\
e & 373 & 819 & 0.65 & 62.6 & 283.2 & 39.6 & 0.45\
f & 125 & 916 & 1.64 & 91.0 & 273.0 & 89.4 & 1.36\
[**G49.5-0.4**]{} & & & & & & &\
a & 1900 & 1430 & 2.77 & 88.6 & 253.2 & 96.8 & 1.21\
b & 1810 & 9930 & 5.14 & 69.9 & 247.6 & 25.9 & 0.18\
c & 3950 & 6870 & 10.3 & 66.1 & 270.7 & 81.0 & 0.58\
d & 947 & & & & & &\
e & 5420 & & & & & &\
f & 1800 & 432 & 1.98 & 93.0 & 256.7 & 228.5 & 4.16\
g & 1950 & 320 & 2.18 & 100.5 & 255.7 & 340.8 & 6.11\
h & 1520 & 122 & 1.93 & 116.6 & 250.7 & 790.1 & 12.50\
i & 511 & 107 & 0.57 & 116.4 & 254.7 & 266.4 & 4.77\
j & 1570 & 386 & 3.26 & 104.8 & 270.7 & 421.6 & 4.06\
\[tb:vir\]
The virial analysis is an effective tool to determine the importance of kinematic and gravitational energies of ISM structures, especially for molecular clumps and cores [@1992ApJ...395..140B]. As molecular clumps evolve, kinematic energy from internal sources (e.g., radiative pressure, outflow, and shock) are assumed to increase their influences on the system. This can be traced by comparing the estimated mass at virial equilibrium (i.e. virial mass), $M_{\rm vir}$, and the mass of each clump. @1992ApJ...395..140B defined the virial mass of molecular clumps as $M_{\rm vir} = 5 \sigma^2 R / G$, where $M_{\rm vir}$ is the mass of the structure if it were in virial equilibrium, $\sigma$ is velocity dispersion ($\sigma$ = $\Delta$v / (8 ln2)$^{1/2}$) for the Gaussian line profile of corresponding clump with $\Delta$v as FWHM of molecular line profiles), $R$ is the radius of the clump, and G is the gravitation constant. The virial parameter, $\alpha_{\rm vir}$, is defined as $\alpha_{\rm vir}$ = $M_{\rm vir}$ / $M$, where $M$ is the intrinsic mass of the clump. For simplicity, the effect of magnetic fields is ignored even though the magnetic field is important in regulating the dynamics of molecular clumps [@1992ApJ...395..140B; @2013ApJ...779...96T]. In this assumption, the virial status of a clump can be explained as self-gravitationally collapsing ($\alpha_{\rm vir}$ $<$ 1), virial equilibrium ($\alpha_{\rm vir}$ = 1, the clump is gravitationally stable, i.e. virialized), quasi-virial equilibrium (1 $<$ $\alpha_{\rm vir}$ $\leq$ 2, the clump is slightly expanding but still gravitationally bound), or gravitationally unbound ($\alpha_{\rm vir}$ $>$ 2). In order to inspect the virial state of the extended sources in W51A (i.e., the regions in Table\[tb:es\]), we utilized public $^{13}$CO(2-1) data cube from 10m Heinrich Hertz Telescope [@2010ApJS..190...58K]. Note that we measure the ratio of internal kinetic energy to gravitational binding energy in the extended sources, ignoring surface pressure terms and effects of magnetic fields. We used the integrated $^{13}$CO line profile of each clump to fit a Gaussian. In order to determine the central gas $^{13}$CO velocity of each extended source, we used the literature values of velocity ranges defined in @2010ApJS..190...58K and .
We derive the virial parameter, $\alpha_{\rm vir}$, assuming constant density for the extended sources so that $$\label{eqn:alpha}
\alpha_{\rm vir} = \frac{M_{\rm vir}}{M} \sim 210\,\times \bigg( \frac{\sigma}{\rm km\,s^{-1}} \bigg)^2 \times \bigg( \frac{R}{\rm pc} \bigg) \times \bigg( \frac{M_\sun}{M} \bigg)$$ where R is radius of the clump in parsec scale, $\sigma$ is the FWHM of the $^{13}$CO(2-1) line in km/s, and $M$ is derived from sub-mm dust emission-based $\Sigma$ in units of $M_{\sun}$. If we assume the density profile falls off as 1/r, the $\alpha$ values will be $\sim$10% smaller than constant density case [@1988ApJ...333..821M]. As we can see from Eqn.\[eqn:alpha\], the uncertainty of $\alpha_{\rm vir}$ is derived from the errors of gas velocity width, derived clump mass, and distance estimation so that conservative total uncertainty of $\alpha_{\rm vir}$ is about factor of 2 [e.g. @2013ApJ...779..185K].
We present these parameters in Table \[tb:vir\]. The extended sources in G49.4-0.3 region show a mean $\alpha_{\rm vir}\sim$0.63, while the median $\alpha_{\rm vir}\sim$0.45. The sources in G49.5-0.4a–c show mean and median $\alpha_{\rm vir}$ values of 0.66 and 0.58, respectively. The G49.5-0.4f–j sources show a mean $\alpha_{\rm vir}$$\sim$6.32 and median $\alpha_{\rm vir}$$\sim$4.77. These derived values of $\alpha_{\rm vir}$ show that the sources in G49.4-0.3 are mostly sub-virial which indicates these sources are probably undergoing self-gravitational collapse. The extended sources G49.5-0.4f–j are all super-virial with $\alpha_{\rm vir}\gtrsim4$, indicating the sources are gravitationally unbound and expanding. The source G49.5-0.4a is close to the virial equilibrium status (i.e., gravitationally stable). Source G49.5-0.4b shows the lowest virial parameter, $\alpha_{\rm vir}$$\sim$0.18, which is unique from any other extended source in this study. We do not detect any individual MYSO sources within G49.5-0.4b. From the lowest $\alpha_{\rm vir}$ value and absence of significant YSOs, we assume G49.5-0.4b is the youngest molecular clump in W51A area.
### The History of Stellar Cluster Formation in W51A {#sec:hist}
Figure\[fig:virlm\] shows $L/M$ versus $\alpha_{\rm vir}$ of all extended sources in W51A. The correlation shows that both evolutionary tracers of stellar cluster formation are under good agreement, indicating G49.5-0.4f–j are relatively older than the G49.5-0.4a–c sources, while the entire G49.04-0.3 region is likely younger on average than the entire G49.5-0.4 region. The result of $L/M$ versus $\alpha_{\rm vir}$ is not only consistent with previous studies, but as we will now discuss, the result helps to further clarify our understanding of the star formation history of the W51 area.
@elmegreen1992 suggested that several Myrs of age difference in between two nearby ($\sim$10–50pc away) sources may be evidence for triggered star(-cluster) formation. Using this logic, @2000ApJ...543..799O hypothesized that G49.5-0.4 had undergone triggered sequential star formation. They suggest the stellar clusters in the region around G49.5-0.4h & j (which they call ‘Region1’) are the oldest, while the region around G49.5-0.4a–e (their ‘Region3’) are the youngest, and that the star cluster formation in Region3 is triggered by the stellar wind from the evolved stars in Region1 and the expansion of the G49.5-0.4f & g regions (Region2’).
We derived the total mass ratio between NIR revealed stars [from @2000ApJ...543..799O] to MIR revealed stars [from @2009ApJ...706...83K and this study], $\Sigma_{\rm M*,MIR}$ / $\Sigma_{\rm M*,NIR}$, in Regions1, 2, and 3. We assume the NIR-detected stars are less embedded and therefore relatively older than the deeply embedded MIR-detected stars, meaning that the ratio $\Sigma _{\rm M*,MIR}$ / $\Sigma _{\rm M*,NIR}$ should get smaller with cluster age. We find that $\Sigma _{\rm M*,MIR}$ / $\Sigma _{\rm M*,NIR}$$\sim$ 0, 0.01, and 0.10 for Regions1, 2, and 3, respectively. This relative decrease in evolutionary state from Regions 1 to 2 to 3 is basically consistent with the relative ages that claimed by @2000ApJ...543..799O, and consistent with the trends we see from L/M and the virial parameter (Figure\[fig:virlm\]).
In contrast, claimed that they could not find any evidence of sequential triggered star formation in W51A area but found the indication of independent star formation activities in multiple positions that could be generated by external triggering effects as @2004MNRAS.353.1025K suggested. While and @2004MNRAS.353.1025K investigated the star formation history of W51 region via NIR observations, pointed out the absence of signs of triggered star formation from expanding regions toward G49.5-0.4a–e based on Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array (JVLA) centimeter observations. @2010ApJS..190...58K studied the overall structure of W51 area by observing CO isotopologues. They suggested the W51A region underwent cloud-cloud collision to produce the stellar clusters possessing high-mass stars and the extended source G49.5-0.4b is possibly at the colliding location between two molecular clouds that could be distinguished by one at $\sim$58km/s (encompassing G49.5-0.4a-e) and one at 68km [a.k.a. the High Velocity Stream; @1998AJ....116.1856C]. They found a ‘bridge’ in the position-velocity diagram which connect two different CO velocity components ($<$61km/s and $\sim$68km/s) as well as the self-absorption line at the location of G49.5-0.4b region. They insisted the self-absorption line was caused since the colliding interface (G49.5-0.4b) had been heated while surroundings were still cold while the ‘bridge’ showed the interaction between two different clouds.
The comparison of two relative evolutionary tracers, $L/M$ and $\alpha_{\rm vir}$, could be a more accurate way to determine the evolutionary states of star cluster formation in the W51A area than the absolute age calculations that were performed in previous NIR studies [e.g. @2000ApJ...543..799O]. In general, these previous studies focused on analyzing the morphologies of IR and/or mm bubbles around YSOs and the estimated the ages of YSOs as $\sim$0.5–3Myrs. The ages were typically determined from the isochrones sometimes comparing them to the expansion ages of regions [@1989ApJS...69..831W]. However, these calculations can have relatively large errors [up to 100%, @2011ApJ...732....8V], and thus assuming star-forming history based on these values and the morphologies of molecular bubble structures is likely to be highly uncertain. An example of this is that estimated the age of LS1 was at least 3Myr (possibly 6Myr or older), while @2000ApJ...543..799O estimated the age as $\sim$2.3Myr. The difference in derived ages between @2000ApJ...543..799O and led to the different interpretations of star forming history in W51A.
From Figure\[fig:virlm\], we can see the evolutionary states of G49.5-0.4f–j sources are clearly separated from sources on G49.5-0.4a–c and G49.4-0.3 regions. If the internal feedback of G49.5-0.4f–j regions could affect the star formation in G49.5-0.4a–c, one would expect to find a smoothly continuous trend of $L/M$ versus $\alpha_{\rm vir}$ along all G49.5-0.4 sources. This might support the scenario sketched by that the location of the GMC possessing G49.5-0.4f–j regions is different from either G49.5-0.4a–e or G49.4-0.3. In this case, the independent formation of stellar clusters, as suggested in , would mean that the non-interacting (and thus separated) clouds induce their own star formation history.
Given its very low $\alpha_{\rm vir}$ and $L/M$, the source G49.5-0.4b might be the youngest clump in the W51A area. The low $\alpha_{\rm vir}$ and $L/M$ can be due to the lack of internal heating sources (i.e. young stars) so that the internal gas motion is not strong enough to overcome the gravitational pressure of the molecular clump. The evolutionary state of G49.5-0.4b as the uniquely young molecular clump in W51A region can be explained by the recent cloud-cloud collision that is suggested by @2010ApJS..190...58K. Comparing CO observational results of @2010ApJS..190...58K to a synthetic CO emission lines from theoretical simulation of cloud-cloud collision scenario [e.g. @2017ApJ...835..137W] can be helpful to address the effect and evidence of cloud-cloud collision on the molecular clump formation and evolution.
Summary {#sec:conclusion}
=======
We obtained *SOFIA*-FORCAST images at 20 and 37$\mu$m of the central 10$\arcmin\times$20$\arcmin$ region of W51A. The 37$\mu$m images are the highest spatial resolution observations of W51A yet obtained at wavelengths beyond 25$\mu$m. We compared these images to data at multiple other wavelengths to get a clearer picture of the nature of this giant region and star-forming complex. We discussed the observations of all of the individual sources and sub-components within W51A, and based on our new imaging data and previous multi-wavelength observations, we conjecture (for the first time for several sources) on their nature. In summary, we itemize our most significant results:
1\) The most-studied area of W51A is the e1/e2 cluster area. The *SOFIA*-FORCAST images show that the only thermal infrared source present at wavelengths less than 20$\mu$m is coincident with the hypercompact region e9. Though this source appears point-like at these shorter infrared wavelengths, the *SOFIA* 37$\mu$m image reveals a source with a double peak surrounded by an extended fainter structure. The secondary 37$\mu$m peak is coincident with the 20$\mu$m peak (and thus coming from radio source e9), however the primary peak is located $\sim$5$\arcsec$ to the northeast and closer to (but not coincident with) the peak of the hot core seen at mm wavelengths. We suggest that the primary peak of emission at 37$\mu$m is either due to IR emission leaking from gaps on the eastern edge of the otherwise optically thick hot core, and/or from emission from the blue-shifted outflow cavity of the MYSO at the location of the radio source e2.
2\) We detect an extended infrared source at 20 and 37$\mu$m that becomes the 5th brightest source in W51A at 70$\mu$m and the 4th brightest source behind IRS1, IRS2, and the e1/e2 cluster at 160$\mu$m. It is the most-steeply rising source from 20 to 37$\mu$m in this study, indicating the source is highly embedded and/or young. The best fit SED model for this source yields a bolometric luminosity of 6.48$\times$10$^5\,L_{\sun}$. We dub this new infrared region as IRS4. At its location lies a resolved radio continuum emission point source, e16, as well as a resolved radio binary, e18, along with an extended HII region, e18d. Given the high-luminosity, steeply rising IR SED, presence of multiple radio continuum sources, and prominence in the FIR, this location is likely to be an embedded core or clump hosting a young massive proto-cluster.
3\) Some individual regions and much of the G49.5-0.4 area seem to owe their observed mid-infrared morphology to extinction effects. Individual extended sources like G49.5-0.4a and b, and G49.4-0.3b appear as a collection of peaks that shift with wavelength in the infrared. This indicates that the stellar sources forming within them are not being directly viewed in our infrared images, but we instead are likely seeing the mid-infrared light escaping from gaps in the less-dense regions of the surrounding clumpy material. Likewise, extinction appears to be affecting larger-scale mid-infrared morphology, especially around radio sources in G49.5-0.4. Sources a, b, c, d, and e encircle large MIR-dark areas that are “filled in” by cold dust emission seen at far-infrared wavelengths by *Herschel*.
4\) Most sources in G49.4-0.3 and many in G49.5-0.4 are ring- or arc-shaped in the infrared. These are likely to be wind-blown bubbles or Stromgren spheres from older generations of massive star formation.
5\) We used *SOFIA*-FORCAST photometry in conjunction with *Spitzer*-IRAC and *Herschel*-PACS photometry data to construct SEDs of sub-components and point sources detected in the infrared. We fit those SEDs with young stellar object models, and found 41 sources that are likely to be massive young stellar objects, many of which are identified as such in this work for the first time. Almost half of the MYSOs (20/41) do not have radio continuum emission, implying a very young state of formation. Due to the relatively good spatial resolution of the *Spitzer* and *SOFIA* data, especially at 37$\mu$m, we are able to isolate the emission from many sources that are unresolved or confused in the *Herschel* FIR data. Furthermore, we showed that the 37$\mu$m data point was crucial in getting good SED fits for these MYSOs.
6\) In calculating the luminosity of the large sub-regions of W51A, we found that a two-temperature fit is needed, and that the *SOFIA*-FORCAST photometry at 20 and 37$\mu$m was essential in determining these two temperatures, since they straddle and define the transition wavelengths in the SEDs between the warm and cold dust components.
7\) We used the luminosity-to-mass ratio and virial parameters of the extended sub-regions of W51A to estimate their relative ages. We are able to confirm analytically what previous authors have determined qualitatively concerning the relative ages of the different sub-regions of W51A.
8\) We suggest the extended source G49.5-0.4b is the youngest molecular clump in W51A region because of its lowest luminosity-to-mass ratio and virial parameters. The absence of enough internal heating sources (YSOs) can explain the low $\alpha_{\rm vir}$ and $L/M$. The recent cloud-cloud collision occurring at the position of G49.5-0.4b could be the mechanism responsible for creating this newly-formed young stellar cluster.
Authors thank an anonymous referee for constructive comments that help to improve the manuscript significantly. Authors also thank J. M. Jackson, J. T. Radomski, W. T. Reach, J. C. Tan, W. D. Vacca and Y. Zhang for discussions. This research is based on observations made with the NASA/DLR Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA). SOFIA is jointly operated by the Universities Space Research Association, Inc. (USRA), under NASA contract NAS2-97001, and the Deutsches SOFIA Institut (DSI) under DLR contract 50 OK 0901 to the University of Stuttgart. This work is also based in part on archival data obtained with the Spitzer Space Telescope, which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology under a contract with NASA. This work is also based in part on archival data obtained with Herschel, an European Space Agency (ESA) space observatory with science instruments provided by European-led Principal Investigator consortia and with important participation from NASA. Financial support for this work was provided by NASA through awards 01\_0007, 02\_0113, 03\_0008, and 03\_0009 issued by USRA.
Agliozzo, C., Nikutta, R., Pignata, G., et al. 2017, , 466, 213 Argon, A. L., Reid, M. J. & Menten, K. M. 2000, , 129, 159 Barbosa, C. L., Blum, R. D., Damineli, A., Conti, P. S., & Gusm[ã]{}o, D. M. 2016, , 825, 54 Bertoldi, F. & McKee, C. F. 1992, , 395, 140 Barnes, P. J., Yonekura, Y., Fukui, Y., et al. 2011, , 196, 12 Battersby, C., Bally, J., Ginsburg, A., et al. 2011, , 535, A128 Bernasconi, P. A., & Maeder, A. 1996, , 307, 829 Bisbas, T. G., Tan, J. C., Csengeri, T., et al. 2018, , 478, 54 Blum, R. D., Conti, P. S., & Damineli, A. 2000, , 119, 1860 Carpenter, J. M., & Sanders, D. B. 1998, , 116, 1856 Cesaroni, R., Palagi, F., Felli, M., et al. 1988, , 76, 445 Churchwell E. 2002, , 40, 27 Churchwell, E., Babler, B. L., Meade, M. R., et al. 2009, , 121, 213 Clark, J. S., Davies, B., Najarro, F., et al. 2009, , 504, 429 Conti, P. S., & Crowther, P. A. 2004, , 355, 899 Cyganowski, C. J., Whitney, B. A., Holden, E., et al. 2008, , 136, 2391 De Buizer, J. M., Radomski, J. T., Telesco, C. M., & Pi[ñ]{}a, R. K. 2005, , 156, 179 De Buizer, J. M. 2006, , 642, L57 De Buizer, J. M., Liu, M., Tan, J. C., et al. 2017, , 843, 33 Draine, B. T. 2011, , 732,100 Draine, B. T., & Li, A. 2007, , 657, 810 Elia, D., Molinari, S., Schisano, E. et al. 2017, , 471, 100 Elmegreen, B. G. 1992, in Star Formation in Stellar Systems, ed. G. Tenorio-Tagle, M. Prieto, & F. Sánchez (Cambridge : Cambridge Univ. Press), 383 Felli, M., Taylor, G. B., Catarzi, M., et al. 1993, , 101, 127 Figuer[ê]{}do, E., Blum, R. D., Damineli, A., Conti, P. S., & Barbosa, C. L. 2008, , 136, 221 Galliano, F., Dwek, E., & Chanial, P. 2008, , 672, 214 Gaume, R. A., Johnston, K. J., & Wilson, T. L. 1993, , 417, 645 Ginsburg, A., Bally, J., Battersby, C., et al. 2015, , 573, 106 Ginsburg, A., Goss, W. M., Goddi, C., et al. 2016, , 595, A27 Ginsburg, A., Goddi, C., Kruijssen, J. M. D., et al. 2017, , 842, 92 Goldader, J. D., & Wynn-Williams, C. G. 1994, , 433, 164 Gordon, K. D., Engelbracht, C. W., Rieke, G. H., et al. 2008, , 682, 336 Greene, T. P., Wilking, B. A., Andre, P., Young, E. T., & Lada, C. J. 1994, , 434, 614 Gutermuth, R. A., Megeath, S. T., Myers, P. C. et al., 2009, ApJS, 184, 18 Harvey, P. M., Joy, M., Lester, D. F., & Wilking, B. A. 1986, , 300, 737 Helou, G., Malhotra, S., Hollenbach, D. J., Dale, D. A., & Contursi, A. 2001, , 548, L73 Herter, T. L., Vacca, W. D., Adams, J. D., et al. 2013, , 125, 1393 Hill, T., Burton, M. G., Minier, V., et al. 2005, , 363, 405 Hill, T., Thompson, M. A., Burton, M. G., et al. 2006, , 368, 1223 Ho, P. T. P., Genzel, R., & Das, A. 1983, , 266, 596 Hoare, M. G., Kurtz, S. E., Lizano, S., et al. 2007, Protostars and Planets V (Tucson, AZ: University Arizona Press), 181 Hosokawa, T., Yorke, H. W., & Omukai, K. 2010, , 721, 478 Kang, M., Bieging, J. H., Povich, M. S., et al. 2009, , 706, 83 Kang, M., Bieging, J. H., Kulesa, C. A., et al. 2010, , 190, 58 Kauffmann, J., Pillai, T. & Goldsmith, P. F. 2013, , 779, 185 Koo, B.-C. 1997, , 108, 489 Kraemer, K. E., Jackson, J. M., Deutsch, L. K., et al. 2001, , 561, 282 Krumholz, M. R., & Tan, J. C. 2007, , 654, 304 Kundu, M. R., & Velusamy, T. 1967, Annales d’Astrophysique, 30, 59 Lim, W. & Tan, J. C. 2014, , 780,29 Lim, W., Tan, J. C., Kainulainen, J., Ma, B., & Butler, M. J. 2016, , 829, L19 Liu, T., Wu, Y.-F. & Wang, K. 2010, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 10, 67 Ma, B., Tan, J. C., & Barnes, P. J. 2013, , 779, 79 MacLaren, I., Richardson, K. M. & Wolfendale, A. W. 1988, , 333, 821 Martin, A. H. M. 1972, , 157, 31 Mason, B. D., Hartkopf, W. I., Gies, D. R., et al. 2009, , 137, 3358. McKee, C. F., & Tan, J. C. 2003, , 585, 850 Mehringer, D. M. 1994, , 91, 713 Meynet, G. & Maeder, A. 2000, , 361, 101 Miller, G. E., & Scalo, J. M. 1978, , 90, 506 Molinari, S., Swinyard, B., Bally, J., et al. 2010, , 518, L100 Molinari, S., Schisano, E., Elia, D. et al. 2016, , 591, 149 Morris, P. W., Eenens, P. R. J., Hanson, M. M., Conti, P. S., & Blum, R. D. 1996, , 470, 597 Nanda Kumar, M. S., Kamath, U. S., & Davis, C. J. 2004, , 353, 1025 Naylor, T. 1998, , 296, 339 Okamoto, Y. K., Kataza, H., Yamashita, T., Miyata, T., & Onaka, T. 2001, , 553, 254 Okumura, S.-i., Mori, A., Nishihara, E., Watanabe, E., & Yamashita, T. 2000, , 543, 799 Ossenkopf, V., & Henning, T. 1994, , 291, 943 Penzias, A. A., Jefferts, K. B., & Wilson, R. W. 1971, , 165, 229 Robitaille, T. P., Whitney, B. A., Indebetouw, R., Wood, K., & Denzmore, P. 2006, , 167, 256 Robitaille, T. P., Whitney, B. A., Indebetouw, R., & Wood, K. 2007, , 169, 328 Saral, G., Hora, J. L., Audard, M., et al. 2017, , 839, 108 Sato, M., Reid, M. J., Brunthaler, A., & Menten, K. M. 2010, , 720, 1055 Schaller, G., Schaerer, D., Meynet, G., et al. 1992, , 96, 269 Schneps, M. H., Lane, A. P., Downes, D., et al. 1981, , 249, 124 Scott, P. F. 1978, , 183, 435 Shi, H., Zhao, J.-H., & Han, J. L. 2010, , 718, L181 Shuping, R. Y., Krzaczek, R., Vacca, W. D., et al. 2015, Astronomical Data Analysis Software an Systems XXIV (ADASS XXIV), 495, 351 Skrutskie, M. F., Cutri, R. M., Stiening, R., et al. 2006, , 131, 1163 Stutz, A. M. 2018, , 473, 4890 Szymczak, M., Hrynek, G., & Kus, A. J. 2000, , 143, 269 Reach, W. T., Rho, J., Tappe, H., et al. 2006, , 131, 147 Tan, J. C., Kong, S., Butler, M. J. et al. 2013, , 779,96 Vacca, W. D. 1994, , 421, 140 Vacca, W. D. & Sandell, G. 2011, , 732, 8 Wachter, S., Mauerhan, J. C., Van Dyk, S. D., et al. 2010, , 139, 2330 Westerhout, G. 1958, , 14, 215 Wilson, T. L., Mezger, P. G., Gardner, F. F., & Milne, D. K. 1970, , 5, 99 Wood, D. O. S., & Churchwell, E. 1989, , 69, 831 Wu, B., Tan, J. C., Nakamura, F., et al. 2017, , 835, 137 Wynn-Williams, C. G., Becklin, E. E., & Neugebauer, G. 1974, , 187, 473 Zhang, Q., & Ho, P. T. P. 1997, , 488, 241 Zhang, Y., & Tan, J. C. 2011, , 733, 55 Zhang, Y., Tan, J. C., & McKee, C. F. 2013, , 766, 86 Zhang, Y., Tan, J. C., & Hosokawa, T. 2014, , 788, 166 Zhang, Y., & Tan, J. C. 2018, , 853, 18
Data release
============
The reduced images and used in this paper are publicly available at: [*https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataverse/SOFIA-GHII*]{}
The data include the *SOFIA* FORCAST 20 and 37$\mu$m final image mosaics and their exposure maps.
[*Spitzer*]{} and [*Herschel*]{} Photometry of Sub-components and point sources in W51A {#appendix}
=======================================================================================
As we mentioned in §\[sec:cps\], we performed optimal extraction photometry for the FORCAST 20 and 37$\mu$m images to define the location of all sub-components and point sources, and to determine the aperture radii to be used for photometry. Using these source locations, we employed the optimal extraction technique on the *Spitzer*-IRAC 8$\mu$m data for all sources to find the optimal aperture to be used for all IRAC bands (since the source sizes are typically similar or smaller at the shorter IRAC bands). As we have done for the FORCAST images, we estimated the background emission from the annuli that showed the least contamination from nearby sources, i.e. showing relatively flat radial intensity profile (§\[sec:cps\]). Table\[tb:cps2\] shows the photometry values we derive for all sources from the *Spitzer*-IRAC bands.
Table\[tb:cps3\] shows the photometry result for the *Herschel*-PACS bands. We use fixed aperture radii for all PACS bands ($R_{\rm int}$=16$\farcs$0 for 70$\mu$m and $R_{\rm int}$=22$\farcs$5 for 160$\mu$m, except for G49.5-4b1 and i due to their larger sizes) that are based on the PSFs of relatively isolated sources (e.g. G49.4-0.3 a/[\#]{}1, b/[\#]{}6 and G49.5-0.4 IRS1/[\#]{}11) and using a generous aperture size. In general, this aperture size cannot be determined accurately using the optimal extraction technique due to the ubiquity of extended emission from nearby sources that are overlapping the source being measured. We compared our aperture sizes to those typically used in the Hi-GAL Compact Source Catalogue . That catalogue employs aperture sizes comparable to the ones we used in this study. Note, however, Hi-GAL catalogue sources are also hugely contaminated by nearby sources (especially in G49.5-0.4d and e regions). We therefore believe that the fixed aperture size we employ here is reasonable, especially since the data are only being used to provide upper limits to our SED model fits.
[rccccccccc]{} & & & & & & & & &\
a/[\#]{}1 & 4.80 & 123 & 116 & 347 & 337 & 0.68 & 0.63 & 0.87 & 0.72\
b/[\#]{}1 & 6.00 & 91.0 & 43.2 & 117 & 45.4 & 0.75 & 0.24 & 2.25 & 0.40\
b/[\#]{}2 & 7.20 & 57.9 & 37.5 & 77.5 & 56.4 & 0.67 & 0.44 & 1.82 & 1.06\
b/[\#]{}3 & 9.60 & 158 & 95.3 & 247 & 130 & 1.59 & 1.14 & 4.80 & 2.52\
b/[\#]{}4 & 6.00 & 83.8 & 56.7 & 175 & 122 & 1.07 & 0.55 & 2.99 & 1.57\
b/[\#]{}5 & 6.00 & 40.0 & 14.1 & 49.6 & 16.3 & 0.26 & 0.02 & 0.80 & 0.05\
b/[\#]{}6 & 4.80 & 46.8 & 26.2 & 41.5 & 20.5 & 0.36 & 0.17 & 1.00 & 0.39\
e/[\#]{}1 & 7.20 & 51.9 & 25.2 & 66.6 & 35.3 & 0.70 & 0.30 & 1.92 & 0.74\
SHA17 3 & 4.80 & 33.0 & 1.20 & 31.8 & 2.40 & 0.27 & 0.01 & 0.77 & 0.04\
SHA17 4 & 6.00 & 48.9 & 17.5 & 54.6 & 18.7 & 0.25 & 0.02 & 0.75 & 0.04\
[**G49.5-0.4**]{} & & & & & & & & &\
b1 & 21.6 & 831 & 590 & 788 & 533 & 7.23 & 4.13 & 20.5 & 10.3\
b2 & 10.8 & 241 & 136 & 296 & 186 & 1.76 & 0.63 & 4.85 & 1.66\
b2/[\#]{}1 & 7.20 & 46.9 & 21.4 & 53.7 & 31.3 & 0.51 & 0.12 & 1.35 & 0.46\
b3 & 12.0 & 134 & 45.1 & 160 & 56.2 & 1.49 & 0.53 & 4.53 & 1.34\
d4e+d4w & 4.80 & 48.7 & 9.70 & 74.1 & 22.1 & 0.62 & 0.19 & 1.43 & 0.41\
d6 & 4.80 & 88.4 & 33.4 & 200 & 105 & 1.15 & 0.18 & 2.47 & 0.57\
e7 & 9.60 & 246 & 116 & 322 & 168 & 2.12 & 0.74 & 5.64 & 1.95\
e9 & 4.80 & 41.0 & 12.5 & 95.5 & 25.3 & 0.73 & 0.25 & 2.12 & 0.91\
e15 & 4.80 & 43.7 & 16.2 & 72.1 & 26.1 & 0.48 & 0.10 & 1.34 & 0.30\
f/[\#]{}1 & 6.00 & 61.9 & 16.0 & 60.9 & 18.4 & 0.56 & 0.16 & 1.57 & 0.38\
i & 18.0 & 433 & 247 & 479 & 288 & 2.82 & 1.69 & 8.20 & 4.57\
i/[\#]{}1 & 7.20 & 43.9 & 9.90 & 55.5 & 17.9 & 0.26 & 0.03 & 0.99 & 0.08\
IRS1/[\#]{}1 & 4.80 & 352 & 284 & 1080 & 921 & 4.26 & 3.05 & 8.63 & 5.86\
IRS1/[\#]{}2 & 4.80 & 188 & 136 & 717 & 626 & 2.71 & 2.11 & 5.99 & 4.43\
IRS1/[\#]{}3 & 4.80 & 23.1 & 14.4 & 66.1 & 42.0 & 0.22 & 0.03 & 0.54 &\
IRS1/[\#]{}4 & 3.60 & 4.70 & 0.50 & 9.60 & 2.20 & 0.06 & & 0.16 &\
IRS1/[\#]{}5 & 3.60 & 3.40 & 0.20 & 8.10 & 2.70 & 0.06 & & 0.15 &\
IRS1/[\#]{}6 & 3.60 & 56.6 & 27.7 & 96.1 & 36.4 & 0.74 & 0.23 & 1.87 & 0.76\
IRS1/[\#]{}7 & 9.60 & 178 & 53.6 & 258 & 69.0 & 2.25 & 0.48 & 5.89 & 1.08\
IRS1/[\#]{}8 & 9.60 & 165 & 37.5 & 247 & 76.7 & 1.93 & 0.43 & 5.21 & 0.86\
IRS1/[\#]{}9 & 6.00 & 401 & 296 & 1260 & 1100 & 4.63 & 2.70 & 12.7 & 4.71\
IRS1/[\#]{}10 & 9.60 & 237 & 49.7 & 278 & 38.7 & 2.61 & 0.38 & 6.98 & 1.10\
IRS1/[\#]{}11 & 3.60 & 11.0 & 3.50 & 20.2 & 13.1 & 0.09 & 0.02 & 0.22 & 0.02\
IRS2/[\#]{}1 & 3.07 & 312 & 302 & 765 & 751 & 2.85 & 2.73 & 3.09 &\
IRS2/[\#]{}2 & 3.07 & 117 & 107 & 254 & 240 & 0.89 & 0.74 & 1.93 & 1.56\
IRS2/[\#]{}3 & 3.07 & 79.7 & 70.9 & 142 & 125 & 0.75 & 0.60 & 1.82 & 1.50\
IRS2/[\#]{}4 & 3.07 & 59.3 & 51.1 & 113 & 96.8 & 0.57 & 0.42 & 1.27 & 0.94\
IRS2/[\#]{}5 & 3.07 & 418 & 410 & 1040 & 1030 & 6.21 & 6.08 & 2.43 &\
IRS2/[\#]{}6 & 3.60 & 17.4 & 5.00 & 28.5 & 9.80 & 0.22 & 0.06 & 0.50 & 0.13\
IRS2/[\#]{}7 & 4.80 & 49.0 & 29.5 & 58.9 & 38.7 & 0.48 & 0.27 & 1.19 & 0.57\
IRS2/[\#]{}8 & 3.60 & 25.2 & 11.4 & 27.6 & 12.8 & 0.22 & 0.07 & 0.56 & 0.12\
IRS2/[\#]{}9 & 3.60 & 30.0 & 18.7 & 37.4 & 25.5 & 0.25 & 0.12 & 0.62 & 0.27\
IRS2/[\#]{}10 & 3.84 & 86.2 & 72.6 & 201 & 184 & 1.03 & 0.85 & 3.05 & 2.60\
IRS2E & 3.84 & 1770 & & 2370 & & 13.3 & & 1.78 &\
IRS2W & 3.84 & 1750 & & 2670 & & 12.1 & & 2.31 &\
IRS3 & 4.80 & 598 & 420 & 1460 & 1130 & 5.69 & 4.20 & 9.04 & 3.32\
IRS4 & 9.60 & 234 & 138 & 442 & 289 & 2.49 & 1.32 & 7.84 & 3.97\
LS1 & 4.80 & 740 & 717 & 782 & 759 & 0.93 & 0.84 & 0.87 & 0.64\
\[tb:cps2\]
[rcccc]{} & & & &\
a/[\#]{}1 & 16.0 & 0.27 & 22.5 & 0.37\
b/[\#]{}1 & 16.0 & 3.08 & 22.5 & 2.03\
b/[\#]{}2 & 16.0 & 1.23 & 22.5 & 1.38\
b/[\#]{}3 & 16.0 & 2.93 & 22.5 & 1.79\
b/[\#]{}4 & 16.0 & 6.37 & 22.5 & 3.92\
b/[\#]{}5 & 16.0 & 0.78 & 22.5 & 0.82\
b/[\#]{}6 & 16.0 & 0.80 & 22.5 & 0.90\
e/[\#]{}1 & 16.0 & 1.72 & 22.5 & 1.92\
SHA17 3 & 16.0 & 1.07 & 22.5 & 1.15\
SHA17 4 & 16.0 & 0.67 & 22.5 & 0.62\
[**G49.5-0.4**]{} & & & &\
b1 & 25.6 & 2.19 & 27.0 & 1.37\
b2 & 16.0 & 3.33 & 22.5 & 3.99\
b2/[\#]{}1 & 16.0 & 2.86 & 22.5 & 4.77\
b3 & 16.0 & 2.22 & 22.5 & 1.58\
d4e+d4w & 16.0 & 18.5 & 22.5 & 7.36\
d6 & 16.0 & 33.5 & 22.5 & 12.4\
e7 & 16.0 & 3.68 & 22.5 & 2.61\
e9 & 16.0 & 32.9 & 22.5 & 13.1\
e15 & 16.0 & 7.35 & 22.5 & 5.40\
f/[\#]{}1 & 16.0 & 1.86 & 22.5 & 1.24\
i & 30.4 & 0.98 & 27.0 & 0.35\
i/[\#]{}1 & 16.0 & 0.65 & 22.5 & 0.70\
IRS1/[\#]{}1 & 16.0 & 32.7 & 22.5 & 12.4\
IRS1/[\#]{}2 & 16.0 & 32.7 & 22.5 & 12.5\
IRS1/[\#]{}3 & 16.0 & 6.35 & 22.5 & 4.89\
IRS1/[\#]{}4 & 16.0 & 6.19 & 22.5 & 7.16\
IRS1/[\#]{}5 & 16.0 & 5.62 & 22.5 & 6.10\
IRS1/[\#]{}6 & 16.0 & 27.1 & 22.5 & 11.1\
IRS1/[\#]{}7 & 16.0 & 6.91 & 22.5 & 3.70\
IRS1/[\#]{}8 & 16.0 & 8.26 & 22.5 & 5.97\
IRS1/[\#]{}9 & 16.0 & 30.2 & 22.5 & 11.6\
IRS1/[\#]{}10 & 16.0 & 7.23 & 22.5 & 3.77\
IRS1/[\#]{}11 & 16.0 & 0.60 & 22.5 & 0.55\
IRS2/[\#]{}1 & 16.0 & 41.6 & 22.5 & 13.5\
IRS2/[\#]{}2 & 16.0 & 38.9 & 22.5 & 13.4\
IRS2/[\#]{}3 & 16.0 & 39.2 & 22.5 & 13.3\
IRS2/[\#]{}4 & 16.0 & 38.5 & 22.5 & 13.3\
IRS2/[\#]{}5 & 16.0 & 42.2 & 22.5 & 12.9\
IRS2/[\#]{}6 & 16.0 & 18.3 & 22.5 & 9.57\
IRS2/[\#]{}7 & 16.0 & 8.54 & 22.5 & 6.63\
IRS2/[\#]{}8 & 16.0 & 6.86 & 22.5 & 6.55\
IRS2/[\#]{}9 & 16.0 & 5.19 & 22.5 & 6.08\
IRS2/[\#]{}10 & 16.0 & 36.3 & 22.5 & 11.6\
IRS2E & 16.0 & 42.7 & 22.5 & 13.3\
IRS2W & 16.0 & 42.5 & 22.5 & 13.2\
IRS3 & 16.0 & 29.4 & 22.5 & 12.0\
IRS4 & 16.0 & 13.4 & 22.5 & 7.06\
LS1 & 16.0 & 0.47 & 22.5 & 0.14\
\[tb:cps3\]
[^1]: Comparing our IRAC photometry (see Table 5) using the optimal extraction technique discussed in §\[sec:cps\] to that of @2017ApJ...839..108S, our measurements yield much higher integrated fluxes. This is because @2017ApJ...839..108S used a fixed radius at 2$\farcs$4 for all point sources, which in all cases smaller than the apertures we employed. @2017ApJ...839..108S also estimate the background intensity of each source using an annulus abutting the point source aperture, i.e. the inner and outer radii of the annuli are always 2$\farcs$4 and 7$\farcs$2, respectively, which provides overestimated background intensities if the PSF of the source is bigger than the aperture size and/or if there is contamination from nearby sources of emission.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present a multi-band model for superconductivity at the metallic interface between insulating oxides LaAlO$_3$ and SrTiO$_3$ (001). Using a self-consistent Bogoliubov-de Gennes theory, formulated with the realistic bands at the interface, we investigate the spin-singlet and spin-triplet pairings in intra-band and inter-band channels. We find that the Rashba and atomic spin-orbit interactions at the interface induce singlet pairing in the inter-band channel and triplet pairing in both the intra-band and inter-band channels when the pairing amplitude in the singlet intra-band channel is finite. The gate-voltage variation of superconductivity is resolved in different pairing channels, compared with experimental results and found to match quite well. Interestingly, an enhancement of the superconducting transition temperature by external in-plane magnetic field is found revealing the existence of a hidden superconducting state above the observed one. As the interface is known to possess high level of inhomogeneity, we explore the role of non-magnetic disorder incorporating thermal phase fluctuations by using a Monte-Carlo method. We show that even after the transition to the non-superconducting phase, driven by temperature or magnetic field, the interface possesses localized Cooper pairs whose signature was observed in previous experiments.'
author:
- 'N. Mohanta'
- 'A. Taraphder'
title: 'Multi-band theory of superconductivity at the LaAlO$_3$/SrTiO$_3$ interface'
---
=1
Introduction
============
The discovery of superconductivity ($T_c\simeq200$ mK) at the interface [@Reyren31082007; @GariglioJPCM2009] between perovskite band insulators LaAlO$_3$ (LAO) and SrTiO$_3$ (STO) triggered a plethora of investigations [@Michaeli_PRL2012; @mohantaJPCM; @NM_VacancyJPCM2014; @Mohanta_EPL2014; @Caprara_PRB2013; @Kelly_PRB2014; @Pavlenko_PRB2009; @Vanderbilt_PRB2009; @Marel_PRB2014; @CNayak_PRB2013] in the last few years due to its exotic nature arising primarily from the presence of competing ferromagnetism ($T_{Curie}\simeq200$ K) [@Li_Nature2011; @Dikin_PRL2011; @Dagan_PRL2014], spin-orbit interaction (SOI) [@Fischer_NJP2013; @Fete_PRB2012] and disorder [@Ariando_PRX2013; @Li_PRB2011; @Zhong_PRB2010]. Besides, the quasi-two dimensional electron gas (q2DEG) at the interface [@Ohtomo2004] exhibits intriguing novel properties such as metal-insulator transition [@Thiel_Science2006; @Huijben_NMat2006; @Cen_NMat2008; @Rijnders_Nature2008; @Eyert_PRB2013] and ferroelectricity [@Tra_AdMa2013]. On top of that, the ability to control these properties by external electric field [@Caviglia2008; @CavigliaPRL2010] added an extra-dimension to the nanoelectronics industry [@Mannhart26032010; @Bjaalie_NJP2014].
The q2DEG is formed by an electronic transfer mechanism in which half an electronic charge per unit cell is transferred to the interface to avoid a polar discontinuity [@Nakagawa2006; @Satpathy_PRL2008]. The electrons are confined in a few TiO$_2$ layers located within a region of about 10 nm thickness at the interface and occupy the $t_{2g}$ orbitals of Ti ions [@Pavlenko_PRB2012_1; @Pentcheva_PRB2006]. Density functional theory (DFT) reveals that the $d_{xy}$ band is situated below the $d_{yz}$, $d_{zx}$ bands by $\sim0.4$ eV due to the confinement at the interface [@Delugas_PRL2011; @Hirayama_JPSJ2012]. The spin-degeneracy of the bands is lifted by the inversion symmetry-breaking Rashba SOI and an atomic SOI [@Held_PRB2013; @Khalsa_PRB2013]. Magnetotransport measurements infer the presence of two types of carriers with different mobilities and the high-mobility carriers have been predicted to be responsible for superconductivity [@Shalom_PRL2010; @Joshua_PNAS2013; @Joshua_NComm2012]. Michaeli *et al.* [@Michaeli_PRL2012] suggested that the system hosts the antagonistic ferromagnetic and superconducting orders by favouring a disordered stabilized helical FFLO state induced by strong Rashba SOI. The complex nature of the coexisting phases [@Li_Nature2011; @Dikin_PRL2011; @Bert_NPhys2011] has naturally led to the predictions of unconventional superconductivity [@Scheurer2015] and different magnetic ground states. The microscopic understanding of the origin of superconductivity remained obscure until the recent convincing evidence of electron-phonon coupling, obtained using tunneling spectroscopy [@Boschker_arXiv2015]. It is, therefore, apparent that phonons play the dominant role in electron pairing in other STO-based superconductors such as doped STO [@Schooley_PRL1964] and X/STO (X = LaTiO$_3$ [@Biscaras2010], GdTiO$_3$ [@Stemmer_PRX2012], FeSe [@Lee2014]) interfaces. The superconductivity at the LAO/STO interface is unique in the following aspects: (i) it appears at very low career concentrations ($\sim 10^{-13}$ cm$^{-2}$) [@Caviglia2008], (ii) the transition temperature ($T_c$) shows BKT-like behaviour [@Caviglia2008] while the pairing-gap or the superfluid density follows BCS prediction: $2\Delta_{0}/(k_{B}T_{g})\simeq3.4$, where $\Delta_{0}$ is the pairing gap at $T=0$, $k_{B}$ is the Boltzmann constant and $T_g$ is the so called ’gap-closing temperature’ [@RichterNature2013], (iii) it coexists with inhomogenous ferromagnetic puddles of large moments ($\sim 0.4\mu_{B}$ per interface unit cell) [@Li_Nature2011]. The coexistence of the competing orders, albeit in phase segregated regions [@Bert_NPhys2011; @mohantaJPCM; @NM_VacancyJPCM2014], gives rise to fascinating phenomena such as the enhancement of superconductivity by magnetic field [@Gardner2011] and the magnetic field assisted transient superconductivity [@Aveek_arxiv2014] leading to possible ’hidden order’. However, despite intensive previous studies, complete theoretical understanding of the nature of the multi-band superconductivity is lacking and necessitates a careful and thorough theoretical analysis.
In the following, we use a three-orbital model for superconductivity to develop an understanding of the nature of superconductivity at the interface in the presence of magnetic moments and try to shed light on the questions raised above. We study the spin-singlet and spin-triplet electron pairing in intra-band and inter-band channels. Using a self-consistent Bogoliubov-de Gennes (BdG) method, formulated with the realistic bands at the interface, we explore the mean-field phase-diagrams, the role of spin-orbit interactions and external magnetic field on the electron pairing. It is found that the pairing in the singlet inter-band channel and triplet intra-band and inter-band channels are induced by the Rashba and atomic SOI when the pairing amplitude in the singlet intra-band channel is finite. Taking cue from the experimental data, we incorporate the gate-voltage in our analysis, study the gate-voltage variation of the pairing amplitudes and plot the phase-diagram to compare with the experimental results. We study the behaviour of the pairing amplitudes in presence of an external in-plane magnetic field and find an enhancement of the superconducting transition temperature when the magnetic field is applied along certain directions in the interface plane. The magnetic field enhancement of superconductivity has been observed experimentally [@Gardner2011] and arises because of the interplay between superconductivity and the competing ferromagnetism. It suggests a hidden superconducting phase above the superconducting transition temperature. Since the interface superconductivity is highly inhomogenous in nature and appears at very low career concentration, the thermal phase-fluctuation becomes significant. We study the phase-transition from superconductor to a non-superconducting state, driven by temperature or perpendicular magnetic field, taking into account the thermal phase-fluctuation using a Monte-Carlo method and observe that there are localized Cooper-pairs in the non-superconducting phase. The presence of these localized Cooper-pairs has been confirmed in previous experiment [@Mehta2012].
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \[model\], we discuss about the origin of ferromagnetism and superconductivity and introduce the multi-orbital effective Hamiltonian for the interface q2DEG. In Sec. \[bdg\], we formulate the self-consistent equations for the superconducting order parameters within the multi-orbital BdG framework. In Sec. \[results\], we present and discuss our results obtained within the self-consistent BdG method. In Sec. \[mc\_phase\], we present of Monte-Carlo analysis of the thermal phase-fluctuation in superconductivity. The conclusions are briefly summarized in Sec. \[conclusions\].
Effective three-orbital model of superconductivity {#model}
==================================================
In the following, we elaborate the microscopic mechanisms of ferromagnetism, superconductivity and other ingredients of the interface q2DEG and establish the effective Hamiltonian for the interface electrons.
The electrons coming from the top LaAlO$_3$ layer to neutralize the polarization discontinuity at the interface, predominantly occupy the $d_{xy}$ orbitals of Ti ions in the terminating TiO$_2$ layer and establish quarter-filled $d_{xy}$ states. Because of large onsite Hubbard, and nearest-neighbour Coulomb repulsive interactions at the interface, all the electrons get localized at the interface sites and form a charge-ordered insulating ground state with a weak anti-ferromagnetic super-exchange coupling mediated via the Oxygens [@Michaeli_PRL2012; @Banerjee2013]. Additional electrons, supplied by the application of the back-gate voltage or the Oxygen vacancies near the interface, will find the top TiO$_2$ layer as energetically unfavourable and go to the next TiO$_2$ layer to occupy the $t_{2g}$ orbitals of Ti ions. The electrons in the $t_{2g}$ orbitals in the next TiO$_2$ layer participate in conduction and exhibit superconductivity. Spectroscopic experiment [@Joshua_NComm2012] and DFT studies [@Held_PRB2013; @Khalsa_PRB2013] show that, due to confinement at the interface, the $d_{xy}$ band is lower in energy at the $\Gamma$-point by $\sim0.4$ eV than the quasi-one dimensional, relatively heavier $d_{yz}$,$d_{zx}$ bands. When the Fermi-level is tuned, the system encounters a Lifshitz transition at an electron concentration $n_c\simeq1.68\times10^{13}$ cm$^{-2}$ where the low-mobility $d_{yz}$,$d_{zx}$ electrons start getting occupied [@Joshua_NComm2012] as depicted in FIG. \[band\_fs\].
An interesting feature of the band-structure is that because of the atomic SOI, the orbital characters of the $d_{xy}$ band and the heavier $d_{yz}$,$d_{zx}$ bands get interchanged near the Lifshitz point and the splitting due to Rashba SOI is significant only near the degeneracy points. The spin-degeneracy in all the bands is lifted by the spin-orbit interactions, the splitting being largest near the band-mixing points.
The wave-functions of the itinerant electrons in the $t_{2g}$ orbitals in the TiO$_2$ layer below the interface are extended to the terminating TiO$_2$ layer. Therefore, these electrons interact via a ferromagnetic exchange with the localized moments leading to the in-plane ferromagnetic order. The exchange interaction can be described by a Hamiltonian ${\cal H}_{FM}=\sum_i \sum_{\alpha}\int d{\bf r} J_{\alpha}\hat{\bf S}({\bf R}_i)\cdot \hat{\bf s}_{\alpha}({\bf r})\delta({\bf r}-{\bf R}_i)$, where $\hat{\bf S}({\bf R}_i)$ is the spin operator at the local moment sites ${\bf R}_i$, $\hat{\bf s}_{\alpha}({\bf r})$ is the spin-density operator in the itinerant orbital $\alpha$ ($d_{xy},d_{yz},d_{zx}$), $J_{\alpha}$ is the strength of the exchange interaction. Since the itinerant $d_{yz}$,$d_{zx}$ orbitals are orthogonal to the localized $d_{xy}$ orbital, $J_{d_{xy}}\gg J_{d_{yz},d_{zx}}$ [@Michaeli_PRL2012]. This is in agreement with the spectroscopic studies which indicate $d_{xy}$ nature of the in-plane ferromagnetism [@Lee_Nature2013]. When treated at the mean-field level, ${\cal H}_{FM}$ will essentially be reduced to ${\cal H}_{FM}=\sum_{k,\alpha,\sigma,\sigma^{\prime}}( h_{x\alpha} {\sigma_x})_{\sigma,\sigma^{\prime}}c_{k\alpha\sigma}^\dagger c_{k\alpha\sigma^{\prime}}$, where $h_{x\alpha}$ are the Zeeman splitting amplitudes, corresponding to different orbitals of index $\alpha$, along the in-plane direction (taken to be along $\hat{x}$ axis) with $h_{x\alpha}=h_{x1}$ for $d_{xy}$ orbital and $h_{x\alpha}=h_{x2}$ for $d_{yz}$, $d_{zx}$ orbitals ($h_{x1} > h_{x2}$). The attractive interaction, mediated by electron-phonon coupling, for the three itinerant orbitals can be expressed as ${\cal H}_{SC}=-g\sum_{k,k^{\prime},\alpha,\beta}c_{k\alpha\uparrow}^{\dagger}c_{-k\beta\downarrow}^{\dagger}c_{-k^{\prime}\beta\downarrow}c_{k^{\prime}\alpha\uparrow}$, where $g$ is the strength of the pairwise electron-electron interaction. The spin-singlet and spin-triplet pairing amplitudes in the intra-band and inter-band channels can be defined as $\Delta_{\alpha\beta}^{s}=-g\braket{c_{k\alpha\uparrow}c_{-k\beta\downarrow}}$ and $\Delta_{\alpha\beta\sigma\sigma}^{t}=-g\braket{c_{k\alpha\sigma}c_{-k\beta\sigma}}$ respectively. Neglecting fluctuations beyond mean-field, the pairing term becomes ${\cal H}_{SC}=\sum_{k,\alpha,\beta} (\Delta_{\alpha\beta}^{s}c_{k\alpha\uparrow}^\dagger c_{-k\beta\downarrow}^\dagger + \Delta_{\alpha\beta\uparrow\uparrow}^{t}c_{k\alpha\uparrow}^\dagger c_{-k\beta\uparrow}^\dagger+ \Delta_{\alpha\beta\downarrow\downarrow}^{t}c_{k\alpha\downarrow}^\dagger c_{-k\beta\downarrow}^\dagger + h.c.)$. We have $\Delta_{\alpha\beta\uparrow\uparrow}^{t}=\Delta_{\alpha\beta\downarrow\downarrow}^{t}$ and the orbitals are indexed according to $(a,b,c)=(d_{xy},d_{yz},d_{zx})$.
Another significant feature of the interface q2DEG is the presence of the atomic and Rashba SOI which reorganize the spin and orbital degrees of freedom of the $t_{2g}$ electrons. The atomic SOI, described by the Hamiltonian ${\cal H}_{ASO}=\Delta_{so}\vec{l}\cdot\vec{s}$, appears because of the crystal field splitting of the atomic orbitals. In the $t_{2g}$ orbital basis $(c_{ka\uparrow},c_{kb\uparrow},c_{kc\uparrow},c_{ka\downarrow},c_{kb\downarrow},c_{kc\downarrow})$, ${\cal H}_{ASO}$ can be written as [@Held_PRB2013] $$\begin{aligned}
&{\cal H}_{ASO}=\frac{\Delta_{so}}{2}\sum_{k}\begin{pmatrix} \begin{array}{cccccc} c_{ka\uparrow}^\dagger & c_{kb\uparrow}^\dagger & c_{kc\uparrow}^\dagger & c_{ka\downarrow}^\dagger & c_{kb\downarrow}^\dagger & c_{kc\downarrow}^\dagger\end{array} \end{pmatrix}\nonumber\\
&\times\begin{pmatrix} \begin{array}{cccccc} 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & -i\\0 & 0 & i & -1 & 0 & 0\\0 & -i & 0 & i & 0 & 0\\0 & -1 & -i & 0 & 0 & 0\\1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -i\\i & 0 & 0 & 0 & i & 0 \end{array} \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} \begin{array}{c} c_{ka\uparrow} \\ c_{kb\uparrow} \\ c_{kc\uparrow} \\ c_{ka\downarrow} \\ c_{kb\downarrow} \\ c_{kc\downarrow}\end{array} \end{pmatrix}
\label{H_aso}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta_{so}=19.3$ meV is the strength of the atomic SOI. On the other hand, the Rashba SOI, which describes the broken inversion symmetry at the interface, is given by the following Hamiltonian: $$\begin{aligned}
&{\cal H}_{RSO}=\gamma\sum_{k,\sigma}\begin{pmatrix} \begin{array}{ccc} c_{ka\sigma}^\dagger & c_{kb\sigma}^\dagger & c_{kc\sigma}^\dagger\end{array} \end{pmatrix}\nonumber\\
&\times\begin{pmatrix} \begin{array}{ccc} 0 & -2i\sin{k_x} & -2i\sin{k_y}\\2i\sin{k_x} & 0 & 0\\2i\sin{k_y} & 0 & 0\end{array} \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} \begin{array}{c} c_{ka\sigma} \\ c_{kb\sigma} \\ c_{kc\sigma}\end{array} \end{pmatrix}
\label{H_rso}\end{aligned}$$ where $\gamma=20$ meV is the strength of the Rashba SOI. It is interesting to note that the Rashba SOI, described by ${\cal H}_{RSO}$, is very different from what is usually observed in the 2DEG at semiconducting hetero-interfaces.
The Oxygen vacancies, which are developed at the interface during the deposition process, are considered as indispensable parts of the interface q2DEG and have very significant role in ferromagnetism, superconductivity and their coexistence [@mohantaJPCM; @NM_VacancyJPCM2014]. We model these non-magnetic impurities as the local random shifts in the chemical potential and express by the Hamiltonian ${\cal H}_{dis}=\sum_{i_d}^{N_d}\sum_{\alpha\sigma}V^{i_d} c_{i_d\alpha\sigma}^{\dagger}c_{i_d\alpha\sigma}$, where $i_d$ denotes the defect sites of total number $N_d$, $V^{i_d}$ is a random potential which varies within a range \[$-W,W$\] and $W$ is the strength of the disorder. The percentage defect concentration is given by $n_d=N_d/{N^2}\times100$.
The total effective Hamiltonian for the interface electrons is, therefore, given by $${\cal H}_{eff}={\cal H}_0+{\cal H}_{ASO}+{\cal H}_{RSO}+{\cal H}_{FM}+{\cal H}_{SC}+{\cal H}_{dis}
\label{H_eff}$$ where ${\cal H}_0=\sum_{k,\alpha,\sigma}(\epsilon_{k\alpha}-\mu) c_{k\alpha\sigma}^\dagger c_{k\alpha\sigma}$ describes the band dispersion of the electrons in the three $t_{2g}$ orbitals with $\epsilon_{ka}=-2t_1(\cos{k_x}+\cos{k_y})-t_2-4t_3\cos{k_x}\cos{k_y}$, $\epsilon_{kb}=-t_1(1+2\cos{k_y})-2t_2\cos{k_x}-2t_3\cos{k_y}$, $\epsilon_{kc}=-t_1(1+2\cos{k_x})-2t_2\cos{k_y}-2t_3\cos{k_x}$, $\mu$ is the chemical potential and $t_1=0.277$ eV, $t_2=0.031$ eV, $t_3=0.076$ eV are the tight-binding parameters [@Held_PRB2013].
Although multi-band superconductivity in this interface q2DEG was proposed earlier [@Caprara_PRB2013; @Nakamura_JPSJ2013], the explicit nature of the pairing symmetry and the intra-band or inter-band superconductivity were not explored. Our model uses the realistic band structures, obtained from DFT studies [@Held_PRB2013], and treats the electron pairing in intra-band and inter-band channels within the multi-band BdG theory, to be described below.
Multi-band BdG Theory {#bdg}
=====================
The self-consistent BdG theory is perhaps the best available numerical technique to study the interplay of superconductivity with real-space inhomogeneity or competing orders such as ferromagnetism or charge density wave within mean-field approximation in any experimentally realizable geometry. To begin with, the Hamiltonian ${\cal H}_{eff}$ in Eq. (\[H\_eff\]) is written in real lattice as $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal H}_{BdG}&=-\sum_{ij,\alpha,\beta,\sigma,\sigma^{\prime}}(t_{\alpha\beta}^{ij\sigma\sigma^{\prime}}c_{i\alpha\sigma}^\dagger c_{j\beta\sigma^{\prime}}+h.c.)\nonumber\\
&-\sum_{i,\alpha,\sigma}(\mu-V^{i_d}\delta_{ii_d})c_{i\alpha\sigma}^{\dagger}c_{i\alpha\sigma}\nonumber\\
&+\sum_{i,\alpha,\sigma,\sigma^{\prime}}(h_{x\alpha}\sigma_x)_{\sigma \sigma^{\prime}}c_{i\alpha\sigma}^\dagger c_{i\alpha\sigma^{\prime}}\nonumber\\
&+\sum_{i,\alpha,\beta}(\Delta_{\alpha\beta}^{s}(r_i)c_{i\alpha\uparrow}^{\dagger}c_{i\beta\downarrow}^{\dagger}+h.c.)\nonumber\\
&+\sum_{<ij>,\alpha,\beta,\sigma}(\Delta_{\alpha\beta\sigma\sigma}^{t}(r_i)c_{i\alpha\sigma}^{\dagger}c_{j\beta\sigma}^{\dagger}+h.c.)
\label{H_bdg}\end{aligned}$$ where $t_{\alpha\beta}^{ij\sigma\sigma^{\prime}}$ is the tight-binding hopping amplitudes which contains ${\cal H}_0$, ${\cal H}_{ASO}$ and ${\cal H}_{RSO}$, $\Delta_{\alpha\beta}^{si}=-g\braket{c_{i\alpha\uparrow}c_{i\beta\downarrow}}$ and $\Delta_{\alpha\beta\sigma\sigma}^{ti}=-g\braket{c_{i\alpha\sigma}c_{i\beta\sigma}}$ are the local singlet and triplet pairing gaps, $\delta_{ii_d}$ is the Kronecker’s delta function.
The Hamiltonian ${\cal H}_{BdG}$ in Eq. (\[H\_bdg\]) is diagonalized by the unitary Bogoliubov transformation $\hat{c}_{i\alpha\sigma}=\sum_{n,\sigma^{\prime}}u_{n\alpha\sigma}^{i\sigma^{\prime}}\hat{\gamma}_{n}^{\sigma^{\prime}}+v_{n\alpha\sigma}^{i\sigma^{\prime}*}\hat{\gamma}_{n}^{\sigma^{\prime}\dagger}$ which yields the multi-band BdG equations ($\sigma^{\prime}$, being a dummy index, is omitted hereafter.) $$\begin{aligned}
&\sum_j \begin{pmatrix} \begin{array}{cccc} \sum_{\beta}\Gamma_{\alpha\beta}^{ij\uparrow\uparrow} & \sum_{\beta}\Gamma_{\alpha\beta}^{ij\uparrow\downarrow} & \Delta_{\alpha\beta\uparrow\uparrow}^{tij}\delta_{\alpha\beta} & \Delta_{\alpha\beta}^{sij}\delta_{\alpha\beta} \\ \sum_{\beta}\Gamma_{\alpha\beta}^{ij\downarrow\uparrow} & \sum_{\beta}\Gamma_{\alpha\beta}^{ij\downarrow\downarrow} & -\Delta_{\alpha\beta}^{sij}\delta_{\alpha\beta} & \Delta_{\alpha\beta\downarrow\downarrow}^{tij}\delta_{\alpha\beta} \\ \Delta_{\alpha\beta\uparrow\uparrow}^{tij*}\delta_{\alpha\beta} & -\Delta_{\alpha\beta}^{sij*}\delta_{\alpha\beta} & -\sum_{\beta}\Gamma_{\alpha\beta}^{ij\uparrow\uparrow*} & -\sum_{\beta}\Gamma_{\alpha\beta}^{ij\uparrow\downarrow *}\\\Delta_{\alpha\beta}^{sij*}\delta_{\alpha\beta} & \Delta_{\alpha\beta\downarrow\downarrow}^{tij*}\delta_{\alpha\beta} & -\sum_{\beta}\Gamma_{\alpha\beta}^{ij\downarrow\uparrow *} & -\sum_{\beta}\Gamma_{\alpha\beta}^{ij\downarrow\downarrow *}\end{array} \end{pmatrix}\nonumber\\
&\times\begin{pmatrix} \begin{array}{c} u_{n\alpha\uparrow}^j \\ u_{n\alpha\downarrow}^j \\ v_{n\alpha\uparrow}^j \\ v_{n\alpha\downarrow}^j \end{array} \end{pmatrix}=E_n \begin{pmatrix} \begin{array}{c} u_{n\alpha\uparrow}^j \\ u_{n\alpha\downarrow}^j \\ v_{n\alpha\uparrow}^j \\ v_{n\alpha\downarrow}^j \end{array} \end{pmatrix}
\label{EBdG}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Gamma_{\alpha\beta}^{ij\sigma\sigma^{\prime}}=- t_{\alpha\beta}^{ij\sigma\sigma^{\prime}}-[(\mu-V^{i_d}\delta_{ii_d})\delta_{\sigma\sigma^{\prime}}-(h_{x\alpha}\sigma_x)_{\sigma\sigma^{\prime}}]\delta_{ij}\delta_{\alpha\beta}$. For a square lattice of size $N \times N$, the BdG Hamiltonian matrix has dimension $12N^2 \times 12N^2$ for three orbitals. Using the above Bogoliubov transformation, the local pairing gaps can be obtained as $$\begin{aligned}
&\Delta_{\alpha\beta}^{si}=-\frac{g}{2}\sum_{n}[u_{n\alpha\uparrow}^i v^{i*}_{n\beta\downarrow}-u_{n\alpha\downarrow}^i v^{i*}_{n\beta\uparrow}]\tanh{\left(\frac{E_n}{2k_BT}\right)}\nonumber\\
&\Delta_{\alpha\beta\sigma\sigma}^{ti}=-\frac{g}{2}\sum_{n,<j>}[u_{n\alpha\sigma}^i v^{j*}_{n\beta\sigma}-u_{n\alpha\sigma}^i v^{j*}_{n\beta\sigma}]\tanh{\left(\frac{E_n}{2k_BT}\right)}
\label{gap_eq}\end{aligned}$$ where $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant and $T$ is the temperature. The total occupation number $n=(1/N^2)\sum_{i,\alpha,\sigma}\braket{c_{i\alpha\sigma}^{\dagger}c_{i\alpha\sigma}}$ is computed using the following relation $$n=\frac{1}{N^2}\sum_{n,i,\alpha,\sigma}[|u_{n\alpha\sigma}^i|^2 f(E_n)+|v_{n\alpha\sigma}^i|^2 (1-f(E_n))]
\label{occup}$$ where $f(E_n)=1/(1+\exp(E_n/k_{B}T))$ is the fermi function. In what follows, the BdG equations (\[EBdG\]) are solved numerically on a square lattice with periodic boundary conditions to find out the eigenvalues $E_n$ and the local quasi-particle amplitudes $u_{n\alpha\sigma}^i$, $u_{n\alpha\sigma}^i$ and the new pairing gaps are calculated using Eq. (\[gap\_eq\]). This process is repeated until self-consistency is reached at every lattice sites. Finally, the average values are obtained via $\Delta_{\alpha\beta}^{s/t}=(1/N)\sum_i\Delta_{\alpha\beta}^{(s/t)i}$.
It is important to mention here that static mean-field theory neglects fluctuations and, therefore, over-estimates the fermionic field amplitudes. The temperature or the magnetic field, being treated in the analysis, are therefore shouldbe seen as just parameters and their qualitative features, not quantitative estimates, are relevant.
Results
=======
Having formulated the self-consistent BdG theory, we now present the numerical results obtained on a $25\times25$ square lattice. First we analyze, in the homogeneous situation ($n_d=0$), the effects of Rashba and atomic SOI on superconductivity, the gap-structures and phase diagrams of the singlet and triplet pairings and then the effects of in-plane magnetic field on superconductivity.
Spin orbit interactions are known to have unusual effects on superconductivity [@Kim_PRB2012; @Sigrist_EPL2000].
The gate-tunable Rashba SOI makes the interface q2DEG a potential candidate for spintronic applications [@Bibes_PTRSA2012] as well as a playground for the search of non-trivial topological excitation such as the Majorana fermions [@Mohanta_EPL2014] or the Skyrmions [@Leon_PRB2014; @Garaud_PRB2014] or novel Hall phases [@mohanta_ahesc]. We study the effects of Rashba SOI and atomic SOI on the intra-band and inter-band pairing as shown in FIG. \[gma\_var\]. The pairing gap $\Delta_{a}$ in the $d_{xy}$ orbital is largely suppressed by the in-plane ferromagnetism while the pairing gaps $\Delta_{b}$ and $\Delta_{c}$ in the $d_{yz}$, $d_{zx}$ orbitals dominate. As depicted in FIG. \[gma\_var\](a), (e), the pairing amplitudes $\Delta_{b}$ and $\Delta_{c}$ decreases slowly with increasing both Rashba SOI strength $\gamma$ and atomic SOI strength $\Delta_{so}$ because the SOI enhances precession of electrons leading to slow reduction of the electron pairing. It is interesting to note that the superconductivity in the singlet inter-band channel and the triplet intra-band and inter-band channels is induced by the SOI when the pairing amplitudes $\Delta_b$ or $\Delta_c$ is finite as shown in FIG. \[gma\_var\](b)-(d),(f)-(h). This is because of the fact that the SOI breaks the spin-degeneracy and, in presence of the Zeeman splitting, the spin and orbitals nature of the electronic bands are re-organized and the pairings, in these channels, become energetically favourable.
The temperature-variations of the pairing amplitudes are shown in FIG. \[mu\_T\_del\](a)-(d). The pairing gaps reveal BCS nature in all the pairing channels except the triplet intra-band pairing $\Delta_c^t$ which gets enhanced near the transition temperature.
We plot the maximum pairing amplitudes in the singlet and triplet channels in the $n-T$ phase-plane as described in FIG. \[mu\_T\_del\](e)-(f). which show the superconducting phases. It is evident that both the singlet and triplet pairing channels show a dome-shaped superconducting phase and the triplet pairing becomes stronger towards higher values of career density.
In the experiments, a gate voltage ($V_g$) is tuned to control the doping level of the q2DEG and a superconductor to insulator transition with a quantum critical point $V_g=140$ V [@Caviglia2008] is evinced by varying the gate voltage. It is, therefore, fascinating to study the variation of the pairing amplitudes in different channels with respect to $V_g$ and eventually to plot the phase-diagram in the $V_g-T$ plane. In appendix \[gate\], we derive the gate-voltage dependence of the career density and Rashba SOI. In FIG. \[vg\_var\](a)-(d), we plot the gate-voltage variation of the pairing amplitudes which reveal the superconducting transition at $V_g\simeq 140$ V. It is interesting to note that the singlet intra-band pairing gaps and triplet intra-band and inter-band pairing gaps follow the nature of the variation of the Rashba SOI with respect to $V_g$ as shown in Fig. \[gate\_var\](b).
FIG. \[vg\_var\](e)-(f) depict the superconducting phases in the singlet and triplet channels respectively. The superconducting phase shown in FIG. \[vg\_var\](e) fits well with the experimental data except a quantitative mismatch of the transition temperatures due to inherent overestimation problem of mean-field theory. The triplet pairing appears to begin at higher values in the gate voltage range. It has been found experimentally that the pairing gap $\Delta$ behaves differently than the transition temperature $T_c$ with respect to $V_g$ [@RichterNature2013]. In the underdoped region, $T_c$ increases with $V_g$ while $\Delta$ decreases. This unusually different variation of $\Delta$ and $T_c$ with $V_g$ has been elucidated as due to the precise nature of the phonon spectral function $\alpha^2g(\omega)$ in the underdoped regime and due to the entrance of new bands which suppress $\Delta$ in the overdoped regime [@Boschker_arXiv2015].
Next we study the effect of external in-plane magnetic field on superconductivity. As shown in FIG. \[theta\_var\], the magnetic field is applied in the interface plane along different directions ($\theta$) with respect to the initial direction of polarization due to in-plane ferromagnetism and the pairing gaps are plotted in the polar plane of ($\Delta$, $\theta$).
The singlet pairing amplitudes are increased along the opposite direction of that of the intrinsic polarization direction while the triplet pairing amplitudes get strengthened along $\theta\simeq 60^{\circ},300^{\circ}$. FIG. \[theta\_var\](e) plots the superconducting transition temperature $T_c$ as a function of the amplitude $B$ of the applied magnetic field. Remarkably, the enhancement of superconductivity by in-plane magnetic field has been reported experimentally in LAO/STO interface [@Gardner2011]. The enhancement of superconductivity is because of the interplay between superconductivity, the intrinsic ferromagnetism and the ferromagnetism induced by the applied magnetic field and implicates a possibility of a hidden superconducting phase above the transition temperature. The hidden superconducting phase is also inferred from the recent observation of the magnetic field assisted transient superconducting state observed in the interface q2DEG at 245 mK [@Aveek_arxiv2014]. It is relevant to mention here that a hidden order has been proposed to be the precursor of superconductivity in Fe-pnictdes and high-Tc Cuprates [@Moor_PRB2015]. It may, as well, be possible that a hidden superconducting phase, arising from the competition between ferromagnetism and superconductivity, exist in LAO/STO hetero-interface.
Monte-Carlo study of thermal phase-fluctuation {#mc_phase}
==============================================
The interface q2DEG is highly inhomogenous in nature and becomes superconducting at very low career concentrations. Therefore, the superconductivity is prone to the detrimental effects of non-magnetic disorder and the role of phase-fluctuation becomes important. In a previous study [@mohantaJPCM], we show that disorder, in fact, can help the antagonistic ferromagnetism to live apart with superconductivity in spatially phase-segregated regions at the interface.
In FIG. \[W\_var\], we show the variation of the maximum pairing gap $\Delta_{max}$, the gap-closing temperature $T_g$ and the BCS ratio $2\Delta_{max}/T_{g}$ with respect to disorder strength $W$ for different concentrations $n_d$. With increasing $W$ and $n_d$, both $\Delta_{max}$ and the BCS ratio decreases with fluctuation. On the other hand, $T_g$ fluctuates, with increasing $W$, within a narrow range of temperature and shows increasing tendency with increasing $n_d$. It is evident that in the highly disorder limit, $\Delta$ and $T_g$ behave differently and, therefore, can no longer track the superconducting transition. It is required to go beyond the standard BCS prescription and incorporate the phase-fluctuation into account in the effective theory.
We use a Monte Carlo (MC) technique in conjunction with self-consistent BdG formalism to study the thermal phase-fluctuations near the superconducting transition driven by magnetic field or temperature. In the MC analysis, we consider only singlet intraband pairings in the $d_{yz}$ and $d_{zx}$ orbitals as they dominate over the pairings in other channels substantially and use a single pairing gap $\Delta=\Delta_b^s\simeq\Delta_c^s$ to reduce the computation time. The complex superconducting order parameter is taken as $\Delta(r_i)=|\Delta_i|e^{j\phi_i}$, where $|\Delta_i|$ and $\phi_i$ are, respectively, the amplitude and phase of the pairing gap at site $i$. We start at high temperature with a specific disorder-configuration and reach low temperature upto 0.002 eV. At each temperature, the site-resolved pairing gaps $|\Delta_i|$ are computed using the self-consistent BdG method, described in section \[bdg\], and are fed into the MC update process which uses a free-energy minimization technique to determine the phases $\phi_i$. In appendix \[free\_en\], we present the calculation of the free energy for a given BdG Hamiltonian.
In the weak to moderate disorder limit, the pairing gap parameter tracks the superconducting transition. However, in the highly disordered limit, in which the interface q2DEG lies, the superconducting transition is indicated by the destruction of the global phase-coherence. To quantify the phase-coherence, we compute a long-ranged phase correlation function $D_{ij}=\braket{\cos(\phi_i-\phi_j)}$, similar to that used in the XY-model to track the universal BKT transition, where $i$ and $j$ are sites separated by large distance and $`\braket{\ }$’ denotes the disorder and site averaged value. In FIG. \[phase\_fluc\](a)-(b), we show the variation of $D_{ij}$ and $\braket{|\Delta_i|}$ with respect to temperature $T$ and perpendicular magnetic field $B_z$ respectively. In both the cases, the transition to the non-superconducting phase is dictated by a vanishing $D_{ij}$ and, on the other hand, $\braket{|\Delta_i|}$ remains finite and fluctuates. The small finite value of $\braket{|\Delta_i|}$ in the non-superconducting phase is the signature of localized Cooper pairs [@dubinature2007]. The profile of the pairing gap in the two-dimensional space is shown in FIG. \[phase\_fluc\](d). The direct evidence of the presence of localized Cooper pairs in the insulating phase has been found in recent transport measurement [@Mehta2012]. FIG. \[phase\_fluc\](c) shows the single particle density of states, given by $$\rho(E)=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{n,i,\alpha,\sigma}\left[{(u_{n\alpha\sigma}^{i})}^2\delta(E-E_n)+{(v_{n\alpha\sigma}^{i})}^2\delta(E+E_n) \right],$$ at different temperatures across the superconducting transition. It is important to note that because of strong disorder, quasi-particle states, bound to the impurities, appear within the bulk superconducting gap and the system passes through a pseudo-gap like phase during the quantum phase transition [@RichterNature2013].
Conclusions
===========
In this paper, we presented a three-band model for the superconductivity at the LaAlO$_3$/SrTiO$_3$ (001) interface. We explored, using a multi-orbital BdG theory, the interplay between the superconductivity, ferromagnetism, and spin-orbit interactions. We also studied the role of thermal phase fluctuation using a Monte-Carlo method. The key findings of our analysis can be summarized as follows.
The electron pairing in the $d_{xy}$ band is suppressed by the competing ferromagnetic order and the pairing in the $d_{yz}$, $d_{zx}$ bands dominates. We find that the singlet pairing in the inter-band channel and the triplet pairing in both intra- and inter-band channel is induced by the SOI when the pairing amplitude in the singlet intra-band channel is finite.
Gate-voltage has been found to affect supercocinductivity at the interface quite strongly. We calculated the gate-voltage variation of the pairing amplitudes in different channels and extracted the singlet and triplet superconducting phases in the $V_g-T$ plane and compared with experimental results with a fair degree of agreement.
We observed an enhancement of superconductivity by external in-plane magnetic field. We found that the superconducting transition temperature depends on the direction of the applied in-plane magnetic field which is an expermentally verifiable prediction from our theory. The enhancement of superconductivity by applied magnetic field is due to the interplay between ferromagnetism and superconductivity and suggests a ’hidden superconducting phase’ above the transition temperature. The recent observation of magnetic field-assisted transient superconducting state at $245$ mK [@Aveek_arxiv2014] agrees with this hidden superconducting order and needs to be explored further experimentally [@NM_AT_tobe].
Lastly, we studied the role of thermal phase fluctuation on the superconductivity using a Monte-Carlo method and found that there exist localized Cooper pairs in the non-superconducting phase beyond the quantum phase transition driven by perpendicular magnetic field. The same is also seen in the normal state just above the superconducting transition temperature. The density of states reveal that, in the highly disordered situation, quasi-particle bound states appear within the bulk superconducting gap and the system passes through a pseudo-gap like phase exactly as reported in the tunneling spectroscopic measurement [@RichterNature2013].
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We thank Aveek Bid and Siddhartha Lal for fruitful discussions and acknowledge the use of the computing facility from DST-FIST (phase-II) Project installed in the Department of Physics, IIT Kharagpur, India.
Gate-voltage dependence {#gate}
=======================
The voltage $V_g$, applied by back-gating to the STO substrate with the interface 2DEG grounded, controls the career density at the interface and the Rashba spin-orbit splitting [@Caviglia2008; @CavigliaPRL2010]. The career density $n$ changes with the applied electric field $F$ according to the relation $$n(F)=\frac{2\epsilon_0}{e} \int_0^F \epsilon_r(F) dF$$ where $\epsilon_0$ is the free-space permittivity, $\epsilon_r(F)$ is the field-dependent relative permittivity and $e$ is the quantum of electronic charge. For bulk STO, $\epsilon_r(F)=1/A(1+\frac{B}{A}F)$, where $A=4.097\times10^{-5}$ and $B=4.907\times10^{-10}$ are temperature-dependent parameters, determined experimentally at 4.3 K by a first-order fit to the permittivity [@Neville_JAP1972]. However, it has a singularity at $F=-A/B$ which is circumvented, as prescribed in Ref. , by taking into account the second order term in the denominator. The corrected expression is given by $\epsilon_r(F)=1/A[C_1+C_2\frac{B}{A}F+C_3(\frac{B}{A})^2F^2]$, where $C_i$ ($i=1,2,3$) are parameters to be found out by experimental fits.
The career density can, therefore, be expressed as $$n(F)=\frac{4\epsilon_0\Big\{ \tan^{-1} \Big[ \frac{2C_3BF+C_2A}{A\sqrt{C_4}}\Big] -\tan^{-1}\Big(\frac{C_2}{\sqrt{C_4}}\Big) \Big\}}{eB\sqrt{C_4}}$$ where $C_4=4C_1C_3-C_2^2$. The gate-voltage $V_g$ enters in the above expression via the relation $F=V_g/d+F_0$, where $d=0.5$ mm is the thickness of the STO layer and $F_0=1.2\times10^5$ V/m is the initial electric field at the interface in the absence of the gate-voltage. Comparison with the experimental data [@Caviglia2008] yields $C_1=4.25$, $C_2=-0.37$ and $C_3=0.29$. Fig. \[gate\_var\](a) describes the gate-voltage modulation of the career density.
Furthermore, the gate voltage tunes the Rashba spin-orbit splitting at the interface [@CavigliaPRL2010]. In Ref. , the gate-voltage dependence of the Rashba spin-orbit interaction is derived using a Kane $\mathbf {k \cdot p}$ approach. However, it is interesting to note that the DFT studies in Ref. reveals that the Rashba spin-orbit interaction at the interface is very different from usual Rashba type spin-orbit interaction found in semiconductor hetero-interfaces. Here, we fit the gate-voltage dependence of the Rashba splitting amplitude observed in Ref. , to the equation $\gamma=a+b(V_g+200)^{2c}$ within $V_g$-range \[$-200 ,200$\] V, with $a=0.0016$, $b=3.6\times10^{-11}$ and $c=1.8$ as plotted in Fig. \[gate\_var\](b).
Free energy of BdG Hamiltonian {#free_en}
==============================
The free energy of an inhomogenous superconductor is given by [@Leggett_PRB98] $${\cal F}=\braket{{\cal H}_{eff}}-T{\cal S}
\label{free}$$ where $\braket{{\cal H}_{eff}}$ is the effective Hamiltonian of the superconductor, $T$ is the temperature and ${\cal S}$ is the entropy.
The effective mean-field Hamiltonian of a single-orbital system is written as $${\cal H}_{eff}=\sum_{ij,\sigma}H_{ij} c_{i\sigma}^{\dagger}c_{i\sigma}+\sum_{i}[\Delta_i c_{i\uparrow}^{\dagger}c_{i\downarrow}^{\dagger}+h.c.]+\frac{|\Delta_i|^2}{U}$$ where $H_{ij}$ is the tight-binding Hamiltonian containing kinetic energy terms, $\Delta_i$ is the complex superconducting pairing gap at site $i$ and $U$ is the strength of the attractive electron-electron interaction.
The effective Hamiltonian ${\cal H}_{eff}$ is diagonalized by using the Bogoliubov transformation $\hat{c}_{i\sigma}=\sum_{n,\sigma^{\prime}}u_{n\sigma\sigma^{\prime}}^{i}\hat{\gamma}_{n\sigma^{\prime}}+v_{n\sigma\sigma^{\prime}}^{i*}\hat{\gamma}_{n\sigma^{\prime}}^{\dagger}$ to obtain $${\cal H}_{eff}=E_g+\sum_{n}E_n \gamma_{n\sigma^{\prime}}^{\dagger}\gamma_{n\sigma^{\prime}}$$ where $E_n$ are the eigen-values of the BdG equations and the ground state energy $E_g$ is given by $$E_g=-\sum_{i,n,\sigma}E_n |v_{n\sigma}^i|^2+\sum_{i}\frac{|\Delta_i|^2}{U}$$
The entropy of an ideal gas of fermionic quasi-particles is expressed as [@Landau_Lifshitz] $${\cal S}=-\sum_{n}[f_n \ln f_n+(1-f_n) \ln (1-f_n)]$$
Therefore, using $\braket{\gamma_{n\sigma^{\prime}}^{\dagger}\gamma_{n\sigma^{\prime}}}=f_{n\sigma^{\prime}}$ and $f_{n\uparrow}=f_{n\downarrow}=f_{n}$, Eq. (\[free\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal F}&=-\sum_{i,n,\sigma}E_n |v_{n\sigma}^i|^2+\sum_{i}\frac{|\Delta_i|^2}{U}+\sum_{n}E_nf_n \\
&+T\sum_{n}[f_n \ln f_n+(1-f_n) \ln (1-f_n)]\end{aligned}$$ Evidently, the free energy can be calculated if the solution of the BdG Hamiltonian is known.
[10]{}
N. Reyren [*et al.*]{}, Science [**317**]{}, 1196 (2007).
S. Gariglio, N. Reyren, A. D. Caviglia, and J.-M. Triscone, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**21**]{}, 164213 (2009).
K. Michaeli, A. C. Potter, and P. A. Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**108**]{}, 117003 (2012).
N. Mohanta and A. Taraphder, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**26**]{}, 025705 (2014).
N. Mohanta and A. Taraphder, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**26**]{}, 215703 (2014).
N. Mohanta and A. Taraphder, EPL [**108**]{}, 60001 (2014).
S. Caprara [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**88**]{}, 020504 (2013).
N. Ganguli and P. J. Kelly, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**113**]{}, 127201 (2014).
N. Pavlenko, Phys. Rev. B [**80**]{}, 075105 (2009).
M. Stengel and D. Vanderbilt, Phys. Rev. B [**80**]{}, 241103 (2009).
S. N. Klimin, J. Tempere, J. T. Devreese, and D. van der Marel, Phys. Rev. B [**89**]{}, 184514 (2014).
L. Fidkowski, H.-C. Jiang, R. M. Lutchyn, and C. Nayak, Phys. Rev. B [**87**]{}, 014436 (2013).
L. Li, C. Richter, J. Mannhart, and R. C. Ashoori, Nat Phys [**7**]{}, 762 (2011).
D. A. Dikin [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**107**]{}, 056802 (2011).
A. Ron, E. Maniv, D. Graf, J.-H. Park, and Y. Dagan, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**113**]{}, 216801 (2014).
M. H. Fischer, S. Raghu, and E.-A. Kim, New Journal of Physics [**15**]{}, 023022 (2013).
A. Fête, S. Gariglio, A. D. Caviglia, J.-M. Triscone, and M. Gabay, Phys. Rev. B [**86**]{}, 201105 (2012).
Z. Q. Liu [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. X [**3**]{}, 021010 (2013).
Y. Li, S. N. Phattalung, S. Limpijumnong, J. Kim, and J. Yu, Phys. Rev. B [**84**]{}, 245307 (2011).
Z. Zhong, P. X. Xu, and P. J. Kelly, Phys. Rev. B [**82**]{}, 165127 (2010).
A. Ohtomo and H. Y. Hwang, Nature [**427**]{}, 423 (2004).
S. Thiel, G. Hammerl, A. Schmehl, C. W. Schneider, and J. Mannhart, Science [**313**]{}, 1942 (2006).
M. Huijben [*et al.*]{}, Nat Mater [**5**]{}, 556 (2006).
C. Cen [*et al.*]{}, Nat Mater [**7**]{}, 298 (2008).
G. Rijnders and D. H. A. Blank, Nat Mater [**7**]{}, 270 (2008).
F. Cossu, U. Schwingenschlögl, and V. Eyert, Phys. Rev. B [**88**]{}, 045119 (2013).
V. T. Tra [*et al.*]{}, Advanced Materials [**25**]{}, 3357 (2013).
A. D. Caviglia [*et al.*]{}, Nature [**456**]{}, 624 (2008).
A. D. Caviglia [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**104**]{}, 126803 (2010).
J. Mannhart and D. G. Schlom, , 1607 (2010).
L. Bjaalie, B. Himmetoglu, L. Weston, A. Janotti, and C. G. V. de Walle, New Journal of Physics [**16**]{}, 025005 (2014).
N. Nakagawa, H. Y. Hwang, and D. A. Muller, Nat Mater [**5**]{}, 204 (2006).
Z. S. Popovi ć, S. Satpathy, and R. M. Martin, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**101**]{}, 256801 (2008).
N. Pavlenko, T. Kopp, E. Y. Tsymbal, G. A. Sawatzky, and J. Mannhart, Phys. Rev. B [**85**]{}, 020407 (2012).
R. Pentcheva and W. E. Pickett, Phys. Rev. B [**74**]{}, 035112 (2006).
P. Delugas [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**106**]{}, 166807 (2011).
M. Hirayama, T. Miyake, and M. Imada, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan [**81**]{}, 084708 (2012).
Z. Zhong, A. Tóth, and K. Held, Phys. Rev. B [**87**]{}, 161102 (2013).
G. Khalsa, B. Lee, and A. H. MacDonald, Phys. Rev. B [**88**]{}, 041302 (2013).
M. Ben Shalom, M. Sachs, D. Rakhmilevitch, A. Palevski, and Y. Dagan, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**104**]{}, 126802 (2010).
A. Joshua, J. Ruhman, S. Pecker, E. Altman, and S. Ilani, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences [**110**]{}, 9633 (2013).
A. Joshua, S. Pecker, J. Ruhman, E. Altman, and S. Ilani, Nat Commun [**3**]{}, 1129 (2012).
J. A. Bert [*et al.*]{}, Nat Phys [**7**]{}, 767 (2011).
M. S. Scheurer and J. Schmalian, Nat Commun [**6**]{} (2015).
H. [Boschker]{}, C. [Richter]{}, E. [Fillis-Tsirakis]{}, C. W. [Schneider]{}, and J. [Mannhart]{}, ArXiv e-prints (2015), 1504.04226.
J. F. Schooley, W. R. Hosler, and M. L. Cohen, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**12**]{}, 474 (1964).
J. Biscaras [*et al.*]{}, Nat Commun [**1**]{}, 89 (2010).
P. Moetakef [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. X [**2**]{}, 021014 (2012).
J. J. Lee [*et al.*]{}, Nature [**515**]{}, 245 (2014), Letter.
C. Richter [*et al.*]{}, Nature [**502**]{}, 528.
H. Jeffrey Gardner [*et al.*]{}, Nat Phys [**7**]{}, 895 (2011).
S. [Kumar]{} [*et al.*]{}, arXiv e-prints 1411.3103 (2014) .
M. Mehta [*et al.*]{}, Nat Commun [**3**]{}, 955 (2012).
S. Banerjee, O. Erten, and M. Randeria, Nat Phys [**9**]{}, 626 (2013).
J.-S. Lee [*et al.*]{}, Nat Mater [**12**]{}, 703 (2013).
Y. Nakamura and Y. Yanase, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan [**82**]{}, 083705 (2013).
M. Kim, Y. Kozuka, C. Bell, Y. Hikita, and H. Y. Hwang, Phys. Rev. B [**86**]{}, 085121 (2012).
K. K. Ng and M. Sigrist, EPL [**49**]{}, 473 (2000).
M. Bibes [*et al.*]{}, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A [**370**]{}, 4958 (2012).
X. Li, W. V. Liu, and L. Balents, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**112**]{}, 067202 (2014).
D. F. Agterberg, E. Babaev, and J. Garaud, Phys. Rev. B [**90**]{}, 064509 (2014).
A. Moor, A. F. Volkov, and K. B. Efetov, Phys. Rev. B [**91**]{}, 064511 (2015).
Y. Dubi, Y. Meir, and Y. Avishai, Nature [**449**]{}, 876 (2007).
N. Mohanta, A. Taraphder, and A. Bid, , To be submitted.
R. Neville, B. Hoeneisen, and C. A. Mead, Journal of Applied Physics [**43**]{} (1972).
J. T. Haraldsen, P. Wölfle, and A. V. Balatsky, Phys. Rev. B [**85**]{}, 134501 (2012).
D. Bucheli, M. Grilli, F. Peronaci, G. Seibold, and S. Caprara, Phys. Rev. B [**89**]{}, 195448 (2014).
I. Kosztin, i. c. v. Kos, M. Stone, and A. J. Leggett, Phys. Rev. B [**58**]{}, 9365 (1998).
L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, , 3rd. ed. (Pergamon, Oxford, 1980).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
\
[VASILE POPUŢA and GEORGHE IVAN]{}\
[ABSTRACT. The main purpose of this paper is to study the vector groupoids. This is an algebraic structure which combines the concepts of Brandt groupoid and vector space such that these are compatible. The new concept of vector groupoid has applications in geometry and other areas.]{} [[^1]]{}
INTRODUCTION
============
A groupoid, also known as a [*virtual group*]{} [@rams71], is an algebraic structure introduced by H. Brandt [@brandt]. A groupoid (in the sense of Brandt) can be thought as a set with a partially defined multiplication, for which the usual properties of a group hold whenever they make sense.
A generalization of Brandt groupoid has appeared in [@ehre50]. C. Ehresmann added further structures ( topological and differentiable as well as algebraic) to groupoids.
Groupoids and its generalizations (topological groupoids, Lie groupoids, measure groupoids, sympectic groupoids etc.) are mathematical structures that have proved to be useful in many areas of science \[algebraic topology ([@brow88], [@dumoiv]), harmonic analysis and operators algebras ([@dumoiv], [@renaul], [@west]), differential geometry and its applications ([@canwei], [@cdw87], [@mackey63], [@ramsren01], [@weigro]), noncommutative geometry ([@cone94]), algebraic and geometric combinatorics ([@john], [@ziv06]), dynamics of networks ([@diaste04], [@golust06], [@stegopi03] and more\].
It is remarkable to note that according to A. Connes [@cone94], Heisenberg was discovered quantum mechanics by considering the groupoid of quantum transitions rather than the group of symmetry.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we define groupoids and useful properties of them are presented. In Section 3 we introduce the concept of vector groupoid and its properties are established. In Section 3 we give some algebraic constructions of vector groupoids.
BRANDT GROUPOIDS
================
We recall the minimal necessary backgrounds on groupoids for our developments (for further details see e.g. [@brow87], [@higg71], [@ivan02], [@vpop] and references therein for more details).
([@cdw87]) A **groupoid $ G $ over** $ G_{0} $ ( **in the sense of Brandt** ) is a pair $
(G, G _0) $ of nonempty sets such that $ G _0\subseteq G $ endowed with two surjective maps $\alpha ,\beta :G \rightarrow G
_0$ ( called [**source**]{}, respectively [**target**]{}, a partially binary operation (called [**multiplication**]{}) $~m :G
_{(2)}\rightarrow G,~(x,y)\longmapsto m \left( x,y\right) :=x\cdot
y,~$ where $~G _{(2)}:= G\times_{(\beta, \alpha)}G = \left\{
\left( x,y\right) \in G \times G \mid \beta \left( x\right)
=\alpha \left( y\right) \right\}$ is the [**set of composable pairs**]{} and a map $~\iota :G \rightarrow G,~x\longmapsto \iota
(x):=x^{-1}$ ( called **inversion**), which verify the following conditions:
(G) ([**associativity**]{}): $~(x\cdot y)\cdot z=x\cdot (y\cdot z)$ in the sense that if one of two products $(x\cdot y)\cdot z$ and $x\cdot (y\cdot z)$ is defined, then the other product is also defined and they are equals;
(G2) ([**units**]{}): for each $x\in G~ \Rightarrow ~(\alpha(x),x),
~(x,\beta( x))\in G _{(2)}~$ and we have $~\alpha(x)\cdot
x=x\cdot \beta(x)=x $;
(G3) ([**inverses**]{}): for each $ x\in G~\Rightarrow ~ (x,x^{-1}), ~(x^{-1},x)\in G
_{(2)} $ and we have $~x^{-1}\cdot x=\beta(x), ~~x\cdot
x^{-1}=\alpha(x).$
A groupoid $G$ over $G _0$ with the *structure functions* $
\alpha ,\beta ,m ,\iota $ is denoted by $(G, \alpha, \beta, m,
\iota, G _0)$ or $(G, \alpha, \beta, G _0)$ or $(G, G _0)$. The element $\alpha(x)$ respectively $\beta(x)$ is called the *left unit* respectively *right unit* of $x;$ $~G_0$ is called the *unit set* of $G$. The map $(\alpha,
\beta)$ defined by: $$(\alpha,\beta):G\rightarrow G _0\times G _0,\quad (\alpha,
\beta)(x):=(\alpha(x), \beta(x)),~x\in G,$$ is called the *anchor map* of $G$. For each $ u\in G_{0} $, the set $
G_{u}:= \alpha^{-1}(u)$ ( resp. $ G_{u}:= \beta^{-1}(u)$ ) is called *$\alpha-$ fibre* ( resp. *$\beta-$ fibre* ) of $ G$ at $ u\in G_{0}$. If $~u,v\in G_{0}~$ we will write $~G_{v}^{u} = \alpha^{-1}(u) \cap \beta^{-1}(v).~$
A groupoid $~( G, G_{0})$ is said to be [*transitive*]{}, if its anchor map is surjective.
[**Convention.**]{} (1) We write sometimes $~x y~$ for $~m(x,y)~$, if $ (x,y) \in G_{(2)}.$
(2) Whenever we write a product in a given groupoid, we are assuming that it is defined.$\b$
In the following proposition we summarize some basic rules of algebraic calculation in a Brandt groupoid obtained directly from definitions.
([@ivan02])
*In a groupoid $~( G, \alpha, \beta, m, \iota
, G_{0})~$ the following assertions hold :*
$(i)~~~\alpha(u)=\beta(u)=u,~~~ u\cdot u=u \quad \hbox{and}\quad
\iota (u)=u,~ \forall u\in G_0;$
$(ii)~\alpha \left( x\cdot y\right) =\alpha \left( x\right) \quad
\hbox{and}\quad \beta \left( x\cdot y\right) =\beta \left(
y\right) ,~ \forall \left( x,y\right) \in G _{\left( 2\right) };$
$(iii)~\alpha \left( x^{-1}\right) =\beta \left( x\right) \quad
\hbox{and}\quad \beta \left( x^{-1}\right) =\alpha \left( x\right)
,~ \forall x\in G;$
$(iv)~$ [**(cancellation law)**]{} If for $ x,y_1,y_2,z\in G $ we have $(x,y_1),(x,y_2),$ $(y_1,z),(y_2,z)\in G_{(2)},$ then: $$(a) \quad x\cdot y_1=x\cdot y_2~~\Rightarrow~~ y_1=y_2;~~~
(b) \quad y_1\cdot z=y_2\cdot z~~\Rightarrow~~ y_1=y_2.$$
[*(v)*]{} For each $ x\in G$ we have $~(x^{-1})^{-1}=x.$
[*(vi)*]{} If $(x,y)\in G_{(2)},$ then $(y^{-1},x^{-1})\in G_{(2)}$ and the equality holds: $$(x\cdot y)^{-1}=y^{-1}\cdot x^{-1}.$$
[*(vii)*]{} For all $(x,y)\in G_{(2)}$, the following equalities hold: $$x^{-1}\cdot(x\cdot y)=y ~~~\hbox{and}~~~(x\cdot y)\cdot
y^{-1}=x.$$
In a groupoid $(G, G_{0})$ for any $ u\in G_{0}$, the set $~G(u):=\alpha^{-1}(u)\cap\beta^{-1}(u)=\{ x\in G~|~
\alpha(x)=\beta(x)=u~\}$ is a group under the restriction of the partial multiplication $~ m~$ to $ G(u),$ called the [*isotropy group at*]{} $u$ of $G$.
([@ivan02])
*Let $~( G, \alpha, \beta, m, \iota , G_{0})~$ be a groupoid. Then:*
$(i)~~~~~\alpha \circ \iota = \beta,~~ \beta \circ \iota =
\alpha~~ \hbox{and}~~ \iota \circ \iota = Id_{G}.$
$(ii)~~~\varphi : G(\alpha(x)) \to G(\beta(x)),~ \varphi (z):=
x^{-1} z x $ is an isomorphism of groups.
$(iii)~ $ If $ (G, G_{0} ) $ is transitive, then all isotropy groups are isomorphes.
A [*group bundle*]{} is a groupoid $~( G, G_{0})~$ with the property that $~\alpha (x) = \beta (x)~$ for all $~x\in G .$ Moreover,a group bundle is the union of its isotropy groups $~G(u)
= \alpha^{-1}(u), u \in G_{0}~$ (here, two elements may be composed iff they lie in the same fiber $\alpha^{-1}(u)$ ).
If $~( G,\alpha,\beta, G_{0})~$ is a groupoid then $~Is(G): = \{
x\in G~|~\alpha (x)=\beta (x) \}~$ is a group bundle, called the [*isotropy group bundle*]{} of $~G.~$
[*(i)*]{} Any group $ G $ having $ e $ as unity, is a groupoid over $ G_{0} = \{ e \}$ with the structure functions $ \alpha,
\beta, m, \iota $ given by:\
$\alpha(x) = \beta(x) = e,~ \iota(x)
= x^{-1}$ for all $ x\in G$ and $ m(x,y)= xy $ for all $x,y\in G$.
[*(ii)*]{} Any set $~X~$ can be endowed with a [*nul groupoid*]{} structure over itself. For this we take: $~\alpha = \beta =\iota =
Id_{X}; ~x , y\in X~$ are composable iff $~x=y~$ and we define $~
x\cdot x = x.$
[*(iii)*]{} The Cartesian product $~G:= X \times X~$ has a structure of groupoid over $ \Delta_{X} = \{ (x,x)\in X\times X
~|~ x\in X \}$ by taking the structure functions as follows: $~{\widetilde}{{\alpha}}(x,y):= (x,x),~ {\widetilde}{{\beta}}(x,y):= (y,y);~$ the elements $~ (x,y)~$ and $~(y^{\prime},z)~$ are composable in $~G:=X \times X~$ iff $~y^{\prime} = y~$ and we define $~(x,y)\cdot (y,z) = (x,z)~$ and the inverse of $~(x,y)~$ is defined by $~(x,y)^{-1}:= (y,x).~$ This is usually called the [*pair*]{} or [*coarse groupoid*]{}. Its unit set is $
G_{0}:=\Delta_{X}.~$ The isotropy group $~G(u)~$ at $~u=(x,x)~$ is the nul group $~\{(u,u)\}.$
[*(i)*]{} [*The symmetry groupoid $ {\cal
SG}(X) $*]{}. Let $ X $ be a nonempty set and consider\
$G:= {\cal SG}(A,X) =\{ f : A \to A~|~ \emptyset\neq A\subseteq X,~ f~ \hbox{is bijective}~ \}
~$ and\
$~ G_{0}:= \{ Id_{A}~|~\emptyset \neq A\subseteq X \} $, where $ Id_{A} $ is the identity map on $ A.$\
Let $ G_{(2)}:= \{(f,g)\in G\times G | D(f)=D(g) \} $, where $ D(f)$ denotes the domain of $ f $. The structure functions $~ \alpha, \beta : G \to G_{0},~ \iota : G
\to G~ $ and the multiplication $~ m : G_{(2)} \to G ~$ are given by:\
$ \alpha(f):= Id_{D(f)},~~ \beta(f):= Id_{D(f)},~~ \iota(f):=
f^{-1}~~ $ and $~~ m(f,g):= f\circ g $.
Then $ (G, G_{0}) $ is a groupoid, called the [*groupoid of bijective functions from the subsets $ A $ of $ X $ onto $ A $*]{} or the [*symmetry groupoid of the set $X$*]{}.
The isotropy group at $ u= Id_{A}$ is the symmetry group of the set $A$, i.e. $ G(u) = \{ f : A \to A~|~ f~ \hbox{is bijective}~ \}$.
In particular, the symmetry groupoid of a finite set $ X = \{
x_{1}, x_{2},\ldots, x_{n} \}, $ is called the [*symmetry groupoid of degree $ n $*]{} and is denoted by $ {\cal SG}_{n}$. Its unit set is $~ {\cal SG}_{n,0} = \{ Id_{A} ~|~ \emptyset \neq A
\subseteq \{ x_{1}, x_{2},\ldots, x_{n}\} \}$. The cardinals of these finite sets are given by:
$~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|~{\cal SG}_{n}~|~=~\sum\limits_{k=1}^{n} k! {n
\choose k},~~~~~ |~{\cal SG}_{n,0}~| ~=~2^{n} - 1.$\
[*(ii) *]{} [*The Galois groupoid $ {\cal G}al( {\cal E}/ K ) $*]{}. Let $ F / K $ be an extension field of a field $K$, i.e. $K$ is a subfield of $F$. We consider an indexed family $ {\cal E}:=
(E_{i})_{i\in I} $ of intermediate fields $ E_{i} $, that is $ K
\subseteq E_{i}
\subseteq F $ for each $ i\in I.$ Let\
$\Gamma:= {\cal G}al({\cal E}/K) = \{ \varphi : E_{i} \to E_{i}~|~ \varphi~ \hbox{is a K -automorphism } \}
~$ and\
$~ \Gamma_{0}:= {\cal G}al({\cal E}/K)_{0} = \{ Id_{E_{I}}~|~ i\in I\} $.
Let $ \Gamma_{(2)}:= \{(\varphi ,\psi)\in \Gamma \times \Gamma | D(\varphi)=D(\psi) \} $. The structure functions $~ {\overline}{\alpha}, {\overline}{\beta} : \Gamma \to
\Gamma_{0},~ {\overline}{\iota} : \Gamma \to \Gamma~ $ and $~ {\overline}{m} :
\Gamma_{(2)} \to \Gamma ~$ are given by:\
$ {\overline}{\alpha}(\varphi):= Id_{D(\varphi)},~~ {\overline}{\beta}(\varphi):=
Id_{D(\varphi)},~~ {\overline}{\iota}(\varphi):=
\varphi^{-1}~~ $ and $~~ {\overline}{m}(\varphi,\psi):= \varphi \circ \psi $.\
Then $ {\cal G}al({\cal E}/K) $ is a groupoid over $ {\cal
G}al({\cal E}/K)_{0}$, called the [*Galois groupoid associated to $ {\cal E}$*]{}. The isotropy group at $ u= Id_{E_{i}}$ is the Galois group $ Gal(E_{i}/K)$.
([@cdw87]) By **morpfism of groupoids** or [**groupoid morphism**]{} between the groupoids $(G ,\alpha ,\beta , m ,\iota
,G_0)$ and $(G ^{\prime },\alpha ^{\prime },\beta ^{\prime }, m
^{\prime },\iota ^{\prime} , G_{0}^{\prime})$, we mean a map $~f:G
\rightarrow G ^{\prime } $ which verifies the following conditions:
[*(i)*]{} $~~~~~\forall~ (x,y)\in G_{(2)}~~\Longrightarrow~~ (
f(x), f(y) )\in G_{(2)}^{\prime};~$
[*(ii)*]{}$~~~~~f( m(x,y)) = m^{\prime}(f(x),f(y)), ~ \forall ~
(x,y)\in G_{(2)}.$
[*If $ f : G \longrightarrow G ^{\prime}$ is a morpfism of groupoids, then: $$\hbox{{\it(a)}}~~~ f\left( u\right)\in G_{0}^{\prime },~~~ \forall~ u\in
G_{0};~~~~~ \hbox{{\it(b)}}~~ f\left( x^{-1}\right) =\left(
f\left( x\right) \right) ^{-1},~ \forall~ x\in G.$$*]{}
From Proposition 2.3(a) follows that a groupoid morphism $ f : G
\to G^{\prime} $ induces a map $ f_{0} : G_{0} \to G_{0}^{\prime}
$ taking $ f_{0}(u): = f(u), ~(\forall) u\in G_{0}$, i.e. the map $ f_{0}$ is the restriction of $ f$ to $ G_{0}.$ We say that $(f,f_{0}) : (G,G_{0}) \rightarrow ( G^{\prime}, G_{0}^{\prime} )
$ is a morphism of groupoids.
If $~G_{0} = G_{0}^{\prime}~$ and $~f_{0} = Id_{G_{0}},$ we say that $~f : G \to G^{\prime}~$ is a $ G_{0}~$- [*morphism*]{} of groupoids over $ G_{0}$.
A groupoid morphism $~(f,f_{0})~$ is said to be [*isomorphism of groupoids*]{} or [*groupoid isomorphism*]{}, if $ f $ and $ f_{0}$ are bijective maps.
([@ivan02])
*Let $(G ,\alpha ,\beta, m ,\iota ,G_0)$ and $(G^{\prime},\alpha^{\prime }, \beta^{\prime}, m^{\prime
},\iota^{\prime },G_{0}^{\prime})$ be two groupoids. The pair $~(f,f_{0}) : (G, G_{0})\longrightarrow (G^{\prime},
G_{0}^{\prime})~$ where $ f:G \longrightarrow G^{\prime}$ and $ ~
f_{0} : G_{0}\longrightarrow G_{0}^{\prime},$ is a groupoid morphism if and only if the following conditions are verified:*
[*(i)*]{} $~~~~~\alpha^{\prime} \circ f = f_{0}\circ \alpha \quad
\hbox{and}\quad \beta^{\prime} \circ f = f_{0}\circ \beta ;$
[*(ii)*]{}$~~~~~f\left( m \left( x,y\right) \right) = m^{\prime
}\left( f\left( x\right) ,f\left( y\right) \right),\quad \forall
~ (x,y)\in G_{\left(2\right)}.$
Applying Propositions 2.3 and 3.4 we can conclude that a groupoid morphism $~(f,f_{0}) : (G,
G_{0})\longrightarrow (G^{\prime}, G_{0}^{\prime})~$ is linked with the structure functions by the relations : $$\alpha^{\prime} \circ f = f_{0} \circ \alpha ,~~ \beta^{\prime}
\circ f = f_{0} \circ \beta ,~~ m^{\prime} \circ (f \times f) =
f\circ m,~~ \iota^{\prime} \circ f = f \circ \iota \label{2.1}$$ where $~(f\times f)(x,y):=(f(x),f(y)),~ \forall~ x,y\in G\times
G.$
([@dumoiv]) A groupoid morphism $~( f,
f_{0} ):(G, G_{0})\longrightarrow (G^{\prime},G_{0}^{\prime})~$ satisfying the following condition: $$\forall~ x,y\in G~~\hbox{such that}~~(f(x),f(y))\in
G_{(2)}^{\prime}~~~\Rightarrow~~~(x,y)\in G_{(2)}\label{2.2}$$ will be called [**strong morphism**]{} or [**homomorphism of groupoids**]{}.
Let the symmetry groupoid $ {\cal SG}_{n}$ of the finite set\
$ X = \{ x_{1}, x_{2},\ldots, x_{n} \} $ and the multiplicative group $\{ +1, -1 \}$ ( regarded as groupoid over $\{ +1\}$ ). We define the map\
$~~~~~~~ sgn^{\sharp}: {\cal SG}_{n} \to \{ +1, -1
\},~ f\in {\cal SG}_{n} \longmapsto sgn^{\sharp}(f):= sgn(f)
$,\
where $ sgn(f)$ is the signature of the permutation $f$ of degree $ k = | D(f)| $.
We have that [*$~ sgn^{\sharp}: {\cal SG}_{n} \to \{ +1, -1
\}~$ is a groupoid morphism*]{}.
Indeed, let $ f,g \in G_{(2)} $, where $ G = {\cal SG}(A,X)$ such that $ D(f) = D(g):= A_{k}:=\{ x_{j_{1}},\ldots,
x_{j_{k}}\}\subseteq X, ~ 1\leq k \leq n.$ Then $ f $ and $ g $ are permutations of $ A_{k} $ and $ f\circ g $ is also a permutation of $ A_{k}$. It is clearly that the condition (i) from Definition 2.2 is verified. Also, it is well known that\
$sgn(f\circ g) = sgn(f)\cdot sgn(g)$. Hence $~ sgn^{\sharp}(m(f,g)) =
sgn^{\sharp}(f)\cdot sgn^{\sharp}(g).~$ Therefore the condition (ii) from Definition 2.2 holds.
The map $~ sgn^{\sharp}: {\cal SG}_{n} \to \{ +1, -1 \}$ [*is not a groupoid homomorphism*]{}.
Indeed, for $ X = \{ x_{1}, x_{2}, x_{3}, x_{4} \} $ we consider the permutations $ f, g \in {\cal SG}_{4} $, where $ f = \left (
\begin{array}{ccc} x_{1} & x_{2} &
x_{3}\\
x_{2} & x_{3} & x_{1}\\
\end{array}\right ) $ and $ g = \left ( \begin{array}{ccc} x_{1} & x_{3} &
x_{4}\\
x_{4} & x_{3} & x_{1}\\
\end{array}\right ).$ Then\
$~ sgn^{\sharp}(f) = + 1, ~ sgn^{\sharp}(g) = -1 $ and $~( sgn^{\sharp}(f), sgn^{\sharp}(g))\in \{ +1, -1\}\times \{ +1, -1\}
$. But $ f $ and $g$ are not composable in $ {\cal SG}_{4} $, since $ D(f)\neq D(g).$
VECTOR GROUPOIDS
================
A [**vector groupoid over a field $K$**]{}, is a groupoid $~(V,
\alpha, \beta, \odot, \iota, V_0)$ such that:
(3.1.1) $~V$ is a vector space over $K$, and the units set $V_0$ is a subspace of $V$.
(3.1.2) The source and the target maps $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are linear maps.
(3.1.3) The inversion $~\iota:V\longrightarrow V,\
x\longmapsto \iota(x):=x^{-1}$ is a linear map and the following condition is verified:\
$(1)~~~~~~~~~~~ x+x^{-1}=\alpha(x)+\beta(x),\ \mbox{for all } x\in
V.$
(3.1.4) The map $~m:V_{(2)}:=\{(x,y)\in V\times V~|~\alpha(y)=\beta(x)\}
\to V,$ $(x,y)\longmapsto m(x,y):=x\odot y,~$ satisfy the following conditions :
1. $x\odot(y+z-\beta(x))=x\odot y+x\odot z-x$, for all $x,y,z\in V$, such that $\alpha(y)=\beta(x)=\alpha(z)$.
2. $x\odot(ky+(1-k)\beta(x))=k(x\odot y)+(1-k)x$, for all $x,y\in V$, such that $\alpha(y)=\beta(x)$.
3. $(y+z-\alpha(x))\odot x=y\odot x+z\odot x-x$, for all $x,y,z\in V$, such that $\alpha(x)=\beta(y)=\beta(z)$.
4. $(ky+(1-k)\alpha(x))\odot x=k(y\odot x)+(1-k)x$ for all $x,y\in V$, such that $\alpha(x)=\beta(y)$.
When there can be no confusion we put $xy$ or $x\cdot y$ instead of $x\odot y$.
From Definition 3.1 follows the following corollary.
Let $~(V, \alpha, \beta, \odot, \iota, V_0)$ be a vector groupoid. Then:
$(i)~~~$ The source and target $ \alpha, \beta : V \to V_{0} $ are linear epimorphisms.
$(ii)~~$ The inversion $ \iota : V \to V $ is a linear automorphism.
$(iii)~$ The fibres $\alpha^{-1}(0)$ and $ \beta^{-1}(0) $ and the isotropy group\
$ V(0):= \alpha^{-1}(0)\cap \beta^{-1}(0) $ are vector subspaces of the vector space $V$.
Let $V$ be a vector space over a field $K$. If we define the maps $ \alpha_{0}, \beta_{0}, \iota_{0}: V\longrightarrow V,\ \
\alpha_{0}(x)=\beta_{0}(x)=0,\ \iota_{0}(x)=-x,$ and the multiplication law $m_{0}(x,y)=x+y$, then $(V, \alpha_{0},
\beta_{0}, m_{0}, \iota_{0}, V_{0}=\{0\})$ is a vector groupoid called [*vector groupoid with a single unit*]{}. We will denote this vector groupoid by $(V, + )$. Therefore, each vector space $
V $ over $K$ can be regarded as vector groupoid over $V_{0}
=\{0\}$.$\b$
Let $V$ be a vector space over a field $K$. Then $ V$ has a structure of null groupoid over $V$ ( see Example 2.1(ii) ). In this case the structure functions are $~\alpha = \beta =\iota =
Id_{V}$ and $ x \odot x = x $ for all $x\in V$. We have that $V_{0} = V$ and the maps $ \alpha, \beta, \iota $ are linear. Since $ x+\iota(x) = x+ x $ and $ \alpha(x) + \beta(x) = x+x $ imply that the condition 3.1.3(1) holds. It is easy to verify the conditions 3.1.4(1)- 3.1.4(4) from Definition 3.1. Then $V$ is a vector groupoid, called the [*null vector groupoid*]{} associated to $V$.$\b$
Let $V$ be a vector space over a field $K$. We consider the pair groupoid $( V\times V, {\widetilde}{\alpha}, {\widetilde}{\beta},
{\widetilde}{m},{\widetilde}{\iota}, \Delta_{V})$ associated to $V$ ( see Example 2.1(iii)). We have that $ V\times V$ is a vector space over $K$ and the source ${\widetilde}{\alpha}$ and target ${\widetilde}{\beta}$ are linear maps. Also, the inversion ${\widetilde}{\iota} : V\times V \to V\times V$ is a linear isomorphism. Therefore it follows that the conditions $(3.1.1)- (3.1.3) $ are satisfied. By a direct computation we verify that the relations 3.1.4(1) - 3.1.4(4) from Definition 3.1 hold. Hence $V\times V$ is a vector groupoid called the [*coarse vector groupoid*]{} or [*pair vector groupoid*]{} associated to $V$.$\b$
[**The vector groupoid $V^2(p,q)$**]{}. Let $V$ be a vector space over a field $K$ and let $p,q\in K$ such that $pq=1$. The maps $\alpha,\beta,\iota:V^2\longrightarrow V^2$, $\alpha(x,y):=(x,px)$, $\beta(x,y):=(qy,y)$, $\iota(x,y):=(qy,px)$ together with the multiplication law given on $V^2_{(2)}:=\{((x,y),(qy,z))\ |\ x,y,z\in V\}\subset V^2\times
V^2$, by $(x,y)\cdot(qy,z):=(x,z)$ determine on $V^2$ a structure of vector groupoid. This is called the [*pair*]{} or the [*coarse vector groupoid of type $(p,q)$*]{} and it is denoted by $V^2(p,q)$.\
If $p=q=1$, then the vector groupoid $V^2(1,1)$ coincide with the pair vector groupoid associated to $V$(see Example 3.3 ).\
If $n$ is a prime number and $p,q\in \mathbb{Z}_n$, such that $pq=1$, then $\mathbb{Z}_n^2(p,q)$ is called the *modular* or *cryptographic vector groupoid*.$\b$
Let $V$ be vector space over a field $K$. One consider the maps $\alpha, \beta, \iota:V^3\longrightarrow V^3$, $\alpha(x_1,x_2,x_3):=(x_1,x_1,0)$, $\beta(x_1,x_2,x_3):=(x_2,x_2,0)$, $\iota(x_1,x_2,x_3):=(x_2,x_1,-x_3)$ together with the multiplication law given on $V_{(2)}^3=\{((x_1,x_2,x_3),(x_2,y_2,y_3))~|~ x_1,x_2,x_3,y_2,y_3\in V\}\subset V^3 \times V^3$ by $(x_1,x_2,x_3)\odot(x_2,y_2,y_3):=(x_1,y_2,x_3+y_3)$.
Then $(V^3,\alpha,\beta,\iota,\odot,V_0^3)$, where $V_0^3=\{(x,x,0)\ |\ x\in V\}$, is a vector groupoid.$\b$
In the following proposition, we give, in addition to those in Proposition 2.1, other rules of algebraic calculation in a vector groupoid.
In a vector groupoid $(V, \alpha, \beta, \odot, \iota, V_0)$ the following assertions hold :
1. $0\cdot x=x,\ \forall\ x\in \alpha^{-1}(0)$;
2. $x\cdot 0=x,\ \forall\ x\in \beta^{-1}(0)$;
3. For all $x,\ y\in\beta^{-1}(0)$, we have $x-\alpha(x)=y-\alpha(y)\Longrightarrow x=y$;
4. for all $x,y\in\alpha^{-1}(0)$, we have $x-\beta(x)=y-\beta(y)\Longrightarrow x=y$.
\(i) If $x\in\alpha^{-1}(0)$, then $\alpha(x)=0=\beta(0)$. So $(0,x)\in V_{(2)}$ and, using the condition [*(G2)*]{} from Definition 2.1, one obtains that $0\cdot x=\alpha(x)\cdot x=x$.\
(iv) Let $x,y\in\alpha^{-1}(0)$ such that $x-\beta(x)=y-\beta(y)$. Then $ \alpha(x)= \alpha(y) = 0 $ and $ x - y = \beta(x) -
\beta(y).$ Since $ \alpha $ is linear map and applying Proposition 2.1 (i), one obtains that $0=\alpha(x)- \alpha(y) =
\alpha(x-y)=\alpha (\beta(x)- \beta(y))=\beta(x)-\beta(y)= x-y $, and so $x=y$.
Similarly, we prove that the assertions (ii) and (iii) hold.
Let $(V, \alpha, \beta, \odot, \iota, V_0) $ be a vector groupoid. Then:
$(i)~~~t_{\beta}:\alpha^{-1}(0)\longrightarrow\beta^{-1}(0),~
t_{\beta}(x):=\beta(x)-x~$ is a linear isomorphism.
$(ii)~~t_{\alpha}:\beta^{-1}(0)\longrightarrow\alpha^{-1}(0),~
t_{\alpha}(x):=\alpha(x)-x~$ is a linear isomorphism.
$(i)$ Let be $ x_{1}, x_{2} \in V $ and $ k_{1},
k_{2} \in K$. Then $ t_{\beta}( k_{1} x_{1} + k_{2} x_{2})=$\
$=\beta( k_{1} x_{1} + k_{2} x_{2})- ( k_{1} x_{1} + k_{2} x_{2})=
k_{1}( \beta(x_{1}) - x_{1}) + k_{2}( \beta(x_{2}) - x_{2}) =$\
$=k_{1}t_{\beta}(x_{1}) + k_{2}t_{\beta}(x_{2}). $ Hence $
t_{\beta} $ is a linear map.
Let now $ x,y \in \alpha^{-1}(0) $ such that $ t_{\beta} (x) =
t_{\beta} (y)$. Applying Proposition 3.1(iv), one obtains $ x=y$, and so the map $ t_{\beta} $ is injective.
For any $ y\in \beta^{-1}(0)$ we take $ x = \alpha(y)-y $. Clearly $ x\in \alpha^{-1}(0).$ We have $ t_{\beta}(x) =
\beta(\alpha(y)-y) - (\alpha(y)-y ) = \alpha(y)- \beta(y) -
\alpha(y) + y = y $, since $ \beta(y) = 0$. Hence the map $
t_{\beta} $ is surjective. Therefore $ t_{\beta} $ is a linear isomorphism.
$(ii)~$ Similarly we prove that $ t_{\alpha}$ is a linear isomorphism.
Let $~(V, +, \cdot, \alpha, \beta, \odot, \iota, V_0)~$ be a vector groupoid over $ K $ and $~ u\in V_{0}~$ any unit of $~V$. The following assertions hold.
$(i)~~~$ The isotropy group $ V(u):=\{x\in V~|~
\alpha(x)=\beta(x)=u \}$ endowed with the laws $~\boxplus :
V\times V \to V~$ and $~\boxtimes : K\times V \to V~$ given by: $$x\boxplus y=x+y-u,~~~\forall~x,y\in V(u)\label{3.1}$$ $$k\boxtimes x = k x + (1-k)u,~~~\forall~k \in K,~x\in
V(u),\label{3.2}$$ has a structure of vector space over $K$.
$(ii)~~$ The vector space $~( V(u), \boxplus, \boxtimes )~$ together with the restrictions of structure functions $~\alpha,
\beta, \iota~$ to $~V(u)~$ and the multiplication\
$~\boxdot:V(u)_{(2)}= V(u)\times V(u) \to V(u)~ $ given by: $$x\boxdot y = (x-u)\odot(y-u) + u ,~~~\forall~x,y\in
V(u)\label{3.3}$$ has a structure of vector groupoid with a single unit over $K$.
$(i)~$ Using the linearity of the functions $\alpha$ and $\beta$ we verify that the laws $\boxplus$ and $\boxtimes$ given by (3.1) and (3.2) are well-defined. For instance, for $x,y\in V(u)$ we have $ \alpha(x\boxplus y) = \alpha(x+y-u)=\alpha(x)+ \alpha(y) -
\alpha(u) = u,$ since $ \alpha(x)=\alpha(y)=\alpha(u)=u.$ Similarly, $\beta( x\boxplus y ) =u.$ Hence $ x\boxplus y \in
V(u).$ It is easy to verify that $ (V(u), \boxplus ) $ is a commutative group. Its null vector is the element $ u\in V(u)$. The opposite $~\boxminus x~$ of $~x\in V(u)~$ is $~\boxminus x = 2 u -
x$.
For any $ x, y\in V(u) $ and $ k, k_{1}, k_{2} \in K $, the law $\boxtimes $ verify the following relations:
$(a)~~~k\boxtimes ( x\boxplus y ) = ( k\boxtimes x ) \boxplus (k
\boxplus y ),$\
$(b)~~~(k_{1} + k_{2})\boxtimes x = (k_{1} \boxtimes x ) \boxplus
( k_{2}\boxtimes x ),$\
$(c)~~~k_{1}\boxtimes ( k_{2}\boxtimes x ) = (k_{1}k_{2})\boxtimes x ,$\
$(d)~~~ 1 \boxtimes x = x $ ( here $1$ is the unit of the field $K$ ).\
Indeed, we have $~k\boxtimes ( x\boxplus y ) = k ( x\boxplus y ) +
(1 -k )u = k ( x + y ) + (1 -2 k )u ~$ and $~( k\boxtimes x )
\boxplus (k \boxplus y )= ( k\boxtimes x ) + (k \boxplus y ) - u
= k ( x + y ) + (1 - 2k )u ~$. Hence the equality (a) holds.
In the same manner we prove that the equalities (b) - (d) hold. Therefore $( V, \boxplus, \boxtimes ) $ is a vector space.
$(ii)~$ From the above assertion follows that the condition (3.1.1) from Definition 3.1 is satisfied.
The restrictions of the linear maps $ \alpha $ and $\beta $ to $V(u)$ are linear maps, and so the condition (3.1.2) from Definition 3.1 holds.
Also, the restriction of the linear maps $ \iota $ to $V(u)$ is linear map. Applying the equality 3.1.3(1) from Definition 3.1, for any $ x\in V(u)$ we have\
$ x \boxplus \iota(x) = x +
\iota(x) - u = \alpha(x) + \beta(x)- u = \alpha(x) \boxplus
\beta(x).~$ Therefore the condition (3.1.3) from Definition 3.1 holds.
Let $ x,y \in V(u)$. Applying the properties of maps $ \alpha $ and $ \beta $ we have $ \alpha (x\boxdot y ) = \alpha (
(x-u)\odot(y-u) + u ) = \alpha ( (x-u)\odot(y-u)) + \alpha (u)
=$\
$=\alpha (x-u) + \alpha(u) = \alpha(x) = u $ and $ \beta (x\boxdot
y )= u $ and so $ x\boxdot y \in V(u).$ Hence the law $ \boxdot$ given by the relation (3.3) is well-defined.
If $ x, y, z \in V(u)$ then the following equality holds:\
$(e)~~~ x\boxdot ( y \boxplus z \boxplus ( \boxminus \beta(x))) =
( x\boxdot y ) \boxplus ( x\boxdot z ) \boxplus ( \boxminus
x)).$\
Indeed, we have\
$(e.1)~~ x\boxdot ( y \boxplus z \boxplus ( \boxminus \beta(x))) =
x\boxdot ( y \boxplus z \boxplus ( \boxminus u)) = x\boxdot ( y
\boxplus z \boxplus u )=$\
$= x\boxdot ( y \boxplus z )= (x - u)\odot ( y \boxplus z - u ) +
u = (x - u)\odot ( (y - u) + (z - u )) + u. $
Replacing in the equality 3.4.1(1) the elements $ x, y, z \in
V(u)~$ respectively with $~ x-u, y-u, z-u \in V(u),~$ we obtain the following equality\
$(f)~~ (x - u)\odot (( y - u) + (z - u ))= (x - u)\odot (y - u)
+ (x - u )\odot (z-u) - (x - u), $\
since $ \beta(x-u) = 0.$
Using the relation (f), the equality $(e.1)$ becomes\
$(e.2)~~ x\boxdot ( y \boxplus z \boxplus ( \boxminus \beta(x))) =
(x-u)\odot (y-u) + (x-u)\odot (z-u)+ 2 u - x.$\
On the other hand we have\
$(e.3)~~~ ( x\boxdot y ) \boxplus ( x\boxdot z ) \boxplus (
\boxminus x))=( ( x\boxdot y ) \boxplus ( x\boxdot z )) \boxplus
( 2 u - x)=$\
$= ( x\boxdot y + x\boxdot z - u ) \boxplus ( 2 u - x) =
x\boxdot y + x\boxdot z - x =$\
$= (x-u)\odot (y-u) + (x-u)\odot (z-u)+ 2 u - x.$\
Using (e.2) and (e.3) we obtain the equality (e). Hence, the relation 3.4.1(1) from Definition 3.1 holds.
In the same manner we can prove that the relations 3.1.4(2) - 3.1.4(4) from Definition 3.1 are verified.
We call $(V(u), \boxplus, \boxtimes, \alpha, \beta,
\boxdot, \iota, V_{0}(u)=\{u\}) $ the [*isotropy vector groupoid*]{} at $u\in V_{0}$ of $V$, when one refers to the above structure given on it.
Let $ ( V_1, \alpha_1, \beta_1, V_{1,0} )$ and $ ( V_2, \alpha_2,
\beta_2, V_{2,0} )$ be two vector groupoids.
A groupoid morphism ( resp. groupoid homomorphism ) $
f:V_1\longrightarrow V_2 $ with property that $ f $ is a linear map, is called [**vector groupoid morphism**]{} ( resp. [**vector groupoid homomorphism**]{} ).
Let $(V,\alpha, \beta, \odot , \iota , V_{0})$ be a vector groupoid. We consider the pair vector groupoid $ ( V_{0}\times
V_{0}, {\widetilde}{\alpha}, {\widetilde}{\beta}, {\widetilde}{m}, {\widetilde}{\iota}, \Delta_{V_{0}}) $. Then\
[*the anchor map $(\alpha, \beta): V \to V_{0}\times
V_{0} $ is a homomorphism of vector groupoids between the vector groupoids $ V $ and $ V_{0}\times V_{0}$*]{}.
Indeed, if we denote $ (\alpha, \beta):=f $ and consider the elements $ x,y\in G $ such that $ ( f(x), f(y))\in (V_{0}\times
V_{0})_{(2)}$, then $ {\widetilde}{\beta}(f(x))= {\widetilde}{\alpha}(f(y)) $ and we have $ {\widetilde}{\beta}(\alpha(x), \beta(x))= {\widetilde}{\alpha}(\alpha(y),
\beta(y))~\Rightarrow ~ (\beta(x),
\beta(x))=(\alpha(y),\alpha(y))~\Rightarrow~ \beta(x))=\alpha(y)
$, i.e. $ (x,y)\in V_{(2)}. $ Therefore the condition (i) from Definition 2.2 holds.
For $(x,y)\in V_{(2)}$ we have
$ f(m(x,y))= f(xy)=(\alpha(xy),
\beta(xy))= (\alpha(x), \beta(y)) ~$ and
$ {\widetilde}{m}(f(x),f(y))=
{\widetilde}{m}( (\alpha(x),\beta(x)), (\alpha(y),\beta(y))) =
(\alpha(x),\beta(y)).$
Hence the equality (ii) from Definition 2.2 is verified.
Let now two elements $ x,y \in V$ such that $(f(x),f(y))\in
(V_{0}\times V_{0})_{(2)}.$ Then $ {\widetilde}{\beta}(f(x)) =
{\widetilde}{\alpha}(f(y))$. Since $ f(x) = (\alpha(x), \beta(x)) $ and $
f(y) = (\alpha(y), \beta(y)) $ we deduce that $ (\beta(x),
\beta(x))=(\alpha(y), \alpha(y)) $. Therefore $ \beta(x) = \alpha
(y) $ and $(x,y)\in G_{(V)}.$ Therefore the condition (2.2) from Definition 2.3 is satisfied.
Hence $ f : V \to V_{0}\times V_{0} $ is a groupoid homomorphism.
Let $ x, y \in V $ and $ a,b\in K$. Since $ \alpha, \beta $ are linear maps, we have\
$ f(ax+by) = (\alpha(ax+by), \beta(ax+by)) = ( a \alpha(x) +
b\alpha(y), a \beta(x) + b\beta(y))= $\
$= a(\alpha(x) , \beta(x)) + b (\alpha(y) , \beta(y))= a f(x) + b
f(y) $, i.e. $f$ is a linear map.
Therefore, the conditions from Definition 3.2 are verified. Hence $f$ is a vector groupoid homomorphism.$\b$
ALGEBRAIC CONSTRUCTIONS OF VECTOR GROUPOIDS
===========================================
In this section we shall give some important ways of building up new vector groupoids.
[**1. Direct product of two vector groupoids**]{}. Let given the vector groupoids $ ( V, \alpha_{V}, \beta_{V},
\odot_{V},\iota_{V}, V_{0}) $ and $ ( W, \alpha_{W}, \beta_{W},
\odot_{W}, \iota_{W}, W_{0}) $. We have that $ V_{0}\times W_{0}$ is a vector subspace of the direct product $ V\times W$ of vector spaces $ V$ and $W$.
We can easy prove that $ V\times W$ endowed with the structure functions $ \alpha_{V\times W}, \beta_{V\times
W}, \odot_{V\times W} $ and $ \iota_{V\times W} $ given by\
$ \alpha_{V\times W}(v,w):=( \alpha_{V}(v), \alpha_{W}(w)),~
\beta_{V\times W}(v,w):=( \beta_{V}(v), \beta_{W}(w)),$\
$(v_{1}, w_{1})\odot_{V\times W} (v_{2}, w_{2}):= ( v_{1}
\odot_{V} v_{2}, w_{1} \odot_{W} w_{2} ), ~ \iota_{V\times W}(v,w):=( \iota_{V}(v), \iota_{W}(w))$\
for all $ v, v_{1}, v_{2} \in V $ and $ w, w_{1}, w_{2} \in W $, is a vector groupoid over $V_{0}\times W_{0}$.
This vector groupoid is called the [*direct product of vector groupoids*]{} $(V,V_{0})$ and $(W,W_{0})$.
By a direct computation we can verify that the projections\
$pr_{V} : V\times W \to V$ and $ pr_{W} : V\times W \to W$ are morphisms of vector groupoids, called the [*canonical projections*]{} of the vector groupoid $ V\times W$ onto vector groupoid $V$ and $ W$, respectively. The following assertion holds
[*The direct product of two transitive vector groupoids is also a transitive vector groupoid*]{}.
[**2. Trivial vector groupoid ${\cal TVG}(V,W) $**]{}. Let $W$ be a vector subspace of a vector space $V$ over $K.$ The set $~{\cal
V}:= W\times V \times W ~$ has a natural structure of vector space. The set $ {\cal V}_{0}: = \{ (w, 0, w)\in {\cal V} ~|~ w\in
W\} $ is a vector subspace of ${\cal V}$ (here $ 0$ is the null vector of $V$ ). We introduce on $ {\cal V}:= W\times V \times W $ the structure functions $ \alpha_{\cal V}, \beta_{\cal V},
\odot_{\cal V} $ and $ \iota_{\cal V}$ as follows.
For all $~(w_{1},v,w_{2})\in {\cal V} $, the source and target $
\alpha_{\cal V}, \beta_{\cal V}: {\cal V} \to {\cal V}_{0} $ are defined by
$\alpha_{\cal V}(w_{1},v, w_{2}):= (w_{1}, 0, w_{1});~~~
\beta_{\cal V}(w_{1},v, w_{2}):= (w_{2}, 0, w_{2}).$
The partially multiplication $\odot_{\cal V}: {\cal V}_{(2)} \to {\cal V} $, where
$ {\cal V}_{(2)} = \{ ( (w_{1},
v_{1}, w_{2}), (w_{2}^{\prime}, v_{2}, w_{3}) ) \in {\cal V}\times
{\cal V} ~|~ w_{2} = w_{2}^{\prime} \}$ and the inversion map $
\iota_{\cal V}: {\cal V}\to {\cal V}$ are given by
$ (w_{1}, v_{1}, w_{2})\odot_{\cal V} (w_{2}, v_{2}, w_{3}):= (
w_{1}, v_{1}+ v_{2}, w_{3});~~ \iota_{\cal V}(w_{1}, v, w_{2}):=(
w_{2}, -v, w_{1} )$.\
It is easy to verify that the conditions of Definition 2.1 are satisfied. Then $~( {\cal V}, \alpha_{\cal V}, \beta_{\cal
V}, \odot_{\cal V}, \iota_{\cal V}, {\cal V}_{0})~$ is a groupoid. Also, the condition (3.1.1) from Definition 3.1 is verified.
Let now two elements $ x,y\in {\cal V}$ and $ a,b\in K$ where $ x = (w_{1}, v_{1}, w_{2}) $ and $ y = (w_{3}, v_{2}, w_{4})
$. We have
$ \alpha_{\cal V}(a x + b y)= \alpha_{\cal V}(a w_{1}+ b w_{3}, a
v_{1}+ b v_{2}, a w_{2}+ b w_{4})=$\
$= ( a w_{1}+ b w_{3}, 0, a w_{1}+ b w_{3}) = a( w_{1}, 0, w_{1})
+ b( w_{3}, 0, w_{3}) = a \alpha_{\cal V}(w_{1}, v_{1}, w_{2})
+$\
$+b \alpha_{\cal V}(w_{3}, v_{2}, w_{4}) = a \alpha_{\cal V}(x) +
b \alpha_{\cal V}(y).$
It follows that $ \alpha_{\cal V}$ is a linear map. Similarly we prove that $ \beta_{\cal V}$ is a linear map. Therefore the conditions (3.1.2) from Definition 3.1 hold.
For $ x = (w_{1}, v_{1}, w_{2})\in {\cal V} $ and $ y = (w_{3},
v_{2}, w_{4}) \in {\cal V}$ and $ a,b\in K$, we have
$ \iota_{\cal V}(a x + b y)= \iota_{\cal V}( a w_{1}+ b w_{3}, a
v_{1}+ b v_{2}, a w_{2}+ b w_{4} )= $\
$=( a w_{2}+ b w_{4}, - a v_{1} - b v_{2}, a w_{1}+ b w_{3}) = a (
w_{2}, - v_{1} , w_{1}) + b ( w_{4}, - v_{2}, w_{3} )=$\
$= a \iota_{\cal V}( w_{1}, v_{1}, w_{2}) + b \iota_{\cal V}(
w_{3}, v_{2}, w_{4}) = a \iota_{\cal V}(x) + b \iota_{\cal V}(y).
$
It follows that $ \iota_{\cal V}$ is a linear map. Also
$x + \iota_{V}(x) = (w_{1}, v_{1}, w_{2}) + (w_{2}, - v_{1},
w_{1}) = (w_{1} + w_{2}, 0, w_{1} + w_{2}) =$\
$=(w_{1}, 0, w_{1}) + ( w_{2}, 0, w_{2})= \alpha_{V}(x) +
\beta_{V}(x).$
Hence the condition (3.1.3) from Definition 3.1 holds.
For to verify the relation $ 3.1.4 (1)$ from Definition 3.1 we consider the arbitrary elements $ x, y, z \in {\cal V} $ where $
x = (w_{1}, v_{1}, w_{2} ), y = ( w_{3}, v_{2}, w_{4}) $ and $ z =
(w_{5}, v_{3}, w_{6}) $ such that $ \alpha_{\cal V}(y) =
\beta_{\cal V}(x) =\alpha_{\cal V}(z) $. Then $ w_{2} = w_{3} =
w_{5} $ and follows $ x = (w_{1}, v_{1}, w_{2} ), y = ( w_{2},
v_{2}, w_{4}) $ and $ z = (w_{2}, v_{3}, w_{6}) $.
For all $ k\in K$ we have
$(i)~~~ x\odot_{\cal V}( y + z - \beta_{\cal V}(x)) = (w_{1}, v_{1}, w_{2} )\odot_{\cal
V}( ( w_{2}, v_{2}, w_{4}) +$\
$+ (w_{2}, v_{3}, w_{6}) - (w_{2}, 0, w_{2}) )
=(w_{1}, v_{1}, w_{2} )\odot_{\cal
V} ( w_{2}, v_{2} + v_{3}, w_{4} + w_{6} - w_{2}) =$\
$= ( w_{1}, v_{1} + v_{2} +
v_{3}, w_{4} + w_{6} - w_{2})~$ and
$(ii)~~~ x\odot_{\cal V} y + x\odot_{\cal V} z - x = (w_{1},
v_{1}, w_{2} )\odot_{\cal V}( w_{2}, v_{2}, w_{4}) + $\
$+ (w_{1}, v_{1}, w_{2} )\odot_{\cal V}( w_{2}, v_{3}, w_{6}) -
(w_{1}, v_{1}, w_{2} )= ( w_{1}, v_{1}+ v_{2}, w_{4} ) + $\
$+ ( w_{1}, v_{1}+ v_{3}, w_{6} ) -(w_{1}, v_{1}, w_{2} ) = (
w_{1}, v_{1}+ v_{2} + v_{3}, w_{4} + w_{6}- w_{2} ).$
Using (i) and (ii) we obtain $ x\odot_{\cal V}( y + z -
\beta_{\cal V}(x)) = x\odot_{\cal V} y + x\odot_{\cal V} z - x $. Hence the condition 3.1.4 (1) from Definition 3.1 holds.
Let now $ x = (w_{1}, v_{1}, w_{2} ), y = ( w_{2}, v_{2}, w_{4}) $ and $ k\in K$. We have
$(iii)~~ x \odot_{\cal V}( k y + (1-k)\beta_{\cal V}(x) ) =
(w_{1}, v_{1}, w_{2} )\odot_{\cal V} ( k (w_{2}, v_{2}, w_{4})
+$\
$+(1-k)(w_{2}, 0, w_{2}) )= (w_{1}, v_{1}, w_{2} )\odot_{\cal V} (
w_{2}, k v_{2}, k w_{4} + (1-k)w_{2}) =$\
$= ( w_{1}, v_{1}+ k v_{2}, k w_{4} + (1-k)w_{2})~ $ and
$(iv)~~ k ( x \odot_{\cal V} y ) + (1-k) x = k ((w_{1}, v_{1},
w_{2} )\odot_{\cal V} ( (w_{2}, v_{2}, w_{4}) ) +$\
$+ (1-k)(w_{1}, v_{1}, w_{2} )= k (w_{1}, v_{1} + v_{2}, w_{4} )+
(1-k)(w_{1}, v_{1}, w_{2} ) =$\
$= ( w_{1}, v_{1}+ k v_{2}, k w_{4} + (1-k)w_{2})~ $
Using the equalities (iii) and (iv) we obtain that the condition 3.1.4 (2) from Definition 3.1 holds.
In the same manner we prove that the conditions 3.1.4 (3) and 3.1.4 (4) hold. Hence $ {\cal V}: = W\times V\times W $ is a vector groupoid over $ {\cal V}_{0}$. Its set of units can be identified with the vector subspace $ W$ of $V$.
The vector groupoid $~( {\cal V}:= W\times V\times W, \alpha_{\cal
V}, \beta_{\cal V}, \odot_{\cal V}, \iota_{\cal V}, {\cal
V}_{0})~$ is called the [*trivial vector groupoid*]{} associated to pair of vector spaces $(V, W)$ with $ W \subseteq V. $ This vector groupoid is denoted by $ {\cal TVG}(V,W)$. The isotropy group at $~u = ( w, 0 ,w) \in {\cal V}_{0}$ is $~V(u) = \{
(w,v,w)~|~ v\in V\}~$ which identify with the group $~( V, + )$.
[**3. Whitney sum of two vector groupoids over the same base**]{}. Let $ ( V, \alpha_{V}, \beta_{V}, \odot_{V},\iota_{V}, V_{0}) $ and $ ( V^{\prime}, \alpha_{V^{\prime}}, \beta_{V^{\prime}},
\odot_{V^{\prime}},\iota_{V^{\prime}}, V_{0}) $ be two vector groupoids over the same base ( i.e. $ V$ and $V^{\prime}$ have the same units). The set\
$ V\oplus V^{\prime}:= \{~(v,v^{\prime})\in V\times V^{\prime}~|~
\alpha_{V}(v) = \alpha_{V^{\prime}}(v^{\prime}), \beta_{V}(v) =
\beta_{V^{\prime}}(v^{\prime})~\}~$ has a natural structure of vector space. It is clearly that\
$ \Delta_{V_{0}} = \{ (u,u)\in
V_{0}\times V_{0}~|~ u\in V_{0}\} \subseteq V\oplus V^{\prime}~$ is a vector subspace.
We introduce on $ {\cal W}:= V\oplus V^{\prime}$ the structure functions $ \alpha_{\cal W}, \beta_{\cal W}, \odot_{\cal W} $ and $ \iota_{\cal W}$ as follows.
The source and target $ \alpha_{\cal W}, \beta_{\cal W}: {\cal W}
\to \Delta_{V_{0}}$ are defined by\
$\alpha_{\cal W}(v,v^{\prime}):= ( \alpha_{V}(v) ,
\alpha_{V}(v));~~~ \beta_{\cal W}(v,v^{\prime}):= ( \beta_{V}(v) ,
\beta_{V}(v)), ~~ (v,v^{\prime})\in {\cal W}.$\
The partially multiplication $\odot_{\cal W}: {\cal W}_{(2)} \to
{\cal W} ,$ where\
$ {\cal W}_{(2)} = \{ ( (v_{1},
v_{1}^{\prime}), ((v_{2}, v_{2}^{\prime}) ) \in {\cal W}\times
{\cal W} ~|~ \beta_{V}(v_{2}) = \alpha_{V}(v_{1}) \}$ and the inversion map $ \iota_{\cal W}: {\cal V}\to {\cal W}$ are given by\
$ (v_{1}, v_{1}^{\prime})\odot_{\cal W} (v_{2}, v_{2}^{\prime}):=
( v_{1}\odot_{V} v_{2}, v_{1}^{\prime}\odot_{V^{\prime}}
v_{2}^{\prime} );~~~ \iota_{\cal W}(v,v^{\prime}):= ( \iota_{V}(v)
, \iota_{V^{\prime}}(v^{\prime}))$.\
By a direct computation we prove that the conditions of Definition 2.1 are satisfied. Then $~( {\cal W}:= V\oplus V^{\prime},
\alpha_{\cal W}, \beta_{\cal W}, \odot_{\cal W}, \iota_{\cal W},
\Delta_{V_{0}})~$ is a groupoid. Also, the condition (3.1.1) from Definition 3.1 is verified.
Let now two elements $ x,y\in {\cal W}$ and $ a,b\in K$ where $ x = (v_{1}, v_{1}^{\prime}) $ and $ y = (v_{2}, v_{2}^{\prime})
$. We have
$ \alpha_{\cal W}(a x + b y)= \alpha_{\cal W}(a v_{1}+ b v_{2}, a
v_{1}^{\prime}+ b v_{2}^{\prime} )= ( \alpha_{V}(a v_{1}+ b
v_{2}), \alpha_{V}(a v_{1}+ b v_{2})) = ( a \alpha_{V}(v_{1})+ b
\alpha_{V}(v_{2}), a \alpha_{V}(v_{1})+ b \alpha_{V}(v_{2})) $ and
$a \alpha_{\cal W}(x) + b \alpha_{\cal W}(y)= a \alpha_{\cal W}(
v_{1}, v_{1}^{\prime}) + b \alpha_{\cal W}( v_{2}, v_{2}^{\prime})
= a ( \alpha_{V}(v_{1}), \alpha_{V}(v_{1}) ) + b (
\alpha_{V}(v_{2}) , \alpha_{V}(v_{2}) )= ( a \alpha_{V}(v_{1}) + b
\alpha_{V}(v_{2}) , a \alpha_{V}(v_{1}) + b \alpha_{V}(v_{2})) $ since $ \alpha_{V}$ is a linear map. It follows that $
\alpha_{\cal W}$ is a linear map.
Similarly we obtain that $ \beta_{\cal W}$ is a linear map. Therefore the conditions (3.1.2) from Definition 3.1 hold.
For $ x = (v_{1}, v_{1}^{\prime})\in {\cal W} $ and $ y = (v_{2},
v_{2}^{\prime}) \in {\cal W}$ and $ a,b\in K$, we have successively
$ \iota_{\cal W}(a x + b y)= \iota_{\cal W}(a v_{1}+ b v_{2}, a
v_{1}^{\prime}+ b v_{2}^{\prime} )= ( \iota_{V}(a v_{1}+ b v_{2}),
\iota_{V^{\prime}}(a v_{1}^{\prime}+ b v_{2}^{\prime})) = ( a
\iota_{V}(v_{1})+ b \iota_{V}(v_{2}), a
\iota_{V^{\prime}}(v_{1}^{\prime})+ b
\iota_{V^{\prime}}(v_{2}^{\prime})) = a (
\iota_{V} (v_{1}),\iota_{V^{\prime}}(v_{1}^{\prime}))+ b (\iota_{V} (v_{2}),\iota_{V^{\prime}}(v_{2}^{\prime}))
= a \iota_{W}(v_{1}, v_{1}^{\prime}) + b \iota_{W} ( v_{2},
v_{2}^{\prime}) = a \iota_{W} (x) + b \iota_{W}(y),$ since $\iota_{V} $ and $ \iota_{V^{\prime}}$ are linear map.
Using the equalities 3.1.3(1) for the inversion maps $ \iota_{V} $ and $ \iota_{V^{\prime}}$ we have\
$ x + \iota_{W}(x) = ( v, v^{\prime}) + (
\iota_{V}(v),\iota_{V^{\prime}} (v^{\prime}))= ( v+ \iota_{V}(v),
v^{\prime}+ \iota_{V^{\prime}}(v^{\prime}))=$\
$= ( \alpha_{V}(v) +
\beta_{V}(v), \alpha_{{V}^{\prime}}(v^{\prime}) +
\beta_{V^{\prime}}(v^{\prime}))= ( \alpha_{V}(v) + \beta_{V}(v),
\alpha_{V}(v) + \beta_{V}(v))=$\
$= \alpha_{W}(v,v^{\prime}) + \beta_{W}(v,v^{\prime})=
\alpha_{W}(x) + \beta_{W}(x) $ for any $ x =(v,v^{\prime})\in W.$
Hence the conditions (3.1.3) from Definition 3.1 hold.
For to verify the relation $ 3.1.4 (1)$ from Definition 3.1 we consider the arbitrary elements $ x, y, z \in {\cal W} $ where $
x = (v_{1}, v_{1}^{\prime}), y = (v_{2}, v_{2}^{\prime}) $ and $z
= (v_{3}, v_{3}^{\prime}) $. We assume that $\alpha_{\cal W}(y) =
\beta_{\cal W}(x) =\alpha_{\cal W}(z) $.
Applying the properties of the structure functions of the vector groupoids $ V$ and $ V^{\prime} $, we have
$y + z - \beta_{\cal W}(x) = (v_{2}, v_{2}^{\prime})+ (v_{3},
v_{3}^{\prime})- \beta_{\cal W}(v_{1}, v_{1}^{\prime})=$\
$= (v_{2}+ v_{3}, v_{2}^{\prime}+ v_{3}^{\prime})-
(\beta_{V}(v_{1}), \beta_{V}(v_{1}) )= (v_{2}+ v_{3}-
\beta_{V}(v_{1}) , v_{2}^{\prime} + v_{3}^{\prime}-
\beta_{V}(v_{1}) ) =$\
$= ( v_{2}+ v_{3}- \beta_{V}(v_{1}) , v_{2}^{\prime} +
v_{3}^{\prime}- \beta_{V^{\prime}}(v_{1}^{\prime}) )$ and
$(a)~~ x\odot_{\cal W}( y + z - \beta_{\cal W}(x)) = (v_{1},
v_{1}^{\prime})\odot_{\cal W}(v_{2}+ v_{3}- \beta_{V}(v_{1}) ,
v_{2}^{\prime} + v_{3}^{\prime}-
\beta_{V^{\prime}}(v_{1}^{\prime}) )=$\
$= ( v_{1} \odot_{V}(v_{2}+ v_{3}- \beta_{V}(v_{1}),
v_{1}^{\prime} \odot_{V^{\prime}}( v_{2}^{\prime} +
v_{3}^{\prime}- \beta_{V^{\prime}}(v_{1}^{\prime}) ).$
On the other hand we have
$(b)~~ x\odot_{\cal W} y + x\odot_{\cal W} z - x =(v_{1},
v_{1}^{\prime})\odot_{\cal W}(v_{2}, v_{2}^{\prime}) + (v_{1},
v_{1}^{\prime})\odot_{\cal W}(v_{3}, v_{3}^{\prime}) -$\
$-(v_{1}, v_{1}^{\prime})= ( v_{1}\odot_{V}v_{2},
v_{1}^{\prime}\odot_{V^{\prime}}v_{2}^{\prime} ) + (
v_{1}\odot_{V}v_{3},
v_{1}^{\prime}\odot_{V^{\prime}}v_{3}^{\prime} ) - (v_{1},
v_{1}^{\prime})=$\
$=( v_{1}\odot_{V}v_{2} + v_{1}\odot_{V}v_{3} - v_{1},
v_{1}^{\prime}\odot_{V^{\prime}}v_{2}^{\prime} +
v_{1}^{\prime}\odot_{V^{\prime}}v_{3}^{\prime} - v_{1}^{\prime}
).$
Using now the relations (a), (b) and the relations $3.1.4(1)$ for $V$ and $ V^{\prime} $, we obtain the equality $ x\odot_{\cal W}(
y + z - \beta_{\cal W}(x)) = x\odot_{\cal W} y + x\odot_{\cal W} z
- x.$ Hence the condition 3.1.4 (1) holds.
We verify now the relation $3.1.4 (4)$. For this, let $ x =
(v_{1}, v_{1}^{\prime} )\in {\cal W},~ y = (v_{2},
v_{2}^{\prime})\in {\cal W} $ such that $\alpha_{\cal W}(y) =
\beta_{\cal W}(x) $ and $ k \in K.$ We have
$(c)~~(k y + (1-k) \alpha_{\cal W}(x)) \odot _{\cal W}x =$\
$= ( k v_{2} + ( 1-k)\alpha_{V}(v_{1}), k v_{2}^{\prime} + (
1-k)\alpha_{V^{\prime}}(v_{1}^{\prime}))\odot_{\cal W}(v_{1},
v_{1}^{\prime} ) =$\
$= ( (k v_{2} + ( 1-k)\alpha_{V}(v_{1}))\odot_{V} v_{1}, ( k
v_{2}^{\prime}+
(1-k)\alpha_{V^{\prime}}(v_{1}^{\prime}))\odot_{V^{\prime}}v_{1}^{\prime}
)$ and
$(d)~~k (y \odot_{\cal W} x ) + (1-k)x = k ( (v_{2},
v_{2}^{\prime})\odot_{\cal W}(v_{1}, v_{1}^{\prime} )) +
(1-k)(v_{1}, v_{1}^{\prime} ) =$\
$= ( k( v_{2}\odot_{V} v_{1}) + (1-k)v_{1}, k (
v_{2}^{\prime}\odot_{V^{\prime}} v_{1}^{\prime}) +
(1-k)v_{1}^{\prime} )$.
Using the equalities (c) and (d) and the relations $3.1.4(4)$ for $V$ and $ V^{\prime} $, we obtain that the condition 3.1.4 (4) holds.
In the same manner we prove that the conditions 3.1.4 (2) and 3.1.4 (3) hold. Hence $ V\oplus V^{\prime} $ is a vector groupoid.
The vector groupoid $~( {\cal W}:= V\oplus V^{\prime},
\alpha_{\cal W}, \beta_{\cal W}, \odot_{\cal W}, \iota_{\cal W},
\Delta_{V_{0}})~$ is called the [*Whitney sum*]{} of the vector groupoids $~(V, V_{0})~$ and $~(V^{\prime}, V_{0}).$ The base of this vector groupoid can be identified with $ V_{0}$.
[*If $~(V, V_{0})~$ and $~(V^{\prime}, V_{0})$ are transitive vector groupoids, then the Whitney sum $~(V\oplus V^{\prime},
\Delta_{V_{0}})~$ is a transitive vector groupoid.*]{}
It must prove that the anchor $ (\alpha_{\cal W}, \beta_{\cal W})
: {\cal W} \to \Delta_{V_{0}}\times \Delta_{V_{0}} $ is surjective.
If $( V \oplus V^{\prime}, \Delta_{V_{0}})$ is the Whitney sum of vector groupoids $ (V,V_{0}) $ and $ ( V^{\prime}, V_{0})$, then the projections maps $p: V \oplus V^{\prime}\to V $ and $
p^{\prime}: V\oplus V^{\prime}\to V^{\prime}$ defined by $p(v,v^{\prime})= v $ and $ p^{\prime}(v ,v^{\prime})= v^{\prime}$ are morphisms of vector groupoids.
*Let $ (V,V_{0}) $ and $ ( V^{\prime}, V_{0})$ be two vector groupoids. The triple $( V\oplus V^{\prime}, p, p^{\prime})$ verifies the [**universal property of the Whitney sum**]{}:*
for all triple $( U, q ,q^{\prime})$ composed by vector groupoid $( U , \alpha_{U}, \beta_{U}, \odot_{U}, \iota_{U}, V_{0})$ and two morphisms of vector groupoids $~
V^{\prime}~\stackrel{q^{\prime}}{\longleftarrow}~U~
\stackrel{q}{\longrightarrow}~V$, there exists a unique morphism of vector groupoids $~ \varphi: U~\to~V \oplus V^{\prime}~$ such that the following diagram:\
$$V^{\prime}\stackrel{p^{\prime}}{\longleftarrow} V\oplus V^{\prime}\stackrel{p}{\longrightarrow} V$$\
$$\stackrel{q^{\prime}}~{\nwarrow}~~~~{\uparrow}\varphi~~~~{\nearrow}q$$\
$$U$$\
is commutative.
We consider the map $ \varphi: U \to
V \oplus V^{\prime}$ by taking $\varphi(u):=( q(u),q^{\prime}(u))$ for all $u\in U. $ By hypothesis the maps $ q: U \to V $ and $
q^{\prime} : U \to V^{\prime} $ are vector groupoid morphisms. Then $ (\alpha_{V}\circ q )(u) = \alpha_{U}(u) $ and $
(\alpha_{V^{\prime}}\circ q^{\prime} )(u) = \alpha_{U}(u) $, for all $ u\in U.$ It follows that $ \alpha_{V}( q (u) ) =
\alpha_{V^{\prime}}(q^{\prime} (u))$. Similarly $ \beta_{V}( q
(u) ) = \beta_{V^{\prime}}(q^{\prime} (u))$. Therefore $
\varphi(u) \in W:= V\oplus V^{\prime}.$ Hence $ \varphi $ is well-defined.
Let now $ x, y\in U$ such that $ (x,y)\in U_{(2)}, $ i.e. $
\beta_{U}(y)= \alpha_{U}(x).$ Also we have $ ( q(x), q(y))\in
V_{(2)}$, i.e. $ \beta_{V}(q(y))= \alpha_{V}(q(x)),$ since $ q $ is a groupoid morphism. Then $ (\varphi (x), \varphi(y))\in
W_{(2)}$. Indeed, $ \beta_{W}(\varphi(y))= \beta_{W}(q(y),
q^{\prime}(y))= ( \beta_{V}(q(y)),\beta_{V}(q(y)))= (
\alpha_{V}(q(x)),\alpha_{V}(q(x)) =
\alpha_{W}(q(x),q^{\prime}(x))= \alpha_{W}(\varphi(x))$.
For $ x, y\in U$ such that $ (x,y)\in U_{(2)} $ we have $~
\varphi(x \odot_{U} y) =$\
$=( q (x \odot_{U} y), q^{\prime} (x \odot_{U} y)) = (
q(x)\odot_{V} q(y),q^{\prime}(x)\odot_{V^{\prime}} q^{\prime}(y))
= \varphi(x)\odot_{W}\varphi(y).$
Using the linearity of $ q $ and $ q^{\prime}$ it is easy to verify that $ \varphi $ is a linear map. Therefore, $ \varphi $ is a vector groupoid morphism. We have $~p\circ \varphi = q~$ and $~p^{\prime}\circ \varphi = q^{\prime}.$
In a standard manner we prove that $\varphi$ is a unique morphism of vector groupoids such that the above diagram is commutative.
[99]{}
H. Brandt, $\ddot {U}ber$ *eine Verallgemeinerung der Gruppen-Begriffes.* Math. Ann., **96** (1926), 360–366. MR 1512323.
R. Brown, *From groups to groupoids: a brief survey.* Bull. London Math. Soc., **19** (1987), 113–134.
R. Brown, [*Topology : Geometric Account of General Topology, Homotopy Types and the Fundamental Groupoid*]{}. Hal. Press, New York, 1988.
A. Cannas da Silva and A. Weinstein, *Geometric Models for Noncommutative Algebras.* Berkeley Mathematics Lectures, **10**, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, R.I., 1999.
A. Connes, *Noncommutative Geometry.* Academic Press Inc. San Diego, CA, 1994.
A. Coste, P. Dazord & A. Weinstein, *Groupoides symplectiques,* Publ. Dept. Math. Lyon, 2/A (1987),1–62.
A. P. S. Dias and I. Stewart, *Symmetry groupoids and admissible vector fields for coupled cell networks,* J. London Math. Soc., [**69**]{}(2004), 707–736. MR 2005j:37034.
B. Dumons and Gh. Ivan, *Introduction à la théorie des groupoïdes.* Dept. Math. Univ. Poitiers ( France ),URA,C.N.R.S. D1322, **86**, 1994.
C. Ehresmann, *Oéuvres complétes. Parties I.1, I.2. Topologie algébrique et géometrie différentielle*. Dunod, Paris,1950.
P. J. Higgins, [*Notes on Categories and Groupoids*]{}. Von Nostrand Reinhold Mathematical Studies [**32**]{}, London,1971. MR 48:6288.
M. Golubitsky and I. Stewart, *Nonlinear dynamics of networks: the groupoid formalism,* Bull. Amer. Math. Soc., [**43**]{}(2006), no. 3, 305–364.
Gh. Ivan, *Algebraic constructions of Brandt groupoids,* Proceedings of the Algebra Symposium, “ Babeş- Bolyai” University, Cluj-Napoca, (2002), 69-90.
C.K. Johnson, *Crystallographic groups, groupoids and orbifolds.* Workshop on Orbifolds, Groupoids and Their Applications.University of Wales, Bangor, September, 2000.
G. W. Mackey, [*Ergodic theory, groups theory and differential geometry*]{}. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., USA, **50** (1963), 1184–1191.
V. Popuţa, [*Some classes of Brandt Groupoids*]{}. Sci. Bull. of “Politehnica” Univ. of Timişoara, Tom 55(66), Fasc. 1, 2007 (50-54).
A. Ramsey, *Virtual groups and group actions.* Adv. in Math., **6** (1971), 253–322.
A. Ramsey and J. Renault, *Groupoids in Analysis, Geometry and Physics.* Contemporary Mathematics, **282**, AMS Providence, RI, 2001.
J. Renault, *A Groupoid Approach to C\*-Algebras.* Lecture Notes Series, **793**, Springer–Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 1980.
I. Stewart, M. Golubitski and M. Pivato, [*Symmetry groupoids and patterns of synchrony in coupled cell networks*]{}. Siam J. Applied Dynamical Systems, [**2**]{} (2003), no.4, 609–646.
R.T. $\check{Z}$ivaljevic, *Groupoids in combinatorics - applications of a theory of local symmetries.* Algebraic and geometric combinatorics, 305–324. Contemporary Math., **423**, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2006.
A. Weinstein, *Groupoids: Unifying internal and external symmetries.* Notices Amer. Math. Soc., **43** (1996), 744–752. MR 97f:20072.
J. J. Westman, [*Harmonic analysis on groupoids*]{}. Pacific J. Math., **27**, (1968), 621–632.
DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS, WEST UNIVERSITY OF TIMIŞOARA, Bd. V. P[Â]{}RVAN,nr.4, 1900, TIMIŞOARA, ROMANIA\
E-mail:[email protected]; [email protected]
[^1]: [*AMS classification:*]{} 20L13, 20L99.\
[*Key words and phrases:*]{} Brandt groupoid, vector groupoid.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.